Indeed. People often lump them all into the same pile and even use it as an excuse to lash out at people who don't share the views/practices of feminazis. Feminism is about equality where there is none. Feminaziism is about generating outrage and tearing down those who don't agree.
'
I will concede in this scenario that, if all there are are gender-neutral washrooms, and she had no choice but to use one, and some guy wanders in and whips his penis out at a urinal, I can see why that would make a person uncomfortable. Acting like that is somehow the guy's fault for using the washroom for its intended purpose is ludicrous, but there's nothing inherently wrong with expressing gratitude to the guy who noticed it might be uncomfortable and chose to wait.
'
But then again I'm one of those horrible people who think gender neutral washrooms with this kind of setup shouldn't be a thing
Exactly! Thank you. I see it as this:
Feminist: a person who recognizes that each gender has its perks and flaws, and are sometimes different, but should each be treated with equal respect, love, and kindness.
/
Feminazi: a person who thinks that men are pigs and should all die in a fire.
There you go. I made it simple!
I don't see a problem with this set up so long as their are gendered options, or options that are individual rooms.
It's great to see that placed are offering options that are neutral and don't have to force any awkward "your in the wrong bathroom " scenarios. However people also should be allowed a place of better privacy.
The problem is that the majority of feminists of today are the 4th wave reeeeeeing sjws who get offended at everything. If you are not like them, and you truly care about equality of rights, number one, that does not make you a feminist, it makes you a liberal (classical liberal I mean), and number two, you have no reason to call yourself a feminist, since in first-world countries women have equal rights and even some privileges.
.
Also hi @sunflowers, been a while since you've shown up here, @xvarnah was really missing ya.
vitklim you are incorrect on many accounts I.E. Definition of feminism m webster:
1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests
Also im aware that your view seems to be the majority are too much, too sensitive ect. but what you over look is any research. The majority are rational people with extremest. Cue any group type of humans ever. There are still plenty of issues to shine a light on in 2019. As xvarnah said: "People often lump them all into the same pile and even use it as an excuse to lash out at people who don't share the views/practices of feminazis. Feminism is about equality where there is none. Feminaziism is about generating outrage and tearing down those who don't agree."
Please recognize the difference, have a nice day :)
@melisa62943
Uhhhh.... this is exactly my point though. The definition you've given covers economical and social equality. That is not equality of opportunity, that is equality of outcome. Which means that feminism is illiberal and will require suppressing people's free will in order to achieve it's goals. The only way to have absolute economic equality between the sexes is communism, the most tyrannical system ever created. The only way to have social equality is to engineer society from top-down, to force people to treat women the same as men, and vice versa, which is also incredibly tyrannical and as such, illiberal.
That in itself already discredits the definition you've given, because even that version of feminism deserves to be fought against. However, you also seem to have little knowledge of feminist theory, how it developed over the years and the difference between the waves of feminism.
In the simplest of terms, first-wave was generally about getting the right to vote, and was a success, despite the majority of women being opposed to the concept, and even starting movements to protest feminism. Second-wave was largely concerned with promoting women as different and because of such, better than men, and in the material world demanded the right for women to work, and the protections that would cover this demand.
Now this is the moment at which feminism was starting to show the rot of man-hating, but was still sensible in its political demands.
Third-wave feminism, is the moment at which the movement became absolutely corrupt. It was consumed by marxism, the division of the world into two dimensions, of the oppressor and the oppressed. And as such, many feminists have taken on the view that throughout history men as a class, which they are not, were opressing women as a class, which they are also not. This is where the insanity began, and where the movement became obessed with the "wage gap" and other economic inequality, because marxists are allergic to inequality.
Next came the fourth-wave feminism, the intersectional feminism. This basically took the marxist framework of the third wave and expanded it to cover race, sexuality, being trans, etc. The more someone is oppressed by being a minority, the more free shit they deserve. This is why you hear absolutely retarded shit about gay trans women of colour, because they cover all the minority bases, and as such have the most victim currency.
Both the third-wave and the fourth-wave reject the second-wave feminists that are still alive, claiming that they are not aiming high enough, and are not concerned with the rights of trans people, because second wave feminists didn't believe in that shit.
And unfortunately, since the fourth wave is currently the domineering strain of feminism, people who do not adhere to it but still call themselves feminist will have to make a distinction.
And besides, you have not refuted my two original claims. I will reiterate them here. One, feminism (of anything beyond the second wave) is illiberal and will inevitably supress people's freedom. As such, taking on that label is nonsensical if you consider freedom to be a value to hold. And secondly, all the demands of feminism in the way of rights have been achieved in the first world, and people of the second wave have no reason to call themselves feminist anymore.
.
also @xvarnah, I thought you might be interested in a more comprehensive description of my problems with feminism and how other people generally talk about the subject. Hope you enjoy.
@vitklim I did find it interesting, and it's always nice to hear someone elaborate the reasoning behind their opinions
'
I'm not sure I entirely agree with everything you said, but I see where you're coming from. The issue stands, though, that isn't a society that forces one group to be treated worse than another and denies them rights ALSO tyrannical?
'
I can't recall whether it's Indian or Asian, but for example there's a culture where if the husband dies, the husband's family will actively harass the widow to commit suicide. They claim it's honor based, but the actual fact is that, if the widow dies, the husband's family gets their money back. As far as I know there's no law in place to protect the widow. But which is more tyrannical? Saying someone cannot fight back and allowing others to legally drive them to suicide? Or saying "that's not acceptable" and saying you can't treat someone that way?
We could look at Alabama if we want something closer to home. What's more tyrannical? Saying a man can rape a woman and, if she survives and gets pregnant, she either has the baby or spends her life behind bars? She receives a sentence more harsh than any rapist ever has. Or is saying "no, you don't get to dictate what happens with the victim in this scenario" more tyrannical?
'
Societies, in order to function, all are built on different forms of restriction. The only thing we get to decide is what is acceptable to restrict.
'
I'd have to look into the actual definition of classes and such to really touch on that. Women may not be a class. It is arguable that at one point they were, I would think. Women were either homemakers and mothers. Eventually they were permitted into roles outside of this, but it was a very restricted in terms of what they were allowed to do and how much they made
Part of the only reason things started to change at all was because the men were, quite literally, gone. They'd all gone off to wars and women had to pick up the reigns.
'
You describe second-wave feminism has "man-hating," and I imagine you're probably right - a lot of women did hold a lot of hostility toward men. The thing about early feminism is that that anger wasn't entirely unfounded. Any more than any other suppressed group, and saying women weren't suppressed is by and large an inaccuracy.
'
Tbh I think even third wave feminism had it's points. Let's not forget there was a judge who asked a rape victim why she didn't just "keep her legs closed."
However, as with all movements, many people took it too far. The MeToo movement is a living, breathing example of that.
'
It started as a way to give victims a voice and a place to come together. It has since been corrupted and twisted into something vile that's used by abusive women to attack people without thought or care behind exactly what damage they're doing.
'
This, to me, is much like feminism. It started with clear goals and a valid point. But in North America feminism has, by and large, achieved most of its goals. And now it's been adopted by vitriolic harpies who don't care about anything but screaming about how much they hate people (especially men) and how victimized they are.
And when I say they hate people, I mean they hate all walks of life. I've been labelled a liar, gender-traitor, and rape-apologist by these people more times than it's worth counting.
'
But at the end of the day I don't care what they call me. They're not and never have been on any side of the fight worth being on.
'
So, to me, feminists are the ones who stick with the original goals. They were never screaming to be raised above men. They just wanted a goddamn voice and to not be treated like a shiny toy or a particularly slow child anytime they said anything. And they fought to get what they wanted. And still fight when they need to
'
Feminazis are the ones who never cared about equality to begin with. All they care about is their soapbox. They are the loud, shrieking imbeciles, so miserable in their own existences they could accomplish NOTHING if it didn't mean stomping on someone else. It's their only joy and only purpose.
https://media1.tenor.com/images/dc4e1fb8d4e4ac6a775435f3d
To me feminists have a real struggle on their hands constantly being lumped in with these people. By and large it seems like they're too little, too late. People already use the term interchangeably.
'
It's not entirely uncomparable to the struggle the LGBT community is currently facing where pedophiles (calling themselves MAPs) are inserting themselves as part of that group. For the most part the LGBT community doesn't agree with this, doesn't want it, is fighting against it, but also can't seem to stop them from trying to steal a movement they shed blood sweat and tears to get underway and make it their own. And the community is suffering because of it - people already making claims about "you see what happens when you legalize gay marriage? We warned you this would just be an in for the pedophiles!"
'
All movements eventually get corrupted like this, and then they have to fight battles on two sides. It's tiring but inevitable it seems, but that doesn't mean that the people fighting only for the original message should be lumped in with the ones who are only there to steal and cause problems
'
That's just my take on it, though. And at this point i've rambled way longer than I meant to (apologies)
I like how my elaborate explanation got downvoted to nothing, while you said basically the same thing and got all the upvotes lol.
.
To clarify a couple of things - Our society does not force women to be treated worse than men, the complete opposite in fact, and women have all the rights that men do, courtesy of second-wave feminism, which is why I find it acceptable. The first example you've given is not of a first-world country, and as such, their system is unlikely to be liberal and is tyrannical in some way. With the second example, I cannot adress it without knowing enough, but it is likely I would be against whatever is happening there in principle.
.
Next, societies are indeed built on restrictions, but those restrictions cannot be engineered, or you will end up with a civil war, or a tyranny.
.
I will continue the response to this thread for a bit, so hold your replies.
Nvm, my fucking comment limit is done. Why does that even exist.
Women are not a class in any measurable way. They don't have the same experiences, opinions, or goals in life.
And just to be clear, I am talking about feminist theory here. If you want to know more, I suggest the book "Women vs Feminism" by Joanna Williams.
.
The reason why feminism became a movement in the first place was because of the fault in the system of democracies at the time. They were not universal in the ability to vote, and that was the problem. You can make an argument for women being able to vote and work without being a feminist, because you will be guided by different principles in doing so, in my opinion, superior principles.
You will have to excuse me for such a delay, but for some reason I couldn't post the comment before.
.
But as I said, the evolution in the theory of feminism never stopped, and because of that, it found new problems to overcome, no matter how minute or inconsequential. It did so in order to persist as an ideology.
.
But they didn't lie, their principle is in fact equality. Which is why they are marxists, and will not stop at anything to achieve it. Equality is not one of my principles, my principle is of freedom.
You can argue that women should have the right to vote because they are part of the same social contract with the government, you can argue that they should be able to work because it gives them the right of self-determination, the same as men do. And you never have to appeal to any equality aside from equality in the face of the law, which is the root of freedom.
.
Do you understand now, why I despise feminism, just as much as I despise communism and fascism?
The trinity of the Enlightenment philosophies are Freedom, Security and Equality. Freedom is liberalism, Security is fascism, and Equality is communism. Today, there is only one left standing, and that is Freedom.
.
So I don't need feminism to argue for the rights that should be universal. Liberalism is enough.
.
Oh yes, almost forgot, @xvarnah
@vitklim it's no worries, I was waiting until you could post before I responded so as not to split up the chain
'
I'm not entirely sure why you were downvoted since we're just having a civil discussion anyway, but I will say that if we were saying the same thing it didn't really sound like it at several points haha
'
As I said I don't know enough about what defines a system as a class. I imagine women do not qualify as one anymore, but at one point it seems possible that they did.
'
Tbh, and I may be oversimplifying this greatly, but it's sounding overall like the main thing you disagree with is using the term feminism to describe movements for womens' equality?
And you're right - for the most part women are not treated worse than men, and visa versa. Which, as you say, is largely thanks to original feminism, which was more or less what I was attempting to get at. Feminism, in my eyes, was never unnecessary. I guarantee many women tried asking nicely to get what they wanted. Feminism as an organized movement was probably pretty far down the list of things they attempted originally
'
And that seems to be our main sticking point - because we both sort of seem to agree but are saying it in different ways I guess. When I say "feminism" I mean the right to be treated as a human being, without having merits taken away because you have a vagina. Things that deviate from this do not fall under feminism in my opinion. It doesn't HAVE to be labelled feminism, but fighting for womens' rights can certainly fall under that category, so I'm not sure using it to describe such causes is an overtly bad thing
As for Alabama, I believe Alabama's position is more or less that the life of an embryo has more value than the life of the teenager or woman carrying said embryo. Whole can of ugliness that just says Alabama learned nothing from the coat-hanger abortions and suicides of yore.
'
I'm not sure I agree there's only one of that trinity left standing, also. To me it seems there's always a balance.
'
You can call the police at any time and have the security of knowing they'll show up. But in return you give up the freedom of being able to deny them entry should a judge say they have the right to be on your property, or searching your car, etc.
'
You have the freedom of saying just about anything you want. But that gets restricted to give you the security and equality of not having hate-speech and threats directed your way.
'
Women now have the equality of being able to go to school and work etc pretty much any job a man does. In return they've largely lost the security of having a husband take care of everything, or the freedom of being able to stay home with their children. It's not IMPOSSIBLE for them to, but often much more difficult
'
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you were saying about the Trinity but my take on it is you can never entirely have all three without sacrificing, and at the same time there's almost nowhere in the world that operates exclusively on one of those principles. Some places just lean closer to one than the others
Our main difference here is just how much we understand of the philosophy behind the movements. Women's freedom is a natural outgrowth of men's freedom, of universal freedom. This in fact, is why in the UK for instance, the country that invented, if not perfected liberalism, women got the right to vote only 9 years after men did.
.
As the original commentor pointed out, feminism's guiding principle is stated to be equality. Which is why at this point it has denegrated into gender communism, the desire for absolute equality in everything. Because once freedom has been achieved, it was not "equal" enough.
.
My point with the Trinity is the example of how the key principles behind the philosophies manifest. Fascism and communism, were both based on principles other than freedom, and as such, caused immeasurable suffering to individual people, for the "greater good". And if feminism's guiding principle right now is that of equality, it will go down the same road.
My main point here, is that as you've probably already understood, when we are talking about rights, we are talking not about women's rights, but human rights.
If your guiding principle is of freedom, then the fight for rights is universal, without regard for gender. Feminism has been corrupted for 30 years, and it keeps getting worse. I would rather abandon the movement and the term.
.
Women have their rights in the first world. The minute details are and deserve to be debated, but they have the right to work, to vote and to be treated the same under the law. So our need for feminism is over.
.
The rest of the world, needs not feminism, but liberalism, as one will eventually lead to the accomplishments of the other.
.
We seem to agree on everything but the path forward. I would rather abandon the husk of feminism, and stick to the basic principle behind the systems that made the first world great in the first place.
Tbh I'm not really certain I addressed the path forward. I don't honestly care if, moving forward, we use the term feminism or not tbh.
'
As we've kind of gone round in circles about, but my main thing with feminism is that feminism was and is about equality, and is specifically meant to address issues related to male and female interaction. Much like "race relations" and such - it is simply a sub-category of addressing basic human rights. Whether we ever use the term again outside of history books doesn't really make a difference to me.
'
However, as I've said, the people calling themselves "feminists" while ambushing and beating men in parks I take issue with. In this scenario the label is being corrupted and not applied correctly. Or the ones who screech their heads off anytime a guy so much as glances at them. Those aren't feminists and do not represent feminists and their ideals anymore than ISIS represents Muslims.
They're terrorists and need not apply because they don't actually follow any of the values the cause they claim to fight for does.
'
Whether we ever use the term "feminist" in our lives again is neither here nor there, but if we're going to use it, it should be applied to scenarios that actually demonstrate feminism, and not these man-hating charlatans with their heads so far up their own asses if they opened their mouths they'd see sunlight.
'
To me, as I kind of just said (so allow me to repeat myself) feminism is just a subset title for a specific category of "liberalism." Maybe it's not necessary to keep it as a title moving forward, but at the end of the day, given the sheer volume and extremes to which women are suffering around the globe in other countries, I think it would just be replaced with something else.
What are we supposed to do? I don't even want to interact with a female anymore. It seems I will be wrong no matter what. I hold the door I'm being patronizing. I don't hold the door I'm being disrespectful. I look at a woman I am eye-raping her. I don't look I am not recognizing her feminity.
This being offended at everything is absolutely ridiculous.
Honestly you'll always find dimwits who seemingly live to pick fights for whatever reason. Just live your life and treat people in a way you find nice (in the way you'd genuinely like to be treated in their place). If 90% of people you interact with think you're nice and respectful and 10% are furies, you're probably decent. If it's a 50-50, try adjustments, and so on.
A lot of guys feel this way about women now. I've heard men say they're afraid to even get on elevators if there's a female on them because they don't want to risk giving women a chance to accuse them of something. There was a woman who threw a glass of alcohol at a guy's face for saying someone else "throws like a girl."
'
I honestly feel a lot of sympathy for guys growing up right now because, while not all women are self-entited psychopaths, there are more than enough to go around.
Hahahahahah.....ok. you sure have me pegged.
And this is exactly what I'm talking about. No matter what, I am wrong. Now I am wrong for not wanting to upset anyone?
Love the random quotes by the way. Lmao
'
I will concede in this scenario that, if all there are are gender-neutral washrooms, and she had no choice but to use one, and some guy wanders in and whips his penis out at a urinal, I can see why that would make a person uncomfortable. Acting like that is somehow the guy's fault for using the washroom for its intended purpose is ludicrous, but there's nothing inherently wrong with expressing gratitude to the guy who noticed it might be uncomfortable and chose to wait.
'
But then again I'm one of those horrible people who think gender neutral washrooms with this kind of setup shouldn't be a thing
Feminist: a person who recognizes that each gender has its perks and flaws, and are sometimes different, but should each be treated with equal respect, love, and kindness.
/
Feminazi: a person who thinks that men are pigs and should all die in a fire.
There you go. I made it simple!
It's great to see that placed are offering options that are neutral and don't have to force any awkward "your in the wrong bathroom " scenarios. However people also should be allowed a place of better privacy.
.
Also hi @sunflowers, been a while since you've shown up here, @xvarnah was really missing ya.
1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests
Also im aware that your view seems to be the majority are too much, too sensitive ect. but what you over look is any research. The majority are rational people with extremest. Cue any group type of humans ever. There are still plenty of issues to shine a light on in 2019. As xvarnah said: "People often lump them all into the same pile and even use it as an excuse to lash out at people who don't share the views/practices of feminazis. Feminism is about equality where there is none. Feminaziism is about generating outrage and tearing down those who don't agree."
Please recognize the difference, have a nice day :)
Uhhhh.... this is exactly my point though. The definition you've given covers economical and social equality. That is not equality of opportunity, that is equality of outcome. Which means that feminism is illiberal and will require suppressing people's free will in order to achieve it's goals. The only way to have absolute economic equality between the sexes is communism, the most tyrannical system ever created. The only way to have social equality is to engineer society from top-down, to force people to treat women the same as men, and vice versa, which is also incredibly tyrannical and as such, illiberal.
That in itself already discredits the definition you've given, because even that version of feminism deserves to be fought against. However, you also seem to have little knowledge of feminist theory, how it developed over the years and the difference between the waves of feminism.
Now this is the moment at which feminism was starting to show the rot of man-hating, but was still sensible in its political demands.
Next came the fourth-wave feminism, the intersectional feminism. This basically took the marxist framework of the third wave and expanded it to cover race, sexuality, being trans, etc. The more someone is oppressed by being a minority, the more free shit they deserve. This is why you hear absolutely retarded shit about gay trans women of colour, because they cover all the minority bases, and as such have the most victim currency.
And unfortunately, since the fourth wave is currently the domineering strain of feminism, people who do not adhere to it but still call themselves feminist will have to make a distinction.
And besides, you have not refuted my two original claims. I will reiterate them here. One, feminism (of anything beyond the second wave) is illiberal and will inevitably supress people's freedom. As such, taking on that label is nonsensical if you consider freedom to be a value to hold. And secondly, all the demands of feminism in the way of rights have been achieved in the first world, and people of the second wave have no reason to call themselves feminist anymore.
also @xvarnah, I thought you might be interested in a more comprehensive description of my problems with feminism and how other people generally talk about the subject. Hope you enjoy.
'
I'm not sure I entirely agree with everything you said, but I see where you're coming from. The issue stands, though, that isn't a society that forces one group to be treated worse than another and denies them rights ALSO tyrannical?
'
I can't recall whether it's Indian or Asian, but for example there's a culture where if the husband dies, the husband's family will actively harass the widow to commit suicide. They claim it's honor based, but the actual fact is that, if the widow dies, the husband's family gets their money back. As far as I know there's no law in place to protect the widow. But which is more tyrannical? Saying someone cannot fight back and allowing others to legally drive them to suicide? Or saying "that's not acceptable" and saying you can't treat someone that way?
'
Societies, in order to function, all are built on different forms of restriction. The only thing we get to decide is what is acceptable to restrict.
'
I'd have to look into the actual definition of classes and such to really touch on that. Women may not be a class. It is arguable that at one point they were, I would think. Women were either homemakers and mothers. Eventually they were permitted into roles outside of this, but it was a very restricted in terms of what they were allowed to do and how much they made
'
You describe second-wave feminism has "man-hating," and I imagine you're probably right - a lot of women did hold a lot of hostility toward men. The thing about early feminism is that that anger wasn't entirely unfounded. Any more than any other suppressed group, and saying women weren't suppressed is by and large an inaccuracy.
'
Tbh I think even third wave feminism had it's points. Let's not forget there was a judge who asked a rape victim why she didn't just "keep her legs closed."
'
It started as a way to give victims a voice and a place to come together. It has since been corrupted and twisted into something vile that's used by abusive women to attack people without thought or care behind exactly what damage they're doing.
'
This, to me, is much like feminism. It started with clear goals and a valid point. But in North America feminism has, by and large, achieved most of its goals. And now it's been adopted by vitriolic harpies who don't care about anything but screaming about how much they hate people (especially men) and how victimized they are.
'
But at the end of the day I don't care what they call me. They're not and never have been on any side of the fight worth being on.
'
So, to me, feminists are the ones who stick with the original goals. They were never screaming to be raised above men. They just wanted a goddamn voice and to not be treated like a shiny toy or a particularly slow child anytime they said anything. And they fought to get what they wanted. And still fight when they need to
'
Feminazis are the ones who never cared about equality to begin with. All they care about is their soapbox. They are the loud, shrieking imbeciles, so miserable in their own existences they could accomplish NOTHING if it didn't mean stomping on someone else. It's their only joy and only purpose.
https://media1.tenor.com/images/dc4e1fb8d4e4ac6a775435f3d
'
It's not entirely uncomparable to the struggle the LGBT community is currently facing where pedophiles (calling themselves MAPs) are inserting themselves as part of that group. For the most part the LGBT community doesn't agree with this, doesn't want it, is fighting against it, but also can't seem to stop them from trying to steal a movement they shed blood sweat and tears to get underway and make it their own. And the community is suffering because of it - people already making claims about "you see what happens when you legalize gay marriage? We warned you this would just be an in for the pedophiles!"
'
'
That's just my take on it, though. And at this point i've rambled way longer than I meant to (apologies)
.
To clarify a couple of things - Our society does not force women to be treated worse than men, the complete opposite in fact, and women have all the rights that men do, courtesy of second-wave feminism, which is why I find it acceptable. The first example you've given is not of a first-world country, and as such, their system is unlikely to be liberal and is tyrannical in some way. With the second example, I cannot adress it without knowing enough, but it is likely I would be against whatever is happening there in principle.
.
Next, societies are indeed built on restrictions, but those restrictions cannot be engineered, or you will end up with a civil war, or a tyranny.
.
I will continue the response to this thread for a bit, so hold your replies.
Nvm, my fucking comment limit is done. Why does that even exist.
And just to be clear, I am talking about feminist theory here. If you want to know more, I suggest the book "Women vs Feminism" by Joanna Williams.
.
The reason why feminism became a movement in the first place was because of the fault in the system of democracies at the time. They were not universal in the ability to vote, and that was the problem. You can make an argument for women being able to vote and work without being a feminist, because you will be guided by different principles in doing so, in my opinion, superior principles.
.
But as I said, the evolution in the theory of feminism never stopped, and because of that, it found new problems to overcome, no matter how minute or inconsequential. It did so in order to persist as an ideology.
.
But they didn't lie, their principle is in fact equality. Which is why they are marxists, and will not stop at anything to achieve it. Equality is not one of my principles, my principle is of freedom.
You can argue that women should have the right to vote because they are part of the same social contract with the government, you can argue that they should be able to work because it gives them the right of self-determination, the same as men do. And you never have to appeal to any equality aside from equality in the face of the law, which is the root of freedom.
.
Do you understand now, why I despise feminism, just as much as I despise communism and fascism?
.
So I don't need feminism to argue for the rights that should be universal. Liberalism is enough.
.
Oh yes, almost forgot, @xvarnah
'
I'm not entirely sure why you were downvoted since we're just having a civil discussion anyway, but I will say that if we were saying the same thing it didn't really sound like it at several points haha
'
As I said I don't know enough about what defines a system as a class. I imagine women do not qualify as one anymore, but at one point it seems possible that they did.
'
Tbh, and I may be oversimplifying this greatly, but it's sounding overall like the main thing you disagree with is using the term feminism to describe movements for womens' equality?
'
And that seems to be our main sticking point - because we both sort of seem to agree but are saying it in different ways I guess. When I say "feminism" I mean the right to be treated as a human being, without having merits taken away because you have a vagina. Things that deviate from this do not fall under feminism in my opinion. It doesn't HAVE to be labelled feminism, but fighting for womens' rights can certainly fall under that category, so I'm not sure using it to describe such causes is an overtly bad thing
'
I'm not sure I agree there's only one of that trinity left standing, also. To me it seems there's always a balance.
'
You can call the police at any time and have the security of knowing they'll show up. But in return you give up the freedom of being able to deny them entry should a judge say they have the right to be on your property, or searching your car, etc.
'
You have the freedom of saying just about anything you want. But that gets restricted to give you the security and equality of not having hate-speech and threats directed your way.
'
'
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you were saying about the Trinity but my take on it is you can never entirely have all three without sacrificing, and at the same time there's almost nowhere in the world that operates exclusively on one of those principles. Some places just lean closer to one than the others
.
As the original commentor pointed out, feminism's guiding principle is stated to be equality. Which is why at this point it has denegrated into gender communism, the desire for absolute equality in everything. Because once freedom has been achieved, it was not "equal" enough.
.
My point with the Trinity is the example of how the key principles behind the philosophies manifest. Fascism and communism, were both based on principles other than freedom, and as such, caused immeasurable suffering to individual people, for the "greater good". And if feminism's guiding principle right now is that of equality, it will go down the same road.
If your guiding principle is of freedom, then the fight for rights is universal, without regard for gender. Feminism has been corrupted for 30 years, and it keeps getting worse. I would rather abandon the movement and the term.
.
Women have their rights in the first world. The minute details are and deserve to be debated, but they have the right to work, to vote and to be treated the same under the law. So our need for feminism is over.
.
The rest of the world, needs not feminism, but liberalism, as one will eventually lead to the accomplishments of the other.
.
We seem to agree on everything but the path forward. I would rather abandon the husk of feminism, and stick to the basic principle behind the systems that made the first world great in the first place.
'
As we've kind of gone round in circles about, but my main thing with feminism is that feminism was and is about equality, and is specifically meant to address issues related to male and female interaction. Much like "race relations" and such - it is simply a sub-category of addressing basic human rights. Whether we ever use the term again outside of history books doesn't really make a difference to me.
'
However, as I've said, the people calling themselves "feminists" while ambushing and beating men in parks I take issue with. In this scenario the label is being corrupted and not applied correctly. Or the ones who screech their heads off anytime a guy so much as glances at them. Those aren't feminists and do not represent feminists and their ideals anymore than ISIS represents Muslims.
'
Whether we ever use the term "feminist" in our lives again is neither here nor there, but if we're going to use it, it should be applied to scenarios that actually demonstrate feminism, and not these man-hating charlatans with their heads so far up their own asses if they opened their mouths they'd see sunlight.
'
To me, as I kind of just said (so allow me to repeat myself) feminism is just a subset title for a specific category of "liberalism." Maybe it's not necessary to keep it as a title moving forward, but at the end of the day, given the sheer volume and extremes to which women are suffering around the globe in other countries, I think it would just be replaced with something else.
This being offended at everything is absolutely ridiculous.
'
I honestly feel a lot of sympathy for guys growing up right now because, while not all women are self-entited psychopaths, there are more than enough to go around.
And this is exactly what I'm talking about. No matter what, I am wrong. Now I am wrong for not wanting to upset anyone?
Love the random quotes by the way. Lmao
https://media1.tenor.com/images/7dc69af1056bf6e002fc8f995036cebc/tenor.gif?itemid=6227363