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.

No, but the literature and attitude sure make it look like it

Given that this dialogue box comes from Undertale, that is out of the question.

I don't mind, cause I don't call gay people faggots, I call stupid people faggots.
Plus in the hierarchy of slurs, this one is nowhere near the top.

Yeah, because they aren't profitable, and this is one of the reasons

I can fucking guarantee that that is real, I have seen stupider.

.
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.

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.

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.

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.

@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.

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.

Yes. It was shit.

But was it selecting based on the adherence to the totality of the data it was fed, or only the most necessary aspects?

Should've dumped your Coke

That's completely okay for the most part. Not sure about the teaching about consent part, I'd think that people can figure it out for themselves, but I could live with that.

Yeah, pressuring men for "male privilege". They're not trying to solve it if thats what you mean.

That's the point, you come right up to the line of what's acceptable but you don't cross it. That's how comedy works

Depends on what kind of equality and how you would implement it.