Feminism on Atlas Forum

[Alcon]

What many describe as feministic is not feminism but fundamentally against the ideals of the movement. To me, feminism should be, definitionally, the belief in overall equality between the two sexes, excluding obvious biological factors (admitting that men are better at manual labor is not anti-feminist to me).

So-called "radical feminism" is not feminism any more than setting something on fire is "radical warming." "Radical feminism" is sexism. Sure, it is slightly non-standard sexism, but it is still sexism and does not deserve to be lumped in with a completely honorable movement of seeking equality between the genders.

[Alcon]

Most of your other posts on this thread have been pretty solid, just that article is pretty much rubbish.

Having had my share of experience with feminists and the real results of feminism, I think there is a lot of truth in that post.  It overstates the case in some ways, but I believe it is largely true.

The problem is not just feminism - feminism is part of a whole school of thought that encourages people to view everything in the world through the prism of gender/race etc. and to assign virtue vs. bad qualities based upon those factors.

And if you can tell me that you haven't seen feminist literature saying that men are bad and that women are inherently better than men, then with all due respect, you haven't been reading very much, because that idea is at the forefront of contemporary feminist thought.

How can that be considered feminism when the very definition of feminism, as far as I am aware, is that women should be equal to men, reflecting their equality of skill? Do you not agree with the feminist movement that just desires equality? That is what I consider true feminism; I do not think anyone contests that "feminazism" (I really dislike using the word "Nazi" in such stupid contexts) is ridiculous in concept.

[Alcon]

Most of your other posts on this thread have been pretty solid, just that article is pretty much rubbish.

Having had my share of experience with feminists and the real results of feminism, I think there is a lot of truth in that post.  It overstates the case in some ways, but I believe it is largely true.

The problem is not just feminism - feminism is part of a whole school of thought that encourages people to view everything in the world through the prism of gender/race etc. and to assign virtue vs. bad qualities based upon those factors.

And if you can tell me that you haven't seen feminist literature saying that men are bad and that women are inherently better than men, then with all due respect, you haven't been reading very much, because that idea is at the forefront of contemporary feminist thought.

How can that be considered feminism when the very definition of feminism, as far as I am aware, is that women should be equal to men, reflecting their equality of skill? Do you not agree with the feminist movement that just desires equality? That is what I consider true feminism; I do not think anyone contests that "feminazism" (I really dislike using the word "Nazi" in such stupid contexts) is ridiculous in concept.

What I have been saying, if anybody has been listening, is that as a practical matter, the leaders of today's feminist movement do not have the stated goal of equality between the sexes as their true goal.  It is that simple.  I think men and women should be legally equal.  I simply don't think that women should get special preferences, and that is what feminism advocates for today.

But my very argument is that they are no more feminists than Timothy McVeigh was a good, Christian man. That may be what they claim to be, but in reality, if they are perpetuating racial inequality, they are anti-feminists. I do not care what they call themselves. To me, that is not what they are.

I feel sorry for you guys that are buying the feminist tripe.  You will be in for a very rude awakening one day when you realize that you have acquiesced in a system that deems you inferior to women because of your equipment.

This may happen, but there are many traditionalists, especially in executive positions, who believe that it is a man's job to do the work and a woman's to stay at home. I find it hard to believe that the system is entirely against males by nature.

It may come a number of different ways.  Like when you lose your job, or get a reprimand or demotion, due to a false accusation of sexual harassment from a woman whom you turned down for a date.  Or when your wife takes up with another man, then has you removed from the house that you paid for, and you are ordered to pay child support to your children with no guarantee of regular visitation or input into their upbringing.  Or when your parental rights are terminated because your wife/ex coaches your kids to falsely claim sexual abuse by you.

Woah woah woah. Slow down there, man. What does one's wife cheating on them have to do with feminism? If someone's wife sleeps with another man, it isn't because of feminism. It's because they want to sleep with another man. And the first item is a great reason, among many, to not date co-workers.

These things happen every day, courtesy of the woman's movement.  The position of the woman's movement is that women don't lie about these matters, period, and that they should be believed by default.  It takes a huge effort for a man to prove a woman wrong in these cases.

You sound like you have some sort of vendetta, almost. Again, I do not consider any of this feminism - it is just stupidity and the assumption that women are by nature too stupid to not be angelic.

I'm not saying that injustices don't happen to women too.  But I don't see any male-oriented group demanding that they continue.  Feminist ideology is grounded in the notion that discrimination against men should be institutionalized through the legal system.  Just open your eyes if you want to see the truth.

Again, this is not feminism. This is sexism by females against males. There is also sexism by males against females. Women are paid less than men and are much less likely to hold executive positions. How do you explain this? I don't support radical feminism, but if you don't think that some males will do anything to avoid bruising their ego by being beaten by a woman in the professional arena, you're the one who needs to open your eyes.

[Alcon]

It sounds more like you have a personal vendetta here and blame the feminist movement for the actions of women you do not like.

There are plenty of viable feminist outfits. I know this because I know many people who run them. If you are going to tell me that people who I am friends with and I know well are secretly hateful of males, well, I have some trouble believing that.

No offense at all, but it seems like you are someone paranoid and are blaming any actions individual women may have taken that end up hurting you on the feminist movement.

[Alcon]

Actually, I have not personally been hurt by this, but I am a good observer.  I also know plenty of women who are more strongly anti-feminist than I am.  I don't even think that feminists have always been all wrong, but I strongly resent the implication that only women make sacrifices in life, only women have difficulties, and they are all or mostly caused by men.  That is the theory behind modern day feminism, whether you want to admit it or not.

I strongly resent that implication, too. But, again, my point is that modern day feminism by your definitions is sexism. There are still plenty of feminists who are not sexist, and to lump them together with the sexists in the category of "modern day feminism" is not fair to the valid movements.

I know many women, as well as men, who have difficult lives, caused mostly by their own choices and sometimes by unfortunate upbriningings and family backgrounds.  I also know plenty of women and men with great lives, also usually because of a combination of good luck and good choices.  I have never seen that one gender automatically enjoys a better life than the other, as the feminists contend.

Other than being paid less, I do not really see any major difference in life quality between the two other than stupid sexual politics, which can never be "cured."

In your comments about me, you are employing the standard feminist tactic of questioning the sanity of anybody who tells the truth about their motives and the effects of their policy proposals.  It's a tactic that has worked very well for the feminists for a long time.  It is intended to chill discussion rather than address the issues that have been raised, kind of like a left-wing McCarthyism, actually.  You're an excellent learner of this tactic.  I wish you could think a little more deeply, and engage me in a deeper discussion on this topic because it is a very timely and interesting one.

I am not questioning your sanity. However, the situations which you described were so detailed I assumed they were coming from personal experience. If they were, I would get the impression that you may have a personal vendetta against "feminists" because of a few women who call themselves that who you believed wronged you. I assumed wrong, and I apologize. This was wrong of me to assume.

I am willing to listen, and to think, and try my best not to use any tactics. Any cheap shots that I make on you I regret; it is not my intention to turn this into a war of debating styles. That's not intellectually stimulating.

But as I said, with all respect, you guys don't get it (to borrow a feminist term), so I don't intend to try to talk to you about it further.  You will have to learn the hard way.  So far, you have swallowed the feminist mantra hook, line and sinker, and I hate to see a brother get eaten by sharks in this manner.  I know you'll pay for it later.

This is the point where I have no idea what you are talking about any longer. What mantra is it that I am swallowing? Please, tell me. Because I agree strongly with you that there are too many sexists who call themselves feminists. For someone who continuously complains about the feminist tactic of telling people they "don't get it," you seem to say that a lot.

When you can get beyond the feminist propaganda and platitudes, and talk about real issues in a deeper way, then we can have a discussion.  Until then, it's really not worth the effort.

What you seem to be saying is that you will not discuss this until I agree with you. This is an odd concept.

I could also add that women and children have been hurt by the feminist movement, arguable at least as much as men have been.  But you're not ready to explore beyond the narrow boundaries that you have placed in your own mind.

If I was not, I would not be here.

But let me be clear about a couple of things.  I dislike the feminist movement and much of what it has done to society.  That doesn't mean that I think every feminist is evil.  One of the things I hate the most is how the movement has brainwashed so many people into rejecting even the possibility that it could be flawed in some way.  We've seen great examples of that in this thread.

Nothing is flawless. Anyone who assumes otherwise is foolish.

Like the other great "isms" of the last century, feminism will eventually come to grief because at bottom, it is contrary to human nature, just as communism was.  The only question is how many lives it will damage before that happens.

I believe radical feminism will, yes. But the movement from equality will never die, no matter how many sexist pigs (male and female) attempt to poison it.

Now, if that's mantra, so be it.