Never forget what feminism is really about

[Adder4321]

This thread is still alive? Damn, I thought that it had died a month or so ago.

 

[Saint Peter]

Just add chocolate sauce.
Now it's fun.

You are wise and your words are focused and consistent. The perfect black to LT's white.

 

[richard_daily]

If I were single right now, in this hellish hypergamic dating environment, you betcha. For the same reason that feminists bash men, yet you have no problem with them. Probably because you're so DESPERATE for a woman's attention that you'll suck up to anything that provides life support for a pussy.

You haven't anything else to say, mangina.

You are single right now.

You used to talk about your wife... now, you just talk about how women are horrible.

You don't understand why she left you. Everyone else sees it clear as day.

You're sad, alone, and angry.

No one wants to date you, and that makes you upset. So, instead of working on bettering yourself, you lash out at all women, because they scorned you.

If it wasn't true, you'd be a different person. Everyone sees you for what you are.

 

[policywank]

My quote that you cite says men are responsible for the oppression of women. I stand by that quote because it does not say all men nor does it say only men nor does it say you. I could say men play hockey.....that doesn't mean all men or only men or you play hockey.

See the validity of an argument doesn't lie in volume it lies in its intellectual rigour. When you start your rebuttal by intentionally misinterpreting a statement or asserting an opinion as fact, everything that follows is horse shit.

My point about responsibility isn't internally consistent. I did not argue that the men who stood idly by were responsible for the oppression of women. Again you intentionally infer something that simply isn't there. The context was to point out your internal inconsistency - that feminists should be held to a a higher standard than men when it comes to speaking out against bad behaviour among their "group". When talking of men you focus on the ones who stood up for women and ignore those that didn't but when talking of men you do the opposite.

Women and society do not regard men as disposable. Maybe somebody has treated you that way (just as women have frequently been treated) but this is just another blatant mistruth passed off as truism.

Holding a group responsible for the actions of some of that group is inherently problematic. Making the distinction that it is ok when the group is feminists but not when it is a whole gender is a nonsensical distinction. Not because I don't see the distinction but because there is no logical basis for that distinction implying different treatment.

Each of your points rests on a falsehood argued in a circle in a vain attempt to prove the starting fallacy.

 

[SlutAddicted]

What’s that ya say? No, no, no it don’t matter what that guy said or did cause I don’t know him and I didn’t tell him to do that. Naw he shouldn’t a hit her but she prolly deserved it. Never mind that.

The problem is them damn feminists. There all the same I’m tellin ya and if you’ve heard one you’ve heard em all......there all in cahoots I tells ya. Every time they bring a good man down theys cheering.

No a course I didn’t get together with all the other hillbillies to talk about how we treat women. We’s too busy spittin and talkin bout trucks. But I tells ya them women all get together at them rallies and plots agin. There all in it.

What’sat? No a course I ain’t bin to them rallies but I knows it. Ya can just tell.

 

[policywank]

Hey. Someone gifted me a book by Zadie Smith.
Fantastic book dealing with issues such as racism and sexism.

Until now i wasn't too stoked about female writers. But after reading just a few pages she seems to have more depth than many others. I guess dealing with prejudice makes one more attuned to existential issues.
Apparently there's an entire new generation of extraordinary female writers that I didn't know about.

See? That's true emancipation. And that's how you promote feminism too, as well as by advocating for the truly oppressed. Not through exhibitionism and picking on hapless men and divisivenness, like radical feminists do. They turned feminism into a joke and they made the rest of us look like clowns.

I would like to think feminism is maturing. It has often been reactionary and feminists sometimes undermine our own objectives by trying to force all of us to comply with a single version of feminism or one central cause or by invoking feminism to project our own less than balanced views.

I cringed when Madeleine Albright effectively called all women who didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton traitors to the cause. How can any movement that calls for that kind of blind and biased conformance have efficacy or lay claim to wanting equality? But then I was relieved when other feminists came out and (literally) said we don’t vote with our vaginas.

Likewise the #MeToo movement has taken an empowering point in time and used it to advocate a guilty until proven innocent mantra. Many women have pushed back against that. The female Chief Justice of our Supreme Court (Canada) openly opposed that thinking as have several prominent feminists. Many women who were harassed or assaulted but never spoke out until now have openly acknowledged that by staying quiet they were enablers of the assailants (not better than the men who turned a blind eye for the sake of their own careers).

It is often messy but women with a range of views - not just those that parrot a specific view - are making their voices heard.

If we have to listen to Steve Bannon or Donald Trump and not lump all men into that point of view I think society can endure a few strident feminists without getting a hate on.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

You routinely confuse boredom with a repetitive circular argument and 'rage quitting'.

Pretty much every time I suggest an argument lacks logic, I explain why.

And every time you put up an illogical argument, I explain why. Then you whine about how it's not worth it. Then you come back for more. Then while you say my arguments suck you say you're sharpening yourself on me. The fact is you keep humiliating yourself and showing your deep and broad intellectual shortcomings and you're out to save face. But then you have these same problems with EVERYONE else, as you yourself have admitted. So it ain't just me that walks away with shit-stained boots.

YOU 'explaining' any form of feminism to me is a pretty funny idea. It's cute that you think that.

I just cite feminists' actions and provide unimpeachable documentation of what they've done, and leave you to the job of defending their ruined reputation.

I promise you as soon as Trump and his followers are gone, your cause is going back in the tank. You don't seem to understand that very few Americans even wanted to call themselves feminists up until MAGA came along. Failing to understand that makes it impossible to take on the task of understanding WHY.

My quote that you cite says men are responsible for the oppression of women.

Without noting that women are also responsible in that they only want to deal with powerful men. A man's value to a woman is entirely based on his social status. This is the very heart of the problem. A rich and powerful man has no problem appealing to women, look at Trump, how many wives has he had? THREE. THREE! How many have you had? Men and women are both responsible for the system we have today and dragging men down from power is only going to solve half of the problem.

Worse yet you have failed to understand the role of power dynamics in general. This will ensure that as women get into positions of power, they will simply fill in the void where abuse is concerned. Except when women do it to women you can't call that sexism, now can you?

Your problem isn't men, it's power dynamics.

I stand by that quote because it does not say all men nor does it say only men nor does it say you.

This is a lie and I'm not going around with you on this. You did attack all men and we're done here.

Women and society do not regard men as disposable. Maybe somebody has treated you that way (just as women have frequently been treated) but this is just another blatant mistruth passed off as truism.

Women who run away from putting their lives on the line when men are in danger of dying are never socially punished (UNLESS she is in uniform or the male in danger is her kid), but a man who runs away from putting his life on the line for a woman, relative or not, becomes a person non grata. If you disagree with this, don't just argue with me - show me some examples of where I'm wrong. Since you have no hope here I'll let you get away with using isolated anecdotes rather than institutionalized / cultural examples. Good luck even with that.

White feather feminists got away with shaming men to go to war during World War I. A man getting 4f (exempt due to medical reasons) deferrments in World War II was a guarantee he'd never find a wife - one of the many reasons why men who were 4f TRIED to get 1A (eligible).

There is also this.

aliciapatterson.org/stories/abandoning-men-jill-gets-welfare–jack-becomes-homeless

To put it simply: men are neither supposed nor allowed to be dependent. They are expected to take care of others and themselves. And when they cannot or will not do it, then the assumption at the heart of the culture is that they are somehow less than men and therefore unworthy of help. An irony asserts itself: by being in need of help, men forfeit the right to it.

Your turn. Please show how those examples are untrue.

Holding a group responsible for the actions of some of that group is inherently problematic. Making the distinction that it is ok when the group is feminists but not when it is a whole gender is a nonsensical distinction.

Except being a feminist is voluntary but being a man is not. Think of it like being black versus being a MAGA Trumpanzee. To use a common feminist term: you are engaging in false equivalence.

And before you pound out your response to this, my issue is not with ALL feminists. My condemnations are aimed at the mainstream feminists, the ones with the media influence and political power. There is a HUGE difference.

Not because I don't see the distinction but because there is no logical basis for that distinction implying different treatment.

So if you vilify White Supremacists it's the same as vilifying Mexicans. Gotcha.

You are single right now.

This is a lie and that is the end of this discussion. You just admitted you're a liar.

I make up lie after lie after malicious, unfounded about LT because I fear and wish to shame and silence all men who speak out against women who inflict domestic violence on men.

I've rescued over a million women on the Internet and have never been laid once!

Let's do this, dude. Let's see who gives up first. I'm going to throw you on the bonepile that includes every other Litster who has thought they could get the last word on me. LOL.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Hey. Someone gifted me a book by Zadie Smith.
Fantastic book dealing with issues such as racism and sexism.

Until now i wasn't too stoked about female writers. But after reading just a few pages she seems to have more depth than many others. I guess dealing with prejudice makes one more attuned to existential issues.
Apparently there's an entire new generation of extraordinary female writers that I didn't know about.

See? That's true emancipation. And that's how you promote feminism too, as well as by advocating for the truly oppressed. Not through exhibitionism and picking on hapless men and divisivenness, like radical feminists do. They turned feminism into a joke and they made the rest of us look like clowns.

I keep saying this but people don't read the words that are being written.

The problem with feminism is that its leadership - the people with the noticeable media presence and the ones who have all the political power - are the radicalized ones. They are different from the rank and file, and wildly different from black feminists, who are (from my observations) the most egalitarian.

Literally no one read the above paragraph, which I have said in various word combinations many times on here. The frothing faction only sees "feminists" and my criticisms and it's off to the snarling races.

 

[KimGordon67]

And every time you put up an illogical argument, I explain why. Then you whine about how it's not worth it. Then you come back for more. Then while you say my arguments suck you say you're sharpening yourself on me. The fact is you keep humiliating yourself and showing your deep and broad intellectual shortcomings and you're out to save face. But then you have these same problems with EVERYONE else, as you yourself have admitted. So it ain't just me that walks away with shit-stained boots.

I've never 'admitted' any such thing. Are you lying AGAIN LJ?
If I was routinely 'humiliating' myself, I'm sure other people would point that out ... but apart from you wee cheerleader RightGuide, no one seems to ... hmmm. And, again, you telling me I have 'intellectual shortcomings' in respect of feminist theory is ... well, it would be adorable if it wasn't just dumb.

 

[KimGordon67]

I keep saying this but people don't read the words that are being written.

The problem with feminism is that its leadership - the people with the noticeable media presence and the ones who have all the political power - are the radicalized ones. They are different from the rank and file, and wildly different from black feminists, who are (from my observations) the most egalitarian.

Literally no one read the above paragraph, which I have said in various word combinations many times on here. The frothing faction only sees "feminists" and my criticisms and it's off to the snarling races.

Possibly because you keep just saying 'feminists', rather than 'radical feminists' or whatever group you're maligning in this specific post.
You almost NEVER say 'the problem with feminism is its leadership' (as though feminism had some form of hierarchical leadership structure). You just say 'feminists xyz rant rant rant' and provide a link to one woman saying something, who may or may not identify as feminist, and may or may not be taken seriously by other feminists.

For example, the OP for this thread reads:
"A big audience of women shamelessly and unquestioningly cheered the unprovoked castration of a man by his wife because he wanted to leave her. And there was no protest march against Sharon Osbourne for running this episode.

This is the real face of feminism."

You don't specifically indict the feminist 'leadership' for not organising such marches, nor do you refer to the 'real face of feminists in political power'. The post is just about 'feminism' as a whole. So don't whine that "... people don't read the words that are being written." - these are the words you wrote.

 

[richard_daily]

This is a lie and that is the end of this discussion. You just admitted you're a liar.

Post a picture of your hand with your wedding ring, next to your wife's, and today's date and "hello lit" and I'll apologize and admit that I'm wrong.

Don't do it, and it's you who's the liar.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

I make up lie after lie after malicious, unfounded about LT because I fear and wish to shame and silence all men who speak out against women who inflict domestic violence on men.

I've rescued over a million women on the Internet and have never been laid once!

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Me: But then you have these same problems with EVERYONE else, as you yourself have admitted.

I've never 'admitted' any such thing. Are you lying AGAIN LJ?
If I was routinely 'humiliating' myself, I'm sure other people would point that out ... but apart from you wee cheerleader RightGuide, no one seems to ... hmmm. And, again, you telling me I have 'intellectual shortcomings' in respect of feminist theory is ... well, it would be adorable if it wasn't just dumb.

And this is where you claim you never wrote this:

When we first started arguing, back when the dinosaurs roamed the earth, I provided plenty of citations and evidence and links to research to back up everything I said. That was routinely ignored or willfully misinterpreted, so I just stopped bothering. (That's not peculiar to you - it's pretty much been the case with the way all my interactions on the GB have developed. No one's interested in evidence, just rhetoric.)

 

[richard_daily]

Post a picture of your hand with your wedding ring, next to your wife's, and today's date and "hello lit" and I'll apologize and admit that I'm wrong.

Don't do it, and it's you who's the liar.

So you're a liar.

Got it.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Kim is right. It's also about language. You keep using 'Feminists' instead of 'Radical Feminists', which creates a lot of confusion.
But you sometimes also generalize about women too "women only date powerful or rich men". Not all of them, or alternatively - so do men (some prefer women who are good looking and below them in status cause ego).

Although to be honest, Kim I don't understand why a white Western woman would still feel the need to attach that official label to herself nowadays.
It gives the message that Western society overwhelmingly oppresses women, which isn't true. Yes, pockets of misogyny and abuse (domestic abuse, sexism in certain workplaces) still exist, but our society is egalitarian in most other aspects.

But now Trump and MAGA have the run of things and a full-throated assault on women's rights is afoot. Because of them, I promise you a LOT more people are sympathetic toward the feminist brand now. A LOT.

Policywank is right: many women feel that they're 'Feminists' but in a different, nonofficial sense. And I think that you misunderstood her point, LJ. She's not against men (Or women for the fact) she's a centrist who's critical of both extremes.

I wouldn't say KimGordon is against men, per se. She just fails to understand how hypocritical and corrupt her movement's LEADERSHIP is. Her "I ain't responsible for them" stance enables them to stay in power, which they will. The corrupt feminist leadership will use the MAGA crisis to continue radicalizing people. These hatemongers are in power for a reason. Anyone want to guess why?

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

I make up lie after lie after malicious, unfounded about LT because I fear and wish to shame and silence all men who speak out against women who inflict domestic violence on men.

I've rescued over a million women on the Internet and have never been laid once!

 

[richard_daily]

Cowardly, sad, lonely, and has to resort to altering people's posts to (not) prove a point.

The LT way.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

I make up lie after lie after malicious, unfounded about LT because I fear and wish to shame and silence all men who speak out against women who inflict domestic violence on men.

I've rescued over a million women on the Internet and have never been laid once!

 

[richard_daily]

If that's how you "win" an argument, you're a bigger loser than I thought.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

I make up lie after lie after malicious, unfounded about LT because I fear and wish to shame and silence all men who speak out against women who inflict domestic violence on men.

I've rescued over a million women on the Internet and have never been laid once!

I haven't paid much attention to that aspect tbh, initially some of his stupid comments seemed just nonPC or potty mouth to me. And I thought that the system is too good to allow him to implement radical policies, should he be inclined to do so. (his latest comments about legal immigrants from 'shithole' countries were too much for me, given that most of them are cherry-picked, even those from the Greencard lottery need to have basic education credentials and a clean record).

But Democrats claim that he's gradually starting to implement certain nefarious policies and change society. Republicans - the opposite: that his policies helped both women and the black minority. So I don't know what to think any more so I decided to abstain from opiniating in this regard.

My main concerns about Trump are whether he'll contribute to the increased gap between the rich and poor, and whether he'll break he's preelectoral promiss to cease America's proxy wars.

Republicans have given states the right to de-fund Planned Parenthood, which is the only game in town in a lot of rural areas for women who are seeking pre-natal care, advice on contraception, contraception care, etc. Republicans in general have blocked taxpayer funding for contraception. Trump supports the religious right of companies to deny women access to contraception on their health care plan. Do you think this is helpful for women, or harmful? I'd say overwhelmingly harmful, and heavily biased against women. Hint: paying tax dollars for contraception costs less than abortions, and far less than welfare babies.

Good points.
But again, Radical feminists are distorting that unifying pull.

Their intent is to demote white patriarchy through 'intersectionality' (women, gays, muslims, atheists,and black minorities against Christian white men in power).

And they've failed terribly on the intersectional part. Minority feminists have been calling them out loudly about this consistent failure.

But what they're doing is they're just planting divisivenness between heterosexual men and women, regardless of religion or color. They're making things worse instead of better.

They and the alt right are feeding off each other's divisiveness. Either they lack any sense of self-reflection or it's as if someone is profiting off this mess.

 

[richard_daily]

https://www.askideas.com/media/73/Loser-Splash-Comment-Picture.jpg

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

I make up lie after lie after malicious, unfounded about LT because I fear and wish to shame and silence all men who speak out against women who inflict domestic violence on men.

I've rescued over a million women on the Internet and have never been laid once![/IMG]

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

I'd say the Left too, If I were to judge from some of the massmedia or the posts of some of those who call themselves Democrats in this forum. I've seen them attack and accuse of 'racism, misogyny' or malice any Centrists who refuse to align themselves to their side, or those who express opinions that don't fall into the Left versus Right spectrum. While being unaware of the malice or bigotry within themselves.

But I don't know how both political parties behave in real life because I don't talk politics offline. So it's possible that my impression of real life American Politics is distorted.

Well, the radfems do align with the Left, so you have a point there. There is a significant difference, though. Radfems and their ilk among the Left are a hate movement, the extremists of the right wing are both a hate movement and a terrorist movement: the latter is overwhelmingly more violent and prone to acts of murder.

 

[richard_daily]

http://uniqueandthriving.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Loser-by-Evie-Dents.jpg

 

[KimGordon67]

Kim is right. It's also about language. You keep using 'Feminists' instead of 'Radical Feminists', which creates a lot of confusion.
But you sometimes also generalize about women too "women only date powerful or rich men". Not all of them, or alternatively - so do men (some prefer women who are good looking and below them in status cause ego).

Although to be honest, Kim I don't understand why a white Western woman would still feel the need to attach that official label to herself nowadays.
It gives the message that Western society overwhelmingly oppresses women, which isn't true. Yes, pockets of misogyny and abuse (domestic abuse, sexism in certain workplaces) still exist, but our society is egalitarian in most other aspects.

Policywank is right: many women feel that they're 'Feminists' but in a different, nonofficial sense. And I think that you misunderstood her point, LJ. She's not against men (Or women for the fact) she's a centrist who's critical of both extremes.

You obviously missed the memo about the gender wage gap, didn't notice the whole #metoo thing, and I can only assume you've never opened Pornhub.
On Lit, I've been threatened with a broken arm and rape, just for disagreeing with the old 'white' guys. Empty threats, obviously, but I never saw either of those guys level the same threats at other men.
I don't deny that things have changed, mostly for the better. But it's far from a post-feminist paradise. That's like saying there's no racism any more because Obama.