Bullying Feminists Is Not The Answer

Yes I am. But at the same time we have to recognise that women are still the most disadvantaged in the Western as well as the developing world, and women issues shouldn't become taboo or obsolete.

If you look at my posts, I am hardly arguing with any of that.

no.

you just choose to see everything that feminists have done as a personal attack on men, for reasons that are perhaps personal to you as is often the case.
can you not understand that women standing up for their rights and for equality is much like the way black people and ethnic minority groups have stood up for their rights? if you oppress a certain group for long enough then eventually they will form movements against it.
imagine your arguments against feminism being applied to the following movements:
gay rights: but what about heterosexuals?
black rights: what about whites?
rights for the disabled: what about the non disabled?
rights for the mentally ill: what about the not mentally ill?

can you see how it does not make any sense?

i think i'll leave it at that for the sake of my own sanity. you are ignorant.

Let me see if I have this correctly: every group apart from white heterosexual males gets their own radical movement, which they can be presumed to support on account of their birth characteristics which fall neatly into various categories of identity politics.

Viewed through the prism of Marxism all these groups can be defined as "oppressed", because outcomes are not equal, which makes them "victims" (of the white heterosexual male), and consequently white heterosexual males are expected not only to support this disparate grab bag of causes, but also never ever to advocate for themselves or their own group interests because that would be racist, sexist and homophobic.

I dont understand. These groups have been the most disadvantaged in society. Please explain to me how white heterosexual middle class men have suffered oppression.

Well quite, if you stick with white countries, insist on viewing everything through the prism of Marxism, and seek equality of outcome as your ideal, then you will find it convenient to label all these historically or present-day under-achieving groups as "victims", which will usually put them higher on the "oppression olympics" ladder than your average heterosexual white male. I see you snuck middle class in there this time, do you feel comfortable making these people targets of hatred?

If you want you can even label every white heterosexual male who chooses not to submit to Marxist doctrine and talk the politically correct language of feminism, diversity, and multiculturalism as "racist", "misogynistic", "homophobic" and "sexist".

But what is that going to achieve?

So feminists like to take these issues and pretend they don't happen to men
- Rape
- Violent crime
- Constant manipulation of statistics involving employment
- The #yesallwomen campaign was in response to a shooting where more men were killed than women. But with their propaganda they made it look as though no men died.
- The #bringbackourgirls was in response to schoolgirls being kidnapped, when in the same country boys are routinely kidnapped and either killed or turned into child soldiers.
- Feminists like to manipulate information to reinforce the idea that women are victims and men are not.

Exactly

jeez. did they ever find the girls at the end?

it's called eradicating the enforcement of gender roles and, as emma said, letting men and women both be more real, strong and complete, without one gender or the other feeling weak.


Posted from TSR Mobile

this was just a long-winded way of saying boohoo men aren't getting all the attention for once and i feel personally victimised. admit that you don't care about women's rights.


Posted from TSR Mobile

Good. Then we agree.

Look at the summary on the front page of the [feminist] website. Every single campaign reinforces their ideology that women are the only victims of crime and discrimination.

Why just women and girls? Why not men and boys too? Why not everyone?

Thats like saying why back people? Why not white people too? because that would be ignoring fundamental issues, the fact that some groups experience more disadvantage than others.

If so that's great, but I would like to clarify whether we do. The issue I was raising was never about who (between men and women) is worse off as a class. The issue I was raising was about feminism as a movement, an whether it caters to men and women or only to women.

To take the issue back to its origin in this thread - a post ChickenMadness made:



You replied:



By saying the above, you seemed to be saying that feminism fights only for women and girls, and should only be expected to. Yet, now you're saying that it fights for both. I'm confused as to how you reconcile the posts you made around p.3 with those you made around p.7. Can you clarify this?

Glad people have picked up where I left off. Feminism is anti-progressive. It's setting us back into the 50s.

What a ridiculous assertion. How is it setting us back into the 50s?

it's creating these gender wars and inequality. By trying to put women way above men.

How are they trying to put women above men? In what manner is this being effected? Do you have any examples of this? Again, you're just making empty assertions that no one can engage with.

yes actually if you go look at page 1-7. I'm just bored of debating now.