'I don't need feminism because...'

Even using your estimates it is still a mere 0.002% of the female population.

Still a tiny proportion. It is still therefore irrational fear.

I have skimmed through this thread and I am going to make the assumption that you are most certainly not a feminist.
Considering you have said that misogyny and misandry are as present as each other, would you say rather, that you are simply just a supporter of gender equality.

I was a feminist until I realised how many feminists out there weren't feminists at all, simply misandrists or people who hopped on the bandwagon under the misconception that it is about privileges for women, rather than equality of the sexes. My idea of feminism was just gender equality but I think the meaning has been lost and manipulated in this movement.

Even those feminists that believed in equality of the genders still focussed on women more.
The first definition for feminism that comes up is this:
feminism
the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.
This just proves that there is a definite focus on women in the feminist movement.

Therefore, I would hate to be associated with a movement that puts women on the pedestal when the fact is that men have issues too. You cannot compare, as the severity of the problems faced by the genders is subjective, and so it is impossible to say that either gender has it worse.

To separate myself from this association, rather than identifying myself as a feminist, I simply say I am a strong supporter of gender equality. The real feminists shouldn't see the difference.

I would like to see your view on this, please, if possible.

the girls you posted clearly don't know what feminism means smh

My view is that you've spoken more sense in this post than the vast majority of anyone else in the thread, and in a refreshingly cool-headed manner. I agree entirely. I would support gender equality, yes, which wouldn't include positive discrimination.

And ISIS aren't true Muslims too, right?

Wake up. It isn't your decision who is and is not a Feminist. The meaning of a term is in its use, and one of the widest uses of the term 'Feminist' in the West now is as a label to describe those women who believe in the patriarchal conspiracy theory, and 'rape culture', that gender is a social construct, and so much other nonsense.

It would be amusing if it wasn't pathetic how you try to write of critics of Feminism as suggesting that it is full of 'man-haters'. I don't think its full of man haters. I do, however, think it is nonsensical, and undermining due process in America, and undermining efforts to solves the abuse of women and men in the western world, and efforts to solve the abuse of women in the middle-eastern world.

Yes, there are many such Feminists in this thread. There always have been many such Feminists. It's an important part of Feminism, even if it doesn't comprise all of it.

People such as yourself need to learn that the western world has moved on from Feminism. The belief than men and women are (at least politically and morally) equal is ubiquitous to such a degree that nobody even questions it without risking absolute vilification. Egalitarianism is 'where its at' now, and this is a god-send. We can move on from the nonsense Marxist hand-me-downs that have infested Feminism for so long, and start to accept plain old common sense.



No, it isn't 'well put'. Ordinary men don't rape because rapists are not ordinary men. Yeah, men who are otherwise ordinary rape, but only in the same way that Psychopaths who are otherwise ordinary are ordinary. Even if rape was socially caused, why would anybody suggest distinguishing it from other crimes? Are you suggesting that rape just happens to be the only crime that has a social cause, and that we can solve it outright by Feminism? That seems ludicrously improbable. Unless you're suggesting they're all socially caused? In which case, why Feminism, why not just be a normal person and suggest we do whatever we can to prevent crime? That's to ignore the fact that there's no solid evidence for the claim that rape is caused primarily by social factors.

Are you sure criminals aren't biologically predisposed to crime?

The ironic thing is that though feminists claim they are for gender equality, even by very definition this is focused only on issues disadvantaging females. They'll dismiss people like you as misogynistic, when you in fact are an actual supporter of gender equality, with no bias towards either gender.

It is infuriating to no end. The ferocity of their conviction and hostility to anyone in disagreement is often almost Orwellian. We can only hope that reason will prevail.

The first definition for feminism that comes up is this:
feminism
the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.
This just proves that there is a definite focus on women in the feminist movement.

Are you saying that some men who rape are not monsters? I beg to differ. If a man rapes somewhat, and he is not otherwise rendered irresponsible, he is a monster.

Seriously I'm so confused by what you just said. The way we should solve rape is by treating people who rape like they aren't doing anything too
wrong? You are insane. Rapists are evil people, evil people deserve punishment. It is this simple.

You do realise that we're never going to reduce all crimes to social reasons? That would just be to reject any notion of responsibility. Good luck creating any working system which denies responsibility.

Um, just because the law is a 'social construct' (Though it isn't, it is a political and legal one), it isn't the case that violations of it can't have biological causes. Obviously they do at least sometimes, for instance when someone dependent on heroin buys heroin, they're breaking the law, and the cause of biological.

Can someone in this thread explain to me the difference between working towards gender equality and feminism as we know it?

I ask because what I see are social justice warriors taking "gender equality" to the logical conclusion, pretty much Poe's law levels of madness. In any Western nation, no woman is disadvantaged by society as it currently stands. The only real differences between men and women are biological, which inform our behavioural patterns and make us demonstrably different.

So, feminists want equality of outcome because equality of opportunity has already been met. But what is 'gender equality' and why do you support it?

We have legal equality. We don't have social equality. That's the simplest way it can be put.

A weak, cheap way of denying that women who oppose the reality of feminism could possibly exist.

In any Western nation, no woman is disadvantaged by society as it currently stands.

I don't need feminism because I don't think it's democratic to bar one half of the population from standing for Parliament on account of their gender, nor respectful of the ability of the other half to succeed without a patronising leg-up from the state.

My view is that you've spoken more sense in this post than the vast majority of anyone else in the thread, and in a refreshingly cool-headed manner. I agree entirely. I would support gender equality, yes, which wouldn't include positive discrimination.

The ironic thing is that though feminists claim they are for gender equality, even by very definition this is focused only on issues disadvantaging females. They'll dismiss people like you as misogynistic, when you in fact are an actual supporter of gender equality, with no bias towards either gender.

Yeah I know the simple way to put it. Tell me what social equality involves.