Does anyone else agree with feminism?

Post Reply New Topic

Meh, I need more reason to stay here than that, as mere entertainment only takes me so far.

I was really asking the feminists, since they have all these big goals to change the world, and I assumed (wrongly?) that they intended to change at least someone's mind in this thread, rather than just intending to waste their breath from the outset. I mean, they wasted all those posts berating my wife for being happy with who she is, so it seemed like some kind of agenda. My wife's first post "breaks [hyperlexian's] heart", hyper said -- a lot of emotion to put into a non-endeavor.

Exactly. That nonsense is what is implied by "gender violence".



Exactly. Human law must by necessity take into account the objectively provable facts. Motivation, on the other hand, is a matter for deity(ies) who have the ability to see into hearts in order to correctly judge, if one believes in such deity(ies). If one does not believe in such deity(ies), then human law STILL cannot assess motivation. Humans don't suddenly gain the power of deities in and by an absense of deities.

Oh, it's always my turn when it comes to hyperlexian.

So you're "wired" to not acknowledge facts, such as that marriage is being denied people on the basis of their sexual orientation,
and that people are tortured, raped, and killed because they're women?

I never once said female-on-female violence is "better", or male-on-male violence-
I said it is not SEX-BASED by definition, and is resultant of other hierarchies among the sexes.

The distinction is important because feminism is the advocacy of sexual equality.


The funny bit is that no one mentioned legal systems. Feminism is advocacy of cultural, political, and economic sexual equality.

From a historical perspective, it's quite simply LAUGHABLE to assert that oppression and violence can be stopped without addressing the underlying oppressions and power struggles which cause it. But then, if you don't think there is gendered violence and oppression, from disproportionate money spent on men's health issues as opposed to women's, to sexual objectification in the media, to rape as a weapon of war, to couples being denied marriage rights because they're the same sex, to circumcision, male and female, then simply be done with it and declare the Earth flat- you know nothing of the world outside your bubble.

This is true. I oppose sexual inequality. That by definition makes me feminist. There's no wiggling out of that, and I see absolutely no reason to. A hundred years ago, I'd be given the silent treatment in this town for going out wearing PANTS.

Nope. Bride burnings occur because the victims are women. Female babies are drowned or starved to death in China because they're little girls, not little boys. Victims of FGM and the vast majority of sexual slaves are victims because they're female. It's ludicrous to pretend otherwise.


You're right. I "think" that political and religious systems of thought wherein torturing, raping, killing, etc are justifiable so long as the victims are female DO CAUSE the torturing, raping, and killing of women. Because they do.


Well there you have it.

That's stupid.

The majority of people are born into a kind of poverty people in the first world can't begin to imagine, and are lucky to survive to what we call "middle age". Many don't.

It all makes sense now- you quite simply are delusional about the world. Factually, I mean.

The vast majority of people in leadership positions and positions of power are men. That's a fact. The success of a few, despite the odds, and disproportionately Western women, says nothing...or everything: that there is an incredible concentration of power wherein few women have access to it, and those who do are of the first-world, typically white, and in all other ways but sex, identical to the men.

I was told when I was younger that "girls don't become scientists".
That's wrong. Saying it's wrong is an indictment of the sexist ideologies it propagates.

Substitute any other ideology about what boys and girls, men and women, should or shouldn't do or look like or say or think or feel.
Does the conclusion "that's wrong" still apply? Or do you even think it was wrong that I was told that, in the first place?


The context of the whole....you're ignorant of how the world works on an astonishing scale.


You seem to think large-scale global, class-based oppressions a. don't exist and b. if they do, can be fought without addressing their causes
and that if a group of people is suffering (take children in the sex trade, for instance) it's because they want to be, because a dude from India got lucky and hooked up with a first world math professor, and there's a couple of women in power in the first world.

Is that about right?

It is you who is rejecting facts, as people are not being denied marriage on the basis of their sexual orientation. They're being denied the right to officially and legally call a certain kind of relationship "marriage" that isn't marriage, one that has never before been called "marriage" in human history. If I petition the government to officially declare that a dog is a duck, then whatever the government decides is irrelevant to the fact that a dog is a dog and a duck is a duck.



No, of course not -- you only said that A is worse than B, not that B is better than A!



Quoted for falsehood.



Sexes aren't equal, and no amount of legislation will change the underlying biology that makes sexes unequal.
Is an apple equal to an orange? No. Is one universally better? No. Are both of some good? Yes. Is this satisfactory? Of course it is.
It's the same with men and women.

Oh, you aren't her exclusive customer.

But I'll tell you one thing: making an argument against feminism, however reasoned, will get you spanked.

I do see that it happens, however I don't see people being denied rights based on their sexual orientation or gender as any worse than people being denied those very same things based on other factors. You are denying someone their human rights, not their "gay rights" or "female rights".

And you have repeatedly said that "gender based violence" is worse than "non-gender based violence" by saying that male on male violence is worse than male on female violence period. For instance, if I bring up that the draft objectifies males, you counter with that this is "male on male" objectification, which is not the same as "female on male" or "male on female" objectification. If you feel the need to differentiate the two, you are implicitly saying that they are different and of different severities.

By doing so, you are in fact arguing against yourself, since you define feminism as "The advocacy of sexual equality" however, if violence by men towards women is worse than violence by men towards other men then its implicit that there isn't sexual equality in the picture since you have just valued one type of gender based violence as less severe than another. If we used my draft example, men are objectified because they are men, IE because of their gender the source of it does not matter.

Oppression and violence can never be stopped, it has to die by itself, because if it does not it will simply live on within people. The funny thing is that historically when one kind of violence and oppression ends, a new one takes over. The feminist movement has through using the same means as the "patriarchy" began the journey towards the oppression of people who disagree with feminism. If we look at men's health issues, this article in The Guardian is interesting http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2001/jan/08/health female specific problems get more money than male specific problems.

When it comes to rape as a weapon, this is used against both genders and I suppose it should be added that men die a lot more in war than women do. Regardless of this, the world is obsessed with the suffering of females and children in war, but do not really give a crap about how many men die. It's this "everything is worse if it happens to a female" perspective that give the impression that feminists are living within a bubble where regardless of the act itself its always worse when it happens to a woman.

It's so naive it makes me want to laugh out loud when someone asserts that oppression and violence can be stopped, because until we evolve a few steps further ahead our lowly origin is still largely in control.

As Orwell said "You don't establish a dictatorship to protect the revolution, you enact the revolution to establish the dictatorship."

Now, the problem with "sexual inequality" is that by definition this has come to mean "feminism" this from the get go defines women as the ones who do not have equality and men as the group that oppresses females. The group is implicitly anti-male and pro-female, whereas the logical approach is "similar but different". For everything that happens to a woman, there is an equivalent but different thing that happens to a male.

Perhaps you should look into how to debate something, because belittling your opponent by calling them stupid, ignorant and such is exactly why I've grown to despise you as a person. I've tried to keep this discussion civil, tried to edit out the things that could be interpreted as insulting, yet you continue to call me stupid, ignorant, belittling my statements and openly ridiculing me for presenting my point of view on the matter.

I could have called you a naive femi-nazi for thinking that an ideology which is inherently biased towards women as the victims and men as the aggressors can ever result in sexual equality when the primary result is the alienation of large parts of men. I could have been very hostile towards you at many points during this discussion but I have consciously elected not to do so, because in order to help you see what my point of view is, alienating you is counterproductive. I could call you and many of your fellow feminists moronic, idiotic, blind to human nature and a lot of other things due to the preceding points but I didn't because I'm genuinely interested in finding common ground.

I had hoped that this common ground would be an understanding that violence, oppression and so on is something that happens to both genders and is equally severe regardless of the causality. I suppose my core issue is that feminism is like religion, the person who adheres to the ideology is so convinced that they are the holder of absolute truth and thus justified in doing whatever it takes to uphold and realize the goals of their ideology.

Last edited by TM on 06 Apr 2012, 11:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

Question for ValWig: Are all men who are not feminists misogynists?

I mean, you fully agreed with the quote that says all male babies are the future abusers of women, so it's a much shorter leap to say all non-feminist men are misogynists. I mean, isn't it a horrible, horrible, horrible thing to you when a man declines to become a feminist? Doesn't it mean he hates women? Isn't that the only explanation, as far as your thinking is concerned.

Dang, I guess since I'm a male, I might as well go abuse some women, because, after all, that feminist I quoted says woman-abuse is in my future because I'm male. I mean, men who believe her might decide it's not even wrong to abuse women, but rather just their destiny as men. Do you see how damaging such a quote can be? Why would a man bother behaving civilly toward women his whole life if he will always be branded an abuser regardless of his behavior? I mean, it's like if I were fined for speeding before I sped, fined in preparation for when I speed. Ya, that's pretty f'd up isn't it? I mean, maybe if you feminists call enough innocent men "abusers" enough times, that will eventually sink into some of their heads by sheer repetition, and they'll actually fulfill your diagnosis and become abusers of women. Oh, but then that just helps to feed the feminist line -- by creating more female victims, just like PETA kills certain animals in mass slaughter to save others, and Rev Jackson constantly race-baits in order to fight racism.

we are all different.

i don't speak for all women either. you were trying to force me into a corner to make generalisations, but i didn't do that.

thank you for apologising. that wasn't the only comment you were warned for, though.

actually, no. i sent you a PM. i see on that thread you resurrected that you were complaining about the same kind of persecution 4 years ago from other moderators. this should indicate something to you.

oops i made a mistake and warned a couple of feminists in this thread too (and removed a few of their posts).

Last edited by hyperlexian on 06 Apr 2012, 12:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

As always I whole heartedly agree with TM!

And here is scientific study on differences of male and female brains
10 Big Differences Between Men's And Woman's Brain By Amber Hensley

that study looks at average differences, but individual humans are not averages.

you didn't respond to my post or to DW_A_Mom's post, Mirror.

Accidently spanked some feminists too, eh?