Philosophical Vegan Forum

Quote:
"Popular Feminists who are against equality aren't actually feminists, but Poes who are sexist men dressing as women who have infiltrated the feminist movement to discredit it. True feminists are for equality, nothing more, and those men who are posing as feminists such as _____, _____, and _____ should be arrested for fraud and sent to prison to rot."

Thats not entirely true! Even Wikipedia says, that feminists ONLY focus on women rights!
THATS WHAT THE TERM IS ALL ABOUT! THAT is why its called FEMINIST not equivalist! or human rights activist!
I think here are some rational and some... not so rational beeings. But on one thing we HAVE to all agree, because its the definition of the term! if you say, thats not what you stand for you are not a feminist!
Again:
"Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending a state of equal political, economic, cultural, and social rights for women.[1][2] This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist advocates or supports the rights and equality of women."

NOT EQUAL RIGHTS!!! Its really bugging me, that every feminist just wants to be a feminist, without knowing what the term stands for! just because they are women.

Viktorius_the_Third wrote: Thats not entirely true!

I think you have misunderstood my post.

Viktorius_the_Third wrote: Even Wikipedia says, that feminists ONLY focus on women rights!
THATS WHAT THE TERM IS ALL ABOUT! THAT is why its called FEMINIST not equivalist! or human rights activist!

Simmer down there.

Feminism focuses on bringing the rights and opportunities for women UP to those of men, where men's rights are higher.
They don't focus on the injustice men suffer, but that doesn't mean they don't care about it.

Just as veganism focuses on abuses of non-human animals. That doesn't mean vegans don't care about war or political corruption- that's just not what veganism is about.

You're making the same fallacy that the worst of the feminists make when they attack Men's Rights Activists.

From a man or a woman's perspective, different injustices and inequalities can be observed.

We can bring the rights of women up to those of men with feminism.
And we can bring the rights of men up to those of women with men's rights activism.

Combining the two is equalism.
And that's fine too, but equalism is limited.

Do you understand the problems with equalism that Feminism and MRA solves? I have explained this in prior posts in this thread.

There are some differences of opinion there on what equality means that can not strictly be resolved with a single party system. Each sex needs advocacy on its behalf in that regard. That doesn't mean that advocacy is against equality.

Viktorius_the_Third wrote: But on one thing we HAVE to all agree, because its the definition of the term! if you say, thats not what you stand for you are not a feminist!
Again:
"Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending a state of equal political, economic, cultural, and social rights for women.[1][2] This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist advocates or supports the rights and equality of women."

You are not correctly understanding the definition.

In order to read that definition to be against equality you must be doing some very impressive mental gymnastics, as far as your biases go.

Viktorius_the_Third wrote: NOT EQUAL RIGHTS!!! Its really bugging me, that every feminist just wants to be a feminist, without knowing what the term stands for! just because they are women.

Feminists advocate for equal rights for women. MRAs advocate for equal rights for men.

They are not inherently against each other except for where strictly "equal" rights are actually impossible due to biological differences, and what is effectively "equal" becomes a matter of subjectivity. In this case, an adversarial arrangement of activism and lobbying is needed.
"Equalism" is inadequate in that regard, and doesn't solve the problem or encourage functional equality.

I can try to explain it in a different way for you, but if you still choose to not understand that, I may not be nice.

"Feminism focuses on bringing the rights and opportunities for women UP to those of men, where men's rights are higher.
They don't focus on the injustice men suffer, but that doesn't mean they don't care about it."

I do not know, in which 3rd world country you live in. And i'm sorry for misgudging you. I am 100% after the feminist right movement in turkye arabia and other countries. But here in germany, women have MORE rights than men in many points!
Most of them are, as you said genderbased preferences (women always gets the kids...) but there are things, that women get just for beeing the "weak" gender! a male rapist is going to be punished far harder than a female rapist!
those are extremes! I know that! But in general every women can get every job they want with nearly as high salery as men (men have been proven to make more money for a company. be it because women can get pregnant or because they get ill faster or whatever! i dont know!)
Of cause there ARE machos out there, that will prefer males! And because many males have high positions its way more likely that there are more male jerks at the top than female jerks. (be honest! both genders have about the same amout of jerks)

So as you hopefully see now, here in germany women have all the rights they could ask for! thats why im getting so angry if i hear women from the US promoting feminism. because i thought they would have at least a bit social systems.
but if i think about it... half the country votes against "obamacare" which says alot about half the country!

Viktorius,

Please go back earlier in this thread and read my first couple replies.

Also, study how the adversarial system works in a criminal trial.

You will begin to understand why Feminism and Men's Rights are BOTH essential movements to human rights, and why they can not be combined under the umbrella of equalism.

It doesn't matter how good women or men have it in a country- Feminism and Men's Rights groups must always exist, and must always fight each other over the most trivial seeming things, to ensure that adversarial system functions to safeguard human rights against the abuses of inequality.

If you promote mens rights you are part of the patriarchy
no but seriously:
you will just get stupid looks if you say you dont want men to be the first to die or whatever.

i dont think so. but thats my opinion. it would be far more effective if humans could just agree on something. but humans are to stupid to do that! i give you that! so maybe you are right... at the moment we need both, no matter how stupid most of them are!

Semantics over the term feminism aside. I've never liked terms that are exclusive to one specific gender (Feminism for women's right, MRA for men's right) it feels like you're only making it an "us vs them" mentality where the gender rights are not mutual.

I think all in all humanism (or personism for the Singer fans out there) is the best way to include the rights of everyone regardless of what they are born as.

Kanade wrote:Semantics over the term feminism aside. I've never liked terms that are exclusive to one specific gender (Feminism for women's right, MRA for men's right) it feels like you're only making it an "us vs them" mentality where the gender rights are not mutual.

The problem is, because of biological differences (and sometimes extreme social differences), they can't always be precisely mutual.

Take abortion, as an example. Who gets to decide that? Do the Mother and Father get an equal say?

The child has half its human genes from each. But it's currently located in the mother's body- an unfortunate biological reality.

What if the father wants to keep the child?
What if the father doesn't want to produce a child from his genes at all?

There's no way to solve this issue that will make the mother and father completely happy when they disagree.

Issues like these are why we need Feminists and MRAs. On these contentious matters, the resolution must be attained by adversarial means.

The vast majority of people should just be equalists, humanists, personists, etc. people who support the work of Feminists and MRAs, and who serve as an impartial Jury through the democratic process and the courts.
But we need representatives from each side, just as courts need the prosecution and the defense- justice in the modern era, where the issue is anything but transparent, requires an adversarial nature to the conversation to strike the right balance and be sure each viewpoint is fully heard.

bobo0100 wrote:

tkks wrote:Just some of the things feminists do:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJeX6F-Q63I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWxAljF ... wCiaqjSulc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peK_5J6QvBQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cyjhbep ... lc&index=8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2KPeMcYsuc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lug2S0HzY40

You have posted links to videos made to debunk the crazy shit that feminist do. No one is saying any of that is good right or pro equality. However your sample is clearly cherry picked.

Well, when I wrote "Just some of the things feminists do" I meant that I will give a list of examples of crazy things feminists do... so I guess yes, it is a cherry picked list of examples. Although, to be honest, I don't think I can find a single example of feminists doing something decent even if I had really, really tried. If you have an example I would be glad to see it.

Why do you let those people represent the movement

I don't, these are the most popular people with huge number of followers, and thus they represent the movement. I didn't choose them feminists did.

when there are perfectly sane rational people whom actually care about equality through the movement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwJRFClybmk

OK, so she lists a few legitimate issues of inequality (along with a bunch of utterly irrelevant stuff), but she doesn't say why she has to be a feminist to address them. What is promoting rape panic in the US has to do with helping child brides in Yemen?

Look, if you want to know why feminism isn't and never was about real equality I would suggest to listen to Some of Karen Straughans videos in her "girl writes what" blog, I would suggest to start from this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZgr6939MPU .
BTW: Keren is one of the best speakers I have seen on Youtube (very logical, very sound arguments), I would recommend listening to some of her videos regardless of whether you agree with her or not.

tkks wrote: OK, so she lists a few legitimate issues of inequality (along with a bunch of utterly irrelevant stuff), but she doesn't say why she has to be a feminist to address them. What is promoting rape panic in the US has to do with helping child brides in Yemen?

i would argue that feminist is defined as someone who advocates and or acts towards equality for women. therefor if you advocate and act towards the end of these issues that you are acting as a feminist. you have admitted that there are real issues regarding the equality of women, and i would agree that not all the issues raised are reliant to the feminist movement. before you go off saying that you should be able to address them as a equalities, if you do so you are massively misunderstanding the set sub-set relationship.

tkks wrote:Look, if you want to know why feminism isn't and never was about real equality I would suggest to listen to Some of Karen Straughans videos in her "girl writes what" blog, I would suggest to start from this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZgr6939MPU .
BTW: Keren is one of the best speakers I have seen on Youtube (very logical, very sound arguments), I would recommend listening to some of her videos regardless of whether you agree with her or not.

i am unable to watch this video as i am currently on a restricted network, i will post a new reply and/or edit this one within a week. if this does not hold true dont threat to pm me regarding it.

Kanade wrote:Semantics over the term feminism aside. I've never liked terms that are exclusive to one specific gender (Feminism for women's right, MRA for men's right) it feels like you're only making it an "us vs them" mentality where the gender rights are not mutual.

I think all in all humanism (or personism for the Singer fans out there) is the best way to include the rights of everyone regardless of what they are born as.

i do not agree. is an animal activist creating an us vs them mentality? of course not. are people who advocated to end slavery creating an us vs them mentality? no. most social justice movements in the last century have taken a name that is reliant to the minority they represent. feminism is no different. if you are arguing that they should fight under the name gender equalities you are misunderstanding a set sub-set relationship.