4 ms·

It's because feminism is a self-serving ideology. They are not trying to clarify or resolve anything, they are trying to turn more people into believers of the

It's because feminism is a self-serving ideology. They are not trying to clarify or resolve anything, they are trying to turn more people into believers of the ideology. And it won't change, because feminism itself is an expression of female privilege. Stories about rape of women will always have more pull than stories about men being killed. Feminism has found these psychological loopholes (like more empathy for/willingness to help women) and is exploiting them as much as they can. A man who is being killed was simply too weak and has rightfully been weeded out of the gene pool. Women do always have to be protected and are always victims. That is how society secretly feels. The rest is just confirmation bias.

placebo 10y ago
I take feminism to be a healthy reaction to a historical warped perception of women that created unjust conditions and treatment. As with every ideology, it holds the unfortunate risk of some losing the big picture and eventually taking the means to be the end. This does not mean that the end is not a worthy cause.
- facepalm 10y ago
  Well you believe the premise of the ideology, so you are a part of it. Unsurprising that you think it is useful, that is what it claims.
  - Thiez 10y ago
    If the premise is that there was a > historical warped perception of women that created unjust conditions and treatment then I'd like to see you argue against that premise. Let's take a very specific instance: voting. Historically there have been many countries where men were allowed to vote before women were allowed to vote. Do you think men being allowed to vote, while women are not, is: a) A clever lie in our history books, where men were allowed to vote, women were also allowed to vote b) Not unjust
    - facepalm 10y ago
      The common argument seems to be that men got to vote because they also were the ones who had to go to war (which would be started by the elected government). While you don't have to accept the argument (and in fact history has rejected it), I'd say it also isn't completely without merit. (A counter to this would be to say "but women weren't even allowed to go to war" - true, but again it is debatable who had the shorter end of the stick there. And maybe women at war simply wasn't practical, given the nature of warfare in the past). Besides, there were not really that many years when only men were allowed to vote. For most of history, neither men nor women were allowed to vote. In general, I think a lot of care should be applied when comparing the situation of men and women in the past to the situation today. The demands on people were very different, for example there weren't that many office jobs to go around that were equally suitable for men and women. Edit: of course picking isolated examples where women are seemingly worse off than men is also a trusted and tried feminist strategy. What if overall there are some metrics where men are better off, and some where women are better off? How do you compare? Of course you apply feminist values and rank the metrics where men are better off as much more important than the metrics where women are better off. That is, for example, why I claim feminism despises motherhood, it is at the very least ranked very low in their value system. The misleading gender pay gap is ranked very highly in the feminist world view, whereas you hardly hear about men missing out of time spent with their kids and family. Spending time with kids is valued with factor 0 in the feminist world view. Or even just spare time - what matters is that men get to work more!
      - placebo 10y ago
        >Well you believe the premise of the ideology, so you are a part of it. Unsurprising that you think it is useful, that is what it claims. You believe in the premise of your claims so you are part of them - unsurprising you think they are true... :-) No - the only premise and "ideology" I believe in is that truth should be sought after, suffering should be minimised and happiness should be maximized. I find all other ideologies to be just various attempts to implement this base ideology from different contexts, and granted, not all them are perfect for achieving this. Sometimes, they even achieve the opposite. You might be surprised to know that there are plenty of things in the way feminism is sometimes interpreted that rub me the wrong way (you even mentioned some of them), but I think you're confusing the implementation with the goal. Feminism is defined as "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men". This doesn't mean that women should be men. All it means to me is that if any woman as an individual is capable and interested in doing a "man's job" she should have an equal opportunity to do so and receive an equal compensation. Do you really have an issue with that?
- Veen 10y ago
  It's a disruptive ideology that is intrinsically polarizing, especially when identity politics is introduced. If you take the short view, it's good for some, and bad for some, and some people will opportunistically use the ideology in self-serving ways. If you take the long view, the "fashionable" parts of identity politics will fall away: the various shills, exploiters, and self-serving loud-mouths will begin to be ignored except among a hardcore cadre. But the status quo will have shifted to a situation that's more equitable for men and women. Polarization and disruption are unpleasant while they're happening, but generally things swing back towards the middle, except that the middle will have moved slightly in a good direction (hopefullY).
retrogradeorbit 10y ago
Forget about men being killed, what about men being raped? Or abused? Or mutilated? This is met with raucous laughter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKgwczruOSQ#t=40s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKgwczruOSQ#t=40s Now imagine that with the sexes reversed?

placebo 10y ago

I take feminism to be a healthy reaction to a historical warped perception of women that created unjust conditions and treatment. As with every ideology, it holds the unfortunate risk of some losing the big picture and eventually taking the means to be the end. This does not mean that the end is not a worthy cause.

facepalm 10y ago
Well you believe the premise of the ideology, so you are a part of it. Unsurprising that you think it is useful, that is what it claims.
- Thiez 10y ago
  If the premise is that there was a > historical warped perception of women that created unjust conditions and treatment then I'd like to see you argue against that premise. Let's take a very specific instance: voting. Historically there have been many countries where men were allowed to vote before women were allowed to vote. Do you think men being allowed to vote, while women are not, is: a) A clever lie in our history books, where men were allowed to vote, women were also allowed to vote b) Not unjust
  - facepalm 10y ago
    The common argument seems to be that men got to vote because they also were the ones who had to go to war (which would be started by the elected government). While you don't have to accept the argument (and in fact history has rejected it), I'd say it also isn't completely without merit. (A counter to this would be to say "but women weren't even allowed to go to war" - true, but again it is debatable who had the shorter end of the stick there. And maybe women at war simply wasn't practical, given the nature of warfare in the past). Besides, there were not really that many years when only men were allowed to vote. For most of history, neither men nor women were allowed to vote. In general, I think a lot of care should be applied when comparing the situation of men and women in the past to the situation today. The demands on people were very different, for example there weren't that many office jobs to go around that were equally suitable for men and women. Edit: of course picking isolated examples where women are seemingly worse off than men is also a trusted and tried feminist strategy. What if overall there are some metrics where men are better off, and some where women are better off? How do you compare? Of course you apply feminist values and rank the metrics where men are better off as much more important than the metrics where women are better off. That is, for example, why I claim feminism despises motherhood, it is at the very least ranked very low in their value system. The misleading gender pay gap is ranked very highly in the feminist world view, whereas you hardly hear about men missing out of time spent with their kids and family. Spending time with kids is valued with factor 0 in the feminist world view. Or even just spare time - what matters is that men get to work more!
    - placebo 10y ago
      >Well you believe the premise of the ideology, so you are a part of it. Unsurprising that you think it is useful, that is what it claims. You believe in the premise of your claims so you are part of them - unsurprising you think they are true... :-) No - the only premise and "ideology" I believe in is that truth should be sought after, suffering should be minimised and happiness should be maximized. I find all other ideologies to be just various attempts to implement this base ideology from different contexts, and granted, not all them are perfect for achieving this. Sometimes, they even achieve the opposite. You might be surprised to know that there are plenty of things in the way feminism is sometimes interpreted that rub me the wrong way (you even mentioned some of them), but I think you're confusing the implementation with the goal. Feminism is defined as "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men". This doesn't mean that women should be men. All it means to me is that if any woman as an individual is capable and interested in doing a "man's job" she should have an equal opportunity to do so and receive an equal compensation. Do you really have an issue with that?
Veen 10y ago
It's a disruptive ideology that is intrinsically polarizing, especially when identity politics is introduced. If you take the short view, it's good for some, and bad for some, and some people will opportunistically use the ideology in self-serving ways. If you take the long view, the "fashionable" parts of identity politics will fall away: the various shills, exploiters, and self-serving loud-mouths will begin to be ignored except among a hardcore cadre. But the status quo will have shifted to a situation that's more equitable for men and women. Polarization and disruption are unpleasant while they're happening, but generally things swing back towards the middle, except that the middle will have moved slightly in a good direction (hopefullY).

retrogradeorbit 10y ago

Forget about men being killed, what about men being raped? Or abused? Or mutilated? This is met with raucous laughter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKgwczruOSQ#t=40s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKgwczruOSQ#t=40s Now imagine that with the sexes reversed?