RE: International Women’s Day! WTF Is It? Why Shouldn’t I Discriminate Women But Can Do That With Others?
Not all women are oppressed and modern feminism is more of overpowering and claiming all men are evil than actual equality.
Nowadays we see violent women (and some men as well) claiming preposterous things like "women can be raped by being looked at for more than 3 seconds" and other nonsense. However, in all those angry riots you never see feminists arguing for fair treatment of women in the Middle East where they're raped and stoned and treated brutally. So feminism is, at best, a hypocrite movement that disingenuously tries to distort the truth while hiding the real issues and in some cases (not so few in today's society) trying to impose a fascist point of view of dominating men and trying to solve the issue by shifting it to the other side extremely
Please show me a single instance of a woman (feminist or otherwise) claiming that women can be raped by being looked at for more than 3 seconds.
Here are some definitions of feminism:
"1. the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes. 2. organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests" - Merriam Webster
"the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes." - Google Dictionary
"The advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes." - Oxford English Dictionary
"advocating social, political, legal, and economic rights for women equal to those of men." - Dictionary.com
"the belief in the social, economic, and political equality of the sexes. Although largely originating in the West, feminism is manifested worldwide and is represented by various institutions committed to activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests." - Britannica
You may notice that every one of these definitions uses some form of the word "equal" in reference to gender. Nothing about this suggests female supremacy or violence toward men. I have been involved in feminist activism for the entire 30 years of my life and not once have I ever encountered a woman who is hateful or violent toward men, and if such a woman exists, she's one in a million and not anyone we would associate with our movement. We do talk about global issues of women's oppression all the time (for instance, literally in the exact comment you replied to). I don't know why anti-feminists are so threatened by us that they insist on coming up with this fiction.
There are several of these over the top crazy women and men who claims themselves feminists and want to be superior to men. I have to admit I don't personally know any of them, most women I know are completely decent and intelligent, I was referring to the stuff you see in the US and Canada and some European countries as well where the feminist movement is now more of supremacy and picking on men, either by belittling them or by demonizing them.
These definitions are to refer to the original movement of feminism for equal rights and so on, I'd say they need to be updated. Why claim yourself feminist? Isn't that just transferring the problem of sexism to the other side, so to speak?
The “fem-“ prefix in “feminism” refers to the fact that we need to uplift women to achieve gender equality. In a similar way, “black lives matter” does not mean “no white lives matter;” it means that black lives are not being treated with equal respect to white lives which matter equally, so we need to talk about respecting black lives. “LGBT rights” does not mean “straight people shouldn’t have rights.”
Still waiting for an example of a woman who says that being looked at for 3 seconds is rape...
Also, you can’t just say that you personally believe a word means something when every authority on the English language agrees that it does not.
If LGBT doesn't mean straights shouldn't have rights then why not LGBTS for instance? Why aim for inclusion of the minority (homosexuals and others) while ostracizing straight people? Moreoever why rotulate people in labels?
And Black Lives Matter only aim is to destroy everything specifically their black neighbourhoods, black stores and rioting against mostly black policemen. The same people who support BLM get outraged by a silly sentence of "it's ok to be white" so not very inclusive there so BLM is more racist than the supposed people they're rioting against.
Language evolves with time, a meaning it had 30 years ago is different from what it is being used nowadays and perhaps the dictionary should change to better reflect the reality of today. Because if machism is sexist then so is feminism
I don’t think that you and I fundamentally agree on the premise of fighting for the rights of oppressed minorities and on that basis this argument probably isn’t going to go anywhere. There’s no reason to fight for rights for straight people in the context of sexual orientation equality or white people in the context of racial discrimination when their rights aren’t an issue in those contexts. You can fight for the rights of white people who are victims of sex trafficking, for instance, because there is an issue there. There are solid rebuttals for everything you said with respect to “black on black crime” but it doesn’t sound like any minds are going to be changed here so probably best that we don’t go further into it.
I never said anything close to that, you just want to distort what I'm saying because you have no logical argument to back you up. It wasn't fighting for rights of straight people but including them instead of ostracizing them in the LGBT stuff that's only identity politics aimed at dividing people further. You still didn't answer as to why LGBT and BLM is so good when they are more destructive and divisive than they are inclusive nor as to why you only hear those kind of protests in the West for things that aren't that important while in South Africa for instance, where whites are being victims of terrible violence everyone keeps their mouth shut because it doesn't fit the narrative that blacks are oppressed and whites are the evil demons.
I have plenty of logical arguments but I’m politely declining to further engage in a pointless back and forth when we’ve both already solidified our beliefs. Personally I find your argumentation offensive and I don’t particularly feel that you’ve considered my points or even really responded to them, but I don’t want to get into a heated argument of ad hominems.
I do believe in fighting for rights of oppressed minorities, never said the contrary. If you have logical arguments to debate me then you should do it, if I'm wrong then I'd like to know that :)
What's exactly offensive about my argumentation?
Why does inclusion of one mean exclusion of another? That's a construct in the minds of the dominant, who will engage in all sorts of mental gymnastics to justify clinging to power.
Also I'm only gonna say this once: You don't want me wading into this debate. It's not a challenge to your precious concept of (toxic) masculinity. Leave that shit in the Stone Age where it belongs.
What do you mean by toxic masculinity? What have I said that was particularly toxic?
And I agree with the first paragraph you said although it seemed like you are arguing against me at that point as well if I understood correctly.
And I'm more than open to debate, I didn't insult you or @malloryblythe but you're saying I'm offensive and toxic when I'm just pointing out stuff I see and hear (like stuff from South Africa which neither you nor her have replied to)
Because straight white Christian males don't have a one-in-four chance of being murdered, a one-in-three chance of being sexually assaulted, and a life expectancy of 40.
Because I have to explain this.
Well they probably do if they live in South Africa, that's what I'm saying, different places, different problems. It's just that it's rare to see that covered in the news. And are you saying that 25% of homosexuals are murdered and 33% of them are raped? Where?! Not saying it's not true, just seems way too much and too shocking to be true, at least in a Western society I presume. And life expectancy of 40 perhaps for transgender people, no?