Author Topic: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!  (Read 65451 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Lee Li

  • Libertarian Socialist
  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 183
  • Respect: +2
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #90 on: June 09, 2014, 05:59:17 PM »
0
Quote from: Omega
Ideally there should be no MRA or feminism, because if you are about equality your movement title cannot be gender specific.

In an ideal world, we wouldn't need any of these civil rights movements, because people would simply treat others fairly. We do not live in such a world.

Actually, the movement can be gender specific. And it should. And there should be special interest groups (in the general meaning of the phrase) because an overarching group by the name 'egalitarianism' is too broad to address every issue in detail.


Quote from: Omega
Your claims that feminism is about egalitarianism is just exactly ridiculous as saying that white supremacists are interested in equality of all races.

White supremacists are not interested in equality. Feminists are. Got it?


Quote
If you make group specific title you immediately declare that you will pursue interests of that specific group against interests of everyone else.

It means that you will pursue interests of that specific group, but no more than that, not what you are implying. It does not mean that the group seeks world domination or to oppress. It all depends on the specific goals of that group.

I think you guys should stop saying you object to 'feminism' and say instead that you object to misandry. I think it is right to denounce misandry, so do it, and in doing that it will be a win for men's and women's political rights, culture, health, and so on. We will all be closer to equality.

We keep going in circles though because we just don't agree on the definition of feminism.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2014, 06:04:07 PM by Lee Li »
Keep Calm And Disobey

QuestEon

  • Just some guy with a blog.
  • Administrator
  • FDR Wizard
  • *****
  • Posts: 868
  • What's your opinion? I'd love to hear it!
  • Respect: +463
    • FDR Liberated
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #91 on: June 09, 2014, 06:25:36 PM »
0
We keep going in circles though because we just don't agree on the definition of feminism.

This.
It isn't about winning the debate. It's about the truth.

Omega

  • Banned
  • FDR Authority
  • *
  • Posts: 374
  • Respect: 0
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #92 on: June 09, 2014, 07:14:21 PM »
0
Quote
In an ideal world, we wouldn't need any of these civil rights movements, because people would simply treat others fairly. We do not live in such a world.
gender specific interest group is not same as civil rights movement.
and that fair treatment is quite different from your and my perspective.

Quote
Actually, the movement can be gender specific. And it should. And there should be special interest groups (in the general meaning of the phrase) because an overarching group by the name 'egalitarianism' is too broad to address every issue in detail.

Nobody denies you rights to defend your interests, however why do you make claims that feminism is about rights of everyone when it is specifically about rights of women and you admit it?
In that case men need their own group to protect their rights against feminism.


Quote
White supremacists are not interested in equality. Feminists are. Got it?
sorry, you cannot be interested in equality, if you only care about rights of certain group, by definition. It is like attempt to draw square with 3 angles.

Quote
It means that you will pursue interests of that specific group, but no more than that, not what you are implying. It does not mean that the group seeks world domination or to oppress. It all depends on the specific goals of that group.
I am not implying anything besides fact that feminist are about interests of women.
whether it seeks word domination or not, depends on what are those interests and they can change over time. Also it depends on how do you define "world domination".

I Want to clarify to what equality you actually refer:
there are 2 equalities: equal opportunities for everyone or equal living quality for everyone.
So which one you are advocating?
I guess you are one who confuse feminism with socialism, because if you are fighting for equal living quality for everyone  that is socialism.
Socialism may be nice, but do not forget that it failed everywhere so far.

Lee Li

  • Libertarian Socialist
  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 183
  • Respect: +2
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #93 on: June 09, 2014, 09:00:44 PM »
0
Equal opportunities for everyone is what I am speaking about. We don't need to talk about socialism, not every feminist is a socialist.

But first thing's first -- until we can agree on the definition of feminism, we will get nowhere. And then if each party agrees that equality is the shared goal, then we can debate what it means to have equality. I don't want to start talking about it and then have one of you fall back to the comparison of feminism to terrorism or whatever.

Quote
sorry, you cannot be interested in equality, if you only care about rights of certain group, by definition.
Everyone has their pet theories, some have multiple. They are not mutually exclusive.

Quote
In that case men need their own group to protect their rights against feminism misandry.
Corrected for you.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2014, 09:06:55 PM by Lee Li »
Keep Calm And Disobey

ZetaMan

  • The Master Debator and Cunning Linguist
  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
  • Respect: 0
    • Eclectic Vibrations Radio
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #94 on: June 09, 2014, 09:54:48 PM »
0
To everyone except Lee Li and Omega: Please allow space for us to have this dialogue and don't get cagey because this process is an inconvenience of some indefinable dimension. We're not taking up physical space, and this is a NEW ISSUE that needs to be massaged out.

Cheers


Lee Li:
I've been pondering over your attachment to the word "Feminist", and while reading through the comments on a Youtube video about a radical feminist who was making a ridiculous argument that all sex is RAPE, I came across this brilliant comment that deserves some digesting:
Quote
The most worrying thing about feminists like Andrea Dworkin and Radical Wind et al is not the extreme feminists themselves as bad as they are but the fact that almost all other feminists keep quiet about their ugly sisters. There seems to be an Honour among thieves" code operating. More moderate feminists will be busy apologising for them with "not all feminists are like that" instead of countering those feminists who are like that

by Coweatsman

Even if you aren't in one of the many distasteful and GENOCIDAL sub-categories of Feminism, you are complicit in them for not making any meaningful attempts to hold your fellow Feminists accountable. The MRA polices itself constantly despite it only being a few years old - so why can't Feminism?
If you aren't up to the task, please abandon this terminology completely. Not only for my sake and (in my opinion) the world's sake, but for your own as well. Feminism is very quickly becoming a dirty word outside of the walls of the outposts of intellectual supremacy (AKA College Campuses) where all the real people live.
Exemplified by the following Youtube comment, made in reply to the excellent comment above:

Quote
Well Feminism is more importantly something that the individual woman does for herself these days, by standing up for her own respect when disrespected.  Feminism itself may have come into being in order to fright cultural issues that were pervasive, but it was always a gender bias focused movement.  I don't have a problem with women working together on fighting misogyny against women, but I would prefer to see a more individual responsibility focused movement.  One that focuses on woman standing up for themselves in individual instances today, rather than a movement doing so for them through hard line anti male narratives.  One that  realistic highlights the current day problems facing young boys and men along side of their main focus of championing respect and rights for women. 

That would be the movement no one would bother fighting with and it would be hip with the times and how they have indeed changed quite a lot from the old days.  Either Feminism needs to do what I just said or even the "moderates" are just going to be seen more and more as members of a movement focused only on women and not on being a helpful cooperator with others in society to address other current issues.  The truth is that most people are coming to feel Feminism had it's purpose and now is past it's time of relevance enough to remain around.  Most people just want women to work and fight for respect and whatever else that their is left to achieve in for women in the improved society that we now have today, rather than run heavy footed movement.  Women are Female and so a woman standing up for herself is "Feminism" to me, not some monolithic organization.

by CyberSpaceman81

The Youtube video in question is VERY funny:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGMRd16Izko

This is Karen Straughan's answer to the claim that "Not All Feminists Are Like That":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQWoNhrY_fM
« Last Edit: June 09, 2014, 10:01:49 PM by ZetaMan »
"Suppose they had a gender war, and men showed up"
- Paul Elam

Lee Li

  • Libertarian Socialist
  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 183
  • Respect: +2
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #95 on: June 10, 2014, 02:54:27 AM »
0
Quote
Even if you aren't in one of the many distasteful and GENOCIDAL sub-categories of Feminism, you are complicit in them for not making any meaningful attempts to hold your fellow Feminists accountable.

I think they should be called out but I don't know anyone who is so delusional. If I come across someone who is saying f*cked up stuff, I will call them on it, and also anybody who know but didn't say. But just realize that I don't spend much of my time on activism, in any meaningful sense, because my time is sadly consumed almost entirely by trying to make a livable income. Of course I would love to spend more time on this and other things. But the reality is I just do my very small part. Anyway...

Obviously "all sex is rape" is a disassociation from reality, and I think one might be able to make the case that it's a response to improperly processed trauma. But that's just my musing.

I don't comprehend your insistence that I drop the word feminism. I never asked you to drop your label. Look, there you go again, with the splitting and tribalism. Your movement is all good; my movement is all bad. Would you drop your label if there were actual sexists or misogynists on your team? No, you would correct them: therefore, the proportional action is to correct.

Feminism was a dirty word before the MRM even existed, and that's always the case for those who don't know what it is. Let me give you an analogy. In the USA, George Bush talked all about democracy and freedom, but I'm pretty sure he didn't act in line with that because he's a freaking war criminal. That doesn't necessarily make those things bad, because of his use and manipulation of them.

I'd like to get into more complex discussion about the false rape allegations, analysis of gender, rape in the law books, and other things. But, I'm still getting the sense that this is a poo-flinging contest. It was fun, but I'm getting tired of being on the defensive, and not sure how long it will be before I stop posting.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2014, 02:56:43 AM by Lee Li »
Keep Calm And Disobey

Omega

  • Banned
  • FDR Authority
  • *
  • Posts: 374
  • Respect: 0
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #96 on: June 10, 2014, 07:57:54 AM »
0
Equal opportunities for everyone is what I am speaking about. We don't need to talk about socialism, not every feminist is a socialist.
According to what you said earlier i doubt if it is true.
equal opportunities means that everyone gets same treatment under the law what is definitely not goal of feminism.

Quote
But first thing's first -- until we can agree on the definition of feminism, we will get nowhere. And then if each party agrees that equality is the shared goal, then we can debate what it means to have equality. I don't want to start talking about it and then have one of you fall back to the comparison of feminism to terrorism or whatever.

I think we all know its definition: it is womnen's rights movement which is fighting for more rights for women.
If you disagree you are free to tell what you think and we will check how many people agree to your definition
terrorism and misandry and everything else are just methods used to  achieve this goal.

Quote
Everyone has their pet theories, some have multiple. They are not mutually exclusive.
sorry this is not about per theory, it is just logic, and you admitted it yourself that it is about women issues. It does not matter if it is mutually excursive or not the fact is that feminism does not care about anything else.


Quote
Corrected for you.
do not correct me when I already described what I mean.
It has nothing to do with misandry it is about prioritizing women over everything else.

ZetaMan

  • The Master Debator and Cunning Linguist
  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
  • Respect: 0
    • Eclectic Vibrations Radio
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #97 on: June 10, 2014, 10:42:29 AM »
0
Lee Li:
Surely you can spare us 20 minutes to digest Karen Straughan's demonstration that indeed "all Feminists are like that". There's a certain set of consensus beliefs that are institutionalized in higher learning and lobby groups - please call out these groups in defense of Egalitarianism or drop the label Feminism.

If you don't have the time to do this, then you don't have the time to call yourself a Feminist either.

I'll drop my MRA title and ally myself with female interests (like the second quoted Youtube comment calls for) when people like you begin to dismantle these State-funded special interest and lobby groups... you know... the ones you continually fail to learn about.
But you won't, because these groups are based on Patriarchy Theory - and why would you want to do that?
"Suppose they had a gender war, and men showed up"
- Paul Elam

Lee Li

  • Libertarian Socialist
  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 183
  • Respect: +2
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #98 on: June 11, 2014, 12:18:03 AM »
0
Yes, Zetaman. It is important for feminists who see misandry to call out their comrade's hypocrisy. Feminists would be doing no favors to themselves by being motivated to take revenge, especially when that results in misandry and sexism.

I propose a solution insofar as the lobbyists go: take money out of politics. Of course, that's just my idea.
Keep Calm And Disobey

Lee Li

  • Libertarian Socialist
  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 183
  • Respect: +2
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #99 on: June 11, 2014, 12:55:28 AM »
0
Omega,

Being called “Feminism” and representing primarily women does not make Feminism inherently a movement of “supremacy“. Movements which are specific to certain demographics are not innately supremacy movements. Feminism is a solution for women. The Men’s Rights movement is a solution for men. LGBT movement helps queer people. Civil rights groups for blacks operate to help blacks, and so on.

It would be nice if everyone got together and called themselves egalitarian or humanist, but such an alliance does not allow people to specialize. We do see certain alliances, often in the political left wing, for these groups. As long as they have similar aims, then the specialized groups coexist as branches under a larger whole. I think that is natural. And the groups can then get the added benefit of drawing from each other's momentum. It is also not uncommon for a person to be a combination of things, like feminist + antiracist + queer rights and whatever else they may want.

Case in point, it took me only a quick search to find that there are people who are both MRA and feminist. And this person does too. And while there are people who disagree with that, if what both sides want is to be treated to about the same standards and have the same opportunities and responsibilities in law, culture, and the economy, then logically, their aims are truly aligned under the larger battle against gender discrimination. As long as neither side wishes to make the other side 2nd class citizens, this is applicable.
Keep Calm And Disobey

Omega

  • Banned
  • FDR Authority
  • *
  • Posts: 374
  • Respect: 0
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #100 on: June 11, 2014, 08:34:18 AM »
0
I think logic is inconceivable for you:
IT has nothing to do with supremacy. It is simple logic that if feminism is about women issues it is not about equality by definition.
If you are fighting for equality you cannot specialize on any group because this is against logic.

It is not about help either because it is not some charity organization which provides help for women in need feminism is fighting for more rights.


I think we all agree that feminism was justified i times when women were really denied lots of rights comparing to men and they fought and won.
Now, women have all rights that men have and much more.  Gender discrimination is inverted and men are being discriminated against women so MRA organization is doing same as feminism did one age ago.  Just like we had patriarchy now we have "feninarchy" and men have to fight against it for their rights.

LoverofFDRAddict

  • Guest
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #101 on: June 11, 2014, 10:31:44 AM »
0
I haven't read the whole thread but I just wanted to quickly put in my $0.02, so sorry if I'm missing points made.  I think the crazy feminists who want to get rid of men or think all penis vagina sex is rape or want to take away the rights of men are either idiots and lesbians and/or probably damaged from abuse or something.  I don't know how anyone could be like that.  And it makes me sick that some women lie about rape because they are screwing over all real rape victims by doing that and they should be punished.

However, if you think we are treated equally now, you have never been a woman in physics.  One of my colleagues who is only a few years older than me was told by a physics professor at Stanford when she started grad school that she didn't belong there because she is a woman.  She was also told by the chair of her department when she was a tenure track faculty at a small college that she'd better not get pregnant or she would never get tenure.  No man would be told not to have children if he wanted to get tenure.  Another prof at my grad institution discriminated against women in his group in many ways, but the most clear way was that he would cut off the funding of the female grad students during the time when they were writing their theses whereas he never did that to any of the men.  (Please don't focus on the fact that many on here wouldn't think they should have $ in any case because I'm focussed on the equality issue not the fact that grant money is stolen from others in the first place.)  These women are all successful postdocs or research scientists now so I know it wasn't because they weren't good grad students.  Luckily I left the group before that because of his other terrible behavior so I didn't get that "special" treatment.

One thing that makes equality hard is that we will never be equal because women give birth, breast feed, and have monthly cycles.  If we want to continue the human race AND reach equality, those things need to not be issues that cause our careers to be destroyed.  Or do we just want the ambition-less women to be the only ones procreating?  That doesn't sound like a good idea for us in the long term, I'm just saying.  Just watch the movie Idiocracy and you will get my drift.

I actually feel sorry for men in a lot of ways because the way they are socialized makes it harder for them to be emotionally open and that leads to less connected relationships, which to me are the whole darn reason life is worth living.  I know this is a generalization but I think it's part of why this FDR BS is so appealing to some young men.  Cutting yourself off from the people who will love me unconditionally seems like the most stupid thing ever, though of course if I had been abused I would feel differently.  That's what makes me the most sad about my boyfriend's transition; he is cutting himself off from the love in the world, which is a huge part of what makes us human.  For goodness sakes it is hypothesized that is why we have the big brains that allow these FDR cultists to think about all these philosophical ideas.  http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_evolution/2012/10/human_brain_size_social_groups_led_to_the_evolution_of_large_brains.html

Women and men are different in some ways but similar in many many more so why can't we all just get along?  Too many people have too much hurt inside and lash out at each other instead of dealing with what is going on inside.  I think that is true of some feminists and some MRA dudes.  Maybe it is true that we should re-name the equality movement to something more equal and we can all work together instead of fighting.

Omega

  • Banned
  • FDR Authority
  • *
  • Posts: 374
  • Respect: 0
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #102 on: June 11, 2014, 11:14:28 AM »
0
Quote
One thing that makes equality hard is that we will never be equal because women give birth, breast feed, and have monthly cycles.

Your concept of equality is wrong itself.  It is exactly form of discrimination if you provide some benefits for people with monthly cycle. It will be same as discriminating because of certain skin color. What you say is basically I have vagina so I deserve special treatment.


Quote
Or do we just want the ambition-less women to be the only ones procreating?
this is exactly same for men.
only ambition less people procreate regardless of gender.
It is just impossible for anyone with decent ambitions to even want kids, because they put end to everything.

some men can marry ambition-less woman and dump all child bearing on her alone.
or alternatively ambitions woman can marry ambition-less man and dump her children on him.
But because of discriminatory laws that demand benefits for women those ambitious women are avoided and this will not change ever.

If I employ someone I will not bother with people who are going to cause my problems. If I employ you I expect you o work not take care of your children or anything else.
So this is not discrimination this is your personal choice to raise kids instead of seeking carrier.

Quote
Women and men are different in some ways but similar in many many more so why can't we all just get along?
everyone is different, however generally we asume some traits to be feminine and some masculine. It does not mean that all men must be masculine and all women feminine, however it is not really possible to coexist 2 of same type in one family because if 2 feminine people will make family it will be incapable to solve problems and 2 masculine people will rip each other throats. same is valid for gays and lesbians, 2 masculine gays will not be able to live together.

feminists are trying to turn all people into females because they hate masculinity,  traditionalists demand that gender must be defined biologically while we should allow everyone to chose their own desired gender.




ZetaMan

  • The Master Debator and Cunning Linguist
  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
  • Respect: 0
    • Eclectic Vibrations Radio
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #103 on: June 11, 2014, 12:22:13 PM »
0
I haven't read the whole thread but I just wanted to quickly put in my $0.02.

Thank you for weighing in.

The problem lies in not understanding that gender differences go beyond womens' complex reproductive organs. I believe when an individual grasps that, he or she learns that mens' rights and integrity do have to be compromised for this equality.
As a quick example: The alleged wage/salary disparity of 79 cent on the Dollar is the result of bad (or perverse) statistic calculations. The missing 21 cent is from menstrual-related and pregnancy/child rearing time taken off work. This is easily demonstrated by the question of why corporations around the world aren't hiring exclusively (or preferably) women since their labour is so cheap. So, in order to amend this perceived disparity, men must suffer for showing up to work more often and not having health complications as an excuse. But I hear the science is in that Man Flu is a real thing, so maybe we can start using that to get paid and unpaid leave.

It is a sad fact for some that a career is sabotaged by reproduction. But only for some. I would suggest if you want to be a CEO or a physicist you have your womb removed or do as my aunt did and get one of those coils to prevent sperm making their journey. It's just how it is.
Most people are perfectly fine with either taking 3+ years out of work or not having children at all.

As for the suggestion that only ambition-less women having babies would be a bad thing, relax. It doesn't actually work that way. Genetic diversity is more forgiving. Idiocracy still has a point, though. Reckless, stupid, and uneducated people are having the increasing majority of the children. But as the narrative of history continues, the lowest common denominator's intelligence is rising.

This guy entrenched in this institution sounds like a real prick. But that's all he is. It's not institutionalized sexism. We have to realise there's a difference and that WE CANNOT LEGISLATE AGAINST INDIVIDUAL INSTANCES OF PREJUDICE if we want to live in a Minarchist or Libertarian world.
On the other side of the coin: My mother worked for Boston Scientific. She gave them 7 years of her life. She rose up through the ranks and eventually got a desk job. She lost that job due to incompetence which broke both our hearts. However, my (minor) sister fell ill. She experienced mental difficulties. Boston Scientific, being the grand corporation it is, allowed her 2 years paid leave. She continued on paid leave for 4 years on the kindness of an unknown individual who turned a blind eye to the situation. Even after losing her pay, she still receives bonuses and gifts.
Positive discrimination.
The MRM fears (and we have to science to prove our fears worthy) that positive discrimination towards females is not going to end with some legislation. It is literally encoded into our genetics and, some would argue, arose through Evolutionary Psychology. The MRM, MGTOW, and related movements accepts this as a fact of life and feel the only answer to it is educating men on how that dynamic works. This is an inescapable reality. I know it might be hard for you and most women to swallow that there are some things you're stuck with and some things you can never have - but I often dream of flying and consider it an offence to my dignity as a Spiritual being that society has prohibited me from having wings..... sarcasm, if you didn't pick up on it.
"Suppose they had a gender war, and men showed up"
- Paul Elam

Prodigal son

  • Guest
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #104 on: June 11, 2014, 02:47:07 PM »
0
I haven't read the whole thread ...


I suspect you are not in a minority here or maybe it's just me being lazy as usual.

Maybe it is true that we should re-name the equality movement to something more equal and we can all work together instead of fighting.


I'll second that proposal, not so much the renaming because naming things consciously in a way that satisfies all interested parties seems to be so extremely difficult that even our good friend MMD wasn't able to make much headway (although he did manage, in his scientific estimation, to stop one child being abused in the process so perhaps all is not lost).

I watched another video by our Mancunian (I think) friend that seems to me to be relevant to the development of this thread, although it's not hard on-topic.
I find it refreshing to see psychology being addressed in such a positive and constructive manner. How different is this fellow, who freely and even apologetically states his prejudices/position without requiring it to be universally accepted, from Molyneux, who sits on an imaginary throne and passes down rulings.