Feminist Meets Her Enemy
- Thread starter probyn
- Start date
Feminism is the cancer the scourge of society. It has ruined women more than helped them. And sex in the city hasn't helped either. In rich western cultures feminists have lost femininity and are no longer women but men. Look at all the institutions they've ruined such as marriage. Rome after a while decayed. Our civilization is in exponential decay. I feel for the children that have to grow up in this world.
After four minutes of that, turned it off and got to rant.
The real problem of feminism in western society, it will bore people to death!
Guaranteed!
She was talking about how she was waiting, anticipating to get triggered, but she wasn't.
What exactly is that?
Feminism is just a dead end at this point in history.
Feminism is just a tool in the current class struggle of our time.
The intersectionality, that is just united front in class struggle!
Lower taxes! Lower taxes!
reggers:
The real problem of feminism in western society, it will bore people to death!
Guaranteed!
She was talking about how she was waiting, anticipating to get triggered, but she wasn't.
What exactly is that?
Feminism is just a dead end at this point in history.
Feminism is just a tool in the current class struggle of our time.
The intersectionality, that is just united front in class struggle!
Lower taxes! Lower taxes!
reggers:IMO, a "good" feminist tries to attain equality of opportunity. If a woman wants to be a pilot (I use this because of a recent SVU episode), there should be nothing that bars her the opportunity to become one. If she works hard and passes all the requirements, she should be able to become a pilot. She should not face harassment nor be subjected to any discrimination.
IMO, a "bad" feminist tries to attain equality of outcome, especially in areas where it doesn't make sense (Trudeau and his 50/50 cabinet). They focus on a variety of issues that are nonsensical and are not really an issue (national anthem change). They also seem to expect favoritism for women but would be silent if men were discriminated against.
I have mixed feelings about this speaker. She is not the best speaker (almost seems like she's too happy or trying to persuade the audience by being nice/neurotic - maybe awkward/nervous?). But I'll ignore that and concentrate on her content.
I think the first thing she should have acknowledged is that MRA, based on what she encountered, are not the enemy. They are the "enemy" - a group perceived to be enemies based on perception and they are not the enemies of feminists. To me, the enemy of a feminist is a person who blocks the process in some way of achieving equality of opportunity, directly on indirectly.
Some of the examples she discussed (as supplied by the MRA) are stupid - they aren't issues solely because they mostly affect men. For instance, she mentions veteran issues are mostly suffered by men. Last time I checked, the majority of people who enlist are men. If the issues affected mostly females, that would raise suspicions. But mostly men facing an issue where the majority of the group are men? It actually made the MRA group look bad if some of these are the issues they fight for.
She did highlight a sad point though which is people jump to conclusions and debate is not allowed. She mentions how the media and other feminists treated her badly and unfairly, many who did so out of principle without seeing her documentary and understanding the point(s) she's trying to make. People like these IMO actually do feminists a disservice and can also be considered enemies.
IMO, a "bad" feminist tries to attain equality of outcome, especially in areas where it doesn't make sense (Trudeau and his 50/50 cabinet). They focus on a variety of issues that are nonsensical and are not really an issue (national anthem change). They also seem to expect favoritism for women but would be silent if men were discriminated against.
I have mixed feelings about this speaker. She is not the best speaker (almost seems like she's too happy or trying to persuade the audience by being nice/neurotic - maybe awkward/nervous?). But I'll ignore that and concentrate on her content.
I think the first thing she should have acknowledged is that MRA, based on what she encountered, are not the enemy. They are the "enemy" - a group perceived to be enemies based on perception and they are not the enemies of feminists. To me, the enemy of a feminist is a person who blocks the process in some way of achieving equality of opportunity, directly on indirectly.
Some of the examples she discussed (as supplied by the MRA) are stupid - they aren't issues solely because they mostly affect men. For instance, she mentions veteran issues are mostly suffered by men. Last time I checked, the majority of people who enlist are men. If the issues affected mostly females, that would raise suspicions. But mostly men facing an issue where the majority of the group are men? It actually made the MRA group look bad if some of these are the issues they fight for.
She did highlight a sad point though which is people jump to conclusions and debate is not allowed. She mentions how the media and other feminists treated her badly and unfairly, many who did so out of principle without seeing her documentary and understanding the point(s) she's trying to make. People like these IMO actually do feminists a disservice and can also be considered enemies.
This is a plague on society, and it's serious. If you can't debate on facts, there can be no progress. You can't grow intellectually. Yet people no longer use facts to win debates. Instead, they use labels to win debates.
You gripe about one aspect of capitalism, you must be a "socialist". Therefore your argument is invalid.
You have a problem with America's healthcare system, you must be "anti-American". Therefore your argument is invalid.
You criticize Trump, you must be an "elitist leftist". Therefore your argument is invalid.
You complain about the wealth gap, you must be a "taker". Therefore your argument is invalid.
You think feminism has gone too far, you must be a "woman-hater". Therefore your argument is invalid.
These are the ways people "win" debates these days (including on here, have you seen the political section???), and it's very sad.
I see young people now who are dating have separate bills when dining. Is this the norm nowadays? I know when I date women never pay. Most don't even reach for their purse as a gesture.
Very true. It comes down to many people thinking everything is black and white when clearly there's plenty of grey. I may vote for party X but it doesn't mean I support EVERYTHING party X stands for. I'm personally no fan of Wynne but am generally in favor of the minimum wage increase which gives people a chance if they work full-time. They won't be home-owners with 2 cars and taking 3 vacations a year but they can afford a decent living arrangement (small, rented place or a roommate/partner). Right away people throw out I love Wynne, am a bleeding-heart liberal, etc.
The other thing about some of these labels is some are extreme. If I support religious freedom for Muslims, I'm an extremist who must support terrorism - it's a hell of a leap! Look at the examples - socialist, anti-American, etc. - they are all pretty extreme.
I used to be a guy that could criticize something (food, movie, etc.) but hadn't seen/tried it. So my basis for criticism was pure speculation. Now, for most things, I will try to see it, do it, taste it, etc. so I have some basis for criticizing it. In the case of this documentary, how can anyone criticize it without seeing it? That's not fair. Everything said, positive or negative, is pure assumption.
And yes, it's also ok to question/criticize things you support. The best feminist is one who questions feminism and asks "Does this make sense? Does this advance the cause? Does it do so in the right way?" Doesn't mean she is a bad feminist or doesn't support the general concept/movement. But unwavering support/loyalty destroys one's own credibility.
