Feminism

TOPIC SPLIT FROM http://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/General-Discussions/103939-prostitution

Ren, I am a feminist and have many friends who are feminists. Of course they're advocating for women's rights, but that doesn't mean feminism doesn't benefit anyone else. They're here to give women equal rights. Not to elevate women above men, but to elevate women to the same status as men. If you believe men and women should be equal, you should have no problem calling yourself a feminist. If you believe men should be above women, then you should have a problem being called a feminist.

As I was trying to tell Adder in chat, it is impossible to attain equal right only by granting more rights to one group.

group A must acquire all of group B's rights, and groups B must acquire all of groups A's rights.

Feminism is exclusively about giving women additional rights. by definition, i mean, the NAME ITSELF is sexist.

If you wish to explain and give me examples of how feminism has helped men get the rights that women have, I'm all ears.


And for the record, the very reason I despise feminism is because I believe in equal rights, duties and privileges, and not in discrimination or segregation. feminists lobby for legislation that gives women and women only additional rights or privileges.

Why is "Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women" not called "Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Gender Discrimination"? I'll tell you why: because men aren't protected from discrimination. And this is the UN.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlFAd4YdQks

ren wrote: As I was trying to tell Adder in chat, it is impossible to attain equal right only by granting more rights to one group.

group A must acquire all of group B's rights, and groups B must acquire all of groups A's rights.

Feminism is exclusively about giving women additional rights. by definition, i mean, the NAME ITSELF is sexist.

If you wish to explain and give me examples of how feminism has helped men get the rights that women have, I'm all ears.


And for the record, the very reason I despise feminism is because I believe in equal rights, duties and privileges, and not in discrimination or segregation. feminists lobby for legislation that gives women and women only additional rights or privileges.

Why is "Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women" not called "Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Gender Discrimination"? I'll tell you why: because men aren't protected from discrimination. And this is the UN.

Abhaya Budhil's got it correct from my experience. Feminism is equivalent to a lobby group to address the inequality of rights for women. The exclusion of men from Feminism is not anti-male, its just not who they represent.

At the professional level they do not advocate any anti-male position from my experience. There is a lot of garbage out there, and factions with different opinions, but in industry and government the reality is about equal rights for both genders with feminists just being professionals who focus on the situation for women.

Most of the emotions and confusion emerges from something called affirmative action. The huge challenge faced by Feminists in the West 60 years ago required special treatment, called affirmative action, to enable equal rights to become established in the real world workplaces. Affirmative action is by itself a short term action to address the inequality for a long term equal rights outcome.

Anti-feminists and radical Feminists are the extreme ends at either side, but are missing the point for their own polar agendas. They each grab and choose individual examples of extremism from the vast array of individual circumstance to try and portray it as a conspiracy or imminent threat. Whether it be gender norming/equality, patriarchal or matriarchal systems.

Anti-feminists and radical Feminists are the extreme ends at either side

No. radical feminism and radical man-ism are extreme ends. being opposed to something isn't the same as doing the opposite of that something.


anti-nazism isn't the killing of germans by jews.

ren wrote:

Anti-feminists and radical Feminists are the extreme ends at either side

No. radical feminism and radical man-ism are extreme ends. being opposed to something isn't the same as doing the opposite of that something.

anti-nazism isn't the killing of germans by jews.

Both extreme ends of the sides are angry loud noises, sure they sound different like you point out, but they both have no real effect on the reality outside of their own limited circles. You might be missing the forest for the trees. What they do represent is polar opposite positions on the topic at hand, feminism.

Ideally, polar opposite anti-feminism and anti-manism would naturally meet to form humanism. feminism vs manism can only create conflict, as each side is rooted in greed.

Both extreme ends of the sides are angry loud noises, sure they sound different like you point out, but they both have no real effect on the reality outside of their own limited circles. You might be missing the forest for the trees. What they do represent is polar opposite positions on the topic at hand, feminism.

Not really.anti-feminism is opposed to feminism. Not just to whacko feminism.

ren wrote: Ideally, polar opposite anti-feminism and anti-manism would naturally meet to form humanism. feminism vs manism can only create conflict, as each side is rooted in greed.

Not really.anti-feminism is opposed to feminism. Not just to whacko feminism.

It's because we disagree on the definition. Feminism to me is just one half of what you call humanism. The reason why I differentiate between the radical Feminists is because they do not represent the mainstream Feminists direction or extent, and anti-Feminists might not represent humanist's who are focused on mens issues (manism). Why do we have to include the radical elements of either, and especially why use them as representative of the entire movements!?

When you support equal rights for different genders, you can't, by definition, only promote the rights of one gender.

Imagine I want to promote higher minimum wage, but only for men? it's sexist.
It shouldn't be "women have the right to vote", it should be "men and women have the right to vote". It sshouldn't be "women should be given help in sectors where they are under-represented" it should be "men and women should be given help in sectors where they are under-represented". etc.

ren wrote: Imagine I want to promote higher minimum wage, but only for men? it's sexist.

Equal rights in the workplace is sexist, or affirmative action is sexist, or radical fringe sexual politics is sexist? My answers would be no, yes and yes, but affirmative action is meant to be short term action to achieve that equal rights in the workplace balance which was near non-existent 60 years ago. It's silly to forget the oppression that women had in the workplace and society in the past. A Jedi is about equal rights and freedom's - balance. You achieve balance by putting force where it is needed to create balance. Not resisting change because you were more comfortable leaning on one foot.

I'll use a car analogy. If we want to take a photo of the two cars crossing a finish line together, at the same time, but the blue car gets a rolling start while the red car is stationary, then it is not unfair to let the red car go faster until it catches up. Those in the backseat of blue car scared of women drivers are the anti-feminists, the bloke driving the blue car is the humanist, the women driving the red car are the feminists and the women in the back seat egging her on to overtake and win are the radical feminists.
:lol: