Thread: Male Feminists

I agree that there's not way to reason with them.

But since we're such an enlightened society, and we want women to be less subject to that crap, we recognize that the trick is to cultivate a culture that doesn't objectify women to make it less likely that those seeds of volition grow into a 'sexual predator'.

So failing one way to solve the problem, we find another?

Right?

Of course.. agreed on that.

I'm not sure it's possible though. Because the factors that make a person into a twisted psychopathic rapist aren't social issues so much as deep psychological damage.

I'm simply saying that statistics about sex crimes should not be considered as evidence of social mistreatment of women.

Originally Posted by Xei

Great counterargument. I concede that my ideas have been thoroughly stomped upon by the Nietzsche wannabe.

I was being nice and decided to just let things be. Besides, that symmetry logic fails on its own. Was I suppose to give a counter-argument?

Nietzsche? Haven't read his work.

Originally Posted by Somii

I was being nice and decided to just let things be. Besides, that symmetry logic fails on its own. Was I suppose to give a counter-argument?

Well this discussion is pointless otherwise. 'The logic fails on its own'; why are you spending your valuable time typing these things? 'Your logic fails on its own'. See, we could bounce pointless posts off each other all day.

Originally Posted by Somii

I don't know. Why should everybody have equal rights? Will you be taking a subjectivism stance of morality to express this answer? If so, maybe it'll be of the weak vs protecting the weak mentality I presupposed? Tell me, Xei, this imaginative belief of yours.

Well we are confronted with the premise that rights are necessary given that there exists more then one human being in the world. A behavioral system outlining what is and isn't proper behavior needs to exist in some form. I mean even if you don't think there is proper behavior, that is still establishing a behavioral system. I define rights are legally enforceable legally obligations and such obligations naturally fit under a behavioral system. So by what right does someone have to utilize force/coercion against another individual? How are they imbued with such a right?

Somii, how do you actually feel about gender equality, or do you only think in philosophical abstractions?

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Somii, how do you actually feel about gender equality, or do you only think in philosophical abstractions?

Isn't gender equality an abstraction?

Why do you state that it is anti feminist for a main woman character falling in love with a man and getting married? Guess what. That's what normally happens in real life. I guy and a girl fall in love and have sex. How is that not stereotyping the guy? I think your examples suck.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Isn't gender equality an abstraction?

Try telling that to a woman who was refused a job that she was more qualified for than a man. It has real-world ramifications. I'm just trying to get somii to talk on a more personal level and not just go around stomping on ideas.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Try telling that to a woman who was refused a job that she was more qualified for than a man. It has real-world ramifications.

Well yes, abstractions can become concrete.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

I'm just trying to get somii to talk on a more personal level and not just go around stomping on ideas.

The Socratic method works wonders. That or Michael Jackson videos.

Socratic method is cool. And somii has sparked some good conversation using it. Guess I just wanted to see the real somii behind the mask. Prolly too much to ask, I know. And that's cool too I guess. Just a bit frustrating... like talking to a person who only responds by pulling fortune-cookie strips of paper out of his mouth and handing them to you to read. But he does make good points, even if he often does it in a somewhat uncool way.

Mayflow...keep trolling and you're going to get yourself banned. Off topic posts deleted, infractions given, back on topic. K thnx.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

I'm simply saying that statistics about sex crimes should not be considered as evidence of social mistreatment of women.

And in so doing, you're missing the point.

We still haven't gotton to a definition of 'equality of sexes' though. So maybe I'm missing something.

There will obviously never be total equality between men and women due to the physical disparity between male and female. Political equality is pretty much a done deal in the West though.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Try telling that to a woman who was refused a job that she was more qualified for than a man. It has real-world ramifications. I'm just trying to get somii to talk on a more personal level and not just go around stomping on ideas.

Do you know if said woman was refused solely because she was a woman? There are a myriad of reasons for why something like that could happen--nepotism, rumors about her, the person hired had a better reputation/bigger name (although still less qualified), the interviewer did not like her attitude, or maybe it was even just her appearance (attractiveness [or lack thereof], stained/sloppy clothes, poor hygiene, etc.). These things aren't intrinsically sexist toward women, the same thing could happen to a man; that is to say, being refused a job that you were more qualified for than another person. Discrimination effects everyone, men as well as women. I agree that it is sexist to refuse a woman a job simply because a man applied for it too. However, you were victimizing women in your example. For all anyone knows, it was for any of the reasons I stated above. If the woman who was refused the job used the excuse that it was because a man had applied for it, she would simply be victimizing herself. Victimize yourself long enough and you really become a victim, whether or not a crime or injustice has been committed. I don't have enough real world experience myself just yet to claim that women have fully received the equality they were looking for, but personally I believe that many current-age feminists have gotten what they wanted but continue to victimize themselves in every scenario in which sexism could have played a role, thus sustaining the victim mentality--regardless of whether they are really victims or not. Maybe a majority of feminists really do just want equality and its simply the loud, verbose, abrasive nuts that want more than just equal rights that ruin it for them, but there are those for every group; think Westboro Baptist Church.

edit: to clarify on my last statement, I meant that the Westboro Baptist Church ruins or at least gives many a very negative view of religion, and so that could be applied to misandrists that ruin it for true feminists.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

And in so doing, you're missing the point.

We still haven't gotton to a definition of 'equality of sexes' though. So maybe I'm missing something.

How am I missing the point? Unless you consider rapists and sex traffickers to be a part of mainstream society, you can't use what they do as a measure of social acceptance of gender equality. They're not reacting to social conditioning concerning women's status, but to deep-seated psychological issues.

I think 'objectification of women' is actually programmed into our DNA and can't be done away with. I believe all we can hope for is legislation and corporate policy ensuring equal treatment, which we pretty nearly have, assuming it would be properly followed. We can't regulate deep psychological/archetypal concepts about sex, which are unconscious and not subject to 'conditioning' except maybe for avoidance treatment in conjunction with psychological treatment for sick individuals.

Originally Posted by snoop

Do you know if said woman was refused solely because she was a woman? There are a myriad of reasons for why something like that could happen--nepotism, rumors about her, the person hired had a better reputation/bigger name (although still less qualified), the interviewer did not like her attitude, or maybe it was even just her appearance (attractiveness [or lack thereof], stained/sloppy clothes, poor hygiene, etc.). These things aren't intrinsically sexist toward women, the same thing could happen to a man; that is to say, being refused a job that you were more qualified for than another person. Discrimination effects everyone, men as well as women. I agree that it is sexist to refuse a woman a job simply because a man applied for it too. However, you were victimizing women in your example. For all anyone knows, it was for any of the reasons I stated above. If the woman who was refused the job used the excuse that it was because a man had applied for it, she would simply be victimizing herself. Victimize yourself long enough and you really become a victim, whether or not a crime or injustice has been committed. I don't have enough real world experience myself just yet to claim that women have fully received the equality they were looking for, but personally I believe that many current-age feminists have gotten what they wanted but continue to victimize themselves in every scenario in which sexism could have played a role, thus sustaining the victim mentality--regardless of whether they are really victims or not. Maybe a majority of feminists really do just want equality and its simply the loud, verbose, abrasive nuts that want more than just equal rights that ruin it for them, but there are those for every group; think Westboro Baptist Church.

edit: to clarify on my last statement, I meant that the Westboro Baptist Church ruins or at least gives many a very negative view of religion, and so that could be applied to misandrists that ruin it for true feminists.

Ok, very good points all. But I think you missed MY original point. I said that in response to Laughing Man defending Somii's purely abstract/philosophical statements and my asking somii if he ever thinks in anything other than philosophical abstractions. And you're right, the example I gave was too vague and/or poorly worded.

But all I was trying to do is demonstrate that while gender equality can be spoken of in purely abstract terms, it's also a very real thing that has a strong effect on people. I was basically asking his position, and whether his comments here are purely for the purpose of furthering discussion or if they reflect his actual stance.

If a woman was not hired and she believes it was solely due to the fact that she is a woman, there are mechanisms in place to take punitive action on the employers.

I already admitted that was a poor example.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

No. That's a sloppy strawman argument of a rhetorical question. I'm saying that by any sane definition of equality, sexual equality has not been achieved. If it had been achieved then sex would not be a meaningfull determinate of the probability of you being kidnapped and sold to be raped.

I really don't see the problem here.

EDIT:
The mechanism through which it happens is entirely besides the point.

You ignored the fact that I said "Except for biological inequality; that men want sex more (or at least more often) than women and that men are generally stronger than women."

Everyone else pretty much handled my argument for me anyway. Cheers guys

I did a ctrl. F search through this thread and not once were the following mentioned:

- education
- overpopulation

I feel a bit ambivalent about feminism, but don't some of its core principles relate to the most important things humanity is currently facing?

Since the agricultural revolution humans have acted as if basic ecological laws don't apply to us. With control over food production comes a much higher rate of population growth and population density.

If women are relegated to a submissive role in society, bearing children is likely to be their primary function. The reproductive rate will in turn be higher when there is limited access to education for girls and women; women who are able to complete a college education are significantly less likely to have as many children as they would otherwise, and this is made worse by dogmatism stepping in the way of contraception.

It should be obvious how important these things are. And it could be said that a lack of reproductive freedom is a form of abuse. So even if there are aspects of feminism that aren't agreeable, it reveals an underlying problem and I sure as fuck want to see it addressed.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

I already admitted that was a poor example.

It's not just you. Lots of women (some men) talk about gender inequality in the workplace. If it happens, go to whatever labour regulator in your area and file a complaint. They'll follow up and you'll probably win.

Ok, gotcha.

Cygnus, I have a feeling I'm misunderstanding your post, but in what way do females have limited access to education in the free world?

Originally Posted by Xei

Not on the forum. In her life. Deery has an insane amount of pent up anger and it's my guess that feminism is her current outlet for it. I think that's stupid because feminism is obvious, and there are no binding constraints on women in Western society any more. It's an empty thing to focus on; it seems to me absurd to spend so much time arguing about your right to live your life as you want, instead of actually going out into the world and living your life as you want. I can't think of any motivation for that but anger, and it's a waste.

Well, you're pretty much right on the money (at least I've realized it before you posted it). I've been enraged about this stuff ever since I was 17, and sometimes wondering why. At least I've been taking productive steps (applying for jobs) since the thread's creation and trying to forget about what a shit storm this thread is. I don't know why my personality has developed an insane amount of pent up anger, and how I can get rid of it for good. That's why I also posted a thread in the Help board. Maybe once I finally get a job and can make some money, I'll find a real therapist and not just some pill pushing piece of wood. Or I'll get a medical marijuana prescription.