supreme court struck down affirmative action 6-2

[Camel]

that doesn't mean that they won't have to focus on male equality issues at some point, too. which they are very reluctant to do.

IMO, i'm all for gender equality, and i don't think all feminists are dumb, but it's sorta... gonna draw a weird parallel here, but they're like Bronies. They're a group of people defined by their vocal minority, and there is no reason to identify with said group, so they make excuses. All smart feminists and just like... smart people in general.

[Ad Bot]

[Char]

that doesn't mean that they won't have to focus on male equality issues at some point, too. which they are very reluctant to do.

only the vocal minority...

and I agree with Camel.

[Kimon²]

IMO, i'm all for gender equality, and i don't think all feminists are dumb, but it's sorta... gonna draw a weird parallel here, but they're like Bronies. They're a group of people defined by their vocal minority, and there is no reason to identify with said group, so they make excuses. All smart feminists and just like... smart people in general.

yeah obviously not all feminists are dumb, but that's a good point
radicals are still not a minority in feminism though

only the vocal minority...

and I agree with Camel.

i have honestly and truly never seen a feminist that supported and acknowledge male inequality issues. they exist, i just haven't seen one.

[Char]

radicals are still not a minority in feminism though

sure thing

i have honestly and truly never seen a feminist that supported and acknowledge male inequality issues. they exist, i just haven't seen one.

I may grant you this one, but it could just be people thinking that males don't have a right to complain because they have been vieweed as better for a really long time.
I dunno. Maybe they just really don't know about the issues because males have usually gotten the better end of the deal.

[Kimon²]

sure thing

I may grant you this one, but it could just be people thinking that males don't have a right to complain because they have been vieweed as better for a really long time.
I dunno. Maybe they just really don't know about the issues because males have usually gotten the better end of the deal.

yeah that's the general mindset.

[TheKhoz]

There needs to be an understanding, of the differences between good feminism and bad feminism. (The real distinction should be true vs. radical feminism, but good vs. bad is my opinion on it.)

Good feminism is women standing up for their rights, working towards (although not always effectively...) gender equality. If you want some good examples of this, check out the riot grrrl movement, and also the actual feminism movement from the 60s to 80s.

Bad feminism is much of the "feminist" population of tumblr, who just hate men. It's very important to realize that real feminists do not, definitionally, hate men. Bad feminists choose to paint men, as a whole, as bad people. These sorts of people have generally been exposed to some pretty terrible things, and choose to take it out on everyone.

[DrenDran]

because they have been vieweed as better for a really long time.

Try more disposable.

[Oasis]

There needs to be an understanding, of the differences between good feminism and bad feminism. (The real distinction should be true vs. radical feminism, but good vs. bad is my opinion on it.)

Good feminism is women standing up for their rights, working towards (although not always effectively...) gender equality. If you want some good examples of this, check out the riot grrrl movement, and also the actual feminism movement from the 60s to 80s.

Bad feminism is much of the "feminist" population of tumblr, who just hate men. It's very important to realize that real feminists do not, definitionally, hate men. Bad feminists choose to paint men, as a whole, as bad people. These sorts of people have generally been exposed to some pretty terrible things, and choose to take it out on everyone.

Generally there needs to be more of an understanding of normal vs. radical in all aspects of life.

[ultimamax]

I dont know what definition your using but im pretty sure racial equality is when you treat races equally, like by not inflating the test scores of minoritys

I have explained several times already how affirmative action remedies racial inequality. I'm not going to restate my points 400 times. Read the thread.

So why identify as a person only concerned with gender equality, when you can identify as someone concerned with everyone-equality?

because suggesting we go for egalitarianism implies several things.
1. that what feminism concerns itself with is not egalitarian already (feminist issues affect both sides)
2. that all feminists should care about men's issues

nice, definitions. not sources at all actually but ok. that article doesn't say anything about feminists being good. none of these prove feminists live up to the definitions.humanitarianism has its stuff together unlike feminism

bottom line: feminism is a train wreck that needs to be abandoned

the main problem with your argument is that none of your sources prove that a majority of feminists are radical. no matter how many stories or videos you pull up of radical feminists, you cannot make a blanket statement like that, because even if you show evidence of 10,000 radfems existing (which you haven't even approached) there are millions of feminists in the US. you are basing your opinion of feminism on videos you saw on the internet, because nobody does coverage on moderate feminists because the stories would be boring.

Just like affirmative action, addressing only one groups problems (even if they actually do have more problems) seems to create implications that one group is worse or needs more help/protection than the other.

affirmative action creates implications that one race needs more help than another due to their socioeconomic status in society, which is not a bad implication, but a valid one. you said it yourself, the reason for things like those statistics you posted earlier are sociological constructs, not inferiority.

[ultimamax]

although i guess that would be pretty true, you are comparing the worlds biggest religions to feminist groups.

i don't see how this affects my argument. my point is in groups all around the world there are vocal minorities that misrepresent the entire group.

IMO, i'm all for gender equality, and i don't think all feminists are dumb, but it's sorta... gonna draw a weird parallel here, but they're like Bronies. They're a group of people defined by their vocal minority, and there is no reason to identify with said group, so they make excuses. All smart feminists and just like... smart people in general.

i agree with this. lots of people are afraid to identify themselves as feminists because of the damage done to their image.

Feminism to egalitarianism also implies that feminism serves no purpose anymore, now that women are able to vote and have contraceptives, never mind that the fight for abortion is still ongoing. Feminism is still relevant and important, and women are still disadvantaged. Also there's no reason that you can't be feminist and egalitarian. Egalitarianism is cowardly. It's easy to support human rights for all, but the hesitation to push for specific movements like MRA or feminism or minority rights is apparent. It also gives legitimacy to the radfem movement. They would be affirmed as "the real feminists".

http://spacefem.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=4749

[TheKhoz]

It also gives legitimacy to the radfem movement. They would be affirmed as "the real feminists".

I don't really think that's fair, because radical anything is bad, like Oasis said. Radical feminism is much like Radical Islam. Real Muslims don't condone Muslim Extremists, just as radical feminism works contrary to Feminist theory.

[ultimamax]

I don't really think that's fair, because radical anything is bad, like Oasis said. Radical feminism is much like Radical Islam. Real Muslims don't condone Muslim Extremists, just as radical feminism works contrary to Feminist theory.

Exactly. I was citing it as an argument against egalitarianism.

[TheKhoz]

Exactly. I was citing it as an argument against egalitarianism.

Ah, I see.

Egalitarianism only works if everyone is on board, which is completely impossible to have. It worked when people lived only with their families before agriculture, but it's not a viable plan for modern times.

[Swat 3]

I don't support quotas. They don't make sense in this regard. But, I do support accepting people slightly worse than a white person for the sake of diversity, so long as you are sure that they will make use of their time in your institution correctly. Bad grades are not always indicative of intelligence anyway; it could say something about the quality of the school or the teachers as well.

Is this not what the law did though? It forced universities to neatly fill boxes with a specific number of each race, which in any regard, is regarding people by race and should not even be done in the first place.

If you have a white person that strived his whole life in a position to be placed in Standford, and only because your "race quota" was filled up, they chose a black person who has sub-par grades compared to yours. This would be outright discrimination because you bloody lost a college because you were white and your rival was black. This is not "allowing diversity". Diversity should not be a mix of equal and neat boxes, it should be varying amounts. Colleges need to pick the best people not only because they do not want to pick an idiot who decided to be too cool for school until Junior year when they opened their eyes, but they also want to choose people who are worth the education. You cannot do this in the eyes of education, because changing the weights only makes it tribal if you put some people above someone because of your race; this is what the law does. Schools should not have to care if you are white or black or asian or green, they should care about your education. Colleges should not have to worry about putting in some black people "who were not educated due to the cycle of poverty." You leave that to the government only because it is important to acknowledge that poverty is mainly because of the parents; you must educate people at an early age and aid them in order to get out of the cycle. Aiding people by shoving them into the school system by putting their application into the Affirmative Action machine and crossing fingers (this is mainly due to the fact that the MAJORITY HAS MORE PEOPLE and they already filled their box up) is the wrong way to do it.

[TheKhoz]

Also, even if the grades aren't sub-par at all, but if you have a white with a 3.9 and a minority with a 3.9, the white guy just gets written off.