this argument, which is used often, is just where I will agree to disagree
also humanitarianism is a bit too general, as it doesn't focus on gender exclusively. that's pretty much my only gripe to it
That's literally the point.
It's good to have a group/ideology that's still relevant even after one specific problem gets solved.
and i generally don't care about people's beliefs unless it's something i feel is wrong (rather than different from me. there's a slight difference)
Yeah that doesn't make sense and you can't really do that.
I don't see having thoughts or beliefs as being morally wrong. I can disagree with the practicalities of the belief, and think that acting something out that happened to be caused by a persons belief is wrong, but having a thought/belief in itself is not wrong. I wouldn't stop liking someone just because they were tribal, or anti-gay marriage or anything of the sort. I'd just either try to convince them of my viewpoint (as well as trying to see their own) and if that didn't get anywhere, I just wouldn't bring up the subject around them.
There are countries where this is more prevalent (and often the ones where people will unanimously agree that feminism is necessary), and ones where there are really only remnants of a patriarchy and non-binary gender system.
[citation needed]
I don't even know what countries you could possibly be referring to.
My entire argument is that a lot of people misconstrue the idea of what a feminist is and assume that most or all feminists believe in female supremacy.
Feminists could genuinely believe that that's what feminism is about, but it's the practical implications that matter, not the intentions. Feminism in practice isn't working to establish the goals one finds when one looks up the ideology in the dictionary.
Feminism is about both lovees, but not both sides of the gender spectrum. It may seem like inequality, but it's not. The existence of a patriarch indicates that masculinity is superior, and this patriarchy affects both males and females. By acknowledging this, I am trying to say that having an MRA is irrelevant because feminism does the same thing, but more (to answer your question of "And?")
So what's your argument about just changing the name of feminism?
Also, I realize that the way I wrote that rant made it seem as if it were directed towards you exclusively, but I meant to refer to the people who were posting on here in general, as a lot of people on the forums may not identify as MRAs, but they hold a lot of the same beliefs as them.
Yes but you yourself said some of these beliefs were similar/comparable to feminism, so I think it's worth asking them what they "identify" as, or not bringing identification into the discussion at all.
This refers to pretty much all the times you said "I'm not an MRA," which you made clear in a past post. I'm 100% in the wrong here and I'm sorry.
It's fine bruski
this isn't sarcasm right
it sounds kinda sarcastic and just want to triple check
It is not.
It's obvious that there is an imbalance between the way the two groups (male and female) are treated and this has to be fixed. Feminists believe that the focus should be on the female gender (femininity),
So wait you admit that feminism does indeed seem to focus on women and femininity (different things, but it focuses on both)
but MRAs believe the opposite.
Yeah, like I said, same problem with both groupes
By a "feminine perspective," I meant to say that you have to focus on the lack of privilege the female gender has as opposed to the lack of privilege the male love has. I tried explaining it further, but then i deleted what i wrote intentionally because I think my thoughts are a little too cloudy at the moment to make it more clearer. I'll try again tomorrow if that one sentence wasn't enough (it's late in my timezone. i know it's a piss-poor excuse but this isn't an argument so i don't fell obligation to continue unless i have to)
I actually understand what you're saying but I'll explain my argument later in this post.
Anyway, bad phrasing aside, gender roles are a superficial social construct that should be ignored, but that doesn't mean that the words masculine and feminine are changing. By destroying gender roles and the gender binary, society will replace them with something more of a spectrum. Masculine will still mean "strong, works, prefers practicality, unemotional, etc." and feminine will still mean "weak, takes care of children, prefers aesthetics, thinks with emotions, etc."
Really neither you nor I have any idea what any particular word or set of words will mean in a few decades.
But, the gender spectrum means that you can fall anywhere between the two, rather than fitting in only one (not to say you can't though). So, yes, I can still use masculine and feminine, even though their definitions are based on the gender binary. The spectrum is more of an extension to the binary to make it better, if that makes sense.
I see both terms/stereotypes/constructs as a collection of values. So obviously everyone (now and in the future) falls somewhere in between.
I don't agree with you here. People should choose to feel as masculine or feminine as they feel they are supposed to.
There are certain values which society (and I) see as wrong.
I think certian life choices should have social, biological, or government imposed consequences.
If you choose to be fat, for example, you may end up dying sooner and having people find you unattractive. You choose to do something / adopt a value that was wrong, and you're being punished by nature and society for it. I'm curious as to if you support fat acceptance on the same grounds.
And, feminists are definitely in favor of placing women in masculine roles. Where else do you think "strong, independent woman"came from?
People who brag about something, try to be something, or say they're trying to be something, generally are not that something.
It just means they're insecure. You seriously don't hear people who are actually in power bragging about how "strong and independent" they are, that'd be bloody stupid.
I mostly highlight the opposite because the argument I'm trying to make is that feminists focus on men too.
Yeah but just a few lines ago you said "feminists believe the focus should be on the female gender", I can see how this
could involve men (as that's love, not gender), but it really shouldn't go that way.
Also, I don't think it's wise to see it as "The weak want the strong to be like them." It's more like "The weak want the strong to believe that they are strong.
If you are truly strong, you will
be powerful. Victory goes to the strongest.
And no this doesn't only mean physical strength. And if any of the members of either group feel more neutral, they should be allowed to without any stigma." No one is trying to enforce femininity onto men or masculinity onto women. They're trying to say that you're free to be somewhere in between without shame, and you're also free to be in either extreme.
Once again, I'm not a fan of "acceptance". There are certain personality traits which are best, and they should be instilled in people of both lovees.
These days men are criticize for being feminine and women are criticized for being masculine. (fortunately to a lesser extent, it seems) I think since the men are the ones in power, and they have the traits consider 'masculine' then the masculine traits are obviously the better ones, and it's just a matter of getting everyone to adhere to them so that they may join the powerful.
again not entirely directed towards you and a bit rude on my part. sorry. Same goes for above, which I accidentally forgot to quote and don't feel like humoring it. I really wish that there was a less rude sounding way of saying whatever "ustedes" is in the spanish language. "You all" sounds choppy and kinda weird to me, and "You people" is a bit harsh sounding...
Yeah, I know a few languages and English is the only one without a second person plural. (vous, ihr/sie, вы) I just use "you guys" or "you all" or "ya'll" doesn't matter.
But, yeah, parts of my rant were directed towards different users who may side against me, and I realize that I'm replying to only you. Sorry again if this whole thing came out wrong.
anyway i'm not responding to anything else in that post because i have no objections to speak of really
It's fine.
The point i want to get across in the end, in addition to what I have made clear, is that feminism should be taken at least a little bit more seriously than it is, especially on this part of the internet. It shouldn't be seen as an "equally radical but the opposite movement" of the Men's Rights movement.
I think the biggest problems I have with feminism are the meta-issues. You know, stuff that has to do with
how these people present their arguments and argue rather than the arguments themselves. I think the name of a group is important, if I made a charity that gave textbooks to underprivileged inner-city children and called it the
westboro baptist bookmobile I think there'd be a parent or two that would take offence. Other than that, it's the "acceptance" aspect that makes me cringe. When feminists say that men should be able to wear booty shorts and dresses in public without criticism I think, "gee, maybe neither love should do that."
That said I'm gonna shower and do stuff and I might be going to bed soon, but I'll definitely check tomorrow at the latest for responses.
