FAQ request: Is feminism about equality?

Demonspawn · 2011-04-15T17:00:05+00:00

I've had this discussion a number of times. Here's a collection of some of those arguments:

The first thing to remember is that feminism was never and likely will never be a movement for equality. It was a movement for, in it's most pure form, equal rights for women. But equal rights alone is not equality, as it ignores the burdens of equal responsibility. And remember this point, as we'll return to it again. But for right now, let's look at modern feminism:

1) Please enumerate any government-granted rights which men have and women do not have in equal or greater levels.

2) Please enumerate any government-enforced responsibilities which women bear which men do not bear in equal or greater levels.

If women have equal or greater rights and equal or lesser responsibilities, as enforced by government, then why is there need for feminism (a movement of equality) to petition the government for redress of grievances?

Otherwise, to propose that the government needs to assist women to create a equal playing field is an admission, by feminists, to one of two potential facts:

A) Women are not equal to men, and therefore women need help from the government to be equal to men (to be able to fairly compete).

B) Feminism is not about equality, and is instead about giving women advantage over men (if women were equal to men AND receiving government help, then they would be in the position of an advantage over men)

Given that it is easy to see where feminists are arguing for more rights in areas where women's rights are equal to or exceed men's rights, then we must question the ultimate end:

If A is true, Feminism is a lie. If B is true, Feminism is a hate movement. I can demonstrate that it is both.

How can it be both? Well, if we suppose that the people who support feminism truly do believe that men and women are equal, then they exist under condition B. Feminism is a hate movement of female superiority. As for it being a lie, I'll hold that to the end because I want to tackle another issue on the idea of equality.

And that issue is the idea of social influence. Despite the fact that government has no business regulating social values, feminists will argue that feminism needs to petition government to re-adjust social values so that women can be equal. This, again, is a farce. Given that women make up 51+% of the population, then again women would have to be less than equal to require government's help to change social values. But it gets even more interesting. Given that 85+% of K-12 teachers are female, given that 40% of births are out of wedlock, given that women get primary custody in divorce 90+% of the time, given that even in intact families women are much more likely to be a stay at home parent... we can see women's disproportionate impact on influencing the youth of the next generation. When you add those facts to the understanding that women are a majority, how can the next generation be anything other than what women want it to be?

I'm sure the wealth argument will be played out next. This is quickly dismissed by multiple studies that demonstrate women control 80% of consumer spending. The results of this are very easy to tell as women are the sacred cow in commercials. Women also have more free time than men on average, which reinforces the positive portrayal of women on ad-supported television.

So now that we've demonstrated, without a doubt, the feminism cannot be about equality, and given plenty of evidence towards demonstration of feminism as a hate movement, how can it also be a lie?

That comes down to the third leg of the equality triangle. There are rights and responsibilities, but there is also privilege. Privilege is the relative ability to escape responsibilities or to extend rights beyond what is codified. While this is easy to measure in the realm of government and laws, it is a bit more murky in the public sphere. But what we will find is that women have greater privilege than men, and the fundamental reasons behind this are biologically driven (and therefore uncorrectable). This is why exact equality, where each leg of equality is balanced, is impossible between men and women. As such, the only possible equality between men and women is relative equality where each leg is imbalanced but the total is roughly equal. Traditionally, this has worked by men having more rights, women having less responsibilities, and women having greater privilege. (hrm... notice that feminism was all about "equal rights" and ignoring the other two legs where women were ahead? More proof that feminism was never an equality movement.)

Our society and, in fact, all societies serve women. They are more important than men. Men are the disposable lives that protect society, and women are the lives that are society. This is how it has been for the history of the world. Some societies protect women by reducing their freedoms (Islam) others do it by not holding them accountable for their actions (Western society). But the gall of feminism is to rail on about "the patriarchy" when, in fact, all societies treat the average woman better than the average man.

Why? Reproduction. It comes down to that simple fact. Might makes right, and numbers make might. That's why we don't send women to war (we need to repopulate so we are safe from the next invasion), it's why we get women and children off the boat first (repopulation), it's why we care more when women die working in the coal mines (and, notice that women only wanted "workplace equality" once jobs didn't include the risk of life and limb?). Quite simply, society individual men as more disposable than individual women.

But there's a counter side to that as well. You can't treat the men as too disposable because society advances on the backs of men. Now, I could repeat Dr. Baumeister's insightful essay, but I'll just condense it down into a few points. Men create civilization by the gender trend to value equity over equality. Women prepare the next generation by following equality over equity. Women select the best men and reward them with sex and children. Men compete to become the best men to be chosen by the best women. That competition is what advances society. This is why when sex becomes cheap and competition declines, so does the society.

That's the fundamental bedrock of what makes civilization work. That's another reason that feminism is not about equality. The truth is, we cannot free our men from traditional roles as we have freed our women from them. To do so would be near-instant social suicide. The sad truth is that freeing women from traditional roles is also social suicide, just on a slower scale.

So there it is, Feminism is not only a hate movement, it is also a lie. And the sad truth is that it can't be stopped. The simple facts are that if you give legal equality (including suffrage) to a group which enjoys social favor, the disparate influence will shift the legal equality to legal favor... ever increasing until the system can no longer support itself. Or, as I like to say: Feminism is a self-correcting social problem. It destroys the society it infests.

TL;DR: Too bad. Scroll up and read.

knowless · 2011-04-14T21:50:02+00:00

Feminism is an ideology which supports the rights of women to bring equality to heterosexual gender relations through attacking issues where females are treated unfairly because of their gender. Feminism as an ideology was never intended to be a voice which advocated for men who have been disenfranchised.

Any refutations of this statement lead to spirals of circular logic, but the circular nature must be maintained in order for feminism to be accepted as the voice of "gender equality" in general.

This single lie (as maintained flawed logic in the face of irrefutable fact is a lie) is the foundation upon which policy makers disenfranchise the whole of society, by encouraging all to believe that a group created for the purpose of serving one segment of society represents the whole.. thus allowing for a pitched battle where they can set the two against one and other and gain the benefit of a divided society.

Without a counterbalance to, and a corresponding gender equality movement which eventually comes from that balance, feminism will continue to only serve those for which it was created.

Faryshta · 2011-04-14T23:32:36+00:00

The reasoning goes like this:

There are areas where women are disadvantaged
Feminism is focused particularly on those areas to achieve equality in that domain

This isn't particularly bad reasoning, but the interpretation that causes controversy is what constitutes an area of disadvantage. If you take it far enough (such as via theories of the patriarchy or male privilege) you can hold that there are areas of disadvantage everywhere. After a certain point, you start using inequality to combat inequality -- affirmative action is one example.

thetrollking · 2011-04-15T02:26:34+00:00

Feminists want equality with the top 1% of males.

Kill_The_Rich · 2011-04-15T05:05:25+00:00

Fundamentally, feminism centers on the idea that "equality" is best achieved by removing social and legal restrictions for women. What "equality" actually means is a subject of contention amongst various feminist-factions. Some believe equality means social and legal equity, where our society would treat men and women the same. Others suggest that women are comparatively disadvantaged biologically (mostly in that women tend to be smaller/physically weaker than men, and that when pregnant they are more vulnerable) and that society must grant them greater privilege in order to attain equality. Confounding things is the fact that, because feminism is a movement promoting one gender, it tends to attract gender-supremacists (something the MRM struggles with as well).

Here, I made a chart showing how I would classify feminists (it could also be applied to MRAs). It's a simplification, as many would have views straddling different quadrants on different issues. As such, it's those feminists who fall into quadrant-C that I would agree with most of the time, and those who fall into A, B, and D, that I would disagree with the most. I believe most feminists would identify themselves as quadrant-C...but self-identification is fucking irrelevant. Do actually discern where one would stand, you have to look at the causes they support and the positions they advocate...anything else is just marketing.

Anyway, feminism is "about equality"...however A) being "about" something doesn't mean much...I've read articles "about" murder, but that doesn't mean they're for or against murder, it just means murder is discussed, B) there's no consensus definition of what "equality" actually means, and C) in 2011, there's no real consensus on how best to actually achieve this vaguely-defined "equality".

kloo2yoo · 2011-05-27T02:46:12+00:00

key article on feminism:

The feminist meme, being itself unreasonable, cannot allow reason on any issue affecting it.

The feminist meme now dominates and corrupts almost all discourse on women and violence, women in the workplace, women and equality. It is so deeply established that it is no longer even perceived as a malevolent influence, but simply as a "norm". This makes it all the more insidious, not least because those whom it controls do not even notice -- never mind respond to -- serious criticism. In other words, I'm wasting my time, again.

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/hl0us/the_feminist_meme_now_dominates_and_corrupts/

kloo2yoo · 2011-04-14T22:45:45+00:00

I'll be watching this Q and may modify relevant portions of the faq in response.

kloo2yoo · 2011-04-14T23:36:41+00:00

An important concept:

http://www.avoiceformen.com/2011/04/14/expanding-the-fight/

Examples: (links to be added when possible)

certain nations' governments deliberately encouraged feminism in order to get women to work and thus increase national industrial output.

'womens rights' was used as AN (if not A Primary) excuse to drag the US into war with certain middle-Eastern nations:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Iraqi_Constitution_and_women%27s_rights#2002

AnnArchist · 2011-04-15T02:51:41+00:00

No. Egalitarianism is about equality. Just like Mens rights is not about equality, it is about mens rights, feminism is about women's rights.

Quazz · 2011-04-14T23:49:10+00:00

It's kind of the same like the people that insist that gay means joyful or whatever.

mikesteane · 2011-05-13T12:05:17+00:00

If feminism were about equality, it would not be named after only one sex. Michael Steane, author of Why You Can't Do Mathematics and What to Do About It, available on Amazon Kindle

missmymom · 2011-04-15T04:10:43+00:00

I've dealt with this questions several times throughout my time on reddit, the best response I have came up with first is quoting the wiki;

Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing and defending equal political, economic, and social rights and equal opportunities for women.

The important part of that definition is that feminism is about making women equal where an disadvantages exists, however the question remains that if feminism wants equality for all genders. The short answer to this is no, feminism wants to address the issues where they see women coming up short. Some feminist believe in equality for all genders, but that is not what makes a feminist.

kloo2yoo · 2011-04-15T00:59:11+00:00

I've already copypased this at least once. It may be helpful here:

yeah, if you posted this in mensrights, I'd nominate you as a mod for /r/truefeminists because this is where the conversation breaks down.

I say "feminism is sexism."

my debate opponent (do) says "not all feminists are like that!"

I'll quote a few well-known feminists who made some outrageously antimale remarks.

the do repeats 'not all feminists are like that'

I recite some antimale legislation showing that enough feminists are sexist to have had the antimale legislation poassed.

my my dearest do says that those laws are anomalies,

I link the antimale legislation roundup, showing thaty they are widespread and increasing, in power, misandry, and in the number of nations where they're taking hold.

my dearest do says they're not truly feminist, but patriarchal and PHMT.

meanwhile the legislation stands, and women typically outnumber men at the polls.

kloo2yoo · 2011-04-15T01:31:40+00:00

Feminism is X, when it's not Y or Z or some combination of [a-z] + [1-0] + any number of clouds. Feminism is nebulous and redefined by anyone who calls themselves a 'feminist'. That's why it's so damn easy to cry, "not all feminists are like that!" and that's why the only reasonable response is to shut down the conversation if someone cries that or starts playing 'no true feminist!"

that's why the term 'feminism' means everything and nothing to everybody and nobody, and is a worthless and despicable term.

Now if you say, "I'm a feminist" then either I have to let you drone on and on about what you, in particular, define feminism to be, or I have make assumptions that may or not be true because neither of us can come to an agreement on what the hell "feminism" means.

melb22 · 2011-04-14T23:20:26+00:00

Feminism is liberalism applied to the lives of women. That means it's the attempt to apply rules of "equal autonomy" to the lives of women. But since it's assumed that women have been historically oppressed and therefore disadvantaged, this means that feminists are allowed to maximise autonomy for women without regard for that of men.

So there are two problems with feminism. First, it has a skewered view of what equality means. It is assumed that autonomy is the good that has to be made equal. But what people at the deepest level want and need to lead fulfilled lives, and what is good for society, is often not autonomy but other things. So the attempt to maximise autonomy for women often comes at a heavy cost for everyone in society - including women themselves.

Second, by assuming that women are disadvantaged and that the focus should be solely on bumping up female autonomy (with the role of men being merely to prop up the new social arrangements), feminism leads inevitably to unbalanced relations between men and women - with the men's movement being a response to this.

kloo2yoo · 2011-04-14T20:07:34+00:00

[permanently deleted]

kloo2yoo · 2011-05-24T02:07:48+00:00

FYI, this is 0C in the FAQ

powerpiglet · 2011-04-14T22:36:27+00:00

This was my best attempt at explaining the difference to someone.

2011-04-15T01:37:25+00:00

http://www.avoiceformen.com/2011/04/14/how-deep-does-the-rabbit-hole-go/

http://www.avoiceformen.com/2011/01/23/pig-latin/

http://www.avoiceformen.com/2011/04/14/expanding-the-fight/

Thrug · 2011-04-15T06:34:32+00:00

Here's my take:

http://i.imgur.com/uWtiL.png

a_crocodile · 2011-04-14T23:18:57+00:00

People just say the darnedest things don't they? We all know that feminism is an invasion from space by shape shifting reptilians. Why the hell do you think they talk about first-wave, second-wave or third-wave feminism? Either they're talking about waves in the ocean or they're talking about waves of invading forces in a war. It's an invasion from space you damn morons, why can't you realize that? I know there are certain individuals who want to keep the truth covered up, but they can't hide it from me and many other people in here who know what's up. We're one step ahead of feminists and have been since the very day we caught hold of their evil scheming to enslave men and to occasionally engage in what can only be called bestiality with us. Nobody wants to fuck a crocodile, now fuck off back to space you damn feminists. Tin foil hat on.

FAQ request: Is feminism about equality?

Comments

Attention anyone laboring under the false impression that Cliffor is an MRA

Title	FAQ request: Is feminism about equality?
Author	Faryshta
Upvotes	14
Comments	56
Date	April 14, 2011 7:51 PM UTC (15 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/gq61b/faq_request_is_feminism_about_equality/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/faq-request-is-feminism-about-equality.1040960 https://theredarchive.com/post/1040960