Why I want feminism and not equality (and why they are not the same thing)

salacio · 2015-02-18T02:59:14+00:00

The equality and difference argument is banal. Equality would be cruel to men if they were treated equal to women: men’s genitals would be sliced up...

Sorry, aren't men's genitals already sliced up? I know mine is.

iainmf · 2015-02-18T03:13:51+00:00

Equality would mean recognizing men's suffering.

fuxorfly · 2015-02-18T02:32:15+00:00

When women enter the male realm whether law, politics, or a construction site, they find themselves in a repugnant world in which their only means of survival is by undergoing a fundamental transformation leaving them with little opportunity to make any change. We see this manifested in descriptions of women professionals as harsher than men. Assertive women are seen as aggressive bitches.

Is this literally a rebranding of the old anti-feminist argument of women not being fit for difficult work? Sure, that seems . . . progressive . . .

The equality and difference argument is banal. Equality would be cruel to men if they were treated equal to women: men’s genitals would be sliced up, annual rape of men would increase from 9,000 to 69,000, male prostitution would soar, men’s penises would be sprawled across page 3, men would stroll down the catwalk with their penises hanging out, and the Labour Party would roll out pink vans to attract women voters and blue vans to entice male voters. Unlike equalists, feminists do not want men to share their oppression.

No, feminists just want to pretend that those things, when they happen to men, are either acceptable or somehow men themselves fault that it is happening.

emperorhirohito · 2015-02-18T10:29:59+00:00

Equality would be cruel to men if they were treated equal to women: men’s genitals would be sliced up,

They already fucking are!?!? MGM is perfectly legal. FGM is seen, rightly, as evil. How can you legitimately claim that in the "cutting off bits of people's private parts" area of debate women are the ones being let down?

3dPrintedEmotions · 2015-02-18T05:37:20+00:00

Thank you for not linking to the source and using archive.today!

wildfire2k5 · 2015-02-18T12:18:37+00:00

Ah, a nice dose of crazy with the morning cup of tea. Thank you kindly.

Stripes1974 · 2015-02-18T04:09:02+00:00

The most disturbing portion of the article, to me, is this:

feminism seeks to give power to women on their own terms – not mens.

And the reason why this is so disturbing is from the fact that women cannot have power "on their own terms" because the "power" is a function of humanity and society, and the only way to have "power" is via that function. Women cannot excise themselves from humanity and society- which is one of the only ways in which women could have power "on their own terms", so by that understanding, feminism is a fallacy.

Men hold the balance of power. Power is granted in the wrong ways, and used for the wrong ends. Change can come about by redefining and redistributing power, breaking down hierarchal structures, and reevaluating the criteria designed by men.

These are true statements. But the author of the article seems to believe that

feminists do not want men to share their oppression

and then states that the path of change comes from "redefining and redistributing power, breaking down hierarchal structures, and reevaluating the criteria designed by men"- well, who does the redefining and re-evaluating?

And if as I've stated that power is a function of humanity and society, and the only way to have power is via that function, and feminism is about giving power to women, and the path of change is about redefining and redistributing power, breaking down hierarchal structures, and reevaluating the criteria designed by men, and those who will be doing the re-evaluating and redistribution of this power are going to be women, then how can this statement

feminists do not want men to share their oppression

be true?

The logic has the potential to be lacking, but it is not faulty- if feminism is supposed to be the path of change, then that change comes by giving power to women and taking it away from men. There is no power "on their own terms" that doesn't require wresting that power from men- and effectively, putting men in the oppressed and powerless place that women seem to feel that they are in, now.

I do not disagree that perhaps the "power" than men have-- which I will call "patriarchy"-- is disproportionally distributed. But feminism, if expressed in the way I've demonstrated above, cannot be the path by which change is made. Down that path, lay madness and sorrow.

Equality may not be the only way, but feminism by the aforementioned definition, is certainly not the way.

ifelsedowhile · 2015-02-18T11:30:43+00:00

and her name is 'Proudman'. lollercoaster!

TracyMorganFreeman · 2015-02-18T19:56:23+00:00

Impossible to alter male spheres due to them being a minority?

Tell that to the minority of nurses that are men and out earn women.

Swiggy · 2015-02-18T21:45:31+00:00

Men plead both equality and difference when it is to their benefit. They argue equality when they want paternity leave, and difference when they want to be paid more prize money for sports.

Author is out of touch with reality.

Title	Why I want feminism and not equality (and why they are not the same thing)
Author	thrway_1000
Upvotes	23
Comments	12
Date	February 18, 2015 2:15 AM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2w9lbi/why_i_want_feminism_and_not_equality_and_why_they/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/why-i-want-feminism-and-not-equality-and-why-they.987840 https://theredarchive.com/post/987840

Comments