The Goodness of Feminism and Good Feminism Role Models (Page 2)

[RationalMale]

gotta love all these women weakly protesting, 'feminism isn't bad and
feminists don't hate men! for realz, guys!'

[myTake Owner]

You can be my tuxedo mask anytime.

[M_A_X]

It really doesn't help your point when you sexualize things that you were taking seriously 5 minutes ago.

[Anonymous]

www.vulture.com/.../...chumers-ms-gala-speech.html

sorry but Feminists think raping a dude is empowering. If you believe in actual equality and mutual respect between genders you are automatically not a feminist.

[Opinion Owner]

Love how I just get downvotes yet no one is willing to acknowledge or even try to rebuttal what these feminists did at an event listening to Amy Schumer take advantage of a really drunk guy. Which by law is now full blown rape...

[HeyNosy]

I'm not sure it is fair to hold one bitch against a whole group of women, but I do see your point. In every movement there are those that take things way too far. You can't assume that the whole movement embodies that one person's ideals

[Opinion Owner]

But I'm not pissed specifically at her (I mean what she did is despicable). What I'm truly disgusted by is that an event full of feminists who claim to stand for equality cheered her on for what she did. I actually did used to defend feminism but not after this.

[evenlift]

This independence is an illusion, though.

The difference is that, whereas the old dependence (on husbands) was voluntary and honest, the new dependence (via welfare on taxpayers, and via regulations on employers) is involuntary and dishonest.

If you support real independence and responsibility, you should oppose feminism and support capitalism.

[myTake Owner]

thank you

[Riverock]

Are you saying that you can't be a feminist and a capitalist?
That doesn't make any sense unless you are saying that capitalism is the perfect social and economic answer to our problems and requires no oversight and control.

[evenlift]

@Riverock How many feminists are there who oppose welfare and regulation? Virtually zero. In fact, most of them want even more welfare and regulation than the huge amount that is currently in place!

Capitalism with 'oversight and control' is not capitalism. It is the mixed economy.

Capitalism is the only moral political-economic system, as it is the only system that fully respects rights. Violence is violence, whether it is done by a private person or a government agent.

[Riverock]

'Huge' is relative.

How does capitalism respect rights?

Who mentioned violence?

[evenlift]

@Riverock The amount of government control on the economy is huge and growing.

Capitalism is the only political-economic system that respects each individual's right to be free from violence.

As I say, violence is violence. Murder by the government is murder, no less than murder by a private person. Rape by the government is rape, no less than rape by a private person. If your neighbour learns about your new job and decides that the $20/hour wage is too low and decides to stop you by force, that is violence, and you would rightly be outraged! If the perpetrator is not your neighbour but rather the government, that is no less violence. Regulation is violence. Taxation is violence. When government declares a minimum wage, that is not a recommendation. It is a demand backed up through the barrel of a gun.

[Riverock]

It's huge ut I'm not sure if it's growing. in my opinion it's not enough.

What does capitalism, in its purest form, do that communism doesn't. Capitalism doesn't address violence.

When a murdered is imprisoned, it's violence according to your definition. Would you object then? You're objecting to the existence of law. The foundation of our society.

[evenlift]

@Riverock Every sector of the economy is being controlled more and more.

Capitalism is the system that prohibits only violence. Communism is the system that mandates violence for the alleged good of the proletariat.

When did I say that imprisoning a murderer is violence? Violence is the violation of rights. Violence is the initiation of force. Violence is not any old force. Murder is an initiation of force and therefore violence. Imprisoning a murderer is defensive force and perfectly moral. I am not an anarchist. Capitalism is incompatible with anarchism as with socialism. Violence is violence, regardless whether it is governmental violence or private violence. Socialists pretend that governmental violence is somehow special and acceptable. Anarchists pretend that private violence is somehow special and acceptable. I disagree with them both.

[Riverock]

Capitalism makes no difference to violence.

Imprisoning murderers is necessary. We agree.
How do we pay for the prisons and police force? Taxes. Should everyone pay a flat amount? Should people choose whether or not to pay?

[evenlift]

@Riverock I've just explained it for you. Violence is violence, whether done by a private party or government. I don't think you really understand the concept of violence, since I had to explain that imprisoning a murderer is not violence!

You're right that government needs to be financed. But, as I say, violence is violence, whether done government or a private party. Therefore taxation is theft. The 'problem' of financing the government is in essence the same as the 'problem' of filling the government jobs. How will we get enough police if we don't enslave people? If enough people believe that government should exist, there is no such problem, because people will choose to do it, as you can see for yourself. And, if enough people don't believe that, then having a government isn't viable anyway. If enough people believe that there should be non-violent government, people will donate money. If enough people don't believe that, non-violent government isn't viable anyway.

[Riverock]

I understand your remarkably selective definition of violence. I understand how it would eliminate government 'violence '. What you haven't explained is how it affects violence done by a private party.

Taxation is not theft. People get a say in how it's spent, in who spends it and all of it is (supposedly) spent to their benefit. That's not any theft I've ever heard of.

So you think government funding should come from donations? Leaving aside the horrific impracticality of that idea, should those who don't pay be denied government services? Should those companies that don't 'donate' tax be denied workers educated by the state, roads built by the state or the protection offered by the state?

[evenlift]

@Riverock Every definition is selective by definition! Your original complaint on this matter was that you thought that I was saying that imprisoning murderers is violent. You wouldn't have complained about that if you didn't think that imprisoning murderers isn't violent. So, you yourself distinguish between the concept 'force' and the concept 'violence'.

As I say, capitalism prohibits violence and only violence. For example, theft by a private party would be prohibited just as theft by the government. Quite simple, really.

If I thieve your car but give you some say in its use and claim to be doing it for your benefit, you would say, "OK, then. Fair enough"? No, you wouldn't.

A donation-financed government in a society where most people believe in having non-violent government is just as practicable as a voluntary police in a society where most people believe in having government.

You still don't understand. The state has no role other than defence against violence.

[Riverock]

"You wouldn't have complained about that if you didn't think that imprisoning murderers isn't violent" - Yes, i would have. I was comparing your ridiculous belief that taxation is violence with the equally ridicolous belief that imprisoning murderers is violence.

"For example, theft by a private party would be prohibited just as theft by the government." - Prohibited how? You still haven't explained it. It would be prohibited by law. Set by government and enforced by politicians.

"If I thieve your car" You still don't get it. The government provides so much. Without it, people couldn't get the wealth they'd have. A better example would be if my Dad, who partly paid for my car, borrowed it without my permission.

Err, no. What happens if a small group gain the vast majority of money (as is happening irl now)? And cuts the funding of the police unless it does what it says? In theory, your idea is not too bad. In practice, it would lead to a corrupt oligarchy. Probably your wet dream.

[Riverock]

"You still don't understand. The state has no role other than defence against violence"

That's your definition. The majority of people disagree and you can't veto their choice on that matter.

[evenlift]

@Riverock Why is it ridiculous? Do you not believe that theft is violence?

Theft by a private party would be prohibited by the same method that it is prohibited now, as you point out. I think you've forgotten that I've said already that I am not an anarchist. Unlike an anarchist, I do not believe that private violence is any less bad than governmental violence. And, unlike you, I don't believe that governmental violence is any less bad than private violence.

No, a proper analogy to your view would be as follows. An interior-decorator breaks into your house and starts decorating without your consent. When you return home, he gives you the bill. According to you, that's OK, and you would actually be the immoral one for refusing to pay!

[evenlift]

@Riverock You imply that the rich might try to get the police to violate people's rights, under my proposed system. And your 'solution' is to advocate violating people's rights through taxation? This is actually a weaker objection than your prior one about potential lack of donations. But, my answer is the same, because it is the same essential objection. I could just as well point out that trying to persuade a society of 99% anarchists to have a voluntary police would fail, unless you first persuade them to have a government at all.

Your final point is just bizarre. I'm not disputing that most people disagree with me. In fact, almost everyone does! But, are you really saying that morality is determined by what most people think? If so, enslaving black people used to be moral, for example. And the abolitionists were immoral!

[Riverock]

Can i ask 2 questions.

1. Are you wealthier than the average person?

2. Do you have any plans for political office?

[evenlift]

@Riverock

1. No. But, it's irrelevant anyway. The truth or falsity of any statement is independent of the person saying it.

2. No. Almost everyone disagrees with me. I'd make an educated guess that far more than 99% of people disagree with me. It would be pointless to stand for political office. The problem is not primarily political, but philosophical. In a culture where most people think that ideas are unimportant, even most people who want political changes think that the problem lies in politics. As the Libertarians' abject failure in the US has shown, this is not true.

[Riverock]

1. Not necessarily. There is no right answer in the right way to run society. It comes down to what kind of society you want to live in. The reason people don't agree with you (and why I never will) in my opinion is that you want a type of society that no one else wants. Your motives make you see things a certain way (e. g. your views of government is entirely different to mine).

2. Fair enough. I get what you're saying (kinda). At least you believe in something. Others need to think about the kind of society they want to live in too.

[evenlift]

@Riverock If there's no right answer, there's no point in debating.

The reason that people don't agree with me is that... they don't agree with me? Well, you don't say!

Regardless how many people disagree with me or you or agree with me or you, that doesn't change the truth or falsity of my views or the truth or falsity of your views. But, I do have some optimism for my cause. It's true, as I've pointed out myself, that almost no one wants the kind of society I want. But, it is also true that we have a society that in many respects almost no one at various points in the past would have wanted. What would US southerners on the eve of the American Civil War have thought of an America that not only prohibits slavery but accepts interracial marriage? What would fifteenth-century Englishmen have thought of an England that not only would break from Catholicism in the next century but in the following centuries would become essentially non-religious?

[Riverock]

What i mean is there's no perfect society. I understand the society you want and hopefully, you remain the minority on this for a long, long time.

And by that what I meant was that it's pointless arguing with you. It's not because others don't think it through as much as you (think you) do. It's that you're asking a different question.

[evenlift]

@Riverock Well, the reason that laws are necessary or even possible is that people do have free will. If I understand what you're saying, what you're saying is as wrong as saying that, because it is very unlikely that there will ever be no rapes whatsoever, rape should not be illegal!

Most people by their own admission don't think about fundamental ideas. In fact, many of them are proud of it. We live in a culture where 'pragmatic' is a compliment and 'ideological' is an insult, and where votes and opinion polls have been substituted for ethics.

[Anonymous]

In places like N. America and western Europe , there has been preciously little "goodness of feminism" for at least a few decades. Women like you seem to be completely oblivious to all the shit feminism has done over the last 30 years. You try to give it credit for far more good than it is really responsible for, yet never acknowledge all the evil it has perpetrated against both genders. That's why feminism, and girls like you, get little respect.

[myTake Owner]

thank you

[Opinion Owner]

You're welcome.

Now go educate yourself on the facts.

[myTake Owner]

Are you saying that Angelica's mom Charlotte actually doesn't make Drew happy?

[Opinion Owner]

I'm not saying anything about a cartoon because cartoons are not reality.

The reality of feminism is much darker than the rosy little picture you are trying to pain here. It's sad that people like you naively support it while ignoring the facts and making light of the reality of what feminism does.

[myTake Owner]

So basically what you are saying is that Snow White should help the dwarves do the dishes.

[Opinion Owner]

I'm saying Snow White should pull her head out her her ass, stop blaming the dwarves for all her problems, stop playing the victim and start taking ownership for her own outcomes.

[myTake Owner]

Yes. I see what you are saying. Snow White should not have eaten the apple. The dwarves cannot be blamed for that, as it was her doing. Snow White should become more independent. It is not the prince's responsibility to wake her up after her mistake.

[Opinion Owner]

Snow White's problem is that she has been brainwashed to believe that she can't do what she wants because the dwarves won't allow her to, or that they have somehow stood in her way. As a result she harbors hatred for the dwarves and treats them badly, telling them they are all bad dwarves and the world would be better without them. She spread that hatred to others princesses and convinced them they were victims of the dwarves too, so now they hate the dwarves even though the dwarves have done nothing to them. Now the dwarves hate the princesses because they have been called names so many times and told they were worthless and slapped when they tried to do anything nice for the princesses. So because of Snow White's mental illness, no one is happy and everyone hates each other.

[myTake Owner]

wow interesting perspective... if only Snow White and the Seven Dwarves can all live together in peace and harmony. I think maybe superman and superwoman can both work together... not as sidekicks, but as equals. What do you think?

[Opinion Owner]

Tell me, Take Owner... exactly how do you perceive Snow White does not already have equality? Specifics, please.

[Opinion Owner]

Still waiting...

[ArchDruidMordred]

Young girls, good role models? When I see today's young girls I see immature, primitive, wannabe "mean girls" who get into fights over stupid crap and take pride in being fat and unhealthy.

[myTake Owner]

thank you

[Anonymous]

i like the post, but now i am still waiting for people to explain what feminists in the usa did, aka made more sexism. and they would forget about feminism in Sweden and other countries

[myTake Owner]

thank you

[genuinlysensitive]

Feminism is feminism, it started here in the US and spread to other countries, please don't pretend just because it isn't in the US feminism isn't just as wrong and hateful.

[Opinion Owner]

feminism in the arabic countries isn't hateful. i know it, because i see it. it helps for example men in egypt to declare themselves as human beings and not as animals just like it helps women to declare themselves as humans as well, not objects

[Opinion Owner]

@genuinlysensitive

[ShutUpAndSuckMe]

Feminism did a lot of good things. There's no arguing that. That was then & this is what Feminism is now:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iARHCxAMAO0

[Hephaestus]

ah man, that's disgusting... they are a disgrace

[weapon-x]

I don't get it.

[MelioraValidus]

Farrell is just a sexist pig and nothing more. He became an MRA after he and his wife separated, and she was a powerful executive. I have but to wonder if his MRA leanings are just his weird way he thinks he's "getting back at" his ex-wife.

[MelioraValidus]

Defending them? I AM them. I am a Feminist.

[Anonymous]

I'm so tired of feminism, since when did equally mean "feminism"?

Men are just as much attacked by double standards and expectations. I bash feminism because I want EVERYONE to be equal and I don't mean "how can I make things more convenient for women?" I mean it literally.

Women, enough already. The feminist movement is over, if you don't step down we end up in matriarchy which is just as bed as patriarchy.

Join the humanist movement and start looking at both sides.

[Opinion Owner]

By the way, since you use fictive people as role models.

Who do I, a guy have to look up to?

Chris Griffin and Glenn Quagmire (and the other clones of family guy, which is pretty much the same)
Homer Simpson
Keitaro Urashima

Also note the Kranks in Ed, Edd and Eddy and pretend the gendered are reversed.
And don't get me started on movie protagonists but here's a few movies:
40 Days and 40 Nights
40 year old virgin

You see the pattern?

Men are still portrayed as being stupid, ignorant and sexist pigs and abuse a man is not only funny but appropriate.

I've collected a few articles as thoughts
www.cracked.com/...tionship-advice-from-cosmo.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gF6xNzMxUYY
www.cracked.com/...man-who-was-raped-by-woman.html
www.cracked.com/.../
www.cracked.com/.../
abcnews.go.com/.../story?id=1752245&page=1

[xCutesyLolitax]

Despite feminism’s major opposing arguments, in reality, feminism is the belief in the social, political, and economic equality of both men and women, not solely exclusive to women. This movement believes in the equality of both sexes and provides men with an opportunity to overcome the restrictive “masculine” roles imposed by society that deprive them of their full humanity. Regardless to popular belief, feminism doesn’t just liberate women; it liberates men from the standards dictated by modern society. Men are taught in society to be emotionless, “macho,” and that it is an act of cowardice to show weakness, such as being sad and crying. These rules constructed by society cause men to feel confined. By sharp contrast, feminism says that it is acceptable for men to show weakness and in turn, express their emotions. Women focusing on women’s issues is not sexist. One of the reasons why feminists are said to be sexist towards men is because feminists focus on, and privilege, the female

[xCutesyLolitax]

point of view. The majority of feminists believe that the discussions on men and masculinities are of absolute importance. However, it is of essence to realize that men, not women, need to be the ones creating the spaces to discuss men’s issues.

[myTake Owner]

Hank Hill or Goku.

[Opinion Owner]

Well according to the free dictionary feminism means:
"1. Belief in or advocacy of women's social, political, and economic rights, especially with regard to equality of the sexes.
2. The movement organized around this belief."

I don't see where "men" is on that list.

There's still plenty of rules that feminists don't change although none of the following statements are correct nor fair:

"You should never ever harm a women, even if she hit firsts"
"Harming a man is funny"
"Rape can only happen to women by a man"
"A man should always pay"
"A man is required to accept if a woman doesn't want abortions no matter the circumstances"
"Likewise, a woman is always the right when discussion custody and child support"

You should really check my previous sources before replying.

[shadowlegend]

I agree with you, women have already obtained equal rights, which is what they were fighting for, everything else is either about having MORE than men, or the "Feminist" argument is being used inaccurately.

[takumii]

"We no longer have just superman. We have superwomen."

Yaaaa... right, what would had we done without superwoman. I agree, superwoman gave me some good fapping material when i was 15. Kudos to feminists.

"We have made our way into the male society"
Mother of all cliches, this is a line that would sound decent coming out of the mouth of an alien invading earth.

"Now we are not just strong in the brain. We can have physical strength too!"
Maybe that's why an average man is smarter and physically stronger than an average woman.

"We do not have to be ashamed or scared of what people think because our sex life is none of any person's business."
#ProudToBeAProstitute

"Today she is protected."
Seeking protection from men by men, and on that demeaning the men who give you protection, good game well played !

They say they are strong, independent and can protect themselves, yet want a good earning, protective and loving husband. Can one be more hypocritic.

[Anonymous]

The problem is not just feminism. Feminism is the tip of the iceberg, that is gynocentrism.

So what is the end game of gynocentrism? To give women all the power, privileges, benefits and advantages in society while condemning men to all the responsibility and accountability. This includes the unwritten rules of society. Women are given moral supremacy. While men are demonized, demoralized and disempowerd.

[xoooQooo]

absolutely agree! the end result is catastrophic for both genders - men giving up going MIGTOW, or herbivore ignoring women and just using p*rn like in japan; and women only being left with a diminishing number of assholes and 'players' who get imprisoned because they didn't get a contract for consent signed before each sexual encounter... "hey wanna come back to mine, sign some paperwork, then get dirty?" "hi just to let you know, i'm filming tonight just to provide evidence of consent as the evening progresses. Can i buy you a drink?"

[Anonymous]

i am saddened as feminism seems, now, to going way beyond the mandate of equality of opportunity for women, and moving to outright subjugation of men. It patronises women, when it tells them they are victims of some nebulous patriarchy or have little responsibility for their actions. It infantilizes them, and I can't view that approach as anything but insulting and demeaning to women.

[Riverock]

Explaining the good of feminism by looking at cartoons was probably a bad move and certainly not enough to convince a single guy on this site that passionately hates feminism already.

[HeyNosy]

I really like this take. The only thing I would say, is don't generalize men. Granted, people tend to generalize but not all men are like this. Not even the average man. Men who oppose women's rights are the minority not the majority. Aside from that, this take makes a lot of good (and valid) points.

[vishna]

I'm so sorry you're getting all this negativity.

I'm a feminist, and I say lets continue to empower women until every woman and girl has the opportunity to pursue an education, voice her opinion, wear the clothing she desires, and do many other normal activities like driving, dating, and working!

Thank you for this post, I see your intention and it's a very good one.

[Anonymous]

I'm sorry for the comments you'll get for this take - this site is full of guys who feel threatened by feminism and by women in general. I have friends who are feminists - and guess what, they don't bite. They actually approach men, pay for dinners, and do kinds of stuff people here wish for, and are kinda cool. You enjoy your empowerment and the rights feminism has given you.

[ComDom]

Threatened by Feminism? Perhaps. Women in general? No. Radical Feminists and sometimes regular ole' feminists? You betcha.

[NedfromtheNed]

its nice how you did it under the cover on anonymous. Next time you have an opinion put you name on it

[M_A_X]

I like how you instantly poison the well by implying that any man against feminism must feel threatened. It's got nothing to do with the fact that feminism is based on the same kind of logical fallacies that you try to use

[M_A_X]

Anyone intelligent hates feminism because people who actually argue for feminism use bullshit logical fallacies, lies, bloated statistics, and plausible deniability. They go around acting like victims, but they have no problem screaming louder than you just to make sure nobody hears you and everyone hears them

[bananatossing]

Just when I thought the feminism crap propaganda was over in gag and now we have it with a little bit of trolling as well...

[HeyNosy]

I can spot trolls from miles off. I don't believe she is trolling

[FALLENCHRISTEY94]

feminist now days don't know what they want like equality as such but feminist back fought for rights not for stupid stuff and didn't hate men at all and its true too... but at least some are making differences than most in the world.

[Wintersmorning]

Yes I'm a feminist and I agree with this to a certain extent but you forgot to mention how it makes men more comfortable in revealing their soft/feminine traits as well. Feminism is about gender equality, not just empowering women.

[PhiOmega]

What feminism has done does justify anything that those who claim to be feminist are doing now

And even the way you word your take seems very antagonistic of men, basically saying that feminism saved women from evil men and now they can do this to men and that to men,

Yea, srry I'm not on board to see how much u can "stick it to the man"

[anonman32]

Now lets review some of the bad things its doing

saying all men are rapists
Disregarding male issues in society
Bashing masculinity
Empowering women at the cost of men
Misandry
Minimizing father roles
Allowing paternity fraud
Epidemic of false rape accusations