General

Well I don't think feminists should focus on that issue in particular because ISIS in general tends to be made up of savages. They have worse issues going on.

That being said I don't think true feminists really focus on the conventional topics that you're referring to in your original post. It's just the fact that, unfortunately, this minor portion of "feminists" gets a large representation because of how loud they are. Those girls just like to victimize themselves and want the world to revolve around them, but many actual feminists do look at actual cases of sexual inequity objectively and try to alleviate the negative impact it has on both male and females.

[quote=BlueColt]Momijii: Lmao alright then. Hey, you can think whatever you want. You can think that I'm 12, you can think that I "can't follow logic", you can not take me seriously, you can think that you've won this argument, but I really honestly don't care. Have a great rest of your life.[/quote]
you too! can't wait to enslave you using feminism!

@Momijii: Lmao alright then. Hey, you can think whatever you want. You can think that I'm 12, you can think that I "can't follow logic", you can not take me seriously, you can think that you've won this argument, but I really honestly don't care. Have a great rest of your life.

this is going to be my last post because i don't deal with twelve year olds incapable of following an argument.

[quote=BlueColt]I did, thank you very much and I'll just happily point out that one was written by the "National Organization for women" and another was on "everydayfeminism.com". So with the obvious bias that was put into these articles, I'm not taking them seriously.[/quote]
hang on, you're telling me that feminists apparently don't advocate for male victims of sexual assault and yet when i give a women's organization site and a really solid feminist site, you say "oh it doesn't count because they're biased." uh, WHAT? obviously i can't win here if you won't even take those sites seriously.

[quote=BlueColt]1) Oh and I have plenty more if you want. We have [url=http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/18/double-standard-seen-when-boys-sexually-abused-by-women/3615947/]this. This not only is another instance of a boy being sexually assaulted, but it literally shows you research statistics on the double standard seen when boys are the ones who are victims. The very thing I was trying to tell you last post.

2) And this particular "individual" who got "screwed over by the law" got sexually assaulted and is now PAYING HER child support. Feminists and liberals are always arguing that the abortion of a baby is necessary if she didn't want it (e.g. sexual assault). So why exactly now does this boy have to pay the woman child support as if he didn't want to be sexually assaulted either? Double standard, again. And this double standard goes much farther than cheating and sexual assault.[/quote]
more please, and let's aim beyond USAToday. i think we can do better than that.

condescension aside, part of the issue is the fact that statutory sexual assault is codified different than sexual assault. the other issue is because it's underreported. prosecuting sexual assault on the whole is very difficult, despite what Law&Order: SVU may portray. the system is rife with issues that need to be addressed: the stigma against men needs to be improved (which feminism deals with) and there needs to be better prosecution for cases of female sexual assault.

[quote=BlueColt]Yes, you are. Liberals are the ones who are for the movement of getting everyone to be who they want regardless of gender.[/quote]
too bad it's largely from the post-modern, post-structuralist feminist movement. classical liberalism may have influenced the ideas, but they were not the source. (largely because classical liberals didn't write on it...)

[quote=BlueColt]If you think that paragraph was feminist dogma, you clearly didn't read it. In that paragraph I explained to you why undermining a male sexual assault victim because of how they're viewed by society is wrong. You're saying that feminism wants to "dismantle the idea that a women is only one thing and that a man is only one thing". If you'll notice, those two things are DIFFERENT. I don't know how you got: "undermining a male sexual assault victim because of society's views = feminists wanting men and women to be seen as more than just one thing."[/quote]
because you clearly can't follow logic: male sexual assault victims are undermined and not taken seriously because it is considered "unmasculine" to not only not want sex but to not enjoy it. a vibrant sex drive is part of the archetypal western male. feminism seeks to destroy the notion of a singular expression of gender (ie., the "macho" man who has loads of sex and the demure woman who is pure, but still has lots of children).

your paragraph on why male sexual assault isn't taken as seriously is a very feminist paragraph. it's unfortunate that you can't see that.

[quote=BlueColt]Now you're just completely lying, to be honest. If feminism is the advocacy of WOMEN'S rights, that means they're doing something WRONG by working with sexual assault victims of males, which is the very opposite of feminism. Again, it is common knowledge that feminists are more concerned with women. See how "feminists" kind of sounds like "feminine"? Hey, you think there might be a connection between the two? My goodness.[/quote]
if feminism wants to deal with male sexual assault victims, then let them. i'm not sure why you, as a male, are trying to tell a woman's organization what they should and should not be doing. not to mention, how are the meninists out there supporting their male sexual assault victims? haven't really heard of that bunch doing much.

[quote=BlueColt]Well of course the ridiculing is coming from those close to the person affected, you're definitely right. And that's what I'm saying. It's those who are close to that person that feel a great disliking for the person who cheated. What I'm saying is that I normally see cases in which the victims of cheating draw more attention if they are female. I'm telling you that that's what I've seen. And that includes the fact that it's happened with boyfriends/girlfriends but I don't know about you.[/quote]
again, find me a scholarly source. i haven't ever seen anything disproportionately skewed in either direction: people hate cheaters.

[quote=BlueColt]If a scholarly source can appear in credible newspapers, go look at the article I showed you about it previously in this post. It was about the double standard part, and written by "The (Westchester County, N.Y.) Journal News".[/quote]
that's not credible. perhaps i should've been more clear: credible newspapers are circulated nationally or internationally. this is circulated in new york. its daily circulation is about 170,000. for comparison, [i]The Economist[/i] circulates over 4,000,000 weekly, and [i]The Wall Street Journal[/i] circulates more than 2,300,000 daily. give me something substantial. also, that has to deal with the double standard in sexual assault; i was asking for the double standard in cheat shaming.

[quote=BlueColt]And if Kelly Brook can get away with punching two of her ex-boyfriends in the face, go on public television and laugh about it, and also write a book about doing so, then I guess not all things are fair.[/quote]
right because that's on the same level as a serial cheater and someone who actually abuses the person they're having an affair with. PLEASE.

[quote=BlueColt]So now is when you decide to tell me that feminism "does tend to focus on women, but thens chokingly LGBT movements tend to focus on LGBT people."? Are you not the same person who was just trying to tell me that feminism works with all people? With everyone, "regardless of gender" as you put it? This is what I'VE been trying to tell YOU.[/quote]
the main aim is women, yes. but feminists help men as well.

[quote=BlueColt]And feminism does not have a "positive benefit to all people whereas, including men." I don't know what world you live in where feminism is helping men, because that's actually the exact opposite of what it's doing. And men from anywhere can tell you that feminism is a movement that needs to go because it has morphed into much more than "women's rights".[/quote]
here are some [url=http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2012/12/reasons-people-believe-feminism-hates-men/]sites[/url] [url=http://mic.com/articles/88277/23-ways-feminism-has-made-the-world-a-better-place-for-men]for[/url] you! (warning: they may be biased! *wink*)

[quote=BlueColt]It's involved downgrading men by telling them that women don't need them, having this double standard that I just showed you existed, etc. I don't know what mythological movement you know called "feminism" that has a positive impact on men because it doesn't take a person with half a brain to realize that that is the exact opposite of anything they've ever done.[/quote]
there are bad apples out there, yes. but then again, there are bad types of all kinds of people. you really don't hear that many stories about the average Christian girl that donated five-dollars to a local food drive do you? no, you hear about the girl that massacred a group of people in the name of Christianity. same goes with feminism: you don't hear about the average feminist that fought against a sexist rule at school, do you? of course not! you hear about that radical feminist that wrote that men are simply walking dil*os.

sensationalism sells. reality does not.

[quote=BlueColt]And you know why that's (and I use this word seriously) stupid? Because men and women each have their own characteristics and are generally known to do things differently. Men are known to be physically stronger, so why would people not expect more of them in, say, athletic events? The fact that feminism wants women to be held to a different standard than men is completely idiotic because it does not fit the system. Men and women are different in their abilities, which is why they are two different genders in the first place.[/quote]
there's a difference between secondary sex characteristics (ie., a generally easier ability to put on muscle, broad shoulders, etc) and what the system imposes on genders. the male sex is one thing and the male gender is another. i don't really see many feminists arguing that males are not usually physically stronger (or at least able to be physically stronger), but rather most feminists would argue that there should not be an expectation for the man to be always stronger than the woman. hell, take Serena Williams for example. right now she's just about the best female tennis player in history. aside from ignoring that achievement, what do some people refer to as? mannish. she is manly because she is (very) successful in sports. feminism works to undermine that notion that women that are athletic are inherently unwomanly, and men that are unathletic are naturally unmanly.

[quote=BlueColt]Of course it's much more complex, but do feminists talk about that?[/quote]
most feminists, not all, but yes feminists are talking about that.

[quote=BlueColt]They are the ones who have made me hear over and over and over again about how women make 77 cents to a man's dollar. They are the ones who aren't focusing on the race part, like I've said for maybe the hundredth time. What you're doing is taking into account something that doesn't have to do with what the argument even is. If the argument is about men and women, the wage gap between others is irrelevant. It's like if two people were debating which movie is better in a comparison between two movies and then bringing up a third one that wasn't being mentioned in the first place. The things I've said fall into the debate of man vs. woman and you are bringing race into this. If you are debating between men vs. women, then what are you going to be talking about? Men and women. Nobody was talking about race in the first place and the complexity of the wage gap which is about all the other races and what they receive.[/quote]
because women and men make up more than one race? a movement that fights for the equality of genders does include race in the discussion.

[quote=BlueColt]And that is exactly why I [b]don't[/b] take you seriously.[/quote]
we're on the same page for once!

[quote=BlueColt]No one in a serious debate that I have seen resorts to calling the other person names and says, "you sound like you're 12 years old".[/quote]
good thing this isn't a serious debate and we're only on an online forum! ha!

[quote=BlueColt]You know why? Because that's what little children do. And now before you or anyone says, "well you just called him a child by saying that that's what little children do" let me be clear that I have not called you a child, I'm saying you're doing what children do, which is not the same thing. If you want to call me a 12 year old, at least bother to capitalize the first letter in a sentence if you could, because that's something I was taught way before 12 years old.[/quote]
1) To just shut-down your first portion of the argument: Then don't act like a child then. Little children are capable of grasping even the most basic concepts!
2) My choice to not capitalize the first word of every sentence and proper nouns is a stylistic choice. We are merely on an internet forum and not in a professional setting, therefore I find it a waste of time and unnecessary to use complete proper capitalization. But of course, you know you're losing when you have to stoop to the level of insulting someone's immediate writing style and not the content. You should be fortunate I'm deeply uninterested in editing all your posts.
3) In addition, my choice to not capitalize appropriately does not have an impact on the veracity of the content of my posts.

[quote=Momijii]i linked two articles from a very short search when i replied to datine. better check them.[/quote]

I did, thank you very much and I'll just happily point out that one was written by the "National Organization for women" and another was on "everydayfeminism.com". So with the obvious bias that was put into these articles, I'm not taking them seriously.

[quote=Momijii]you showed me one instance in which an individual got screwed over by the law. most other cases of statutory sexual assault are taken seriously.[/quote]

1) Oh and I have plenty more if you want. We have [url=http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/18/double-standard-seen-when-boys-sexually-abused-by-women/3615947/]this[/quote]. This not only is another instance of a boy being sexually assaulted, but it literally shows you research statistics on the double standard seen when boys are the ones who are victims. The very thing I was trying to tell you last post.

2) And this particular "individual" who got "screwed over by the law" got sexually assaulted and is now PAYING HER child support. Feminists and liberals are always arguing that the abortion of a baby is necessary if she didn't want it (e.g. sexual assault). So why exactly now does this boy have to pay the woman child support as if he didn't want to be sexually assaulted either? Double standard, again. And this double standard goes much farther than cheating and sexual assault.

[quote=Momijii]no i am not. just read virtually any serious post-modern, post-structural feminist piece and they will give you that gender is a social construct so this notion that a girl needs to wear pink and play with dolls and a boy needs to play with action figures and wear blue is false.[/quote]

Yes, you are. Liberals are the ones who are for the movement of getting everyone to be who they want regardless of gender.

[quote=Momijii]and that's what feminism works towards: dismantling the idea that a women is only one thing and that a man is only one thing. like honestly that paragraph right there is all feminist dogma.[/quote]

If you think that paragraph was feminist dogma, you clearly didn't read it. In that paragraph I explained to you why undermining a male sexual assault victim because of how they're viewed by society is wrong. You're saying that feminism wants to "dismantle the idea that a women is only one thing and that a man is only one thing". If you'll notice, those two things are DIFFERENT. I don't know how you got: "undermining a male sexual assault victim because of society's views = feminists wanting men and women to be seen as more than just one thing."

[quote=Momijii]feminists work with sexual assault victims of both genders. go find the two articles or go do more research yourself. also, if you're not disgusted by sexual assault, you're doing something wrong.[/quote]

Now you're just completely lying, to be honest. If feminism is the advocacy of WOMEN'S rights, that means they're doing something WRONG by working with sexual assault victims of males, which is the very opposite of feminism. Again, it is common knowledge that feminists are more concerned with women. See how "feminists" kind of sounds like "feminine"? Hey, you think there might be a connection between the two? My goodness.

[quote=Momijii]i've seen people ridiculed for cheating on their spouse but not a boyfriend or girlfriend. any kind of ridiculing i've ever seen comes from those tied to the person that was cheated on (eg., parents, best friends, etc). anyways, Tiger Woods cheated on his long time wife with multiple women, while also being a hot mess during the entire scandal. but let's not forget that everyone mocks Kim Kardashian for being married for 72 days either.[/quote]

Well of course the ridiculing is coming from those close to the person affected, you're definitely right. And that's what I'm saying. It's those who are close to that person that feel a great disliking for the person who cheated. What I'm saying is that I normally see cases in which the victims of cheating draw more attention if they are female. I'm telling you that that's what I've seen. And that includes the fact that it's happened with boyfriends/girlfriends but I don't know about you.

[quote=Momijii]go to college. graduate high school. a scholarly source is a source that's appeared in a peer-reviewed journal. some can stretch it to appearing in credible newspapers (The Economist, The Wall Street Journal, etc)

again, if you can find me a paper that was written on how men are cheater-shamed, then i'll buy into it. right now you're just giving me [citation needed] realness.[/quote]

If a scholarly source can appear in credible newspapers, go look at the article I showed you about it previously in this post. It was about the double standard part, and written by "The (Westchester County, N.Y.) Journal News".

[quote=Momijii]most of those women that the article focused on did receive backlash. what the author of this article missed was that the men were doing something more salacious than just cheating: one cheated on a person with a Nazi tattoo, Tiger Woods was a serial cheater, and Charlie Sheen abused the women he cheated on. the men got more attention because there was more to the story than just "they cheated on their spouse."[/quote]

And if Kelly Brook can get away with punching two of her ex-boyfriends in the face, go on public television and laugh about it, and also write a book about doing so, then I guess not all things are fair.

[quote=Momijii]and any academic feminist worth their salt would tell you that that the real goal of feminism is to dismantle the patriarchy, which has a negative impact on virtually everyone. you can try to thump your OED at me, but a perpetually changing movement (there are multiple waves of feminism, each with different focuses). you're right that feminism does tend to focus on women, but then shockingly LGBT movements tend to focus on LGBT people. weird how it works like that. at any rate, feminism has a positive benefit to all people whereas, including men.[/quote]

So now is when you decide to tell me that feminism "does tend to focus on women, but thens chokingly LGBT movements tend to focus on LGBT people."? Are you not the same person who was just trying to tell me that feminism works with all people? With everyone, "regardless of gender" as you put it? This is what I'VE been trying to tell YOU.

And feminism does not have a "positive benefit to all people whereas, including men." I don't know what world you live in where feminism is helping men, because that's actually the exact opposite of what it's doing. And men from anywhere can tell you that feminism is a movement that needs to go because it has morphed into much more than "women's rights". It's involved downgrading men by telling them that women don't need them, having this double standard that I just showed you existed, etc. I don't know what mythological movement you know called "feminism" that has a positive impact on men because it doesn't take a person with half a brain to realize that that is the exact opposite of anything they've ever done.

[quote=Momijii]could you please explain to me what social equality is? is it, perhaps, the notion that women should not be held to different standards than men? that's where a lot of the modern (post-modern?) feminist movement is concentrated in.[/quote]

And you know why that's (and I use this word seriously) stupid? Because men and women each have their own characteristics and are generally known to do things differently. Men are known to be physically stronger, so why would people not expect more of them in, say, athletic events? The fact that feminism wants women to be held to a different standard than men is completely idiotic because it does not fit the system. Men and women are different in their abilities, which is why they are two different genders in the first place.

[quote=Momijii]and those feminists are bad feminists if they focus exclusively on the fact that it is white women that are making 77 cents to a white man's dollar. the wage gap is much more complex than just a missing 23 cents between genders.[/quote]
Of course it's much more complex, but do feminists talk about that? They are the ones who have made me hear over and over and over again about how women make 77 cents to a man's dollar. They are the ones who aren't focusing on the race part, like I've said for maybe the hundredth time. What you're doing is taking into account something that doesn't have to do with what the argument even is. If the argument is about men and women, the wage gap between others is irrelevant. It's like if two people were debating which movie is better in a comparison between two movies and then bringing up a third one that wasn't being mentioned in the first place. The things I've said fall into the debate of man vs. woman and you are bringing race into this. If you are debating between men vs. women, then what are you going to be talking about? Men and women. Nobody was talking about race in the first place and the complexity of the wage gap which is about all the other races and what they receive.

[quote=Momijii]because it sounds like you're just a twelve year-old that's met one feminists and had a bad time: feminism is about all women. race does play a factor into feminism. there are all kinds of feminists: white feminists, black feminists, asian feminists, disabled feminists, trans feminists. the best feminists are inclusionary and work with their fellow women (and men when possible) to achieve equality for all women, regardless of gender. there are bad feminists (TERF feminists) and there are good feminists (inclusive feminists). but there are also bad Christians (the KKK) and good Christians.

and then you missed the crucial part of my argument that the wage gap has become largely symbolic (especially for white feminists) of a debate between why men are told that they should be doctors and women are told they should be nurses (and so on).[/quote]

And that is exactly why I [b]don't[/b] take you seriously. No one in a serious debate that I have seen resorts to calling the other person names and says, "you sound like you're 12 years old". You know why? Because that's what little children do. And now before you or anyone says, "well you just called him a child by saying that that's what little children do" let me be clear that I have not called you a child, I'm saying you're doing what children do, which is not the same thing. If you want to call me a 12 year old, at least bother to capitalize the first letter in a sentence if you could, because that's something I was taught way before 12 years old.

I have not just met one feminist and have had a bad time. I've seen numerous cases in which feminists do all this stuff that I have explained to you. I know that there are all kinds of feminists, but you're the one trying to tell me that feminism is a much-needed movement that helps everyone and has a positive impact on both genders, because it DOESN'T, otherwise it wouldn't be feminism. Advocating women's rights would mean that they feel that men have a higher standard than women and want to fight against that, so if they're doing that, why would they also advocate for men? You see where your arguments don't make sense?

[quote=BlueColt]Sorry to say, but that's actually false. It doesn't take a genius to know that feminists have a tendency to take it easier on female sexual offenders and have much harsher attitudes towards the males.[/quote]
i linked two articles from a very short search when i replied to datine. better check them.

[quote=BlueColt]This whole "regardless of gender" thing you think exists doesn't really. I already showed you an example of that.[/quote]
you showed me one instance in which an individual got screwed over by the law. most other cases of statutory sexual assault are taken seriously.

[quote=BlueColt]You're confusing feminism with liberalism. Liberals are the ones who you described as people who want everyone to "be able to express their gender how they see fit", not feminists. This is a common liberal idea, which you'll notice ties to transgenderism and their support of those who wish to identify as the opposite gender.[/quote]
no i am not. just read virtually any serious post-modern, post-structural feminist piece and they will give you that gender is a social construct so this notion that a girl needs to wear pink and play with dolls and a boy needs to play with action figures and wear blue is false.

[quote=BlueColt]As for the second paragraph, again, that shouldn't happen. If society's view of men is all it takes to cause them to be treated unfairly after being sexually assaulted, then it's obviously downright unfair. I can just as easily give you a description of what society thinks of women and use it as an excuse to justify men's actions when they sexually assault a woman. Men liking sex does not relate to being sexually assaulted, and that's actually how the women view it, not the men. Sex is generally regarded as a pleasurable experience when consentual, but an absolutely horrifying experience when being forced to do it. Like I said, this "tough and macho" depiction of men is a generalization. That means that not every man in the world has sex and makes money and is successful. If a man does not wish to be forced into sex and finds being sexually assaulted unpleasant, that means something should be done about it. He is his own person and maybe does not fit the standards of the average man, or how society views men. It's the individual that's assaulted, so the generalization that we have given men in our society should have nothing to do with what he had to go through. So this "man is a very specific thing" ideology should not undermine a male sexual assault victim.[/quote]
and that's what feminism works towards: dismantling the idea that a women is only one thing and that a man is only one thing. like honestly that paragraph right there is all feminist dogma.

[quote=BlueColt]Men do have a smaller end of the stick, you're right. But feminism does not work towards addressing the fact that it is under-prosecuted with ANY such victim. As I said while quoting you the first time earlier in this post, feminists are more concerned with female sexual assault victims than males, plain and simple. It's common knowledge. Feminists have a double standard when dealing with these kinds of things. If you're a male and you were sexually assaulted, feminists focus more on the fact that the culprit was a woman and try to justify her actions with a plethora of excuses rather than address the fact that a human being was sexually assaulted. If a woman is sexually assaulted, feminists are absolutely disgusted and beyond outraged.[/quote]
feminists work with sexual assault victims of both genders. go find the two articles or go do more research yourself. also, if you're not disgusted by sexual assault, you're doing something wrong.

[quote=BlueColt]It's more than confusing that you've never seen a man who cheats on his wife/girlfriend being ridiculed. We as a society do not accept that kind of behavior, but completely twist that when it comes to the gender part. It is tolerable when women are the ones cheating. It is often seen when celebrities are involved, you can look up some of the cases (e.g. Tiger Woods).[/quote]
i've seen people ridiculed for cheating on their [b]spouse[/b] but not a boyfriend or girlfriend. any kind of ridiculing i've ever seen comes from those tied to the person that was cheated on (eg., parents, best friends, etc). anyways, Tiger Woods cheated on his long time wife with multiple women, while also being a hot mess during the entire scandal. but let's not forget that everyone mocks Kim Kardashian for being married for 72 days either.

[quote=BlueColt]And what are you talking about "scholarly"? You want me to find a source that "involves or relates to serious academic study" (which is the exact definition of scholarly) about the double standard involved with cheating? How exactly should I find a scholarly source about that? Those don't exist because the topic of society having a double standard when it comes to cheating does not involve or relate to serious academic study. What would that even be? Statistics on how many times the average male is confronted as opposed to females? It's more about how society takes it, there are no given stats or facts that we can view, no serious academic study has ever been put into the double standard involved with cheating, so no such sources exist. And it's quite baffling that you don't know where I got this idea because there are plenty of people who are aware of this double standard.[/quote]
go to college. graduate high school. a scholarly source is a source that's appeared in a peer-reviewed journal. some can stretch it to appearing in credible newspapers ([i]The Economist[/i], [i]The Wall Street Journal[/i], etc)

again, if you can find me a paper that was written on how men are cheater-shamed, then i'll buy into it. right now you're just giving me [citation needed] realness.

[quote=BlueColt]But if you want a source, [url=http://jezebel.com/5779855/adulterys-double-standard]here.[/url] This is a source that talks about recent cases in which celebrities have been caught cheating and how society handles it, the way this situation SHOULD be looked at.[/quote]
most of those women that the article focused on [i]did[/i] receive backlash. what the author of this article missed was that the men were doing something more salacious than just cheating: one cheated on a person with a Nazi tattoo, Tiger Woods was a serial cheater, and Charlie Sheen abused the women he cheated on. the men got more attention because there was more to the story than just "they cheated on their spouse."

[quote=BlueColt]2) I guess feminists aren't doing their job correctly according to the depiction you have of them. You try over and over and over again to make it seem like feminists try to address issues that both genders experience (probably the fourth time you've done that). But guess what? Feminism is defined as "the advocacy of WOMEN'S RIGHTS on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men." You see those words I highlighted and capitalized for you? Feminism is defined as the advocacy of whose rights? WOMEN'S. Feminism is literally DEFINED as the advocacy of women's rights, so you cannot be a feminist by working towards addressing male issues as well. Otherwise, you're not a feminist because it is literally defined right there for you. One who advocates women's rights cannot possibly identify as a supporter of that advocacy if they are addressing men's problems too, which is what you have tried to tell me, consistently, that feminists do, which they DON'T. That would be egalitarianism, which is defined as "a trend of thought that favors equality for ALL people." You have things mixed up.[/quote]
and any academic feminist worth their salt would tell you that that the real goal of feminism is to dismantle the patriarchy, which has a negative impact on virtually everyone. you can try to thump your OED at me, but a perpetually changing movement (there are multiple waves of feminism, each with different focuses). you're right that feminism does tend to focus on women, but then shockingly LGBT movements tend to focus on LGBT people. weird how it works like that. at any rate, feminism has a positive benefit to all people whereas, including men.

[quote=BlueColt]Addressing ALL women's issues is literally the definition of feminism! Should I read it to you again? Feminism: "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men." It says it right there. It is the advocacy of women's rights. Notice how it only says women, which means that feminism is a movement for ALL women. Where does it say WHITE women? Can you please find me where it mentions anything about race? This definition that I can repeat to you over and over again for as long as I please is all I need to disprove your point.[/quote]
could you please explain to me what social equality is? is it, perhaps, the notion that women should not be held to different standards than men? that's where a lot of the modern (post-modern?) feminist movement is concentrated in.

[quote=BlueColt]And even then, feminists are saying that women make 77 cents to a man's dollar. The subjects are women and men, those are genders and not races.[/quote]
and those feminists are bad feminists if they focus exclusively on the fact that it is [i]white[/i] women that are making 77 cents to a [i]white[/i] man's dollar. the wage gap is much more complex than just a missing 23 cents between genders.

[quote=BlueColt]That's actually exactly what you're doing: misinterpreting what I'm saying.[/quote]
noted.

[quote=BlueColt]And why exactly are you saying "white man" and "white woman"?[/quote]
[url=http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/wagegapbrokenupbyrace-011.png]because the wage gap is more complex than that[/url]

[quote=BlueColt]Do I have to explain this to you again? The debate between people like me and feminists is that women making 77 cents to a man's dollar is a myth because then employers would hire a woman over a man for the same labor, just cheaper. This argument is about the two genders, so stop bringing race into this. Do you get what I'm saying? You keep bringing race into this debate when I never said white man or white woman even once. It is just strictly all men and all women. It is not white women making 77 cents to a white man's dollar, it is ALL women making 77 cents to what would be any man's dollar. Okay? You saying that following my logic would be instead hiring Latinas is actually completely false, because being Latina has to do with your race, and the argument was about the two genders to begin with. You are the one who brought race into this, so don't put words into my mouth. See the problem? I talked about the problem involving the two genders and you transitioned it into a race thing, which is a completely different topic, so your argument is actually stupid.[/quote]
because it sounds like you're just a twelve year-old that's met one feminists and had a bad time: feminism is about all women. race [i]does[/i] play a factor into feminism. there are all kinds of feminists: white feminists, black feminists, asian feminists, disabled feminists, trans feminists. the best feminists are inclusionary and work with their fellow women (and men when possible) to achieve equality for all women, [b]regardless[/b] of gender. there are bad feminists (TERF feminists) and there are good feminists (inclusive feminists). but there are also bad Christians (the KKK) and good Christians.

and then you missed the crucial part of my argument that the wage gap has become largely symbolic (especially for white feminists) of a debate between why men are told that they should be doctors and women are told they should be nurses (and so on).

Why do people still argue about this? Feminism will always have it's annoying loud minority, because there are always stupid people in every aspect of life, and in civilized countries actual feminism has already succeeded.

[quote=Momijii]they do...... the non-problematic (eg., TERF fems, etc) feminists do treat sexual assault as sexual assault, regardless of gender.[/quote]

Sorry to say, but that's actually false. It doesn't take a genius to know that feminists have a tendency to take it easier on female sexual offenders and have much harsher attitudes towards the males. This whole "regardless of gender" thing you think exists doesn't really. I already showed you an example of that.

[quote=Momijii]....and that's the kind of stuff feminism fights against. the notion of a "strong and independent" woman is a euphemism for the right to be more than just a certain idea. feminists want everyone to be able express their gender how they see fit. if a girl wants to play sports and play with action figures? cool. if a boy wants to do ballet and play with dolls? cool. if a girl wants to play dress-up and be girly? cool. feminism works against this notion that there is one way to express gender.

in the current white-patriarchy, a man is a very specific thing. they are macho. they're tough. boys don't cry. men have sex and men like sex, with women of course. men make money and are successful. that mentality is what undermines male sexual assault victims.[/quote]

You're confusing feminism with liberalism. Liberals are the ones who you described as people who want everyone to "be able to express their gender how they see fit", not feminists. This is a common liberal idea, which you'll notice ties to transgenderism and their support of those who wish to identify as the opposite gender.

As for the second paragraph, again, that shouldn't happen. If society's view of men is all it takes to cause them to be treated unfairly after being sexually assaulted, then it's obviously downright unfair. I can just as easily give you a description of what society thinks of women and use it as an excuse to justify men's actions when they sexually assault a woman. Men liking sex does not relate to being sexually assaulted, and that's actually how the women view it, not the men. Sex is generally regarded as a pleasurable experience when consentual, but an absolutely horrifying experience when being forced to do it. Like I said, this "tough and macho" depiction of men is a generalization. That means that not every man in the world has sex and makes money and is successful. If a man does not wish to be forced into sex and finds being sexually assaulted unpleasant, that means something should be done about it. He is his own person and maybe does not fit the standards of the average man, or how society views men. It's the individual that's assaulted, so the generalization that we have given men in our society should have nothing to do with what he had to go through. So this "man is a very specific thing" ideology should not undermine a male sexual assault victim.

[quote=Momijii]ironically enough, that is written by a woman. but yes, right now men do have somewhat of a smaller end of the stick when it comes to sexual assault. it is underreported and just like sexual assault with women, it is under-prosecuted. again, feminism works towards addressing that.[/quote]

Why is it ironic that it is written by a woman? I don't have a problem with women, I have a problem with feminists. There are women who oppose feminism, you know.

Men do have a smaller end of the stick, you're right. But feminism does not work towards addressing the fact that it is under-prosecuted with ANY such victim. As I said while quoting you the first time earlier in this post, feminists are more concerned with female sexual assault victims than males, plain and simple. It's common knowledge. Feminists have a double standard when dealing with these kinds of things. If you're a male and you were sexually assaulted, feminists focus more on the fact that the culprit was a woman and try to justify her actions with a plethora of excuses rather than address the fact that a human being was sexually assaulted. If a woman is sexually assaulted, feminists are absolutely disgusted and beyond outraged.

[quote=Momijii]i'm telling you, i've never seen any kind of this horrible ridiculing you claim that cheaters face. i've only heard of people being labeled as a cheater and scum by the other end of the group (ie., the cheater's partner). that being said, the only time i've heard praise for that type of behavior is when friends or family didn't like their boyfriend/girlfriend and thought that they could do better. i'm really not sure where you're getting this "there's a double standard for men and women when it comes to infidelity." but hey, if you can give me a good source (ie., scholarly!), i could be dtf.[/quote]

It's more than confusing that you've never seen a man who cheats on his wife/girlfriend being ridiculed. We as a society do not accept that kind of behavior, but completely twist that when it comes to the gender part. It is tolerable when women are the ones cheating. It is often seen when celebrities are involved, you can look up some of the cases (e.g. Tiger Woods).

And what are you talking about "scholarly"? You want me to find a source that "involves or relates to serious academic study" (which is the exact definition of scholarly) about the double standard involved with cheating? How exactly should I find a scholarly source about that? Those don't exist because the topic of society having a double standard when it comes to cheating does not involve or relate to serious academic study. What would that even be? Statistics on how many times the average male is confronted as opposed to females? It's more about how society takes it, there are no given stats or facts that we can view, no serious academic study has ever been put into the double standard involved with cheating, so no such sources exist. And it's quite baffling that you don't know where I got this idea because there are plenty of people who are aware of this double standard.

But if you want a source, [url=http://jezebel.com/5779855/adulterys-double-standard]here.[/url] This is a source that talks about recent cases in which celebrities have been caught cheating and how society handles it, the way this situation SHOULD be looked at.

[quote=Momijii]and that's why they fight against s**t shaming? and why they fight against the notion that there is one type of male? i'm honestly really confused at what kind of point you're trying to make here. feminists say it's okay if a woman wants to have a lot sex or if she doesn't, they also say it's okay if a man wants to have a lot of sex and if he doesn't want to. they fight against this notion that women need to "keep their legs shut" and the notion that men need to have this "master key," to quote that terrible false equivalence.[/quote]

1) That has absolutely nothing to do with what I even said, but okay.

2) I guess feminists aren't doing their job correctly according to the depiction you have of them. You try over and over and over again to make it seem like feminists try to address issues that both genders experience (probably the fourth time you've done that). But guess what? Feminism is defined as "the advocacy of WOMEN'S RIGHTS on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men." You see those words I highlighted and capitalized for you? Feminism is defined as the advocacy of whose rights? WOMEN'S. Feminism is literally DEFINED as the advocacy of women's rights, so you cannot be a feminist by working towards addressing male issues as well. Otherwise, you're not a feminist because it is literally defined right there for you. One who advocates women's rights cannot possibly identify as a supporter of that advocacy if they are addressing men's problems too, which is what you have tried to tell me, consistently, that feminists do, which they DON'T. That would be egalitarianism, which is defined as "a trend of thought that favors equality for ALL people." You have things mixed up.

[quote=Momijii]feminism deals with race and gender. inclusive feminism is about addressing all women's issues and not just white women's issues.[/quote]

Addressing ALL women's issues is literally the definition of feminism! Should I read it to you again? Feminism: "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men." It says it right there. It is the advocacy of women's rights. Notice how it only says women, which means that feminism is a movement for ALL women. Where does it say WHITE women? Can you please find me where it mentions anything about race? This definition that I can repeat to you over and over again for as long as I please is all I need to disprove your point.

And even then, feminists are saying that women make 77 cents to a man's dollar. The subjects are women and men, those are genders and not races.

[quote=Momijii]your logic implies that no savvy businessperson would hire a white man because they can apparently, because of the wage gap, hire a white woman and get the same labor for cheaper. however, following your logic these business-savvy people should really be hiring disabled people or Latinas since they are paid even less than white women. but what is the reality? white men are still hired. white women are still hired.

i could be misinterpreting what you're saying, but your argument is stupid. it's accurate for unskilled labor (which is, SURPRISE, dominated by majorities): hire the cheapest, most efficient source you can. but when it comes to skilled labor, you want the most qualified and capable individual, not the cheapest. and as i mentioned later, the wage-gap has not only become more of a race issue within feminism, but it has also evolved into a euphemism for why women and men work for certain professions. why is it that women are pushed to be nurses, while men are pushed to be doctors? why is it that women are the primary and secondary school teachers, while men are the college and university professors? why are certain professions "for women" and others are "for men?" that's what the modern, serious debate, has moved on to.[/quote]

That's actually exactly what you're doing: misinterpreting what I'm saying.

And why exactly are you saying "white man" and "white woman"? Do I have to explain this to you again? The debate between people like me and feminists is that women making 77 cents to a man's dollar is a myth because then employers would hire a woman over a man for the same labor, just cheaper. This argument is about the two genders, so stop bringing race into this. Do you get what I'm saying? You keep bringing race into this debate when I never said white man or white woman even once. It is just strictly all men and all women. It is not white women making 77 cents to a white man's dollar, it is ALL women making 77 cents to what would be any man's dollar. Okay? You saying that following my logic would be instead hiring Latinas is actually completely false, because being Latina has to do with your race, and the argument was about the two genders to begin with. You are the one who brought race into this, so don't put words into my mouth. See the problem? I talked about the problem involving the two genders and you transitioned it into a race thing, which is a completely different topic, so your argument is actually stupid.

The argument on feminism never ends watever you think there is always retaliation

[quote=BlueColt]And that shouldn't happen. If feminists want equality, that means they treat everyone's misfortunes/fortunes the same.[/quote]
they do...... the non-problematic (eg., TERF fems, etc) feminists do treat sexual assault as sexual assault, regardless of gender.

[quote=BlueColt]And no, the expectations you put for the male gender is a generalization. What if there is a man out there who is not tough enough, physically strong enough, or as capable as other men to defend himself from being sexually assaulted? Not every man is the same, so let's stop treating them the same. Not everyone fits under the guidelines of "more macho". If women are going to complain that being sexually assaulted is a completely gruesome experience (some even go as far as to say that it's an unspeakable act), then don't expect every man who's been sexually assaulted to "stop being a sissy". They could be unable to prevent that and find it as gruesome as some women do. And if men have the expectation to stop being a sissy, you are technically calling women sissies because you said that expectation was a man thing. I'm sure the feminists who want to be identified as strong and independent wouldn't want to hear that.[/quote]
....and that's the kind of stuff feminism fights against. the notion of a "strong and independent" woman is a euphemism for the right to be more than just a certain idea. feminists want everyone to be able express their gender how they see fit. if a girl wants to play sports and play with action figures? cool. if a boy wants to do ballet and play with dolls? cool. if a girl wants to play dress-up and be girly? cool. feminism works against this notion that there is one way to express gender.

in the current white-patriarchy, a man is a very specific thing. they are macho. they're tough. boys don't cry. men have sex and men like sex, with women of course. men make money and are successful. that mentality is what undermines male sexual assault victims.

[quote=BlueColt][url=http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/09/03/child-support-statutory-rape-justice-law-men-column/15044791/]This[/url] would be the case of the woman who did not get in trouble for assaulting a minor.[/quote]
ironically enough, that is written by a woman. but yes, right now men do have somewhat of a smaller end of the stick when it comes to sexual assault. it is underreported and just like sexual assault with women, it is under-prosecuted. again, feminism works towards addressing that.

[quote=BlueColt]It was rather an exaggeration to imply that his wrongdoings won't ever be tolerable in the eyes of many. Maybe they won't remember it every day of his life, but he sure will get a heavy load of the blame. I'm not saying that he shouldn't, but at least if he's going to, a woman should too if the roles are reversed. More often than not, a woman is supported in her decision to move on because she's "independent" if she cheats on her boyfriend.[/quote]
i'm telling you, i've never seen any kind of this horrible ridiculing you claim that cheaters face. i've only heard of people being labeled as a cheater and scum by the other end of the group (ie., the cheater's partner). that being said, the only time i've heard praise for that type of behavior is when friends or family didn't like their boyfriend/girlfriend and thought that they could do better. i'm really not sure where you're getting this "there's a double standard for men and women when it comes to infidelity." but hey, if you can give me a good source (ie., scholarly!), i could be dtf.

[quote=BlueColt]Again, this is a double standard and does not fit the "equality" idea that feminists so eagerly want. If anyone should be pushing for equality, it should be men because when feminists push for something and it backfires on them (e.g. claiming that cheating/sexual assault is terrible but then make excuses to justify a woman's wrongdoings when it's a man on the other end of the stick), they try any way they can to avoid it.[/quote]
and that's why they fight against s**t shaming? and why they fight against the notion that there is one type of male? i'm honestly really confused at what kind of point you're trying to make here. feminists say it's okay if a woman wants to have a lot sex or if she doesn't, they also say it's okay if a man wants to have a lot of sex and if he doesn't want to. they fight against this notion that women [i]need[/i] to "keep their legs shut" and the notion that men need to have this "master key," to quote that terrible false equivalence.

[quote=BlueColt]1) That's because we're not talking about white women and latinas. The argument isn't about race, it's about gender. Feminists are the ones saying women make 77 cents to a man's dollar, therefore the two opposing sides are men and women, so I'm saying what's wrong with THEIR argument.[/quote]
feminism deals with race and gender. inclusive feminism is about addressing all women's issues and not just white women's issues.

[quote=BlueColt]Even in terms of race, I'm confused as to whether or not you're agreeing with me or arguing against me because you literally just proved my point.

Women are complaining that they make less money than men. I proceeded to say: why would employers hire MEN (in this case, the one making MORE money) when they can hire women because they're paid less? You're saying the same exact thing as me now. Yes, why would any employer even hire white women (in this case, the one making MORE money) since latinas are paid less? I don't know what you're getting at because you literally rephrased what I said, but instead of man and woman, you used white woman and latina.[/quote]
your logic implies that no savvy businessperson would hire a white man because they can apparently, because of the wage gap, hire a white woman and get the same labor for cheaper. however, following your logic these business-savvy people should really be hiring disabled people or Latinas since they are paid [i]even less[/i] than white women. but what is the reality? white men are still hired. white women are still hired.

i could be misinterpreting what you're saying, but your argument is stupid. it's accurate for unskilled labor (which is, SURPRISE, dominated by majorities): hire the cheapest, most efficient source you can. but when it comes to skilled labor, you want the most qualified and capable individual, not the cheapest. and as i mentioned later, the wage-gap has not only become more of a race issue within feminism, but it has also evolved into a euphemism for why women and men work for certain professions. why is it that women are pushed to be nurses, while men are pushed to be doctors? why is it that women are the primary and secondary school teachers, while men are the college and university professors? why are certain professions "for women" and others are "for men?" that's what the modern, serious debate, has moved on to.

[quote=Momijii]feminism actually deals with male assault victims being taken more seriously. the primary reason why male assault victims are typically not taken as seriously is because of the expectations for the male gender to be 1) more macho (ie., even if it did suck, just nut up and stop being a sissy) and 2) to enjoy sex regardless of the circumstances. so that's on men and the patriarchy. not to mention I've never heard of the example of a woman sexually assaulting a minor and not getting in trouble. but I could be wrong.[/quote]

And that shouldn't happen. If feminists want equality, that means they treat everyone's misfortunes/fortunes the same. And no, the expectations you put for the male gender is a generalization. What if there is a man out there who is not tough enough, physically strong enough, or as capable as other men to defend himself from being sexually assaulted? Not every man is the same, so let's stop treating them the same. Not everyone fits under the guidelines of "more macho". If women are going to complain that being sexually assaulted is a completely gruesome experience (some even go as far as to say that it's an unspeakable act), then don't expect every man who's been sexually assaulted to "stop being a sissy". They could be unable to prevent that and find it as gruesome as some women do. And if men have the expectation to stop being a sissy, you are technically calling women sissies because you said that expectation was a man thing. I'm sure the feminists who want to be identified as strong and independent wouldn't want to hear that.

[url=http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/09/03/child-support-statutory-rape-justice-law-men-column/15044791/]This[/url] would be the case of the woman who did not get in trouble for assaulting a minor.

[quote=Momijii]i've never heard of a male get "scrutinized every day of his life" for cheating. and i've never heard of a woman getting the same thing. that is, in the context of a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship. i've seen it go both ways for husband-wife relationships.[/quote]

It was rather an exaggeration to imply that his wrongdoings won't ever be tolerable in the eyes of many. Maybe they won't remember it every day of his life, but he sure will get a heavy load of the blame. I'm not saying that he shouldn't, but at least if he's going to, a woman should too if the roles are reversed. More often than not, a woman is supported in her decision to move on because she's "independent" if she cheats on her boyfriend. Again, this is a double standard and does not fit the "equality" idea that feminists so eagerly want. If anyone should be pushing for equality, it should be men because when feminists push for something and it backfires on them (e.g. claiming that cheating/sexual assault is terrible but then make excuses to justify a woman's wrongdoings when it's a man on the other end of the stick), they try any way they can to avoid it.

[quote=Momijii]and then why would any employer even hire white women since latinas are paid even less than white males, white females, black males, black females. better yet, why doesn't everyone just hire disabled people! they're paid the least.

oh. it's because businesses are looking for certain skillsets. i think most "serious" feminists within academia have moved on from the visible wage gap to the sort of drive behind why is it that a woman is pushed more into becoming say, an elementary school teacher, why a man is more pushed into becoming the university professor. both of those fields are dominated by one of the genders.[/quote]

1) That's because we're not talking about white women and latinas. The argument isn't about race, it's about gender. Feminists are the ones saying women make 77 cents to a man's dollar, therefore the two opposing sides are men and women, so I'm saying what's wrong with THEIR argument.

Even in terms of race, I'm confused as to whether or not you're agreeing with me or arguing against me because you literally just proved my point.

Women are complaining that they make less money than men. I proceeded to say: why would employers hire MEN (in this case, the one making MORE money) when they can hire women because they're paid less? You're saying the same exact thing as me now. Yes, why would any employer even hire white women (in this case, the one making MORE money) since latinas are paid less? I don't know what you're getting at because you literally rephrased what I said, but instead of man and woman, you used white woman and latina.

@Momijii: Funny you say that! A few months back, a few Wikipedia editors were banned from the site because they were the ones responsible for writing a heavily-biased wikipedia article on the topic of gamergate, essentially making it SJW propaganda against gamers. Not really the best source.

@wall: *shrug* idk then. some people can be very skeptical of others. i just don't acknowledge people unless the acknowledge me first. i mean, there are bad apples out there.

@Datine: yeah i don't even really follow it i just did a very quick skim of the wikipedia article for it.

@Momijii: You misunderstanding of is quite hilarious. Gamergate is about journalistic integrity. It was sparked by Brianna Wu being accused of, then admitting that she has slept with a Kotaku journalist in order to get favorable reviews for her (terrible) game Depression Quest. In fact, she slept with multiple journalists. While she didn't get her game reviewed by any of the journalists, the one for Kotaku openly name-dropped her and her game in multiple articles. This sparked gamergate, and the battle between gamers and journalists ensued. Anita Sarkeesian, a feminist con-artist, took the opportunity to make Gamergate all about her and A couple of other female game journalists.

Other than that, your other criticism of my post were actually agreeable. I didn't realize how I contradicted myself in the topic of the LGBT equality. Thanks for pointing that out.

[quote=BlueColt]Listen OP,

This is exactly why I've been done with feminists for a long while. Because the dictionary definition "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men." that they so often seem to use to justify their sexism doesn't mean anything to me anymore. It's common to see them use illogical fallacies while arguing with someone who doesn't agree with them (in other words, bigotry), which is why I don't waste my time with them. To them, if you're not a feminist, you're a bigot (bigotry: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.), which is actually being a bigot by saying that. They don't think things through and they don't care to see their own statements contradict one another. It's always been a joke so don't waste any more of your time.

Man (filtered word, I'll just refer to it as "you-know-what" from now on) you-know-whats a woman: "*scoff* That is inhumane!11!1!1! This woman did nothing to deserve such a horrible thing! Throw that man in jail for life!1!111"
Woman you-know-whats a man: "It was probably consentual or he was just asking for it."

Real-life example: A man who you-know-what'd a woman in a church back in December of 2014 got 9-18 years in prison. Fair enough. You-know-what is illegal, he got his punishment, let's move on. Then we have...

20-year old woman you-know-whats 14-year old boy. He is now paying her child support.[/quote]
feminism actually deals with male assault victims being taken more seriously. the primary reason why male assault victims are typically not taken as seriously is because of the expectations for the male gender to be 1) more macho (ie., even if it did suck, just nut up and stop being a sissy) and 2) to enjoy sex regardless of the circumstances. so that's on men and the patriarchy. not to mention I've never heard of the example of a woman sexually assaulting a minor and not getting in trouble. but I could be wrong.

[quote=BlueColt]If one guy cheats on his girlfriend, he gets called name after name after name and proceeds to get scrutinized every day of his life. Girl cheats on her boyfriend? "Oh, maybe he wasn't good enough for her." or "Maybe she needed to move on. And she decided enough was enough cause she is independent and doesn't need a man."[/quote]
i've never heard of a male get "scrutinized every day of his life" for cheating. and i've never heard of a woman getting the same thing. that is, in the context of a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship. i've seen it go both ways for husband-wife relationships.

but you know what does actually happen? a man sleeps with a lot of women. no one bats an eye. he's a player. he's a womanizer. he might just have a big d**k or a lot of money. a woman sleeps around? she's a s*ut. a whore. a tramp. she's a sexual assault victim waiting to happen.

[quote=BlueColt]Let's also take a look at the problem with money that these feminists have. Apparently, they are outraged that woman get 77 cents to a man's dollar. If this were actually true, then why would any employers hire men? Think about it. If men have this 23-cent gap on women, wouldn't it benefit the employer to hire a woman instead? So feminists can shut up about that.[/quote]
and then why would any employer even hire white women since latinas are paid even less than white males, white females, black males, black females. better yet, why doesn't everyone just hire disabled people! they're paid the least.

oh. it's because businesses are looking for certain skillsets. i think most "serious" feminists within academia have moved on from the visible wage gap to the sort of drive behind why is it that a woman is pushed more into becoming say, an elementary school teacher, why a man is more pushed into becoming the university professor. both of those fields are dominated by one of the genders.

[quote=BlueColt]This is apparently the equality we have today. Thank feminists for it. Leave them alone in their own cave of hate, sexism, bigotry, etc.[/quote]
i mean, to mean feminism reads a lot like civil rights: you can be on the right side of history or you can be the type that everyone is laughing at for having backwards views.

[quote=Datine]Women are not the primary victims of war.[/quote]
women are displaced. women lose their husbands and children. women become single parents. women potentially lose their only source of primary income. women are the primary victims of war. soldiers are not victims. soldiers are casualties. think about the throw down or. shout down scenario. i don't know if you know it, but the basic jist is that you're an allied soldier making your way through nazi germany. you're searching houses for hidden jews to save. that is your job. however, in every basement there's a possibility that there are nazis. in order to find out whether or not there are jews, you must shout down into the basement. this is risky because there's the possibility that there are no jews and only nazis, thus increasing your chance of dying. however, in every basement you are also presented with the choice of throwing down a grenade, killing any potential nazis but also any potentially hidden jews. what do you do? shout down or throw the grenade? the universally accepted answer is to shout down. as a soldier, your duty is to protect civilians and your country, even giving your life if you have to.

that being said, (male) soldiers are not the primary victims of war. they are the primary casualty.

[quote=Datine]That being said, the men who complain about not having a lot of action against assault against men aren't acting like THEY are the victims. They are trying to get people to get awareness about men who are the victims of assault.[/quote]
cite your sources because whenever i see male sexual assault, it's almost always the men being all "man up," "you probably enjoyed," etc. and the women (especially feminists) calling out the injustices.

[quote=Datine]Also, barely any gamers are complaining about more females in gaming. If so, please cite your sources.[/quote]
isn't that the part of the whole big issue that sparked ? that a few female critics commented that women rarely appear in main protagonist roles despite women being a substantial part of the playerbase?

[quote=Datine]Feminism does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to raise awareness about male victims of assault. Hell, there are quite a few feminists who deny that males can even get sexually assaulted. (Ergo- The lobbyists in India that made sure that under the law, males cannot get sexually assaulted.)[/quote]
from a very surface level search i found [url=http://now.org/blog/how-feminism-and-now-have-helped-men/]two[/url] [url=http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/12/male-rape-epidemic/]articles[/url]. by surface-level, i mean page 1 of google with a very broad topic. so yes, feminism does raise awareness. one may be unable to be posted because it contains a censored word.

on india: that's a different country with its own issues. in the case of india, there is also a fair lack of awareness for the fact that they changed their penal code to exclude males from female-on-male sexual assault. i [i]highly[/i] doubt anything like this would ever happen in america.

[quote=Datine]Your point about feminism being primarily focused on the female side of things, while is correct, you cannot talk about equality and then only ever talk on one side of the spectrum. The LGBT community is different in that they do not preach that they are about equality on both sides of the spectrum, they talk about gaining equality to straight people, unlike feminists who constantly speak about how under the definition, they are about equality between MALES AND FEMALES.[/quote]
hang on: "they do not preach that they are about equality on both sides," "they talk about gaining equality"; way to contradict yourself, man. and i don't know what kind of LGBT discourses you've been reading, but most do in fact focus on how there is, aside from sexual attraction, no real difference between a straight and gay male.

i'm sorry, but straight, white, cisgendered males are not going to be at the center of every discussion regarding rights and equality. if the discussion is on the female victims of sexual assault, it is not the place to shout "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE MEN." now, if the discussion is on victims of sexual assault and it is disproportionately focused on women, then by all means shout "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE MEN."

@wall: i don't think saying hello to a random stranger on the street is necessarily polite....but i'm also from a big city so if someone did that to me i'd be like "uhh.....wyd......no." to me it really just reads as weird so yeah. i mean, her dealing with the situation was stupid since i guess it'd be clear that you were being friendly, but yeah.

[quote=wall]To add to this again, I was just on my daily hour long walk a little while ago. While I was on my walk I acknowledged a girl by making I contact and saying hello, something I do while walking around because it's polite to acknowledge other human beings in my opinion. I ended up being cussed out because "you shouldn't approach a woman like that." I said "surely miss, I'll remember that for next time" and she said "don't objectify me." When you're a wealthy white male in a wealthy white male's world, it sure is difficult to be polite around people who view everyone as equal.

@Datine: the reason they focus on the female side of the spectrum is that males already have more than what they deserve[/quote]

I bet that triggered her self diagnosed PTSD.

@Momijii: Women are not the primary victims of war.

That being said, the men who complain about not having a lot of action against assault against men aren't acting like THEY are the victims. They are trying to get people to get awareness about men who are the victims of assault. Also, barely any gamers are complaining about more females in gaming. If so, please cite your sources. Feminism does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to raise awareness about male victims of assault. Hell, there are quite a few feminists who deny that males can even get sexually assaulted. (Ergo- The lobbyists in India that made sure that under the law, males cannot get sexually assaulted.) Your point about feminism being primarily focused on the female side of things, while is correct, you cannot talk about equality and then only ever talk on one side of the spectrum. The LGBT community is different in that they do not preach that they are about equality on both sides of the spectrum, they talk about gaining equality to straight people, unlike feminists who constantly speak about how under the definition, they are about equality between MALES AND FEMALES.

The term "feminism" has always sounded like the belief of women being superior in my opinion. I haven't ever met a "feminist" that just wants equal rights, they just try to guilt-trip and shame me for being born a man in a "man's" world.

Listen OP,

This is exactly why I've been done with feminists for a long while. Because the dictionary definition "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men." that they so often seem to use to justify their sexism doesn't mean anything to me anymore. It's common to see them use illogical fallacies while arguing with someone who doesn't agree with them (in other words, bigotry), which is why I don't waste my time with them. To them, if you're not a feminist, you're a bigot (bigotry: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.), which is actually being a bigot by saying that. They don't think things through and they don't care to see their own statements contradict one another. It's always been a joke so don't waste any more of your time.

Man (filtered word, I'll just refer to it as "you-know-what" from now on) you-know-whats a woman: "*scoff* That is inhumane!11!1!1! This woman did nothing to deserve such a horrible thing! Throw that man in jail for life!1!111"
Woman you-know-whats a man: "It was probably consentual or he was just asking for it."

Real-life example: A man who you-know-what'd a woman in a church back in December of 2014 got 9-18 years in prison. Fair enough. You-know-what is illegal, he got his punishment, let's move on. Then we have...

20-year old woman you-know-whats 14-year old boy. He is now paying her child support.

Hey guys, doesn't feminism want equality? What equality is this? Of course... you can't be sexist towards men. We always have this ideology as a society that males are the victimizers and females are the victims in every case. It doesn't matter what the circumstances are, if you are a man and have a conflict with a woman, you are automatically in the wrong. If one guy cheats on his girlfriend, he gets called name after name after name and proceeds to get scrutinized every day of his life. Girl cheats on her boyfriend? "Oh, maybe he wasn't good enough for her." or "Maybe she needed to move on. And she decided enough was enough cause she is independent and doesn't need a man."

Let's also take a look at the problem with money that these feminists have. Apparently, they are outraged that woman get 77 cents to a man's dollar. If this were actually true, then why would any employers hire men? Think about it. If men have this 23-cent gap on women, wouldn't it benefit the employer to hire a woman instead? So feminists can shut up about that.

One more thing. Feminists are outraged that FIFA gave the women's national team $15 million and the men got $576 million. As if it's FIFA's fault, the men got way higher earnings because of TV ratings. The men's World Cup is watched by everyone around the world, is it not? It's a worldwide event with nations from every part of the planet playing against each other. Not only are there less teams in the women's, but barely anyone watched it (and when I say barely I am talking about rationally, in comparison to the world's population).

This is apparently the equality we have today. Thank feminists for it. Leave them alone in their own cave of hate, sexism, bigotry, etc.

There's a difference between feminist activists and your teenage friends that call themselves feminists.

[quote=Datine]Momijii: That's the case rarely. You see, feminism in the first world is about how women are constantly the victims of the all-powerful Patriarchy that has no proof of existence. Then, they go onto how they are always the victims of discrimination using statistics that were obtained in ways that go against stat collecting, some of which are from shady studies that make up statistics. For example, Hillary Clinton on how women are the primary VICTIMS of war, while ignoring all of the male corpses. Some countries going as far as to state, within the shrine of law, that only women are the VICTIMS of assault, completely ignoring all the male victims because of lobbying from particularly feminist groups. The list goes on and on.

What was the recurring pattern in all of the examples? Perpetual victimhood.[/quote]
that's rarely the case? then why is it that male dudebro gamers are the ones complaining about more women in video games? why is it that when women fight for type causes, a man's response is "well i can't just WHIP MY D*CK OUT in public." i mean, even in your example: that's nice that women are assaulted, BUT WHAT ABOUT MEN THAT ARE ASSAULTED. (it should be noted that feminism does address the sexual assault of men and if the patriarchal male psyche wasn't centered around "fk b*hes, get money" male sexual assault would likely be handled even better than female sexual assault.) i'm not sure why feminism, which primarily has to do with the female side of things, has to always be centered around a male discourse. i'm not sure why you're surprised that feminism, would focus primarily on females. that's like being confused as to why LGBT rights would barely deal with straight people

yes. there are some toxic feminists out there. however, there are also toxic people of all sorts: the KKK, ISIS, and all sorts of other bigots. the fact that you buy into them as a serious representation of what the ideology is about is what gives them power.

(as a controversial statement: don't mistake the difference between a casualty and a victim; women [i]are[/i] the primary victims of war, but men are the primary casualties)

[quote=wall]Not necessarily, at it's core "feminism" is a belief that all humans should be treated equally. Why equality was labelled "feminism", I'm unaware of. However now that in North America the only big ticket oppression of females is body shaming (typically by other women) and other online acts such as "free the nipple", the movement (for the most part) is looked down on from anyone who truly believes in equality.[/quote]

i always thought it was more about acknowledging that society was a patriarchy (where men hold the power and rights and women are kinda marginalized) and ppl who identify as feminist want women to have the same political rights as men so tumblr feminists get pret confused with that and say feminism = equality
imo it's not that simple but idk much bc i'm not a feminist and tumblr feminists tend to tread onto misandry often

@Momijii: That's the case rarely. You see, feminism in the first world is about how women are constantly the victims of the all-powerful Patriarchy that has no proof of existence. Then, they go onto how they are always the victims of discrimination using statistics that were obtained in ways that go against stat collecting, some of which are from shady studies that make up statistics. For example, Hillary Clinton on how women are the primary VICTIMS of war, while ignoring all of the male corpses. Some countries going as far as to state, within the shrine of law, that only women are the VICTIMS of assault, completely ignoring all the male victims because of lobbying from particularly feminist groups. The list goes on and on.

What was the recurring pattern in all of the examples? Perpetual victimhood.

[quote=Datine]Momijii: The thing is, the dictionary definition, when applied to what feminists actively do in the first world, it isn't about equality. It's more about perpetual victimhood.[/quote]
tbh seems like the fragile males are the one who claim perpetual victimhood

@DistantSky: And why is it that American feminists are not "real" feminists?

[quote=Belzier]Whey do they not just call themselves "egalitarians" then? Egalitarianism is a real word.

[/quote]

Because they push for equality with a concentration on female rights. That's like saying why don't you call biologists, physicists, and chemists just scientists? Because their concentration is different.
That being said, feminists in the U.S. aren't real feminists.

Whey do they not just call themselves "egalitarians" then? Egalitarianism is a real word.

Feminism pushes the female agenda, "organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests". Since most self-proclaimed feminists only support activities that give themselves more power, they've created a false claim that women are the victims and males are oppressing them.

@Ecarina I think that creating a duality: where you define a person as either "for" or "against" is part of the reason why feminism has such a bad rep. I will never claim to be a feminist. The reason why we have / have had gender roles in the past is because that's how people get / got by and survive(d) while tending to a family. It's also part why humans are bisexual and not asexual; it's to divide up the responsibilities required to succeed. I'm also not misogynistic because I am completely open to the fact that these social roles are dynamic, different for each culture, and are different for each relationship. The responsibilities that each person has will change as time passes and people push for different ideologies. Since we collect ourselves into communities, people will tend to generalize and stereotype the community as a whole, not as individuals. People grow up in a community, and learn inside that community about "acceptable" and "normal" social practices.

That being said, for each individual issue femenists / egalitarians bring to the table, they may have points of view that I'll agree with or disagree with. Keep in mind that "rights" are also dynamic. They're called "rights", but are determined by the government, not just magically brought out of thin air. Some of the things people push for are worthy of being "rights" to one person, but unworthy to another for moral / fairness reasons. The type of governing that a country has also reflects the ideology of the people it represents.

@Momijii: The thing is, the dictionary definition, when applied to what feminists actively do in the first world, it isn't about equality. It's more about perpetual victimhood.

[quote=Datine]The black and white logic that you show in this post is kinda scary. "You're either a feminist or a misogynist or confused." However, at its core, feminism only has a dictionary definition that states that it is about equality. However, in theory, that is correct; in practice, it is the exact opposite. Feminism has become a monolith for making up statistics to push a narrative, as well as actively preaching for male guilt. Even the basis of intersectional feminism is about feminists putting their fingers in another groups pie, so to speak. Feminism has become a basis of 1st world problems, not the preaching of equality.[/quote]
i mean if we're going by the dictionary definition of feminism, that it is a belief in equality between the sexes/genders, if you aren't a feminist you kind of [b]are[/b] a misogynist or possibly confused.

Wasn't it always? o.o

[quote=Ecarina]Feminism is a broad topic. At its core, feminism is the belief that men and women should be equal. Whenever someone says they're not a feminist, they're either a misogynist, or (like in most cases) are confusing it with misandry.
Tumblr people can be feminists but they do not represent feminism. The feminist movement is a real thing with real writers that started far before the Internet showed up. I haven't heard anything about Ellen Pao, but I have seen posts about this article. As for the people not actively doing anything about this, you realize most of them are teenagers or people in their early-mid 20's right? They're not exactly equipped to go fight ISIS.
So please stop referring to those people as feminists, if you think men should have no rights, you are not a feminist, you are a misandrist. As for the people responding to Ellen Pao and not this article... I mean do you expect them to scour all the news sources desperately looking for the most atrocious thing? Chances are they just haven't seen it, which makes sense considering Ellen Pao was the CEO of Reddit, so of course she would be talked about on the Internet.
I hope this didn't come across as angry or anything, I'm just trying to explain a misconception about feminism.[/quote]

The black and white logic that you show in this post is kinda scary. "You're either a feminist or a misogynist or confused." However, at its core, feminism only has a dictionary definition that states that it is about equality. However, in theory, that is correct; in practice, it is the exact opposite. Feminism has become a monolith for making up statistics to push a narrative, as well as actively preaching for male guilt. Even the basis of intersectional feminism is about feminists putting their fingers in another groups pie, so to speak. Feminism has become a basis of 1st world problems, not the preaching of equality.

i dont think anyone in academia is disagreeing that ISIS is evil, hence why there isn't too much on it; that and it's a relatively recent development

@SirKibbleX2: Well it was mostly about the general misunderstandings on the Internet. I don't think an actual feminist would not be outraged about ISIS.

[quote=AbsymalTorment]Being 800 pounds is healthy like omg stop fat shamming people. blocked you white male cis scum.[/quote]

*white male Christian cis homophobe

@SirKibbleX2: Uh... anything specific or just the fact that I posted at all?

Feminism is a broad topic. At its core, feminism is the belief that men and women should be equal. Whenever someone says they're not a feminist, they're either a misogynist, or (like in most cases) are confusing it with misandry.
Tumblr people can be feminists but they do not represent feminism. The feminist movement is a real thing with real writers that started far before the Internet showed up. I haven't heard anything about Ellen Pao, but I have seen posts about this article. As for the people not actively doing anything about this, you realize most of them are teenagers or people in their early-mid 20's right? They're not exactly equipped to go fight ISIS.
So please stop referring to those people as feminists, if you think men should have no rights, you are not a feminist, you are a misandrist. As for the people responding to Ellen Pao and not this article... I mean do you expect them to scour all the news sources desperately looking for the most atrocious thing? Chances are they just haven't seen it, which makes sense considering Ellen Pao was the CEO of Reddit, so of course she would be talked about on the Internet.
I hope this didn't come across as angry or anything, I'm just trying to explain a misconception about feminism.

[quote=SirKibbleX2]No it doesn't make sense, SJWs should be mad about that news article because of those British girls are harassing Isis. They should be calling it cultural appropriation. I'm guessing they are just confused at who to bully.

If they were men, I can see it now.
"Stupid cis-men, leave Isis alone"

Also, fat acceptance. Ew. I'll tolerate, not accept.[/quote]

Being 800 pounds is healthy like omg stop fat shamming people. blocked you white male cis scum.

Welcome to the party

they're mostly just insecure women who have no idea how the "real world" works and whenever something doesn't go their way, they blame men.
do i find the core ideals of feminism misleading? no at all, i actually find feminism and the idea behind equality admirable.

but let's be real, middle class white girls living in the United States aren't feminists lol