How can someone be a male and be a feminist at the same time?

[Riverwolf]

That is why. You basically answered your own question. It’s because you don’t deal with politics and they aren't issues you put focus on.

So, not dealing in politics would cause me to be lured into politics...

Sorry, you're not making sense AGAIN.

Yes Egalitarianism does.

We have however, already had this discussion once. Feminism only deals with equality between genders, if and only if, you think inequality exists between genders. Those seem to be some very political issues, why are you so apolitical now? If it is just something you hold as a world view or a belief that equality should exist in places it doesn’t then great. But you can’t put on a magic cape, jump out of a 30 story building and expect to go save the world as superman. You should already know that especially if you agree with individualist feminism, which deals with libertarianism and egalitarianism. If you believe in individualism (which I do) then you can’t flop around like a fish out of water and except for people to take you seriously.

Where did I say I was trying to save the world? You're the one who seems to be flopping around. I've ALWAYS been apolitical. I let politicians play their own game.

Your original question was how a male can be feminist. My answer: easily, by being a male and in favor of gender equality.

Where in that answer is there any indication that I'm trying to be superman, or that it's flopping about like a fish out of water? For the record, I HAVE read Red Son.

No, it’s not hard to understand. I don’t know why you think I would have a hard time understanding it.

Because you seem to be completely misunderstanding what I'm saying.

 

[dust1n]

So do I not get a response to this post, after being told I was the one who engaged in antics that people who don't want to debate the issues use?

If you don't think you are discriminating then that is totally subjective. I'm not going to take the blinders off of you.

Point out exactly what I said that was 'discriminating' against you. Go ahead, please. Do one quote of where I do. Take the 'blinders' off of me.

Criticizing your argument, and substance of threads is not discriminating against you. I talk to you in plenty of other threads.

Because I’m not avoiding question and giving you a direct response.

You asked me question about whether feminism deals with stuff like homosexuality and gender identity. I answered and asked why you asked me. You reply is because you're not avoiding question and giving me a direct response.

How is asking me that question suppose to demonstrate your not avoiding the question? A direct response? I don't know what you are talking about. A direct response to what?

I would take your word for it, but I haven’t been able to take your word for anything else. :areyoucra

You said, "there seems to be a massive cult following for people who think they deserve to be treated better when in reality they have the same amount of privileges everyone else has."

I ask you "Huh? Who? What are you talking about? What makes you think feminists think they deserve to be treated better? Who has stated this? Where? In this thread? In a book?"

I'm asking you here for a quote of someone in this thread so some feminist text that has demanded that women should have more privileges men?

Now look up back at your response just now.

How is that not avoiding the question. How is that not avoiding giving me a direct response. Instead of actually addressing any argument, you use an ad hominem against me instead of actually addressing what I say. That is exactly what a troll does.

That is because you don't acknowledge gender barriers yet claim to be feminist. Quite pathetic if you ask me.

Feminism is about breaking down gender barriers. That's why I claim to be a feminist.

Again, are you trying to argue that I can't be/am not a feminist or that I should not be a feminist? Why won't you just answer the question?

You are distorting the topic, typical antics of someone that chooses not to debate the subject.If I remember correctly, you said something similar did you not?

I have debated the subjected. Earlier. I have already chosen to do it. You didn't even engage in my arguments, you just insisted that I wasn't a feminist, "bro."

But we know that the topic of feminism isn't going to get distorted when you talk about since, as I just said, "this is [all] claimed without ever having read any feminist writer. Any of them. From the huge selection of 150+ years of its history. And it perfectly shows when you think 150+ years of philosophy and literature is completely debunked just because you think it is, even though you've never read any.

What credibility do you have, to claim the incredible of 150+ years of literature you've never partaken in?"

Again you don’t take anything I post at face value and give your own two sense.

"Feminism loses all credibility soon as someone brings up issues besides equal rights. Because it gets into issues with how people should act and treat one another (men and women), in public, that they should have learned in first grade, on the playground or in their backyard. That is just the sad reality of it and to think some adults want to act like children disgusts me."

I took that for face value and pointed at the double standard that you have for feminism and yourself.

If something "loses all credibility because it gets into issues with how people should act"

Than why did you say "Women can handle their own issues and men can handle theirs. As in women can debate other women on topics that concern them just like men can. If there is to be some common ground between two subjects based on equality, then men shouldn’t interfere with the progress of women and women shouldn’t interfere with the progress of men."

'Feminism loses all credibility because it gets into issues with how people should act,' is what you claimed. That was right after you said "men shouldn't interfere with the progress of women."

That is called a double standard.

Actually I would like for you to pull up a quote since you are defending feminism. Its on your bro. BTW: Happy Birthday.
:hapbirth:

Thank you, but really, the greatest gift would be:

if you pulled up a quote, longer than four sentences, from any feminist text, talking about how people should act and treat one another and that this should be learned in first grade, on the playground or in their backyard.

Feminism loses all credibility soon as someone brings up issues besides equal rights. Because it gets into issues with how people should act and treat one another (men and women), in public, that they should have learned in first grade, on the playground or in their backyard. That is just the sad reality of it and to think some adults want to act like children disgusts me.

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

So, not dealing in politics would cause me to be lured into politics...

Sorry, you're not making sense AGAIN.

If you don’t want to bring politics into this debate then that is fine. Fair enough.

Where did I say I was trying to save the world? You're the one who seems to be flopping around. I've ALWAYS been apolitical. I let politicians play their own game.

I’m starting to like you more and more. Great response.

Your original question was how a male can be feminist. My answer: easily, by being a male and in favor of gender equality.

Then we have nothing to disagree with. :sad:

Where in that answer is there any indication that I'm trying to be superman, or that it's flopping about like a fish out of water? For the record, I HAVE read Red Son.

I went back and read some of your previous responses again that were against a free-market, but since you aren’t trying to be superman then I guess you take back some of your previous responses about “sex sales” and girl gamers being harassed, because its not like girls are the only one that have to deal with retarded crap on the internet.

Because you seem to be completely misunderstanding what I'm saying.

No, you are actually starting to make a lot more sense now. :faint:

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

So do I not get a response to this post, after being told I was the one who engaged in antics that people who don't want to debate the issues use?

So you want to continue this after we already settled it?

Point out exactly what I said that was 'discriminating' against you. Go ahead, please. Do one quote of where I do. Take the 'blinders' off of me.

Criticizing your argument, and substance of threads is not discriminating against you. I talk to you in plenty of other threads.

Then your disagreements don’t amount to discrimination even if you think I’m uniformed and know nothing about feminism.

You asked me question about whether feminism deals with stuff like homosexuality and gender identity. I answered and asked why you asked me. You reply is because you're not avoiding question and giving me a direct response

.

How is asking me that question suppose to demonstrate your not avoiding the question? A direct response? I don't know what you are talking about. A direct response to what?

Well does feminism deal with other things beyond women’s needs or is there something more to it? Like men and homosexuality or women being lesbians?

You said, "there seems to be a massive cult following for people who think they deserve to be treated better when in reality they have the same amount of privileges everyone else has."

I ask you "Huh? Who? What are you talking about? What makes you think feminists think they deserve to be treated better? Who has stated this? Where? In this thread? In a book?"

I don’t spend my entire life reading books. At least not at the moment, because I have other books I need to read that are a lot more important.

What makes you think feminism only deals with equal rights and doesn’t go beyond that to LGBT and gender bias based on homosexuality?

I'm asking you here for a quote of someone in this thread so some feminist text that has demanded that women should have more privileges men?

No one has ever said women should have more privileges than men. Talking about someone that gets off subject and doesn't want to debate it.

Now look up back at your response just now.

How is that not avoiding the question. How is that not avoiding giving me a direct response. Instead of actually addressing any argument, you use an ad hominem against me instead of actually addressing what I say. That is exactly what a troll does.

What am I avoiding? Are you accusing me of trolling because you take a different stance than me on this subject? You do base your opinion on a dictionary definitions. They are no more accurate sources of information, just so you know.

Feminism is about breaking down gender barriers. That's why I claim to be a feminist.

Again, are you trying to argue that I can't be/am not a feminist or that I should not be a feminist? Why won't you just answer the question?

I have debated the subjected. Earlier. I have already chosen to do it. You didn't even engage in my arguments, you just insisted that I wasn't a feminist, "bro."

Well tell me what your problem is.

But we know that the topic of feminism isn't going to get distorted when you talk about since, as I just said, "this is [all] claimed without ever having read any feminist writer. Any of them. From the huge selection of 150+ years of its history. And it perfectly shows when you think 150+ years of philosophy and literature is completely debunked just because you think it is, even though you've never read any.

Well show me your feminist philosophy instead of going on and on about nothing.

What credibility do you have, to claim the incredible of 150+ years of literature you've never partaken in?"

I’m still waiting for you to give a creditable response. I haven’t gotten one yet.

"Feminism loses all credibility soon as someone brings up issues besides equal rights. Because it gets into issues with how people should act and treat one another (men and women), in public, that they should have learned in first grade, on the playground or in their backyard. That is just the sad reality of it and to think some adults want to act like children disgusts me."

I took that for face value and pointed at the double standard that you have for feminism and yourself.

Point out the double standard then and stop going on and on about nothing.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I will be absolutely fair, in that, though I am a feminist, I have not read any feminist books.

I call myself a feminist as a response to the various injustices I see being made towards women in my subculture.

I'd highly recommend reading one of those I mentioned. Each does require a commitment to read, since they deconstruct quite a bit of cultural norms. And especially being that Friedan's work and de Beauvoir's work sparked Second Wave Feminism, it stands to consider how feminism has evolved since the 1950's.

Don't feel too bad, since my mother nagged me all through high school to read Friedan (since I helped her when I was a child with ERA activism especially since Phyllis Schlafly - the anti-feminist - is from our part of the country)...and I had no interest until I took a Women's Studies elective course in college and those two books were course requirements.

 

[oldbadger]

That's very sweet. Thanks for sharing.

I had to go away and could not finish my post.

'That's very sweet', you wrote. You felt that? Did you really feel that was 'sweet'? Many of my mates react 'Oh dear..... they got it bad'. A typical reaction from a modern day tough London 'take no crap' woman (my daughter) is 'Ah Bless!'. You're fairly close to 'Ah Bless!' ,

One of my questions to mothers over recent months has been, 'Do you want your daughter(s) to be feminists?' The (roughly) average reply has been, 'I don't want my daughter to be vulnerable, but I don't want her to be cynical about men either'. And that has lead into their opinions about feminism. Vastly different and subdued, compared with (say) opinions I read on this site.

I notice that Wiki separates US feminism from British. This clearly shows how I could have received the responses I have got, and helps to show honesty in my reports. Please let me include the basics here:-

Feminism in the United Kingdom seeks to establish political, social, and economic equality for women.

United States. Beginning very early on in the late 1800s, women fought for their rights to be heard and allowed to vote. In the next century the desire for women to become more socially equal was the focus of the feminist in the United States. Now in the more modern wave of feminism in this country, the emphasis has shifted to enforcing the equality of all women, no matter their ethnicity, social standing, or sexual orientation.

................In Britain it mentions establishing, in the US it mentions 'enforcing'. The differences are several. Some women here will be wanting the US version, but only one that I spoke to did, a real 'take no sh-t' type, and she had been married three times, all failed. Is there a connection there?

 

[oldbadger]

Al this talk about feminism is making me hungry. How 'bout you ladies having a big cup of shut the Hell up and whip me up a sammich? Then we'll talk about which one of you is the lucky one tonight, if you follow my drift. If you don't, I mean sex, and since you were too dim to puzzle that out, it's probably you.

Ok, you won me over. I'm yours.

The subtlety of your approach, your sheer masculinity and undoubted good looks (I'm hoping) cannot be dismissed. What d'you want me to wear? I can do most anything, and my wife wouldn't miss a pair of those knickers which show bum-cheeks.... or whatever you want. If you want me in hi-viz gear, that's cool. I've got thigh boots? Should I bring a cane, possibly?

I've always had an attraction for you just from the genteel way that you write. Do you like men to wear lipstick? I do a lovely sarnie. Can't wait.......:drool:

 

[oldbadger]

Am I suppose to be in the 'hear and now' or 1875? Which is it? Or I should be reading outdated female discrimination laws from 1975 that are no longer applicable, the same years Crass were releasing albums?

Hi...... I'm cool with all your post, just reduced it.

Time? I do love the past-times myself. I am interested in olden day ways, crafts and abilities myself.

If you veer away from 'fashions', 'trends', 'popular opinions', 'new age cultures', and go your own way, I think that is good. Individuality can die in the grasp of fashionable opinion.

But in a discussion about politics, and feminism is 'politic', I think it is necessary to be focusing upon 'what the people are doing, thinking, saying, believing' ....now.

 

[dust1n]

Hi...... I'm cool with all your post, just reduced it.

Time? I do love the past-times myself. I am interested in olden day ways, crafts and abilities myself.

If you veer away from 'fashions', 'trends', 'popular opinions', 'new age cultures', and go your own way, I think that is good. Individuality can die in the grasp of fashionable opinion.

But in a discussion about politics, and feminism is 'politic', I think it is necessary to be focusing upon 'what the people are doing, thinking, saying, believing' ....now.

Focusing on 'what the people are doing, thinking, saying, believing' now whilst disregarding the last two hundred years of 'what the people were doing, thinking, saying and believing,' is no worse in my mind than disregarding what people are doing in now in lieu of the past.

So I really don't see why you insist it's necessity. It seems more like a preference to me. And it limits the discussions to... anecdotes.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I had to go away and could not finish my post.

'That's very sweet', you wrote. You felt that? Did you really feel that was 'sweet'? Many of my mates react 'Oh dear..... they got it bad'. A typical reaction from a modern day tough London 'take no crap' woman (my daughter) is 'Ah Bless!'. You're fairly close to 'Ah Bless!' ,

I thought the nightly baths was very sweet. Yes. :yes:

One of my questions to mothers over recent months has been, 'Do you want your daughter(s) to be feminists?' The (roughly) average reply has been, 'I don't want my daughter to be vulnerable, but I don't want her to be cynical about men either'. And that has lead into their opinions about feminism. Vastly different and subdued, compared with (say) opinions I read on this site.

I want my daughter and my sons to have the freedom to identify themselves however they wish. One of my sons and my daughter have begun to passionately take up causes with me regarding feminist issues. My other two sons and my husband are supportive of feminism, and prefer to stand behind us.

It's like how passionate my husband is about helping special needs children. He grew up with a brother who is special needs, and we have a child that is on the Autism Spectrum. He is outspoken and angry when he sees injustice and prejudice against special needs children, teens, and adults...more so than I am. So I stand with him and let him lead that specific charge.

I notice that Wiki separates US feminism from British. This clearly shows how I could have received the responses I have got, and helps to show honesty in my reports. Please let me include the basics here:-

Feminism in the United Kingdom seeks to establish political, social, and economic equality for women.

United States. Beginning very early on in the late 1800s, women fought for their rights to be heard and allowed to vote. In the next century the desire for women to become more socially equal was the focus of the feminist in the United States. Now in the more modern wave of feminism in this country, the emphasis has shifted to enforcing the equality of all women, no matter their ethnicity, social standing, or sexual orientation.

................In Britain it mentions establishing, in the US it mentions 'enforcing'. The differences are several. Some women here will be wanting the US version, but only one that I spoke to did, a real 'take no sh-t' type, and she had been married three times, all failed. Is there a connection there?

Doubtful. I don't take ****, and I got myself a pretty good marriage with a "take-no-****" husband. We're both headstrong, and that ensures there never is a dull moment in our house.

 

[oldbadger]

I thought the nightly baths was very sweet. Yes. :yes:

Thanks....(everybody thinks we're soppy!)

I want my daughter and my sons to have the freedom to identify themselves however they wish. One of my sons and my daughter have begun to passionately take up causes with me regarding feminist issues. My other two sons and my husband are supportive of feminism, and prefer to stand behind us.

That's good, obviously. A togetherness house is a strong one, and where all share the same values and interests it just gets better. So..... yeah.

It's like how passionate my husband is about helping special needs children. He grew up with a brother who is special needs, and we have a child that is on the Autism Spectrum. He is outspoken and angry when he sees injustice and prejudice against special needs children, teens, and adults...more so than I am. So I stand with him and let him lead that specific charge.

Very good. As a parallel, I get angry about mistreatment of 'care-in-community' patients. Bloody angry. I clean carpets for c-in-c patients in various areas, and the way that they are treated by their care-managers is still shocking, even today. Total backsides. But more companies get caught now.

Doubtful. I don't take ****, and I got myself a pretty good marriage with a "take-no-****" husband. We're both headstrong, and that ensures there never is a dull moment in our house.

Good. A divided or unstrong house is a load of sadness for all. It's strange here, because both of us were thief-catchers and trouble-handlers, and ------y was like a tornado was she was -ssed off with aggressors, yet at home we are very very quiet, and you wouldn't believe how gentle our private life is. Takes all sorts.........

 

[dust1n]

So you want to continue this after we already settled it?

Settled it? This is how you settle disagreements?

... snip ... snip ... drop scissors ...

3/10 for trying. I know I score high, but I don't believe anyone deserve a 0, 1 or 2.

If there is anything else you would like for me respond to let me know.

I don't even see how that qualifies as 'trying.'

Then your disagreements don’t amount to discrimination even if you think I’m uniformed and know nothing about feminism.

Thanks, but I am correct that you do know nothing about feminism? Have you read any feminist authors or done any studying into other than finding Wikipedia articles as you go to loosely construct an argument? I mean, if you haven't read anything by any feminist, why would I think you know anything outside of a surface level understanding?

Well does feminism deal with other things beyond women’s needs or is there something more to it? Like men and homosexuality or women being lesbians?

As I answered before, yes, some modern writers have written extensively about homosexuality.

But you can't think of 'does feminism do this or do that.' Feminism is not some singular object that does anything. Feminism is the accumulation of thought from thousands of people. There is disagreement and always has been and probably always will be. You could literally think feminism was two totally different things if you read two totally different writers.

But feminism isn't that, it's a mass accumulation of history and culture and politics. And what it was 100 or 50 or 20 years ago is not the same as it is today. Plenty of people, including women, have found hundreds and hundreds of various to improve it over time, and there still people doing that. There is a huge portion of feminism that deals specifically with what feminism means in the 2000s, would it means, and what it should focus on. Generally, if there wasn't such a strong media backlash on television against feminism all the time, feminism probably wouldn't be focusing on the issues it does, and large portion which talks about media.

Feminism is not about one thing, nor is it a giant consensus on thousands of issues. It's a living philosophy, just like any of the other ones.

I don’t spend my entire life reading books. At least not at the moment, because I have other books I need to read that are a lot more important.

Hey, me too! But that doesn't mean I have to have strong opinions about the topics I don't have time to read about.

What makes you think feminism only deals with equal rights and doesn’t go beyond that to LGBT and gender bias based on homosexuality?

I know feminism is far from only dealing with equal rights or civil rights. People are going to write about every topic from every possible perspective. And these are going to overlap. And, obviously, not everyone is going to find the same topics as useful to them, or even that accurate or good.

No one has ever said women should have more privileges than men. Talking about someone that gets off subject and doesn't want to debate it.

You did. You said there was a massive cult following for people who they deserve to be treated better when in reality they have the same amount of privileges everyone else has:

Does feminism only deal with gender or does it focus on other issues beyond gender like sexual orientation, and sexual preference? Because there seems to be a massive cult following for people who think they deserve to be treated better when in reality they have the same amount of privileges everyone else has. Women can handle their own issues and men can handle theirs.

I am asking who this massive cult is. Who said that anyone deserves to be treated better or have more privileges than anyone else? I didn't bring it up based on nothing. I brought it up because you said there seems to be a massive cult following for people who think they deserve more privileges it others. I assumed you were talking about women, since this thread appears to be about feminism.

"No one has ever said women should have more privileges than men." I agree! So if no one has ever said women should have more privileges than men, then who is this mysterious massive cult following for people who think they deserve to be treated better when in reality they have the same amount of privileges everyone else has. So who thinks they deserve to be treated with more privileges than everyone else has?

What am I avoiding? Are you accusing me of trolling because you take a different stance than me on this subject? You do base your opinion on a dictionary definitions. They are no more accurate sources of information, just so you know.

Here were my questions:

Huh? Who? What are you talking about? What makes you think feminists think they deserve to be treated better? Who has stated this? Where? In this thread? In a book?

Here was your answer:

I would take your word for it, but I haven’t been able to take your word for anything else. :areyoucra

Which one of those questions I asked does your answer even begin to address.

In Internet slang, a troll (pron.: /ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is someone who posts inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[3]


Troll (Internet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't think you have bad attentions, but some of things you say back to me have nothing to do with what I said, so it's extraneous and off-topic, and almost feels like you are trying to inflammatory because some of my points, you reply and it seems like you didn't even read it.

Well tell me what your problem is.

Well, at first, my problem was that I was debating you about whether a man can a feminist or not, but it seems like you no longer think that:

Your original question was how a male can be feminist. My answer: easily, by being a male and in favor of gender equality.

Then we have nothing to disagree with. :sad:

I thought that was the whole debate, but I guess not anymore, I dunno.


(cont.)

 

[dust1n]

Well show me your feminist philosophy instead of going on and on about nothing.

I’m still waiting for you to give a creditable response. I haven’t gotten one yet.

You said:

Feminism loses all credibility soon as someone brings up issues besides equal rights. Because it gets into issues with how people should act and treat one another (men and women), in public, that they should have learned in first grade, on the playground or in their backyard. That is just the sad reality of it and to think some adults want to act like children disgusts me.

Which is why I brought up books. I have no reason to credit anyone in my response to what you said. Just from reading and knowing that you haven't read anything about feminism, I find the claim that feminism loses all credibility whenever you think it does highly unsubstantiated. I don't know what feminism text you want me to show you. I acknowledge that feminism gets into topics other civic equity (which isn't even in the case in America anyways). The problem I have is why "getting into issues with how people should act and treat one another" means feminism loses all credibility, even on subjects having nothing to do with those issues.

Furthermore, you said that Feminism "gets into issues with how people should act and treat one another (men and women), in public, that they should have learned in first grade, on the playground or in their backyard."

I asked who in feminism said something about how people show act, and that we should teach first graders about feminism, on the playground or in the backyard. If you can't quote some feminist text as saying that, then you just completely made up the claim that feminism gets into issues and says that should be learned in first grade, on the playground or in their backyard.

Point out the double standard then and stop going on and on about nothing.

I just did, but I will again.

You said:

"Feminism loses all credibility soon as someone brings up issues besides equal rights. Because it gets into issues with how people should act and treat one another (men and women), in public, that they should have learned in first grade, on the playground or in their backyard. That is just the sad reality of it and to think some adults want to act like children disgusts me."

You implied that because feminism gets into issues with how people should act, it loses all credibility.

In the same post, you also said:

"Women can handle their own issues and men can handle theirs. As in women can debate other women on topics that concern them just like men can. If there is to be some common ground between two subjects based on equality, then men shouldn’t interfere with the progress of women and women shouldn’t interfere with the progress of men."

You said that men shouldn't interfere with the progress of women and women shouldn't interfere with the progress of men. Interfering is an action. If you say someone shouldn't interfere, you are saying they shouldn't act.

So why does feminism lose all credibility when it gets into "issues with how people should act," but you can comment on how men and women shouldn't interfere and expect to retain credibility.

It's a double standard because when feminism comments on people "should act," it loses credibility.

But when you comment on how people "should act," you are saying so as if you had credibility.

Either something loses credibility when it talks about issues like "how people should act" or it doesn't. But if you maintain that feminism loses credibility when it talks about people should act but you don't when you talk about how people should act, then you are applying two different standards to the same thing, depending on who is doing it. You hold yourself and feminism to two different standards.





All of my responses are addressing your posts and things you said directly, and it all derives from a post you left me in response to one of my posts, this one specifically:

So let me get this right Dust1n. You are going to discriminate against my thread and call it trolling, and then claim to be a feminist who stands for equality and equal rights. You do realize this is a general debate forum right? That is why I posted it here.

Does feminism only deal with gender or does it focus on other issues beyond gender like sexual orientation, and sexual preference? Because there seems to be a massive cult following for people who think they deserve to be treated better when in reality they have the same amount of privileges everyone else has. Women can handle their own issues and men can handle theirs. As in women can debate other women on topics that concern them just like men can. If there is to be some common ground between two subjects based on equality, then men shouldn’t interfere with the progress of women and women shouldn’t interfere with the progress of men.

Feminism loses all credibility soon as someone brings up issues besides equal rights. Because it gets into issues with how people should act and treat one another (men and women), in public, that they should have learned in first grade, on the playground or in their backyard. That is just the sad reality of it and to think some adults want to act like children disgusts me.

This was addressed directly to me, and I've been trying to get you to defend those positions since you posted it. If you rather retract some statement than argue with me, then do it. If you just disagree and don't want to argue, fine. But don't accuse me of engaging in antics of someone who doesn't engage in debating the topics, because I most certainly don't.

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

Thanks, but I am correct that you do know nothing about feminism? Have you read any feminist authors or done any studying into other than finding Wikipedia articles as you go to loosely construct an argument? I mean, if you haven't read anything by any feminist, why would I think you know anything outside of a surface level understanding?

No you aren’t correct. I have already told you I read about it from a historical perspective (i.e. History Books). You are yet again making false assumptions. Do you want to stay on topic or is this the highest level debate you are capable of having. This is why I stop taking your posts or anything you say seriously.

Hey, me too! But that doesn't mean I have to have strong opinions about the topics I don't have time to read about.

Again that is just your opinion and you tend to have a very awful one.

I know feminism is far from only dealing with equal rights or civil rights. People are going to write about every topic from every possible perspective. And these are going to overlap. And, obviously, not everyone is going to find the same topics as useful to them, or even that accurate or good.

I agree, but people can study and understand equal rights and civil rights without calling themselves a feminist.

You did. You said there was a massive cult following for people who they deserve to be treated better when in reality they have the same amount of privileges everyone else has:



I am asking who this massive cult is. Who said that anyone deserves to be treated better or have more privileges than anyone else? I didn't bring it up based on nothing. I brought it up because you said there seems to be a massive cult following for people who think they deserve more privileges it others. I assumed you were talking about women, since this thread appears to be about feminism.

"No one has ever said women should have more privileges than men." I agree! So if no one has ever said women should have more privileges than men, then who is this mysterious massive cult following for people who think they deserve to be treated better when in reality they have the same amount of privileges everyone else has. So who thinks they deserve to be treated with more privileges than everyone else has?

Try not to distort what I say in the future, because there is a big difference between people wanting to be “treated better” and having equal rights, privileges or opportunities. You seem to have a bad habit of doing that.

I don't think you have bad attentions, but some of things you say back to me have nothing to do with what I said, so it's extraneous and off-topic, and almost feels like you are trying to inflammatory because some of my points, you reply and it seems like you didn't even read it.

I have read them. I disagree with them. Your replies aren't been any better.

Well, at first, my problem was that I was debating you about whether a man can a feminist or not, but it seems like you no longer think that:


I thought that was the whole debate, but I guess not anymore, I dunno.

(cont.)

Again more rambling on about nothing. And you want me to take your posts seriously? Maybe you should go look back at your definition of trolling. It might due you some good.

 

[Alceste]

I think uberrobonomicon could have read the Second Sex in less than the time it's taken him to argue for his uninformed position on this single thread.

 

[dust1n]

No you aren’t correct. I have already told you I read about it from a historical perspective (i.e. History Books). You are yet again making false assumptions. Do you want to stay on topic or is this the highest level debate you are capable of having. This is why I stop taking your posts or anything you say seriously.

1.) You haven't told me anything about reading anything from a historical perspective.

2.) Number two, I didn't make any assumptions, I asked three questions, they were not loaded.

3.) You use in ad hominem in the middle of pretending you are debating seriously at this moment.

So what history books?

Again that is just your opinion and you tend to have a very awful one.

Of course, ad hominem. Real debate material right there.

I agree, but people can study and understand equal rights and civil rights without calling themselves a feminist.

Sure. When did I say otherwise? :sleep: You think you can stick the topic at hand.

Try not to distort what I say in the future, because there is a big difference between people wanting to be “treated better” and having equal rights, privileges or opportunities. You seem to have a bad habit of doing that.

Another ad hominem. Sorry, but being treated better, I thought that was the same thing as privilege. Since it isn't, what feminist or any person in this thread say that anyone wanted to be treated better than anyone. Where is this massive cult you refer to that wants more privileges than others. I'm still waiting to know who you were referring to.

I have read them. I disagree with them. Your replies aren't been any better.

Yes, they are. You have attacked my character directly instead of even addressing my posts. I have not done that. Three times this one reply.

Again more rambling on about nothing. And you want me to take your posts seriously? Maybe you should go look back at your definition of trolling. It might due you some good.

So you refuse to acknowledge the blatant double standard you place on feminism and yourself.

You have proven to be nothing but insulting, intellectually dishonest, dismissive of corrections of your logical fallacies, and your stating that feminism "gets into issues with how people should act and treat one another (men and women), in public, that they should have learned in first grade, on the playground or in their backyard" without backing up source, meaning, you pretty much lied about what "feminism says." That last one is yet another point you ignored and didn't address (what a surprise).


And you have yet to defend one of your positions from the original post you made.


Oh well. You have admitted that a man can be a feminist, so really, this thread was won from my perspective. You don't have to reply anymore. I already know I'm getting nothing of substance back. Good day.

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

I think uberrobonomicon could have read the Second Sex in less than the time it's taken him to argue for his uninformed position on this single thread.

No I was actually expecting to have a decent debate, which it has been for the most part except for people who post random comments and naysay.

Evidently feminist think the world is a giant cesspool and don’t keep up with politics. I’m more of an optimist and most people on this thread that claim to be feminist seem like pessimist except for a few.

 

[dust1n]

I think uberrobonomicon could have read the Second Sex in less than the time it's taken him to argue for his uninformed position on this single thread.

I would read it, but I have too many important history books to get to. But I'll give you my opinion of it anyway. Second Sex is completely illegitimate because I don't like feminism and have associated it with the left and being politically against me. Even though I have never read it, I have strong feelings about this book and the things it speaks of.

Also, feminism is one giant consensus that goes around and seeks to be "treated better" than anyone. It's history is also irrelevant as I feel it's important we discuss the here and now, meaning, my personal experiences and anecdotal evidence and not anything that was ever written in a book or put on a record and widely distributed and impacted history. Anything otherwise is a form of objectionable debate in which I can not partake in because it's not about "you" or the "debate" but about my learning and learning exactly how and what I want to learn in advance.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Thanks for reminding me-need to read the second sex. I've only read a little bit but I liked what she had to say about prostitution. Need to read more literature by black feminists too, if anyone has any recommendations please let me know.

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

Oh well. You have admitted that a man can be a feminist, so really, this thread was won from my perspective. You don't have to reply anymore. I already know I'm getting nothing of substance back. Good day.

To avoid the rest of this hearsay or whatever you would like to call it, because I’m not avoiding a debate; I would like for you to explain how I have admitted that a man can be feminist other than supporting feminism that deals with women and women’s rights.

In my OP I said feminism deals explicitly with women's rights. Do you disagree?