Why I'm Not A "Feminist"

[Robert.Evans]

Wow...

Because they are not children who are supposed to be "represented" by someone else; they are adults with their own opinions and worldviews. Furthermore, women don't have to be married to voice their opinions, and the belief that people become "one in flesh in marriage" isn't shared by everyone, so it is rather arbitrary to restrict women's rights based on such belief.

Also, going by your logic, I could just as well say that men aren't supposed to vote because women represent them. The fact that someone would argue in favor of restricting women's rights based on a belief that could go either way only reflects gender-based chauvinism on their part rather than anything else, in my opinion.

I'll be honest and say I don't know what your saying. I get the general picture, your in favour of women not men

 

[Robert.Evans]

You've livened things up! I've annoyed a great many too...it's gonna happen even when trying not to.

At the University of Mich (when I applied for a Phoenix Memorial Lab reactor
operator job) & at Ford (when my father was directed not to hire them).

I'm OK with being selfish.....ethical selfishness.

I just don't see this picture you paint.

Try having an argument with a woman in public then. See how many women side with her and how many men. See if anyone at all sides with you, especially if it gets a bit heated. You will have to stand alone of course, no woman to hide behind

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

I'll be honest and say I don't know what your saying. I get the general picture, your in favour of women not men

Or he/she is in favor of both men and women because they are equal. I do not understand why this is such a hard thing to grasp, but anyway...

 

[Robert.Evans]

Or he/she is in favor of both men and women because they are equal. I do not understand why this is such a hard thing to grasp, but anyway...

"equal"? In what way? If he was in favour of men and women, he would not keep defending women

 

[Revoltingest]

Try having an argument with a woman in public then. See how many women side with her and how many men. See if anyone at all sides with you, especially if it gets a bit heated. You will have to stand alone of course, no woman to hide behind

I try to avoid public arguments with anyone. But yes, we've seen in other threads here that public judgement
is harsher on males than females in conflicts, with physical abuse of males even receiving approval.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I try to avoid public arguments with anyone. But yes, we've seen in other threads here that public judgement
is harsher on males than females in conflicts, with physical abuse of males even receiving approval.

So females are insecure around the stronger males. So they attack! When they attack they find out who is on their side and how the person responds. The male defends the female, because that equals offspring. The male attacks the male as he can't hit the female. He can't hit the female as she might leave. The female equals offspring. When the female has power, she does not need the male. Then we have divorce, then adultery, then increase in the crime rate...such fun

 

[Debater Slayer]

I'll be honest and say I don't know what your saying. I get the general picture, your in favour of women not men

"equal"? In what way? If he was in favour of men and women, he would not keep defending women

In other words, you regard anyone who is not a male supremacist as anti-male.

What would you say your views are based on? As in, do you at least try to base them on logic, scientific evidence, or statistical evidence at all?

 

[Revoltingest]

So females are insecure around the stronger males. So they attack! When they attack they find out who is on their side and how the person responds. The male defends the female, because that equals offspring. The male attacks the male as he can't hit the female. He can't hit the female as she might leave. The female equals offspring. When the female has power, she does not need the male. Then we have divorce, then adultery, then increase in the crime rate...such fun

This is quite a stretch.

 

[Willamena]

Ok

What do you mean apart from God. 'Not with', do you mean? In one sense all is God. Does that lead you to where you want to go in this conversation? Are you now saying that God has sin? If this is what this question is about, then you would have to understand what and who God is and his Nature

Why must there be "sin?"

 

[Debater Slayer]

So females are insecure around the stronger males. So they attack! When they attack they find out who is on their side and how the person responds. The male defends the female, because that equals offspring. The male attacks the male as he can't hit the female. He can't hit the female as she might leave. The female equals offspring. When the female has power, she does not need the male. Then we have divorce, then adultery, then increase in the crime rate...such fun

Some males seem to be downright desperate and insecure around strong females, too. Can you imagine that some of them are apparently so insecure that they view women as nothing more than baby-making machines?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I try to avoid public arguments with anyone. But yes, we've seen in other threads here that public judgement
is harsher on males than females in conflicts, with physical abuse of males even receiving approval.

And entire threads based on why wives should be beaten in order to keep them "in line."

And why entire threads have been stated that "wifely duties" should be exercised to keep a marriage together.

Thread(S)....plural. Not just a post here and there. But entire discussions where multiple posters defend beating wives and multiple posters saying that wives should never say "no" to their husbands for sex.

Not to mention, of course, the whole argument of "Well, she didn't deserve to get raped....BUT....she should have _________."

Multiple times.

Encouraging and defending intimate partner violence is a problem for both men and women, but I argue that it's much larger for women being targets than men. Not that men should be ignored, but that they should be included in the larger picture. Let's not single out violence against men as being the one grievance where people have encouraged the action.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not that men should be ignored, but that they should be included in the larger picture. Let's not single out violence against men as being the one grievance where people have encouraged the action.

So it's OK to single out the problems of women, but the problems of men should only be a portion of the larger picture?
This seems an unreasonable gender based restriction on discussion here.

Not to mention, of course, the whole argument of "Well, she didn't deserve to get raped....BUT....she should have _________."

This is one take on that difficult discussion on risk mitigation. But the many objections to this discussion are harmful because they discourage taking responsibility for one's own safety. Think of how rape is so common by those known to one, and yet some feminists here poo poo the suggestion to avoid getting drunk in risky situations. Feminist culture is itself at times quite dangerous to people.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

So it's OK to single out the problems of women, but the problems of men should only be a portion of the larger picture?
This seems an unreasonable gender based restriction on discussion here.

You didn't read the part where I said that the discussion about violence against men needs to be included?

C'mon, Rev. We've had this discussion before. If you want to focus on the 15% rather than the large picture that includes that 15%, go ahead. But then you can't say that you're that concerned about the larger picture.

 

[Revoltingest]

You didn't read the part where I said that the discussion about violence against men needs to be included?

I did read it. I'm objecting to the idea that men's needs shouldn't be
singled out (as women's needs are), but should only be "included".
This speaks to the common feminist contention that the MRM should
not exist because feminism takes care of it. I don't buy that argument,
& even list this problem in the OP as one reason I'm not a "feminist".

C'mon, Rev. We've had this discussion before. If you want to focus on the 15% rather than the large picture that includes that 15%, go ahead. But then you can't say that you're that concerned about the larger picture.

If 15% of some problem is of particular concern to me, then I'll focus upon it.
If it's too insignificant for you to separate it, then that would be how you would handle it.
But "15%" is a meaningless number when not applied to anything.

 

[Robert.Evans]

In other words, you regard anyone who is not a male supremacist as anti-male.

What would you say your views are based on? As in, do you at least try to base them on logic, scientific evidence, or statistical evidence at all?

Where does "male supremacist" come from? Is the hammer the same as the chisel? Perhaps you argue that the hammer is greater as it strikes the chisel, but does not the chisel leave the marks? Where is the equality? Are they not different? If you same they are equal, then I would not like to borrow your tools

 

[Robert.Evans]

This is quite a stretch.

how so?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Why must there be "sin?"

In what sense?

 

[Revoltingest]

how so?

So many presumptions & deductions reaching broad conclusions.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Some males seem to be downright desperate and insecure around strong females, too. Can you imagine that some of them are apparently so insecure that they view women as nothing more than baby-making machines?

Iv'e no doubt they are, insecure that is. so why wind up a situation?

 

[Robert.Evans]

And entire threads based on why wives should be beaten in order to keep them "in line."

And why entire threads have been stated that "wifely duties" should be exercised to keep a marriage together.

Thread(S)....plural. Not just a post here and there. But entire discussions where multiple posters defend beating wives and multiple posters saying that wives should never say "no" to their husbands for sex.

Not to mention, of course, the whole argument of "Well, she didn't deserve to get raped....BUT....she should have _________."

Multiple times.

Encouraging and defending intimate partner violence is a problem for both men and women, but I argue that it's much larger for women being targets than men. Not that men should be ignored, but that they should be included in the larger picture. Let's not single out violence against men as being the one grievance where people have encouraged the action.

I have no idea what the first part of that meant. We are not supposed to kill and we supposed to treat others as we would wish to be treated. But we are different. Where is the thread on this forum that says we should beat wives? I don't think there will be one. And I think, for you info, that men are assaulted in general more than women. It is just perceived more to be women, as you always think of yourselves more.