Why I'm Not A "Feminist"

[Riverwolf]

because they say they are feminists!

Feminism is about seeking gender equality. That's been explained to you many, many times over.

 

[Riverwolf]

my arguments attack no one. I address the balance

They seem quite like attacks to me, since they state an inaccuracy.

 

[Riverwolf]

then it can't be feminism, by definition. So call it something else, and start talking about people and defending such, which you are not doing. You are defending women

It's feminism. We call it that because even though it affects all genders negatively, women get it far worse than others.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Feminism is about seeking gender equality. That's been explained to you many, many times over.

"explained"?? I think you mean they ignore the truth that it is about power and wealth generation. You seem to have a problem with discussing women and feminism

 

[Riverwolf]

yes you are

No, I'm not.

Just as I'm not subject to the Queen's rule.

 

[Riverwolf]

why do you have to be rude? What does that add. You are completely ignoring the different traits of men and women if you say men are just as good as women at nurturing. I am not going to continue arguing this, it is a known fact, in writings and life...why you ignore it I don't know

I'm not being rude; I'm asking legitimate question, and penis is a standard anatomical term. It hasn't been a rude word in decades.

There are only a few things that consistently separate the two biological genders: genitals and breast growth. Anything else can be attributed to culture and environment.

In other words, it's not a known fact, certainly not from my life.

 

[Robert.Evans]

They seem quite like attacks to me, since they state an inaccuracy.

You seem to have a knack at stating things which are not true. I don't know why you would do that. Are you saying that women ask for less money and less power? I think not. So my words are not inaccurate.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I'm not being rude; I'm asking legitimate question, and p***s is a standard anatomical term. It hasn't been a rude word in decades.

There are only a few things that consistently separate the two biological genders: g****s and b****t growth. Anything else can be attributed to culture and environment.

In other words, it's not a known fact, certainly not from my life.

Not it cannot be attributed to culture and environment, though they are a factor. We are innately who we are, this cannot be changed. There is evidence for it when they have tried to mess with people of both genders.

 

[Riverwolf]

Perhaps things are different where you live, but here women tend to be far smaller than men. (Note: I'm looking at averages, not the largest & strongest women vs the smallest & weakest men.) Mrs Revolt works out regularly with weights, & is one of the strongest in her group. Yet she is far weaker than nearly every guy we know. I find this non-negligible.

Well, I'm speaking generally. There can be major regional differences based on natural selection.

Women have a great deal of power. They can start businesses, borrow money, get powerful jobs, etc. And exercising more voting power then men, they determine the leaders of this country. They've altered the course of government in the direction of "nutrure" ever since they started voting in the 1920s, eg, more foreign adventurism, the welfare state, consumer protection. If they don't like their leader choices being mostly men, that's hardly "patriarchy".

Their leader choices are mostly men, because it's mostly men who are the only choices.

Besides, anyone can start a business, yes. In Japan, anyone can start a business, as well, but their patriarchy is far more blatant than here.

The US gov is elected largely by women, & there are powerful women in it.

Not enough, I hear tell.

The apparent fact that women are less into gaming doesn't strike me even remotely as "patriarchy". There will be trend differences between men & women in their interests & personalities. Likely, any society will always show some expressed differences. This is definitely not "patriarchy" by any shared definition I've yet seen.

Actually women make up about 50% of gamers.

It's not about whether they're interested. It's about whether men make the women who want to be interested feel welcome. While most do, there's a large minority who don't.

One of my friends has always felt the need to pretend to be a man while playing online games: a sentiment not unfounded, and probably shared by many female gamers.

Since women have the ability to do these things you find them not doing, & yet they choose not to, one might ask them why, rather than blaming "patriarchy", which is fundamentally laying the cause at the feet of males.

We know why they're not; because they're harassed, bullied, threatened, etc. by the male gamer population.

Besides, women and men are equally responsible for patriarchy, or perhaps more accurately, our patriarchal culture. The blame doesn't solely lie with either gender, since the term is about who has the default domination, not necessarily who allowed it.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

She is one of the most outrageous mouthpieces for Paul Elam. Believe me I have quite the file on girlwriteswhat. And so does Dave Futrelle's blog:

GirlWritesWhat | we hunted the mammoth

Yes.

Not only does she say things about feminist talking points in a way that is problematic, but so do her fans. In fact, from the same link as above, another sweet and kindly criticism of feminism...:

Notice how quick feminists were to ostracize any kind of corrective punishment against women. First it was corrective physical contact that was labeled as violence, next the definition of domestic violence ballooned to include any and all ways a man can keep a woman in check: emotional violence, financial violence, sexual violence (such as refusing her sex), or verbal violence.
In fact, it's right there in the definition: "Domestic violence and emotional abuse are behaviors used by one person in a relationship to control the other."
Meaning a woman in a marriage can do whatever the hell she pleases, even cheat on her husband, and not only won't there be any consequences but she'll be better of financially in case of a divorce.

All this in response to Karen Straughan's defense of the work "The Necessity of Domestic Violence."

This is a work that states unequivocally (from same link as above, too):

Women should be terrorized by their men; it’s the only thing that makes them behave better than chimps.

In their minds, we have the world we have today as horrible as it is all because feminists dared to suggest to women to start demanding equal rights. Hence, why they don't want to be feminists. Why they want equality for men, since feminists - according to them - have taken things too far.

 

[Riverwolf]

Women don't want equality. They want more. That is greed. Men protect their women as, in general, it saves thinking. Men are not as sociable as women, are not into speaking of relationships as much as women. Hence if it comes to a war on words: "who's she with" "what's he doing" etc etc, they will win, that is all they think about, (look at the differences in our magazines, men to women). Men think of things which are of use. The traits are different. We now make life so easy, as men, that women can even do it (lets face it, most kids could as well).
So the false world we create with all its energy requirements is ideal for the woman. it is safer, cleaner, and more inter-personal skills related. Hence they come out of the house into the office (house) or supermarket (house) by their car (house on wheels- you don't see many women chaining themselves to railings in order to clean out the drains do you). Women do not want equality, they want the cream off the top. To do this they make men feel guilty for something they are not doing, certainly not to the level they are accused of.
But men protect their women, so they turn it into a fight against other males. Now the male is happy, he can fight again...whooopi! Better than that, he has the excuse that he is defending the honour of his woman. Women feminists use men to get what they want, and then give no thanks for it.

Feminism has nothing to do with 'equality'. It has everything to do with insecurity power and money. But how is that going to sell!

Quite the straw man you've built, there. Quite the odd mythology you've built around genders, as well.

Everything you describe is cultural, not inherent to the biological genders.

 

[Riverwolf]

"explained"?? I think you mean they ignore the truth that it is about power and wealth generation.

Well, "they're" the ones (by which I mean "we"; I'm a feminist) who consist of, and therefore define, the term. If they're not into power and wealth over men, then feminism isn't.

You seem to have a problem with discussing women and feminism

As a person who strongly relates to women, far more than men, and as a feminist myself, I seriously doubt I'm the one with that problem.

 

[Riverwolf]

You seem to have a knack at stating things which are not true. I don't know why you would do that.

If I state something, I believe wholly that it is true.

That's why.

I certainly don't think that you think you're stating untruths, so I'm not asking why you're doing so.

Are you saying that women ask for less money and less power? I think not. So my words are not inaccurate.

All anyone asks for is equality.

If you think otherwise, show me.

 

[Riverwolf]

Not it cannot be attributed to culture and environment, though they are a factor. We are innately who we are, this cannot be changed. There is evidence for it when they have tried to mess with people of both genders.

You mean that as we get closer and closer to gender equality, society as a whole improves?

 

[Sunstone]

Mod Post

Thread moved to debates.
​

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Yes.

Not only does she say things about feminist talking points in a way that is problematic, but so do her fans. In fact, from the same link as above, another sweet and kindly criticism of feminism...:



All this in response to Karen Straughan's defense of the work "The Necessity of Domestic Violence."

This is a work that states unequivocally (from same link as above, too):



In their minds, we have the world we have today as horrible as it is all because feminists dared to suggest to women to start demanding equal rights. Hence, why they don't want to be feminists. Why they want equality for men, since feminists - according to them - have taken things too far.

I think what the really want is to go back to yesteryear, back to the days when men and women were truly equal. Equal in dutifully fulfilling the roles that their wonderful patriarchal culture assigned to them. Back to the days when a woman cooked and clean and always had a pipe and a pair of slippers ready for her man when he came home from work. Back to the days when a man's home was his castle, where he is king and she is his dutiful queen. Back to the days when women were happy to do their wifely duties and would never talk back to her king for if she did, it would be his duty to kindly show her the back of his hand and smack some sense into her.

They don't want equality. What they really don't like is that equal is starting to look a little too equal for them. And they don't like it.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think what the really want is to go back to yesteryear, back to the days when men and women were truly equal. Equal in dutifully fulfilling the roles that their wonderful patriarchal culture assigned to them. Back to the days when a woman cooked and clean and always had a pipe and a pair of slippers ready for her man when he came home from work. Back to the days when a man's home was his castle, where he is king and she is his dutiful queen. Back to the days when women were happy to do their wifely duties and would never talk back to her king for if she did, it would be his duty to kindly show her the back of his hand and smack some sense into her.

They don't want equality. What they really don't like is that equal is starting to look a little too equal for them. And they don't like it.

Who are the "they" you speak of?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Who are the "they" you speak of?

We were talking about girlwriteswhat and Paul Elam's brand of MRA's. Do you have a problem with that?

 

[Revoltingest]

Mod Post

Thread moved to debates.
​

The theme of the OP is not really offering any issue or stance to debate.
The reasons which I (or anyone else) have for not identifying as a feminist are
certainly up for discussion, but I'd prefer that it not descend into a rancorous
& irrelevant criticism of MRAs, & a donnybrook between feminists & nons.
The green forum is still most appropriate.

 

[Revoltingest]

We were talking about girlwriteswhat and Paul Elam's brand of MRA's. Do you have a problem with that?

Yes, because it is irrelevant to the OP.
If you want to criticize particular people or an entire movement (to which I do not
belong), you should start your own thread about it, rather than derailing mine.