Why I'm Not A "Feminist"

[Robert.Evans]

I'm a male.
Yup (I checked), I'm definitely a male.


I dress in loud Hawaiian shirts, pants or shorts, & sandals with socks.
I know your next question.....and yes, I am a dandy.

Now I really don't understand. Was this post a joke? YOU are not a feminist. What am I not understanding??

 

[Revoltingest]

Now I really don't understand. Was this post a joke? YOU are not a feminist. What am I not understanding??

I am male.
The OP is not a joke.
I don't know how else to explain it.

 

[freethinker44]

just a needless distraction.

Men being raped is just a needless distraction?

Isn't that special. You've completely proven my point from another thread, and I do like being right, but sometimes it's kind of sad when I am.

 

[Leftimies]

Way I see it, feminism is a movement that was needed to ignite crucial social transformation into contemporary past-modern age, but also one that has not only overstayed its welcome but also turned in part into the monster it originally opposed. Allow me to explain.

Prior to feminist awakening, quite honestly a lot of brilliant women were wasted in the confines of their socio-cultural prisons, i.e at home. If they were not wasted in the way of being confined to house, they were wasted as mere servants to men. This needed to change, very much so.

But I would argue, that by the beginning of this millennia, it in my country had already changed. Female president served two terms, successful female politicians leading political parties, high number of well-educated women entering the world in the fields of psychology, medicine and culture. At the same time, correlating to the rise of women, men showed strong decline - decline in education, failing in school and in other areas of life. I refuse to believe that men simply stopped being effective by random, something happened: many things have been claimed responsible, but no one knows what it is. One of the most often mentioned is, that the educational system is done by women, with female mindset, to girl students - needs of boys, who develop very differently and far more violently, are ignored and probably not even understood. Who knows, maybe even because now both parents are largely removed from the house and replaced with freedom and the company of peers? In the case of boys, this rarely leads into good ideas. Most of the socially excluded people are young men.

And yet, feminists claim that a lot of work is needed to be done in order to improve women's rights in Finland, even though it always should be which ever is at worse position any given time. And this brings me to my main point.

In my country, at least, feminism has become the very thing it initially opposed: gender-centric, disconnected to opposing sex, ignoring the needs and issues of opposing sex in politics and education, determined to only pursue the cause of their own gender and the belittling of the opposite gender. Does that not sound like men treated women prior late 50s? Having met some feminist women, some come across outright egoist and gender-supremacists. Not all though, many are quite likeable.

I guess whenever some movement, however good its intentions initially are, is politicised, it loses its loyalty to the cause and replaces it with loyalty to money and power. Its not women's rights that interests so-called 'feminist' politicians and influential women these days - feminism is the platform they ran on, if women's rights are doing well, their agenda is unneeded as so would be their presence: they will not allow for that. In large part same has happened to gay rights movement. Happened to communists of korea. All wanted initially simple things to improve their conditions, all evolved to transform into their very enemies.

Male chauvinism and feminism are quite trivial ideologies for me, I don't see how neither could benefit humankind as both are tied into some sort of egoism in modern developed countries. Obviously, only humanism can benefit humankind as a whole, which is far superior to either one as philosophy...it kinda is readable from the word itself.

 

[Riverwolf]

Tis a commonly understood but unstated premise that
one must temper ideals with achievable goals.

That's a common criticism of us libbers by fervent but uninformed foes.
Sure, we're abnormal, but not as much as they would portray.

To clarify, I don't believe people who follow libertarian philosophy have antisocial personality disorder, or something similar. Besides the fact that I'm in absolutely no position to be diagnosing anybody with anything, that just doesn't make any sense. It's a political philosophy that, for many people, is something worth following. It's not like my own philosophy is flawless; at least you guys have one that could theoretically be implemented in today's political climate, unlike mine which, well, would require complete political, economic, and social collapse in order to be implemented at all, and I don't want such a collapse to happen.

What I'm saying is that socialization is as basic a need as food, water, shelter, and sex. I am an introvert (I gain energy from solitude and lose energy from social situations), and have Asperger's Syndrome (I have trouble with social ques, communication, suffer from severe social anxiety, and in extreme cases can completely shut down mentally until allowed extended solitude... and even that does do the condition justice), but if I stay in my house for even, say two days, without any form of in-person social interaction (online interactions don't count since that's just text), I start to go incredibly loopy.

IOW, remember that film Cast Away, where Tom Hanks gets stranded on a deserted island and starts talking to a Volley Ball he names Wilson?

That's real.

Aye, but I don't remember what you think of us libbers.
(I get all the many wolves confused...painted, river, etc, etc.)

I won't say any more on my opinion of libertarianism in this particular thread (since it's not relevant), but basically I regard thus: if there's a scale in terms of national/international politics that deals with the value of the individual vs. the collective, then communism is on the extreme collective side, and libertarianism is on the extreme individual side. Both sound great on paper(libertarianism giving freedom, communism keeping everyone equal), but don't work in actual practice on a large scale.

Feminism, however, is compatible with both philosophies on their core levels. Libertarianism allows the individual to be free, and Communism enforces equality.

 

[Riverwolf]

The Mother's name wasn't George W. Bush, was it?

(You're either one of us or with the terrorists.)

Nope, and I fail to see the connection.

Bush's black-and-white statement was a subtle threat to the world about either standing with him on his "war on terror", or be regarded as terrorists themselves.

This mother was simply clarifying that feminism is about pursuing gender equality, and that the declaration that one is "not a feminist" can sound like being not in favor of all the progress in womens' rights made in the past 100 years.

It's not "you're either with us or against us". It's "if you believe this, you're one of us." Can you see the difference?

 

[Riverwolf]

Way I see it, feminism is a movement that was needed to ignite crucial social transformation into contemporary past-modern age, but also one that has not only overstayed its welcome but also turned in part into the monster it originally opposed. Allow me to explain.

Prior to feminist awakening, quite honestly a lot of brilliant women were wasted in the confines of their socio-cultural prisons, i.e at home. If they were not wasted in the way of being confined to house, they were wasted as mere servants to men. This needed to change, very much so.

But I would argue, that by the beginning of this millennia, it in my country had already changed. Female president served two terms, successful female politicians leading political parties, high number of well-educated women entering the world in the fields of psychology, medicine and culture. At the same time, correlating to the rise of women, men showed strong decline - decline in education, failing in school and in other areas of life. I refuse to believe that men simply stopped being effective by random, something happened: many things have been claimed responsible, but no one knows what it is. One of the most often mentioned is, that the educational system is done by women, with female mindset, to girl students - needs of boys, who develop very differently and far more violently, are ignored and probably not even understood. Who knows, maybe even because now both parents are largely removed from the house and replaced with freedom and the company of peers? In the case of boys, this rarely leads into good ideas. Most of the socially excluded people are young men.

And yet, feminists claim that a lot of work is needed to be done in order to improve women's rights in Finland, even though it always should be which ever is at worse position any given time. And this brings me to my main point.

In my country, at least, feminism has become the very thing it initially opposed: gender-centric, disconnected to opposing sex, ignoring the needs and issues of opposing sex in politics and education, determined to only pursue the cause of their own gender and the belittling of the opposite gender. Does that not sound like men treated women prior late 50s? Having met some feminist women, some come across outright egoist and gender-supremacists. Not all though, many are quite likeable.

I guess whenever some movement, however good its intentions initially are, is politicised, it loses its loyalty to the cause and replaces it with loyalty to money and power. Its not women's rights that interests so-called 'feminist' politicians and influential women these days - feminism is the platform they ran on, if women's rights are doing well, their agenda is unneeded as so would be their presence: they will not allow for that. In large part same has happened to gay rights movement. Happened to communists of korea. All wanted initially simple things to improve their conditions, all evolved to transform into their very enemies.

Male chauvinism and feminism are quite trivial ideologies for me, I don't see how neither could benefit humankind as both are tied into some sort of egoism in modern developed countries. Obviously, only humanism can benefit humankind as a whole, which is far superior to either one as philosophy...it kinda is readable from the word itself.

Well, I can't speak for the situation in Finland. Different countries need different levels of any given egalitarian philosophy. (I think we can both agree that Japan, for example, BADLY needs its feminist movement.)

But in the US, feminism is still needed IMO, at the very least on a social level. A big personal reason for it is this: both me and Moonwater are going to be releasing Youtube content in the coming weeks. I can expect one bullying comment for every ten civil comments. She can expect at least five bullying comments for every civil comment.

The feminism that I partake in also hasn't become politicized in the way that you describe, but is absolutely genuine and does focus on both genders' issues, and since there's a lot of overlap with the LGBT+ movements, there are feminists that focus on the issues that other genders have to deal with, as well.

Plus, the thing is, I don't view egalitarianism/humanism as a whole to be a single philosophy, anyway. (I'm not aware of any significant distinction between egalitarianism and humanism.) I regard it as an umbrella philosophy for all the equal rights philosophies, including feminism. So all feminists are humanists/egalitarians, but choose to place their active focus on a single issue, based on interest, personal stakes, or other factors, rather than trying to juggle several different issues that have their own internal social politics, vernacular, histories, literature, etc., while still trying to keep food on the table.

 

[oldbadger]

I could help you with the big words.


Why didn't I think of that insult earlier?
Oh, presence of mind, why must ye abandon me in my moment of need?

..... wot big werds? Youse torkin tu a furraly lerned geeza 'ere.

 

[oldbadger]

Men being raped is just a needless distraction?

Isn't that special. You've completely proven my point from another thread, and I do like being right, but sometimes it's kind of sad when I am.

Yes........ I wonder what the statistics of suicide after rape might be?
Many rapes are (probably) never reported...... by both sexes.........

 

[Riverwolf]

Yes........ I wonder what the statistics of suicide after rape might be?
Many rapes are (probably) never reported...... by both sexes.........

I'll wager that most rapes aren't reported.

I'll also wager that half the time, neither side is aware that one of them just got raped. I'll further wager that 25% of the time, the victim may wonder whether he or she just got raped.

It can be tricky for those who aren't educated, because initial resistance that turns into acceptance and active participation is still classified as rape.

 

[Leftimies]

Well, I can't speak for the situation in Finland. Different countries need different levels of any given egalitarian philosophy. (I think we can both agree that Japan, for example, BADLY needs its feminist movement.)

But in the US, feminism is still needed IMO, at the very least on a social level. A big personal reason for it is this: both me and Moonwater are going to be releasing Youtube content in the coming weeks. I can expect one bullying comment for every ten civil comments. She can expect at least five harassment comments for every one good comment.

The feminism that I partake in also hasn't become politicized in the way that you describe, but is absolutely genuine and does focus on both genders' issues, and since there's a lot of overlap with the LGBT+ movements, there are feminists that focus on the issues that other genders have to deal with, as well.

Plus, the thing is, I don't view egalitarianism/humanism as a whole to be a single philosophy, anyway. (I'm not aware of any significant distinction between egalitarianism and humanism.) I regard it as an umbrella philosophy for all the equal rights philosophies, including feminism. So all feminists are humanists/egalitarians, but choose to place their active focus on a single issue, based on interest, personal stakes, or other factors, rather than trying to juggle several different issues that have their own internal social politics, vernacular, histories, literature, etc., while still trying to keep food on the table.

I believe Japan needs its feminist movement quite badly, as to give japanese women some equality which they currently do not possess. Japan also needs someone to teach japanese men what manhood is about. It certainly isn't about unlimited internet porn, virtual girlfriends and such - which it has become in Japan, alienating many of the country's women as men no longer take interest in real women as they used to. Huge problem according to many experts in Japan, quite likely their number one problem. Having 35% of both genders' youth not giving damn about opposing sex is an issue for future demographics.

I don't know...I just don't like the sound of it I guess. So much we could achieve just by living our life without division. How I saw the humanism here was that almost all humans are equal (with exception of those who commit unexplainably horrible crimes) and we should strive to preserve that equality - would that not be a framework good enough? Doesn't matter whether you look it from female or male perspective. As long as you look it from human perspective.

Btw...what do you mean by bullying comments? Or harassment comments?

 

[Alceste]

I would like to be. I would never want to take conflict to anybody, but to defend against violence from others..... I would have to defend.


Oh..... Wars like WW1 were started by pompous fools, managed by pompous ..... etc ......


It's going that way...... Our military has just changed it's rules about female ops on front lines....


Yes......


But I watched telly last night. My wife likes the show where three people cook for the same blind date on different nights. Last night this blind-date, when asked, explained..... 'I want a man to be a man, someone who can fight my battles......blah blah, etc'
You are in a minority..... how many folks think like you? It's the vast majority of young people who need to adjust their whole mindsets for a better quality of egalitarian life...... free from as many of these imprinted 'poos' as possible. It's the young men as well! History repeats itself, and to watch young people in nightclubs (I trained Door Supervisors as well as other ops) one gets the impression that these imprints are instinctive, so we need good minds to figure out how to teach this stuff out of our youth.

I don't personally think those attitudes are instinctive. Indoctrination for these gender roles starts as soon as we can talk. Pink for girls, blue for boys, dolls for girls, trucks and guns for boys, etc.

It would be a simple thing to avoid teaching our kids these gendered values to begin with than to decondition them after the damage is done.

That means out with Snow White and Sleeping Beauty, in with the Paper Bag Princess and Pippi Longstocking.

 

[Alceste]

I didn't want to bother responding to trolls, but I was thinking when I read of this concern for the male victims of rape - who are the rapists? Other men, not women. I don't know how the stats line up on the issue, but I would expect, based on anecdote, that most of the male victims of rape are going to be found in prisons or some sorts of all-male institutions. It's not the same issue in my view; just a needless distraction.

No, that's not accurate. Women rape men. My husband's childhood friend, for example, was raped by a female teacher. In cases like this, though, there is tremendous pressure on the victim to claim it was an awesome, incredibly sexy experience. There is a lot of back patting, envy and congratulations from the victim's male peers. Of course it isn't OK, and being sexually assaulted is not at all pleasant regardless of the gender of the victim and the attacker. But God forbid victims of female on male sexual assault confess this to their peers, for fear of being labeled as a homosexual.

 

[oldbadger]

Pink for girls, blue for boys, dolls for girls, trucks and guns for boys, etc.

Ha ha....! You must be very young.... Boys part their hair on the left, girls on the right. Boys do up the cardigans left over right, girls right over left. The boys get to move the teacher's desk, the girls make the teacher's coffee. Boy's bikes must have cross-bars, girl's bikes don't, and there is no mixing of bikes. Boys play British-Bulldog in the playground, girls tuck skirts in knickers and do handstands and upside-downs on any available bars, and hopscotch..... boys never play hopscotch. ..... and on.....

That means out with Snow White and Sleeping Beauty, in with the Paper Bag Princess and Pippi Longstocking.

I must look up the paper bag princess....

 

[oldbadger]

I'll wager that most rapes aren't reported.

I'll also wager that half the time, neither side is aware that one of them just got raped.

Man parked up by Deal beech, looking out to sea. Stranger (a man) rushes up to man's car.... 'Help! Help! my little dog is in the sea. Please come!' Sightseer goes to help, and at the bottom of the beech, out of sight, the stranger attacks man, throws him on his front and rapes him, right there on the beech, then says, 'Stay here. Don't move or I will kill you'. Leaves.

Man had the guts to report this to Police, and be recognised by the press as the victim. Many don't. They know they got raped.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

To clarify what this thread is about, I put "feminist" in quotation marks because I do not identify
with the label. But I favor gender equality as do many mainstream feminists. Heckfire, I even
took a test which classified me as a feminist. (Shocker, eh?)
So why eschew the label?
Tis because I see feminism as a movement embodying some general (with some diversity) traits.

Feminism:
- Focuses on females.
Sure, sure, some feminists also address disadvantages visited upon men.
But by & large, it's about the females. I noticed that they were very
silent about the military draft of men.
- Tends to dismiss the MRM (men's rights movement) as reactionary,
anti-feminism, whiny, or a subset of feminism (since their approach to
gender equality would fix all men's problems too).
- Advocates increased government authority. Affirmative action was a
fine tool for women, but it legalized active discrimination against men.
- Tolerates hostility in its own ranks against males. All gender inequity
is chalked up to "patriarchy", ie, it's the man's fault.
- Sees women as victims, failing to recognize & use the power they already have.
- Polarizes the abortion debate, making anti-abortion advocates out to be
anti-woman. I'm pro-abortion, but see this as a question of when life & attendant
civil rights begin. The whole "war on woman" campaign seems dishonest & divisive.

Is anyone else here a "non" (non-feminist) despite sympathy for the cause?
Why?

Note:
Don't take my generalities too far. I only see them as slight group tendencies.
Moreover, I don't say my perspective is THE TRUTH or any such foolishness.
I merely explain what I see, how I react, & what I believe.

Rules for this thread:
- Be civil to each other. After all, we're just disagreeing about important things.
- Go ahead & generalize, but be careful about over-generalizing.

I'm not a feminist simply because I'm an egalitarian instead. I do not think women "belong in the kitchen," nor do I think that men are sub-human apes who need their testicles chopped off either.

 

[oldbadger]

It can be tricky for those who aren't educated, because initial resistance that turns into acceptance and active participation is still classified as rape.

That one can be difficult. A bloke I knew 50 years ago would boast that if a girl resisted his advances (initial resistance) he would stop dead, let go, end of..... and this (he boasted) would almost always result in the girl's surprise, and then her touching cuddling and acceptance when he resumed his advances, on to intercourse.

It's the Jury that decides.

 

[Alceste]

That one can be difficult. A bloke I knew 50 years ago would boast that if a girl resisted his advances (initial resistance) he would stop dead, let go, end of..... and this (he boasted) would almost always result in the girl's surprise, and then her touching cuddling and acceptance when he resumed his advances, on to intercourse.

It's the Jury that decides.

Well, in such a situation I would call it consensual. Just as consent can be revoked, it can also be offered after initial reluctance. If he didn't back off when she said no, that would be a different story.

If accepting a yes after an initial no is rape, then I'm a rapist myself.

 

[oldbadger]

No, that's not accurate. Women rape men. My husband's childhood friend, for example, was raped by a female teacher.

I do wish I had been just a little older, and that Miss Wells (teacher) had raped the hell out of me. But I was only 11.
...... So, basically, the only way that a woman can rape a male is by seducing a minor? Any others? I can't think of any. Sexual assault is different, I'm thinking of rape...... ?

In cases like this, though, there is tremendous pressure on the victim to claim it was an awesome, incredibly sexy experience. There is a lot of back patting, envy and congratulations from the victim's male peers. Of course it isn't OK, and being sexually assaulted is not at all pleasant regardless of the gender of the victim and the attacker.

Fair enough..........

But God forbid victims of female on male sexual assault confess this to their peers, for fear of being labeled as a homosexual.

Interesting....... A man I knew well enough to confide with (He has died) had a fetish for cunnilingus on younger male adults (18-20ish). His fetish was particularly absurd to me because he needed the partner to be unwashed. This got started, (he confided to me) when much older boys forced him to do this when he was very young. Initially, he discovered that these same boys came to value him and protect him from any others.......... it built from there. Decades later, and still locked into this fetish, he could not recognise that those serious assaults, all those years before, had changed (screwed up?) his life forever.

 

[Riverwolf]

I believe Japan needs its feminist movement quite badly, as to give japanese women some equality which they currently do not possess. Japan also needs someone to teach japanese men what manhood is about. It certainly isn't about unlimited internet porn, virtual girlfriends and such - which it has become in Japan, alienating many of the country's women as men no longer take interest in real women as they used to. Huge problem according to many experts in Japan, quite likely their number one problem. Having 35% of both genders' youth not giving damn about opposing sex is an issue for future demographics.

What you describe is just the tip of the iceberg.

I don't know...I just don't like the sound of it I guess. So much we could achieve just by living our life without division. How I saw the humanism here was that almost all humans are equal (with exception of those who commit unexplainably horrible crimes) and we should strive to preserve that equality - would that not be a framework good enough? Doesn't matter whether you look it from female or male perspective. As long as you look it from human perspective.

And that's the goal. What you describe is something that aspires to maintain an egalitarian status quo.

But we have to be in an egalitarian state, first, and the US isn't anywhere near that, yet (though we're a lot better than we were 50 years ago).

Btw...what do you mean by bullying comments? Or harassment comments?

Google "Anita Sarkeesian harassment" and I think you'll see what I mean.