1
2704
2705

Discrimination against men? Sexist double standards [x-post from r/rage] (youtube.com)

submitted by Rawtashk

sorted by:
best
best
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]robberotter 85 ポイント86 ポイント

Are feminists in outrage about this? Isn't feminism about equality between men and women?

[–]Ruruskadoo 65 ポイント66 ポイント

I'm a feminist, and yes, this kind of shit makes me absolutely furious. Feminism is about breaking down gender roles and the idea that women need to be delicate and weak and should stay at home with the kids and men need to act all tough and never show emotion and be the main money maker and if they go near kids they must be pedos. Both are equally wrong. People should be allowed to pick whatever path they want in life regardless of gender.

I can go out and wear pants in public, but if a man goes out in a skirt, he's ridiculed. People are still far too rigid about how "men" need to act vs how "women" need to act. People make far too many judgements based on gender.

[–]Arandmoor 8 ポイント9 ポイント

There aren't enough feminists like you. Most of the ones we hear about are the raging "all men are scum" types unfortunately :(

All they really seem to be good for is giving feminism a bad name.

I can go out and wear pants in public, but if a man goes out in a skirt, he's ridiculed.

We need to be more like Scottland.

[–]leroy_sunset 2 ポイント3 ポイント

I'm a feminist man, who has actually studied feminism. I think you base your impression of "feminism" on a decades-old stereotype that is long, long gone. Most feminists are like /u/Ruruskadoo. Patriarchy is real, and it affects women and men, as outlined above.

[–]calle30 2 ポイント3 ポイント

Lets go to tumblr for example and see what we can find there.

There is a new generation coming that seems to be more radical than anything we have seen before.

[–]zbbrox 0 ポイント1 ポイント

tumblr isn't representative of anything. If you judged the world by tumblr, you'd think Otherkin were a major segment of society.

[–]zbbrox 0 ポイント1 ポイント

"There aren't enough feminists like you. Most of the ones we hear about are the raging "all men are scum" types unfortunately :("

The vast, vast majority of feminists are like the poster you replied to. "Most of the ones we hear about" are not "most of the feminists". Several hundred crazy people on tumblr do not speak for the millions upon million of feminists (both male and female) in this country and the world.

[–]BassmanBiff 0 ポイント1 ポイント

In my experience, as a male feminist, hardly anyone sees all men as scum. Even a joke that implies such might get some laughs, but mainly everyone will just be uncomfortable. The reason you hear about the "raging feminist" all the time is because people like having things to hate.

[–]fableweaver 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Then why feminism.

I mean why not call it masculinism. Or men's rights.

Because it's not about men. Its at its core something as a man that I have a problem flying under and a hard time taking as cause. Its alienating.

I can't call my self a men's rights activist because I'd be laughed at and look at like a chauvinistic pig. But feminism isn't focusing on shit in the article.

I'm all for equal rights hell I support feminism, I just think it doesn't focus on men and women equally.

[–]son_nequitur 1 ポイント2 ポイント

I agree it's a bummer you don't have a banner to work under. A lot of MRAs don't seem to work for men, they seem to just want to discredit feminists, so that gave Men's Rights a bad reputation. But feminism suffers the same problem and it's bullshit in both cases.

I say: call yourself a MRA. Do your work. People will recognize you if you're really doing good stuff. It's not like women had an easy time of it. Getting feminism recognized as a legitimate movement was a battle, and it's not even won yet. Men's Rights will be the same. You gotta be willing to make the uphill climb.

[–]fableweaver 3 ポイント4 ポイント

But why. Why continue to use the qualifiers I don't want there to be difference between men and women why must we fly under different banners if we want the same thing.

To be equal.

[–]Samakain -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

Because History, because Humanism was already taken and was tangled up with Communism during the cold war period. Because you don't re-brand a 50 year old movement overnight.

And because of the structures and vestigial social ques built up over the last few 1000 years of patriarchal rule, we achieve quality quicker by attacking this crap from the female perspective.

[–]fableweaver 5 ポイント6 ポイント

Do you? I mean when was the last time you or any of your feminist counter parts have intentionally fought for the rights of men?

Hell even socially men aren't valued the same.

Ask yourself if there was two busses one filled with men one filled with women. One has to die who do you choose.

Now I don't know what you answer but I can guarantee most of society would answer that the men die. Hell even I would and I'm not proud of it.

As a man who dreamt of being a teacher, who is to scared to follow that now. As a man who grew up playing with neighborhood kids, but got to afraid to when I became a teenager.

I can tell you I don't see the change helping me. That doesn't mean feminism isn't doing good, it just isn't meant for me.

[–]Samakain -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

Okey, not sure what any of this has anything to do with what I've said. But the dissembling of gender roles helps both sides regardless. if we look at child custody, the dismantling of the idea that women are by dint of birth better carers than men means the idea that men are incapable of caring for a child is also erased.

No gender works in a vacuum isolated from others. To say one fight is not for you and this one is seems limited. Yes the pedophile scare is fucked, I can't interact with children without suspicion. Hell i can't even say I like kids while being a single dude without getting looks.

This is a trend and a scare rustled up by sensationalist media hunting after ratings and page clicks. Get people afraid and they'll pay attention. I had no idea how to dismantle the notion, but it's something that must be done in slow steps. As infuriating as it is.

[–]fableweaver 1 ポイント2 ポイント

That is true that no gender issues are in a vacuum.

But to take something you said

The dissembling of gender roles yhelps both sides regardless. if we look at child custody, the dismantling of the idea that women are by dint of birth better carers than men means the idea that men are incapable of caring for a child is also erased.

Is that what it means? I mean yes by making it known that women aren't necessarily made for raising a child helps the fact that many people think men cant do a good job.

But that doesn't really change that on a whole custody is still on the majority given to women more often than men. And socially men are still viewed as helpless.

Logically helping one side of the equation will help the other, but society doesn't always function on the best logic. We wouldn't have to be talking about this if it did :/

[–]Samakain -1 ポイント0 ポイント

But that doesn't really change that on a whole custody is still on the majority given to women more often than men. And socially men are still viewed as helpless.

Solving the problem doesn't solve the problem? I'm talking about actions to achieve results man, not claiming results already won.

And yes, logic doesn't always factor into the consideration of these things. But that's why i'm on this side of the fence. It has it's faults and it's extremists like any movement but when I find people here talking about solutions and then taking action.

[–]DiCtAtIoNeR -1 ポイント0 ポイント

There should be a movement called equalinism

[–]fableweaver 7 ポイント8 ポイント

There is one it's called Egalitarianism but it isn't very popular.

[–]Pomguo 2 ポイント3 ポイント

Because that term is already used for a a wider movement and school of thought, that covers stuff like economics as well as race and gender.

When talking about gender inequality, it's not all that harmful for it to retain its historic name of "Feminism" as the two genders are still not equal. Male issues are finally starting to be noticed thanks to breakdowns in how people think about gender roles, but overall women still have the worse deal, and equality has yet to be reached for them.

Still, an even more specific movement focusing on the men's side could be useful - however, a lot of men's rights movement stuff tends to be hijacked by those who'd rather disrupt women's rights movements than actually help men.

[–]fableweaver 6 ポイント7 ポイント

It seems to me that this is the problem at your core you do believe that women have the short end of the stick. That may be true in many cases but if you focus on that how can I hope to one day TAKE MY OWN DAMN KIDS TO THE PARK.

The leading causes that feminist parties fight for don't have anything to do with men (for the most part) its LGBT, abortion rights, economic equality.

All of these are INCREDIBLY important they just aren't helping the shit in the video.

And why keep a "Historical name" it was a name that originally focused on just women and before that women's rights activists were referred to as "Women's liberationist" but soon that developed a bad name.

No doubt this was because people were afraid of equality, but also because of radicals that didn't represent the target of the organization.

No you say to keep the name because its historical. And others because "People are afraid of what it stands for not the name" I say change it because if in fact what you say is true (and it is) feminism stands for equality for all then the name doesn't matter.

[–]Pomguo -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

It seems to me that this is the problem at your core you do believe that women have the short end of the stick. That may be true in many cases but if you focus on that how can I hope to one day TAKE MY OWN DAMN KIDS TO THE PARK.

I think that all added up, women do not have equal treatment with men right now, and that's in men's favour.
That does not mean that there aren't spaces and instances where men don't also suffer, which is something I have witnessed first hand as a man working in childcare.

LGBT definitely covers men, also. Only the L and half the B+T are about women, which is equal to the coverage of men (G and half the B+T). Straight cismen? No, but then they don't need to same kinds of fights fought.

Feminism is a women-focused equal rights movement, which is as it should be, because that's the side the greatest disparity lies on. I am very behind Men's Rights movements that don't just spend all their time hating on Feminists just because they're the equivalent for the other gender.

[–]fableweaver 0 ポイント1 ポイント

I used LGBT as an example of what they cover, I do not by any means think or intend to give the impression that what feminist organizations do is important. I just make the argument that it may not be the best way about resolving issues to do with men.

I'm not really interested in who has it worse because that's like saying "The children in Africa have it much worse than inner city American children so we should focus on just the ones in Africa" it just doesn't make sense.

Yes the two are similar in the sense that they have to do with gender but the problems are so vastly different that they should be treated differently.

[–]Pomguo -1 ポイント0 ポイント

I'm not really interested in who has it worse because that's like saying "The children in Africa have it much worse than inner city American children so we should focus on just the ones in Africa" it just doesn't make sense.

It's not comparing for the purpose of diverting all effort away from the other, or even to lay claim to some "victory" - there are simply more issues that are serious enough to warrant campaigning, so there are more people and campaigns doing so on that side. The same way there are more charities that focus on African children than on inner-city American children.

[–]Pottski 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Thanks for being pro-equality and not anti-man. The world could use more like you.

[–]12_Years_A_Toucan 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Ok, so where is the out cry from other feminists? Always someone claiming what you say and while true on a personal level no action will ever be taken to help men.

[–]Deem_22 -1 ポイント0 ポイント

i think as men we are probably worst off with the men wearing skirts vs pants kind of debates, typically its men that point the finger and ridicule those that aren't "manly". i'd say that's one of the underlying reasons beards became so popular.

people need to care less about what a person does and more about the actual person, their ethics, morals and general persona. what i hate is when people think i'm a pig/arsehole because i don't like a certain women or man because of her attitude or something that conflicts with my own personality or morals etc.

[–]executioncommentary 12 ポイント13 ポイント

Yes, as a feminist, I am outraged about this. Feminism is a belief in equality between the sexes, and clearly, this is not equality. This is caused by the belief that women are meant to be the caretakers of children, and if gender roles were broken down, then both males and females would be viewed as equally viable caretakers. If that were the case, this sort of thing wouldn't happen.

[–]mouseknuckle 9 ポイント10 ポイント

They should be, because this has it's roots in the sexist notion that raising children is women's work.

[–]son_nequitur 3 ポイント4 ポイント

I'm a feminist and I certainly see it that way.

[–]mouseknuckle 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Me too.

[–]Ztiller 0 ポイント1 ポイント

That doesn't make any sense. If that was true, this would have happened long ago. The whole men-can't-be-near-kids thing is not very old.

[–]mouseknuckle 1 ポイント2 ポイント

To me, that just shows how insidious this kind of thinking is- that we're still coming up with bullshit like this after all this time. Just because it's not old doesn't mean it's not stupid sexist crap. But it illustrates a point: sexism doesn't hurt women, sexism hurts everyone.

[–]ManBearScientist 18 ポイント19 ポイント

Feminists might be for equality, but feminism is not. For example, the largest US feminist organization deals with six core issues:

  1. Abortion/reproductive rights
  2. Violence against women
  3. Constitutional equality
  4. Ending racism
  5. Lesbian Rights
  6. Economic Justice

Read those carefully. Lesbian rights, not gay rights. Economic "justice," not economic equality. Violence against women, not domestic violence. The wording is deliberate. It is obvious that feminism as a movement (and not as a theoretical construct) does not care at all about men's issues or about equality.

[–]Cure_Tap 7 ポイント8 ポイント

It's helpful to have a link to back up your point.

Technically, it is titled as LGBT Rights on the website. However, the URL is http://now.org/issues/lesbian-rights/. Also, the description of the page itself reads: "... NOW asserts the right of lesbians to live their lives with dignity and security, and marriage equality for all."

Essentially, no direct mention of gay males, bisexuals, or transgender people at all, despite their use of the term LGBT.

[–]executioncommentary 5 ポイント6 ポイント

One organization does not accurately reflect the goals of an entire movement.

[–]cool_account__ 6 ポイント7 ポイント

And there's the No True Scotsman, right on cue. You're literally saying that the largest feminist organization isn't an adequate representation of feminism, despite how absurd that claim obviously is.

[–]Cure_Tap 10 ポイント11 ポイント

I would argue that the largest organization in the United States certainly reflects at least an INKLING of the movement. At least in terms of measurable impact, since it's an organization that has the money to lobby and litigate for what they want, and has a half a million people behind it.

I am neither pro nor anti-feminist. But it seems a little short sighted to me to write off NOW as just one organization.

[–]executioncommentary -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

To be fair, they do state that they are promoting equality, all LGBT rights and not just lesbian rights, and it's not as if "justice" isn't a universal term. The only thing that's problematic is the category "Violence Against Women," and I'd bet that most feminists would agree that that should be updated.

[–]Cure_Tap 3 ポイント4 ポイント

The only thing that's problematic is the category "Violence Against Women," and I'd bet that most feminists would agree that that should be updated.

I'm with you on that.

Their stance on LGBT rights baffles me slightly, though. They mention gender identity discrimination at one turn, but then single out lesbians as the people they're fighting for at the next turn.

[–]ManBearScientist 1 ポイント2 ポイント

I was using this page , where they use "winning lesbian rights." However, it appears that this was an old version of the site.

[–]son_nequitur 2 ポイント3 ポイント

I think you've got it right. But I don't see how that's an indictment of feminism. I can be a feminist and also want to support men's rights. I can be a baseball fan and also enjoy basketball. Being a baseball fan has nothing to do with basketball, but that's not a knock against baseball. It's just a different thing.

[–]ManBearScientist 7 ポイント8 ポイント

That is what I was trying to address. Feminism deals with women's issues. They sometimes deal with men when it overlaps with women's issues. But they certainly do not address any unique men's issues, and thus aren't really egalitarian.

There isn't really a reason for feminism to address this issue as they are not concerned with men's issues. Feminists may also be egalitarians, but not all feminists are egalitarians.

[–]wendy_stop_that -1 ポイント0 ポイント

Betty Friedan and Pauli Murray wrote the organization's Statement of Purpose[6] in 1966.

I'm pretty sure they've updated their wording since 1966, and if not NOW (National Organization for Women), other feminist groups have. There's no one lump-sum of feminism, bro.

[–]Cure_Tap 5 ポイント6 ポイント

There's no one lump-sum of feminism, bro.

Of course not, but to be fair, this is the largest feminist organization in the country. People always bring up how it's the vocal minority of feminism that's giving it a bad reputation and getting people confused about what the movement stands for, but this is literally one of the organizations on the forefront of the movement.

Also, it seems to me anyways as if they actually haven't updated their goals since 1966, save for changing "Lesbian Rights" to "LGBT Rights", while making no mention of gay men, bisexuals, or transgender people in their mission statement.

[–]BassmanBiff 0 ポイント1 ポイント

They also don't focus on ensuring businesses are accessible to disabled people, even though that's a good cause too. I don't understand why people are getting upset with an organization that is dedicated to helping women for focusing on women.

[–]gibson_ 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Uhh? That's their point. That feminism is dedicated to helping women, not dedicated to fighting for equality.

[–]ManBearScientist 3 ポイント4 ポイント

Those six are listed as NOW's current priority issues. IE, what they are focusing on today. However, if you look at that site you'll notice the copyright ended in 2012. The current version has one difference: lesbian rights became LGBT rights.

[–]Yawaworht12345678 -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

The idea that men are not adequate caretakers of children is a view propagated by the Patriarchy, and would be dismantled by feminism.

[–]2_Blue_Shoes 8 ポイント9 ポイント

Why do you call it "the patriarchy" if women, on the face of it, seem to be advantaged?

[–]Yawaworht12345678 5 ポイント6 ポイント

Patriarchy doesn't always have to deal with advantage, it's just the systematic ideals of society of over-masculization and sexualization of people and their behaviors.

[–]trentthecaptain 6 ポイント7 ポイント

A true serious question. Why don't you call yourself an egalitarian? By context FEM-IN-ISM places an emphasis on the female perspective which is why I think a lot of men coil back from being called one or getting involved.

[–]son_nequitur 4 ポイント5 ポイント

You can be both a feminist and an egalitarian. They aren't mutually exclusive.

[–]trentthecaptain 0 ポイント1 ポイント

What would make someone one but not the other?

[–]son_nequitur 0 ポイント1 ポイント

I suspect it's just a matter of priorities. Some people want to make a priority of helping women. Some people dislike gender-specific reform and only want to do things that help diverse groups of people.

[–]Yawaworht12345678 4 ポイント5 ポイント

Actually this a big topic of discussion I was having today and I totally agree. Many people associate feminism with only women and I also think egalitarianism encompasses a broader area of social issues with which I agree

[–]Acila_Asylu 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Egalitarianism is extremely broad and unspecific. Feminism is more gender-specific and should be applied when the issue at hand is gender-specific. You can be a part of both.

[–]exo762 0 ポイント1 ポイント

And yet we can't expect feminists to act on behalf of men's rights, right?

[–]Yawaworht12345678 -1 ポイント0 ポイント

If you ask me, most arguments over men's rights are the same things feminism is fighting for. I used to be a men's right activist, but feminism is ultimately trying to solve problems that helps men's rights

[–]Ruruskadoo 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Because the whole idea of women being the weak ones staying home and taking care of the kids while men act all tough and strong and have to be the ones making the money and if they want to be the one taking care of the kids there must be something wrong with them comes from the previous era of patriarchy.

That being said, I dislike the term because men and even some women tend to find it alienating and it's too associated with radical feminists who lean towards misandry. Since women also perpetuate these double standards, I prefer just to focus on the fact that they're a problem rather than stating their cultural origin since it's a moot point now.

[–]baby_butt_fuck 9 ポイント10 ポイント

So a system (pedophile hysteria), promulgated by mainly women, which places men at a huge disadvantage, discriminates against men, disregards basic standards of legal and societal decency against men (guilty until proven innocent, and then still guilty), which gives women special privileges over men, which paints men as "unfit to work with children" or "inherent sexual deviants", a system which disregards the "patriarchal" ideas of male guidance, authority, and fatherhood, a system which men are on the whole against, a system which men fear, is the fault of men, because "patriarchy says that women are good at caring for children"??????

I don't fucking think so.

Traditional British (and American) values say that a strong father is an important figure in a child's life, that men make good authority figures, and that the relationship between a father and child is as important as the relationship between a mother and child.

Now, I'm not going to dispute that these traditional values are patriarchal, and that no doubt leads to problems with societal opinions of women, but to claim that there is some sort of pervasive "system" called "Patriarchy" that claims "women are good at kids, therefore men are bad at kids" is not only ridiculous, but also strongly at odds with any actual examples of patriarchal ideas in Western culture.

It's not patriarchal values that say that men are perverted sexual deviants, to be feared by women and children everywhere. That's something that comes straight from feminism. Yes, I don't care if you say that you're a feminist and you don't think that, because it's absolutely something that comes from feminism, the radical variety, the variety I hear about in the news, the variety I hear about online, the moderate variety, whatever.

Is it some "Matriarchy"? No, that's bullshit. There's no conspiracy. It's just that feminism (I'm sure it's the variety you disagree with, or something...) has spent endless effort trying to recast men, to change them from strong, hardworking defenders of the family (which they might have been in traditional, patriarchal, yes, sexist culture), into automatic "schrodinger's rapist" sexual offenders who are unnecessary and even harmful to families.

This kind of "Patriarchy is the root of everything" stuff is 100% paranoid conspiracy theory bullshit, and it's the primary reason that I'll never call myself a feminist, but rather an egalitarian. Society should treat everyone decently. No, the fact that you're getting paid less as a newcomer with no experience than a man who's worked in the company for 20 years doesn't mean the patriarchy is out to get you. Yes, men and women should have equal rights under the law.

ugh

edit: don't even get me started on VAWA, which basically says that the police must always arrest the male party in any domestic violence incident, no matter what the context. Man on the floor with a broken arm, a concussion, and a black eye, woman standing unhurt with a frying pan and knife? Lock the man up, because she must have felt "threatened". Patriarchy didn't push VAWA through. That was 100% the work of the feminist movement.

[–]DrZums 1 ポイント2 ポイント

very well said.

[–]bourbon_pope 3 ポイント4 ポイント

What you just said is literally the exact OPPOSITE of the truth.

The reason men aren't considered "adequate caretakers of children" is because a feminist in the early 19th century decided that women, not men, should take care of children, not because of some bullshit imagined "patriarchy".

Know what you're talking about instead of billowing smoke out of your ass.

EDIT: a word.

[–]Yawaworht12345678 -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

"Tender years doctrine was also frequently used in the 20th century being gradually replaced towards the end of the century, in the legislation of most states, by the "best interests of the child" doctrine of custody. Furthermore, several courts have held that the tender years doctrine violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution." Do your research before you come at me

[–]bourbon_pope 1 ポイント2 ポイント

You see that word "also" in there? Does that change the meaning for you at all?

Not to mention the fact that citing its creation and implementation in "Victorian Age" politics has no bearing on its applicability, nor the fact that it was started, pushed for, and for all intents and purposes, implemented by a feminist.

Unless you're doing some kind of hardcore, Olympic-level mental gymnastics, I would warn you that discrediting something because of its age yet still using a title born from ACTUAL hardship more than a hundred years ago as a banner for progress despite several instances of it being the opposite is mighty fucking hypocritical.

And don't namedrop that "true-woman" shit because even if that WERE the case, what you would then essentially be doing is creating a NAFALT characterization of Caroline Norton, not to mention the fact that the Custody of Infants Act of 1839 predated your notion of domesticity by almost 30 years.

Also, there's a huge difference between a set standard of ideological continuation regarding men as unfit caretakers and the law, and in no way is there NOT a discriminatory effect towards men when it comes to custody.

Your continual reference to the mythological "patriarchy" is starting to lead me to believe that you're a fucking troll.

[–]almightybob1 0 ポイント1 ポイント

And yet they do nothing to address it.

[–]ShaidarHaran2 0 ポイント1 ポイント

It always seems to go either way depending on what's brought up. "Feminism is for everyone, how can't you like it?" Ok...Cool. I'm down for that. Then if any mens issue is brought up "Feminism is about women! Don't waste time with that mens bullshit!"

[–]exo762 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Sure, some of them are outraged. But don't expect them to act on this. Men's rights movement exist in some forms since 1920s. Guess how much was achieved while working with feminists? They are MRA's enemies, despite all the "we have the same views on so many subjects" and "yeah, those things are wrong too". Why? Because they are pondering to other audience. That's politics. Period.

[–]redboy678 -4 ポイント-3 ポイント

No, it's more about having something to bitch about.

[–]TheDebaser 5 ポイント6 ポイント

Except not really. This should be something feminism should care about. Both genders face problems and we should all work together to solve them.

It's too bad it's named feminism and not, I don't know, egalitarianism or genderism or something.

[–]Ruruskadoo 0 ポイント1 ポイント

The thing about egalitarianism is it's not about gender. It's about equality for all. That's fantastic, and I think everyone should be for that. However, I would argue feminism specifically deals with gender issues. You can advocate equality for all while also being in favor of specific groups like those for gender equality and those for racial equality. It's not an either-or situation. I would argue that feminism is a subcategory of egalitarianism.

[–]TheDebaser 0 ポイント1 ポイント

I was not entirely aware that that was a real thing ¯_(ツ)_/¯

[–]MangoMantango 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Feminism is about fighting for women's rights. Some feminists fight for women's rights to be equal, some fight for them to be better.

That is why we all should adopt the word egalitarianism. (and maybe shorten it a bit)

[–]executioncommentary 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Feminism is not about fighting for women to be better. That's called radical feminism, and should not be confused with the goals of mainstream feminism, which is equality.

[–]MangoMantango 0 ポイント1 ポイント

It is still a part of the feminism movement, feminism doesn't necessarily equal equal rights.

[–]anon22222 -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

That's what they say but it isn't in reality. Take note that you don't see any women fighting for equality in being drafted to the front lines.

In reality, feminism is about getting all the benefits of men without having to do any of the shitty stuff like working dangerous jobs, getting drafted to die in the front lines, and so on.

Feminism is purely about politics and not about actual equality.

[–]gibson_ 0 ポイント1 ポイント

No, that is called humanism. Feminism is a form of humanism that deals specifically with inequalities that women face.

[–]uncommon_knowledge 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Are feminists in outrage about this?

A few on the internet will agree that it's unjust, but the mainstream of feminism in academia, the media, and non-profit world won't do anything.

Too much patriarchy and male talking (i.e., "mansplaining") involved with men's issues, which isn't remotely what feminism (in-practice) cares about.

[–]mmmbop- 0 ポイント1 ポイント

This question is rhetorical. You know modern feminists only whine when it benefits females.

[–]son_nequitur 0 ポイント1 ポイント

I'm a feminist and I think it's outrageous.

[–]El_Glenn -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

Isn't feminism about equality between men and women?

no

[–]dan-syndrome -4 ポイント-3 ポイント

lol

[–]MrKphat -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

Like any ideology, the more people that hop on board the more distorted and stupid the message gets. It's now just about women getting more.

[–]feloniousthroaway -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

That's a funny joke you posted there.

[–]dubuaska -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

I'm surprised no blue pills have jumped you for this statement yet. They cry about everything.

[–]blunt_person -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

It's called feminism, not egalitarianism. Empowerment of women.

[–]jason-smith -4 ポイント-3 ポイント

feminism is only about equality when it is convenient or a woman cries rape