Is it sexist to criticize feminism?

[kılıç_mehmet]

Equality isn't necessarily an internationalist ideology.

No, "equality" isn't an ideology either. It's something that is based on legal and social definition. Sometimes this definition is based on universal values, sometimes not, as you already said.

It usually starts within a a singular nation in-which the oppressed classes find a way to appeal to the powers that be so that they can have greater rights or advantages.

Well, from how I see it, it usually starts out with someone from the less-opressed classes taking pity on the more oppressed classes and taking the liberty to act on the behalf on the class in question. Because more educated people are more likely to be less concerned with what they're going to eat tomorrow, so they have a lot more time to think through such concepts. And after thinking hard through the day, they come to certain conclusions, and after coming to conclusions, they usually try to put these conclusions into action.

It has traits of being internationalist as it's a fanciful notion that everyone in the world should have equality and freedoms.

Well, it entirely depends on the basis you build your ideas upon.

It's not some kind of looming threat, it's just a nice idea that people have.

Well, it was during the cold war. And it was spreading, giving rise to many civil wars and resulting into thousands of deaths. It indeed was a threat that needed to be dealt with, though it eventually destroyed itself.

Nationalism tackles nothing. Nationalism is merely a delusion, a pair of blinders that right-wing fascists wear.

Nationalism tackled the treaty of Sevres that sought to divide my country.
And it did so with success. Of course, back then, Hippies and hipsters didn't exist, and the world was a lot more serious and idealism were measured by action, rather than facebook likes.

wow. much opinionated. substance none.

I can provide reasoning for my arguments, if you wish to hear them.

Holy shit, I agree with you. My main problem with the feminist movement is that it's gotten to the point where they no longer seek equality but there are many radical feminists who want power OVER other people.

Well, wanting and getting things is different. Today, most people have different priorities, and radical feminists are often subject to ridicule and fail to get much support from their less-radical counterparts. However, radical feminism still defines the public image of "feminism" in general mainly due to the fact that radical feminists are still people of action. They are out in the field, they are active in universities, they active still publish books, magazines and etc.
I respect radical feminists, as they are as a matter of fact, *serious*.
In my opinion, a movement that calls itself a movement ought to try to establish power over other people, else, how can you actually put your ideals into motion?
This should not suggest that I agree with most of their ideas, though I must admit that I agree with some.

They want more rights than everyone else and feel entitled to those rights because they're a woman.

Well, I agree that they are self-righteous and believe their views to be universal truth, though I'm not very certain about them wanting more rights or feeling entitled to those rights.

It's not too surprising for a group that feels oppressed to cry oppression.

Well, that's where their internationalism comes into play. But as always, it still falls short.
They are genuine about it, of that I have no doubt, but as always, the solution to many different problems women face around the earth can be handled through national solutions, not international solutions.
The feminists are arrogant and ignorants, they know very little about the circumstances, the area, the people, the cultures, but they still hollar and howl the whole day about this and that, while not accomplishing anything.

Did you ever stop to consider that maybe they ARE being oppressed.

Who? Feminists? I don't think so, feminism is something that is for women who have full bellies and do not live in warzones.

And even then, why should you care? If they're shot down by the majority then what's the problem?

I frankly don't, they're not my problem. But the fact is, they aren't.

It's good to actually look at the individual human rights proposal rather just making hasty generalizations that all minority classes who seek out rights must just be trying to win one over on the majority.

Well, I'm not making generalizations, but all minority rights organisations clash with the interests of the majority at one point or the other. Else they wouldn't form such organisations in the first place. If they were rather honest about what they wanted, I wouldn't have a problem. Like we want that, we want this, because this is where our interests lie. That's honest, in my opinion. But when the self-entitlement mentality is one that I really hate. I don't think that feminists do have that, because they do not consider themselves as a minority group, they think that their truths are universal, but they appeal to other minorities for support, most of the time.

Commonly, people who cry out for more rights, are being oppressed.

Well, it makes no sense though. To whom are they appealing to?
To the oppressors?

When feminist felt like they were oppressed and asked for voting power, they felt that their views would solve the problem.

Well, no doubt about it.

There's still no correlation to internationalism there as these cases are handled nation by nation.

Well, the Suffragette movement, as it is called, that campaigned for suffrage was a politically motivated movement. They didn't even call themselves "feminists" but Suffragettes.

I don't see how that at all is a compelling case that communists don't strive for equality. What was the content of your pamphlets? What drove them to complain to the school board? What have you done to combat the corruption of the school board? How are these people, ' "ex"-communists'?

The content of my pamphlets included a response to a than recent publicity stunt that they had made, and how they violently attacked the people that protested them, and then complained about how they were attacked in a paper they release once in two months or so. After I read the paper, I was infuriated with how they still managed to appear self righteous by playing the victims while being the perpetrators, so I chose to reply with a pamphlet. I already had printed out a small number, which I left a box in a cafetaria for people to pick up and read, but they responded by taking and burning them all then making a formal complaint to the school board.
The school board, being essentially made up by their like minded(they call themselves "social democrats" today) but older versions that rise to that position by a self-perpetuating system, had seen it fit to tell me that I could not print and distribute these pamphlets on the accord that they very provocative, and that I or anyone who did it regardless would face disciplinary action.

While I personally wouldn't try to bar someone from expressing opposing viewpoints on campus, I think there's certain lines that should be drawn when something is outright inflammatory and insults groups of people (not saying that your pamphlets did that).

Well, I make it a rule not to use any cusswords, however I have explicitely targeted them as their actions prompted me to actually print out pamphlets.

My own group was demonized by faculty, not granted club status because we couldn't amend to the ridiculous list of requirements , and the police were called during our first meeting. So I can sympathize with you, but this was done to a Marxist group that invited everyone to come around and discuss their viewpoints. It wasn't so much of a Marxist group as a platform for people to come and discuss their views and to disagree. We welcomed people to come with opposing view points because we wanted a place to have an informed and friendly dialogue.

Well, here, things are not like that my friend. Here, the pursuit of politics in university is not for the faint hearted, it requires you to face hardships and make sacrifices. Not just for me, for the communists aswell.

The first wave began with the 20th century. Anything else is really not noteworthy.

why, cause it doesn't agree with your argument?

I really don't see the counter argument against feminism unless it's radical feminism. Any sex, race, or religion deserve to be treated equally. If your one to appose against this then all your doing is fighting against the inevitable and slowing down natural human progression. Not to mention poisoning the brain of the younger generations that you might influence, and these types of people are nothing more then a disease.

Really, I don't think that women need feminism at all.
I'm all for equal treatment but I think we gave our women more through nationalism than your women ever won by feminism.
Please reconsider your position.

*buzzer sound* WRONG. You know Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, who wrote Frankenstein? Her mother was a famous feminist, who wrote A Vindication of the Rights of Women in the 18th century. She certainly wasn't the only feminist of her day. And the first "wave" of feminism started in the 19th century. Do you know even know that of which you speak? EVER?

I can also say that Turkish nationalism began with Mahmud Al-Kashgari in the introduction of Divanu Lugati't Turk in the 11th century.

The Suffragette movement started in the late 19th century and only reached fruition in the early 20th century. Don't be a fucking dick.

What terrible way of covering for you being wrong. "The first wave", what does that even mean? You're just applying an arbitrary concepts of "waves" to justify the accuracy of your original point. Who are you to say the works of feminists before this "first wave" weren't noteworthy? They obviously were if it helped spawn greater struggles for women's rights. You dun goof'd man, there's no point in making up concepts to cover your mistake.

Well, maybe I shouldn't even consider the first wave to be feminists either, but only do so because the modern feminists ascribe them to themselves.
I stand by my words.

That does not make logical sense. Consensual sex requires at least two consenting adults, and their sex doesn't matter. They're both equally capable of making the choice for themselves. And you do know that the same woman can have several children with different fathers, right? I don't really see how that's different than a man having several children with different mothers.

What I was trying to explain was that the "choice" in this matter is first and foremost the choice of a woman, when he chooses a man to mate with. Men are ultimately chosen. Even if they want a specific woman, the choice ultimately lies with the woman whether to accept the man or not. This is ascribed to the nature of man and woman.

The fact that a woman can have children with different fathers is not the same, really. It is the man who spreads her seed, while a man can father three children in one night from three different women, these women can only have children from a single man in one night. This is the reason why the choice lies with the woman. A man does not need to be choosy about where he lays his seed. A woman on the other hand, has such a need.

No, you mean homosexuals, don't you? Why don't you start a thread explaining why it is you think that homosexuals are in any way less fit to be parents than heterosexuals? I'm sure your ignorance will be amusing, not just to me, but to all the enlightened posters on this site.

There is really no point in discussing that with you. And I already said a lot on the subject of homosexual parents before.
Look up old threads if you're so interested.

That part of his statement got to me as well. He claimed earlier that when communists don't agree with someone, they call them a fascist. I feel that this is a personally thing that he has encountered though because when you say shit like that, it's not too surprising that you'd be called a fascist.

Well, they don't use the term in an ideological meaning, really, most communists do not know what fascism really is, or ever read anything about Italy under the fascist regime, they just apply the term at will against others with a pejorative meaning.
Besides, I have had people that called me a fascist, true. But I have taken the time to actually inform them of whom the term actually applies to(Italian nationalists) and they have corrected themselves.
But communists still do refer to me as fascist because for them, its like an insult of some sorts, a pejorative that they fling around wild, they don't even care what I actually advocate, or ever bother to find out.