Is it sexist to criticize feminism?

[kılıç_mehmet]

So, are you saying that abortion should only be legal in cases of rape?


Yes, a baby is an incredible burden. Not just the pregnancy, but raising the child as well. Which is why, as you put it, anyone experiencing it should reasonably be able to terminate it. But that option is only available for one sex.

And, no, he doesn't always get an option about whether or not he got pregnant. Sometimes birth control fails; sometimes she lies about birth control. Sometimes they just get so stinking drunk or high that they don't even think about those things.

Me, I say men should have more options about this. This story went into more detail about what I'm talking about.... and, to get back on topic, I NEVER hear feminists talk about this.

http://content.time.com/time/nation/arti...14,00.html

Men do have choices it's called a condom or get fixed

Men do have lot less choices than women do, if you ask me. Though really, I personally think that this whole "choice" thing is folly and a modern day retardation and corruption of values and good customs.
A man ought to take responsibilities as should a woman.
But modern world drives us all to be nothing more than irresponsible. What we're discussing here is whether men should be able to be as irresponsible as the modern world allows women to be.
Women have everything that allow them to be irresponsible today. Limitless sexual freedom, a selection of men at their fingertips, and a horde of degenerate bloggers and "rights activists" that allow them to be irresponsible as ever.
And as women are becoming more irresponsible, so do men, as in fact, men actually align most of their behavior in accordance with the behavior of women, as they need to do this in order to get a mate.
What this whole range of blind feminists does not understand is that males are in fact dependent on women in order to correct their behavior to be of any use to society. If men are the arms and legs of society, women are literally the brain that use them. No one can say otherwise. Even the most strongest men in world history had a woman behind them that gave them counsel and advice, not to mention being brought into the world by women. But if the women themselves become as a wild radical as men, I'd fear for the future. Feminism claims that women ought to be as wild radicals, in order to archieve equality. I say that the women need to be the voice of reason, and the epitome of moderacy and the foremost defenders of morality and family values.
For we all know that men are wild and chaotic, it is their nature. But without their proper counterpart that represents order, the women, human society will fall into decay.
This is why I advocate traditional gender roles as they in fact, were established for a reason, and were practiced for a reason. Instead of trying to realize, and trying to understand, feminists simply advocate chaos for women, while telling men to take responsibility.
They switch the roles that nature bestowed upon us, and tampering with natural order has its consequences.

[My imaginary friend is GOD]

=
Why are you so hostile towards pregnancies?
Besides, in the case of a consensual sexual relation, it is up to the girl to give the go.
Not the man. We look to the female for "consent" regarding sex, don't we?
Frankly, its very one sided, and I think that under this context, the whole responsibility should lie with the female who gave consent to the male.

---

Indeed, that surely would be a great victory for the feminist struggle. You surely would be able to raise your glorious feminist liberation army in underground spawning labs without needing the sperm of us evil, evil males.
Though really, don't change the subject.

Why don't you think men and women should be held equally responsible for their sexual behavior? Consent goes both ways.

I wasn't even thinking about feminism. I was thinking about my future of a lesbian, and other women with similar concerns. It would be wonderful if I could make a child with my partner instead of some guy. Additionally, I would feel more comfortable with my legal standing if we both had a biological claim to that child.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Much like how nationalists could label everyone who disagrees as "communists" or how Christians could label everyone who disagrees as "satanists". I think you're problem here is with reactionary individuals who grossly mis-interpret any opposition as purely antagonistic. You're simply attributing this trait to people that you don't agree with, as though no one else perpetrates this kind of behavior when heatedly defending their ideology. This trait is not mutually exclusive to people of ideologies that you don't agree with.

Well, I'm also considering the fact that feminist movements have also been part of leftist-communist movements throughout history. It is an established historical fact, you can look it up for yourself.
Besides, I disagree with a whole range of people. I only label the ones as "communists" who define themselves as communists.
Feminism is practically an offshoot of communism.

So you're bashing these ideologies on the grounds that they have followers and a common group of people? That's literally every ideology, ever. Internationalist ideology or not, what you're saying is insane and isn't a direct comparison of communism and feminism at all. You could easily make correlations between capitalists and communist or feminists and masculinists by that flawed logic.

If you want to put it that way, yes I do.
Ther is a direct relation of feminism with communism as feminism still is and has always been part of the communist/anarchist movements throughout the world.

---

=
Why are you so hostile towards pregnancies?
Besides, in the case of a consensual sexual relation, it is up to the girl to give the go.
Not the man. We look to the female for "consent" regarding sex, don't we?
Frankly, its very one sided, and I think that under this context, the whole responsibility should lie with the female who gave consent to the male.

---

Indeed, that surely would be a great victory for the feminist struggle. You surely would be able to raise your glorious feminist liberation army in underground spawning labs without needing the sperm of us evil, evil males.
Though really, don't change the subject.

Why don't you think men and women should be held equally responsible for their sexual behavior? Consent goes both ways.

I wasn't even thinking about feminism. I was thinking about my future of a lesbian, and other women with similar concerns. It would be wonderful if I could make a child with my partner instead of some guy. Additionally, I would feel more comfortable with my legal standing if we both had a biological claim to that child.

Well, consent goes both ways, but the real say in male-female relations is in the hands of the women, as it is in nature, the female chooses, as a male might conceive children from a lot women, while a woman can only conceive children from a single person.
Besides, I really am against people like you having children, so I'd rather not derail the thread by discussing that subject.

[TAW]

Well, I'm also considering the fact that feminist movements have also been part of leftist-communist movements throughout history. It is an established historical fact, you can look it up for yourself.
Besides, I disagree with a whole range of people. I only label the ones as "communists" who define themselves as communists.
Feminism is practically an offshoot of communism.

Would you also argue against the humanist movement too then? Because the feminist movement is far more of an offshoot of the humanist movement than communism. Humanism tackles the equality of every person whereas communism is more of a economic ideology that wishes to give everyone equality economically. Of course, any group that is offering an inkling of equality is going to be attractive for classes of individuals who have been oppressed. I could see your comparison to communism being relevant 100 years ago, but it's not so much any more.

If you want to put it that way, yes I do.
There is a direct relation of feminism with communism as feminism still is and has always been part of the communist/anarchist movements throughout the world.

Yeah, because people who are oppressed tend to gravitate towards groups that are looking to end their oppression. I don't see how it's inherently bad for people to want equality.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Would you also argue against the humanist movement too then? Because the feminist movement is far more of an offshoot of the humanist movement than communism. Humanism tackles the equality of every person whereas communism is more of a economic ideology that wishes to give everyone equality economically. Of course, any group that is offering an inkling of equality is going to be attractive for classes of individuals who have been oppressed. I could see your comparison to communism being relevant 100 years ago, but it's not so much any more.

I argue against every internationalist ideology, including what they call "humanism" today, as it certainly has nothing to do with humanist ideas of the renaissance.

Humanism tackles nothing. Humanism is merely a delusion, a pair of pink sunglasses that liberal college kids wear.
And I stand by my comparison, as it holds true still. They believe their ideals to be universal truth(very much like religious fundamentalists), so they seek to force them upon the majority that might not agree with them. And when it doesn't, they scream "oppression!".

Yeah, because people who are oppressed tend to gravitate towards groups that are looking to end their oppression. I don't see how it's inherently bad for people to want equality.

Well, the real thing here is that they think that its always them who are oppressed, and that only they have what they believe to be the solution to oppression, as they believe their ideas to be universal truth, hence their internationalism.
For example, they(the communists) have not shown solidarity with me when the school prohibited me from printing and distributing pamphlets, because it was them who have complained to the school board(full of "ex"-communists) that I was printing out what they believed to be oppressive I guess, i.e. stuff that criticized their bullshit around the campus.

[Lemonvariable72]

So, are you saying that abortion should only be legal in cases of rape?


Yes, a baby is an incredible burden. Not just the pregnancy, but raising the child as well. Which is why, as you put it, anyone experiencing it should reasonably be able to terminate it. But that option is only available for one sex.

And, no, he doesn't always get an option about whether or not he got pregnant. Sometimes birth control fails; sometimes she lies about birth control. Sometimes they just get so stinking drunk or high that they don't even think about those things.

Me, I say men should have more options about this. This story went into more detail about what I'm talking about.... and, to get back on topic, I NEVER hear feminists talk about this.

http://content.time.com/time/nation/arti...14,00.html

Men do have choices it's called a condom or get fixed

Well in that case who needs abortion clinics when a woman can just get fixed? I think the answer here is patently obvious. Condoms fail and vesectomies are much much more permanent then any birth control.

[TaraJo]

Men do have choices it's called a condom or get fixed

Again, what would you think if someone said that in response to a pro-choice stance? "Women do have choices it's called a condom or get fixed". If someone tried that line, I think most people here would be rightfully outraged, so why are we so quick to apply that line to men?

[Angrboda]

Feminism is practically an offshoot of communism.

Feminism as a separate strand of political thinking began primarily in the 18th century. Communism as a political theory arrived in the mid-nineteenth century. As usual, you are full of shit.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Feminism is practically an offshoot of communism.

Feminism as a separate strand of political thinking began primarily in the 18th century. Communism as a political theory arrived in the mid-nineteenth century. As usual, you are full of shit.

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

[TAW]

I argue against every internationalist ideology, including what they call "humanism" today, as it certainly has nothing to do with humanist ideas of the renaissance.

Humanism tackles nothing. Humanism is merely a delusion, a pair of pink sunglasses that liberal college kids wear.
And I stand by my comparison, as it holds true still. As they believe their ideas to be universal truth, they seek to force them upon the majority that might not agree with them. And when it doesn't, they scream "oppression!".

Equality isn't necessarily an internationalist ideology. I can be, but it generally isn't. 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. It has traits of being internationalist as it's a fanciful notion that everyone in the world should have equality and freedoms. It's not some kind of looming threat, it's just a nice idea that people have.

Nationalism tackles nothing. Nationalism is merely a delusion, a pair of blinders that right-wing fascists wear. (wow. much opinionated. substance none.)

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. They want more rights than everyone else and feel entitled to those rights because they're a woman. That's where I stop agreeing though. It's not too surprising for a group that feels oppressed to cry oppression. Did you ever stop to consider that maybe they ARE being oppressed. And even then, why should you care? If they're shot down by the majority then what's the problem? 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. Commonly, people who cry out for more rights, are being oppressed.

Well, the real thing here is that they think that its always them who are oppressed, and that only they have what they believe to be the solution to oppression, as they believe their ideas to be universal truth, hence their internationalism.
For example, they(the communists) have not shown solidarity with me when the school prohibited me from printing and distributing pamphlets, because it was them who have complained to the school board(full of "ex"-communists) that I was printing out what they believed to be oppressive I guess, i.e. stuff that criticized their bullshit around the campus.

Well, yeah. When feminist felt like they were oppressed and asked for voting power, they felt that their views would solve the problem. That's how these things tend to work. There's still no correlation to internationalism there as these cases are handled nation by nation.

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'?

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). 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.