Talk:Antifeminism/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 12 June 2017. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:   , (new)(back)

Older whining[edit]

It's awesome how it says that feminists who hold extreme views are a minority, "as any investigation of feminism should show". "Should". Does it? Apparently, it doesn't matter. Faith > facts.

Okay so who thought this was rational in any way?

"Egalitarianism"

"If you see someone proclaiming themselves as an "egalitarian" rather than a "feminist" run away as fast as you can. "Egalitarian" has become a buzzword anti-feminist MRAs use to pretend to be progressive. In their minds, everyone has an equal opportunity and therefore feminism (and other progressive movements) is unnecessary, rather than recognizing how not everyone gets an equal outcome out of that initial equal opportunity."

Assumptions, assumptions and assumptions. Because apparently only MRAs or anti-feminists use the word egalitarian. Egalitarianism states everyone DESERVES an equal oppurtunity and that it should be STRIVED TOWARDS, not that it already is, and is thus feminist, but also wishes to cover the needs of men and everyone, not just strictly focusing on womens problems. It doesn't also mention anything about those that consider themselves egalitarianists and feminists, as in they strive for feminist goals through egalitarianist perspective.

Although feminism does also strive for equality, it tends to often focus on just one dimension, thus egalitarianism in gender issues is born. It's simply aimed at the same goal but through different means. Somewhat similar to how social democracy and communism both strive towards economic equality, but through different means and systems.

It is commonly used by MRAs to criticise feminism but that's not all of them and it seems very irrational to assume so about it. It's rather a counter-reaction used by anyone who feels critical about the one-dimensional approach of feminism, which in some eyes can be assumed to be irrelevant in the modern day, and that now we shouldn't exclusively prioritise womens problems.— Unsigned, by: ‎87.93.72.109 / talk / contribs

"Egalitarianism"/"egalitarianist" is a shibboleth for anti-feminists/MRAs. The terms were invented by them. No one else uses them. Obviously this is not to be conflated with general use of the word "egalitarian", as you tried to do. Considering more than just gender has been a thing in feminism for a while. It's called intersectionality. There seems to be an uptick in whiny MRAs lately. Did some MRA hive tell people to come bug us? --Ymir (talk) 08:44, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
(EC) Baby you must be an egalitarian because you just shot yourself first. Goodnighti'msleepyandcan'tkeepmyeyesopenwhyelsewouldiofallpeoplepostouchburnzingers. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 08:44, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Ymir, may I ask then how shall issues that are primarily for men be tackled, if not by men's right movements or "egalitarianists"? This includes problems like male-only conscription. As seen in other articles, there is no mention about countries like Finland (Where I am from) which isn't inherently a sexist country, yet it still has male-only conscription. Just to clarify, I don't consider myself any of the terms described, as there is a lot of confusion behind all of them.

Although it may be different elsewhere, feminists here don't campaign for mandatory conscription for both genders, despite women being equally as capable as men in most roles, and there is always the option of civilian service. I personally oppose conscription, but if the general idea is that it should stay (Opinion here is about 80% agree conscription should stay) then shouldn't people at least campaign for equality in that aspect as long as it exists? How about things like men's expectations to be strong, succeed well and not be emotionally weak. As far as I've understood those aren't really feminist issues, but I may just be ill-educated and I'd be glad if you could enlighten me on this!

I just feel a lot like the MRA movement and "egalitarianist" movement are counter-reactions that bring light to actual issues that are somewhat ignored due to priority being put on women in gender issues (Although there are definitely much more extremists in the MRA movements in proportion when compared to feminist movements). I apologise if you assume I'm here to bug you guys or if I'm whiny, I just want to understand why this is considered rational. — Unsigned, by: 87.93.72.109 / talk / contribs

Most mainstream feminists campaign for abolition of the draft rather than "mandatory conscription for both genders".[1] And the expectations of men being strong and successful is covered under the article for toxic masculinity, which was a term that was propounded by — guess who? — feminists again. The men's rights movement has just been a shitty ideology and a shitty movement in general with a shitty history of doing nothing and even working against the rights of disenfranchised men sometimes, just look at their article for paternity leave Withoutaname (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
"Most mainstream feminists campaign for abolition of the draft..." I'm sorry. Even if true the citation given merely pays lip-service to your unverified claim. A press release by NOW does not necessarily represent a majority Feminist position, or even a majority of NOW members. "The men's rights movement has just been a shitty ideology and a shitty movement in general with a shitty history of doing nothing..." Even if that's true, and as ironic as it is to write, that's a shitty criticism.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, antifeminists hate women or see women as inferior to men. No strawmen here.[edit]

Antifeminism, in all forms I have seen, is nothing more than an opposition to feminism as a movement. Antifeminists do not hate women, do not see women as inferior to men (well, some probably do, but that isn't really the defining characteristic), they just oppose the movement; and with good reason- feminism has grown beyond "women should get equal rights to men" and has much political bias lumped into it, like Anita Sarkeesian calling for the UN to consider anybody calling her a liar as committing "Violence against women".

Saying antifeminism is bad because it opposes feminism and feminism purportedly supports this viewpoint is like saying that anti-communists are bad because they oppose communism and communism supports giving everyone their needs- while that may be true, it has other stuff too and that's not stuff that we are comfortable with.

206.174.0.58 (talk) 08:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)