/feminism/ - Feminism

>Note that if you're just here to shit all over feminism, you can do that literally anywhere else on 8chan.

Note that if you opened this board just to shit all over men / spread your degenerate theories about equality you, you can do it literally anywhere else on the internet.

>>247

Interesting world you live in where white cishet men are oppressed everywhere on the internet. It must be hard being you.

> allow criticism of feminism to a certain degree.

Who sets this "degree"? To what "degree" can anything be not criticized? Bad arguments may or may not be presented, but assuming that there are limits to the criticism of every subject implies dogmatism.

Dogmatism is bad, darling.

>>258

This can be seen as legit critic of white feminism: >>161

This is blatantly calling women liars, and I autosaged it: >>252 (breaks rule 2)

Critic must pertain to the rules listed. It's pretty straightforward. Mysoginist rants can be put in /pol/ or elsewhere.

>>262

My criticism of feminism in general is that it is too dogmatic. At what point does feminism become obsolete? How is equality defined? At what point does the discourse of feminism becomes "equality for everyone" instead of "equality for women and girls"? And if feminism is about equality why the "femin" in the word isn't replaced by "equal"?

I think at this point in time people should move away from gender specific terms and start looking out for everyone. Why is it men do most of the dangerous jobs? Why is that men get harsher sentences than women?

Some feminists talk about those subjects and others, but the more vocal ones complain about ever lesser issues like manspreading.

>>263

>My criticism of feminism in general is that it is too dogmatic.

The you are obviously looking at the wrong channels. Reddit's tumblrinaction is a typical example of this, it makes otherkins and TERFs look like the majority of feminists, which is clearly not true.

>At what point does feminism become obsolete?

When all genders are equal. This hasn't been the case yet.

> At what point does the discourse of feminism becomes "equality for everyone" instead of "equality for women and girls"?

Feminism still is mainly a women's rights movement. If men want to fight injustices against men, they can do this in their own groups, and feminists will support it. The problem with men's rights groups until now has been the rampant sexism and anti-feminism formed in them. Why should feminists support a mens rights group that demonizes feminism?

> Why is it men do most of the dangerous jobs?

Feminists aren't looking to push women into dangerous jobs. Men tend to choose dangerous jobs. If they don't want a dangerous job, choose a less dangerous one!

>Why is that men get harsher sentences than women?

The patriarchy still sees women as the default victims and men as the default oppressors. Feminism is fighting this way of thinking.

>lesser issues like manspreading

But it still is an issue. Men who manspread assume they have all the right in the world to do it because they were born with balls. This is the kind of thinking feminists want to abolish.

>>264

> The you are obviously looking at the wrong channels.

Or maybe you're adhering to the dogma.

> When all genders are equal.

Please define equality. A single rule or list of rules that would encompass everything from manspreading to women's suffrage.

> Why should feminists support a mens rights group that demonizes feminism?

Why should men's right movements support a group that demonizes them. To be fair, not all feminists denostate men and men's movements, nor all people in the men's movements denostate women and feminism.

> Feminists aren't looking to push women into dangerous jobs.

Why not? Women tend not to choose positions of powers? Why push for those and not dangerous jobs?

> Feminism is fighting this way of thinking.

To achieve results, what would feminism advocate for, higher female sentencing or lower male sentencing?

> Men who manspread assume they have all the right in the world to do it because they were born with balls.

I would say they would like to sit comfortably, which happens when they have their legs spread. Ask to shift a little if you need the room and they will. Like a woman who put up her backs on the seat so they don't touch the floor would, if asked nicely.

>>264

Really not shitposting, genuinely curious about these issues:

> The patriarchy still sees women as the default victims and men as the default oppressors

So why does most/all feminist theory on the subject of rape/sexual assault refer to the rapist as "he" and the victim as "she", then? I've also seen papers use the terms "rapists" and "men" interchangeably, and "victims" and "women" interchangeably. These were serious feminist articles, making some fair points, but this is clearly not "fighting this way of thinking" - and it is pervasive in feminist theory.

> Men who manspread assume they have all the right in the world to do it because they were born with balls

Yes, just like humans who are tall assume the they have all the right in the world to be taller than me because they were born so, just like humans who are wider than me have all the right to take up more space than me, because they were born so, just like etc. Do you see my point?

>>264

>Feminists aren't looking to push women into dangerous jobs. Men tend to choose dangerous jobs. If they don't want a dangerous job, choose a less dangerous one!

Isn't this analogous to: "Women choose lower paid jobs. If you want a equally well paid job, choose a higher paid career!"

Furthermore, I think it's not coherent to want "equality" without all the disadvantages. There's this polemic picture (which I can't find right now) saying: "For equality working in an air conditioned room with a good pay, against equality working dirty jobs with a bad pay."

And I thought this was bullshit.

Why are there so many campaigns and feminists claiming that the lack of girls in science is misogynic, because of the atmosphere of a "boy's club", which doesn't welcome women. But at the same time I've never heard the same complaint about the dirty and dangerous jobs. Nobody is claiming it's just a boy's club hindering women to enter, but just, as you said, "men choose to do so". Then why is it wrong to say "men choose to go into more science jobs"?

If you claim to want equality, you have to look in both directions, no exceptions. But actually, this happens often. If I was to ask feminists, who sometimes do look in both directions, they would just shrug you off as a minority, just as you did with "tumblr feminists".

Other than that (probably shouldn't say this): Great board, would like more serious discussion about feminism without having to walk on eggshells. The only thing missing is good moderation. Look at all these spam threads.