Why I am not a feminist and don't believe in 'equality'.

Ace Immense Starter wrote: »

Feminism is a fractured ideology. Just like socialism, liberalism, Marxism and the other critically important ideological frameworks of the previous two centuries or so and is no more "just an arts subject" than any of those. It has had, and continues to have, massive transformative impacts on people's lives

I can send you some reading materials if you would like to look into the history of it and what it actually generally means.

This is like me saying someone's not Irish because they don't like GAA. You can kind of see how someone's mind might have filtered and distorted and added to information from lots of different sources and arrived there but...it ain't right.

baaba maal wrote: »

You don't necessarily need to be credible, but as an OP your position on the issue at hand should be.

The adversary paradigm

4/11/2017 John Casey 3 Comments
In “The Adversary Paradigm,” (1983) Janice Moulton challenged the claim that the ideal way to examine a view is to subject it to adversarial challenges in the form of counterexamples. Roughly, I assert p, you assert ~p in an attempt to challenge p.
Among Moulton’s problems with this view are these. First, it’s epistemically limited. There are lots of ways a view can go wrong, not all of them, or even the most salient ones, are revealed by this method.
Second, it tends to institutionalize a kind of intellectual trolling culture. Since to challenge its view is to assert its opposite, we need to refresh the pool of people who will play this role, even if their criticisms have little plausibility. So, for instance, do we need to host Holocaust deniers in a history of the holocaust course? Does answering their charges do much to improve our knowledge of the Holocaust? What’s more likely, is that it obscures the many actually controversial elements to the study of the Holocaust and it gives greater plausibility to a fringe view (among other reasons).
This danger, I think, lurks behind the idea that we need to invite controversial people for the sole reason that they’re controversial. Here’s this from Inside Higher Ed:

As movements to protest and silence controversial campus speakers have become common, the president of a new Harvard University student group intends to “saturate” the campus with those types of talks — to challenge established ideologies that he said administrators there blatantly promote.
Open Campus Initiative was organized this year, its president, Harvard sophomore Conor Healy, said in an interview Friday.
Already, the group of roughly 25 students, Healy said, has secured commitments from two right-leaning, controversial figures to address the campus. One, writer Charles Murray, made headlines in March after his lecture at Middlebury College was drowned out by student chants, forcing him to stop. Murray is often accused of promoting racist ideals. Open Campus Initiative has not yet pegged a day for his talk.
The pick of Murray was deliberate, Healy said. He was horrified by the disruptions at Middlebury and said he wanted to prove Harvard could serve as a role model institution for free expression.
“Most of the community wants to hear from the people we’re inviting, they want to critique them, ask them hard questions, and they’re willing to be convinced,” Healy said. “If they’re not convinced, their perception of the truth can be reinforced by the opposing view.”

Free speech rights and all. But this is college, the challenge in college is to bring students (and others) up to speed with debates among academics. This naturally will not include everyone and every view. The challenge then, for controversial speakers, is to show that they’re part of a live controversy, and not instead just people who are very good at hanging on to discredited views.
Moulton herself was not categorical in her rejection of the adversary paradigm. The problem, she maintained, was considering it to be the ideal of intellectual engagement.

Hedgelayer wrote: »

Ok Op I'm a gay man who doesn't understand feminism.

I know a few third wave feminists and they're argumentive, imasculate their partners, sulk a lot and like you suggested in your original post,they want to be like men.

They love to think they're equal,but they're not.

I know one and they'll moan about equally and when it suits her she'll say that's a man's job.

She tries to have it every other way, she's a recovering addict/alcoholic and on the 12 steps she manipulated that program so much,she can't do anything wrong.

There's a tenth step which basically outlines being responsible, but that's not for her....

They also leave a trail of carnage behind them and blame men for it.

Men like femmine women, not the agressive Sjw hybrid thats springing up all over the place

Bigmac1euro wrote: »

That opening post is 100% true. Fair play for putting that post together. Women of the previous generations should not be scorned, we as humans need them not to be. My mother was a much stronger/intelligent/better all around person than my father and I learned all my good traits from her. I will carry this forward for my own kids some day. Without her I would truly be ****ed. If she was any different and was like how some women are today, I would not have gotten what I value so much. My character and personality. I fear for future generations. I can see a lot of selfish horrible humans arriving on this planet which will be learned like everything else.

baaba maal wrote: »

Got it. You studied philosophy and have read Moulton.

This however....

It's influenced by ....how much the masculine trait of winning is valued.

I don't have to win the argument.

In fact why have an argument?


....is nonsensical to me. Why use the word "argument" when you have said you are not interested in changing anybody's view about it- how about:

I make a statement but don't feel the need to support it

In fact, why make the statement at all?

meeeeh wrote: »

This thread is will be fun. A crack pot opening post that all the MAGA fans on boards will love.

suicide_circus wrote: »

feminism is like trade unionism - still valid but has become a sad caricature of itself.