Where are the feminists?

[SuaveSocialist]

setsunatenshi said:

SuaveSocialist said:

1.  All types strive for equality; the types just just get more specific in areas to improve or methods to improve them. 
2.  Given their definition of the term it certainly exists (though it is to which extent where arguments can be made for and against) and actually, they argue that it is oppressive to both men and women. 
3.  Certainly a good thing and entirely compatible with, nay. dependent on feminism--for without, a society can never be fully egalitarian.
4.  If you want a society where one of the sexes is a lower class, you are advocating for either a patriarchal or matriarchal society.  I'm not sure what purpose your McCarthyian angle intends to serve here. 

 

Actually, considering that none of your four points have anything to do Teeqoz's statement, I'm not sure what purpose any of them were supposed to serve.  His statement is correct: if you believe the sexes should be treated equally, you are a feminist.

1. no, not all types of feminism even pretend to strive for equality, that is an inane statement. there are plenty of people who would call themselves feminists and actually advocate women supremacy. i don't have any ground to stand here and determine who the 'true feminists' are, so, as I said before, if someone tells me they are a feminist I will take them at their word

2. i have expanded in a later comment on the patriarchy theory, so no, I don't agree it exists in today's western societies. It certainly did exist at some point in time where there was actual discrimination of genders, not anymore, not today. actual discrimination based on gender is in most places punished by law.

3. yes, of course it's a good thing. no, it does not depend on feminism, that is a baseless claim. it's simply a better term someone who actually wants true equality of opportunity for all people. If you need to specify that it's based on gender, you might be saying you're comfortable with discriminating for some other reason (race? religious views? eye color? sports team? nationality?)

4. as stated in further discussion with him, you could see we came to understand exactly what each other's points were on all of this. but to clarify in case you won't read, the comparison was an ad absurdum, showing that it's not fair to tell someone they are a feminist or communist (or whatever else) just because someone agrees with a part of what the entire ideology stands for. feminism is not contained by equality of gender anymore than communism is contained in agreeing with a non class based society. there's a ton more than that.

1.  If one identifies as a feminist and advocate female supremacy, one is either lying or wrong----just as one who advocates violence as a means to an end is not a pacifist, no matter how much one would insist whilst doing the Frank Castle all over the neighborhood.  Words mean things, and the meaning exists independently of people misusing them.
2.  Like I said, it is the degree of its existence to which where it can be argued for and against; arguing its existence as feminists define it is not incorrect in of itself and your point here was irrelevant in its entirety.
3.  That is not what I said.  I said it would fall short of being achieved if the gender aspect falls short, just as it would falll short of being achieved if any other aspect you've mentioned falls short.  For an egalitarian society to exist, all must pursued---including feminism.  Without, an egalitarian state cannot exist.
4.  That's what feminism is.  Dictionary, dude.  Someone else dug it up (in an inept attempt to argue against me) and proved it.  You're simply denying reality---but reality exists whether you accept it or not--and refusing to communicate: your entire position is self-defeating considering the very language we're using demonstrably refutes it.