Seen that video before, quite enjoyed it. I'd say one of the worst sides of radical feminism is the complete disregard for men's rights in cases like this.

the issue is that the majority of people out in the world screaming that they're feminists aren't feminists at all- at its core, its a quite simple thing- a feminist should inherently be someone who is pushing for women to have EQUALITY with men,  and really for all people to be equal under the law. Whether we're talking salaries (for fair work obviously), legal rights, opportunities (again fairly for amount of work done), etc.

A real feminist isn't evil at all. Because a real feminist would fight for equality regardless of gender or sex. If a male was being treated worse than a female hypothetically that itself would be something feminists would and should fight against.

But the issue is that a lot of the most activist 'feminists' aren't really that at all. They're bigoted people who are so angry that they want women to be treated BETTER than men, to make up for the past. Which is entirely backwards. A lot of the leading activists in feminism create more problems than they solve and provoke the demeaning of men as some sort 'balance'.

Maybe at the core the term 'feminist' itself is sort of backwards, in that it suggests a leaning towards one sex or another. Obviously the 'feminist' movement came at time period in which women weren't being treated equally, and therefore it made sense to focus in that direction as women were the ones who needed to be treated better.

But as time passes and things do reach a closer point to equilbrium- it does start seem slightly flawed as far as terminology is concerned because a 'feminist' by definition should be after the equality of both sexes. Maybe it's time for a readdressing of the term and the groups and organizations

at any rate this has gotten a bit long winded, but obviously there is nothing wrong with the feminist movement as far as its core values because its core values are for overall equality, not for putting men down and bringing women up. Unfortunately the angry feminazis (or extreme bigoted activists) turn a beautiful concept into something volatile that creates drama and more tension between groups rather than mending things. And I understand to a point why they do this- we are slowly reaching a point where the genders/sexes DO have things on a much more even playing field. And because that is the case it creates a situation where somone looking for something to be passionate about (feminism for example) has to exaggerate and overreact to SMALL things so they can stay relevant and involved, in reality or in just their own head.

That's when you see crazy activists who literally want to put men down or who claim that a male is being sexist when he offers to carry grocerys for a smaller woman, or take offense at something like a guy offering to pay for dinner, or who think that its literally impossible that sex/gender SOMETIMES do play a role in who might be (on average naturally) better at playing a leading role in something.

That's the problem. Feminazi extremists who aren't really representing the cause but instead are representing their own anger and insecurities by making molehills into mountains.

At the core a feminist is supposed to be someone fighting for BOTH men and women (that key word equality comes back in), but unfortunately a lot of extremist fundamental groups and melodramatic female youth have transformed a good concept into a dramatic war against men.

At this point there may in fact be more people claiming to be feminists who actually want to put down men, than 'feminists' who want to make sure the sexes are treated as equal as possible.

so I think its an entirely misconstrued and misinterpreted concept that people find 'feminists' evil- we don't at all. People find FEMINAZIS evil. Because they tend to actually be sexist and angry and want there to be a world where anything that a male does can be considered sexist if a woman doesn't like it. Which is a terrifying concept.

Anyone who want men and women to be on an equal playing field is technically a feminist (most of us). Unfortunately the 'feminists' you see on the news or on the streets are generally not feminists at all

in terms of why a lot of the video game community might be adverse to the Feminazis (again, not the feminist genuine movement)- well I think a LOT of society doesn't like the extremists who are trying to put women above men at this point. But in particular with the gaming world, a lot of the extreme 'feminists' at this point are finding anything and everything to get offended about regarding being a woman. Whether its sex or objectying women in video games, or violence against women in video games, or the lack of being able to play as a female heroine (in Zelda for example)- they find issues with it and have been often voicing their opinions recently about wanting to create laws or rules even to prohibit certain things in games.

If we're considering video games a form of art (which I think is fair), then the concept of restricting or limiting things in video games seems absolutely ridiculous, particularly when we're talking about a plethora of basic things that could be found offensive. And after all, men are objectified in video games too, men are killed in video games too, etc.

 so the whole Feminazi commentary on women in the video game world itself is sexist (it ignores the same things that apply to male characters in games), but it also is controlling and literally somewhat Nazi like in trying to censor what people have in games. What artists design.  Its the opposite from freedom and equality, their perspective on things like that.

But again, that's not the feminist movement. That's a select few who are hyper aggressive and biased and PRETENDING to be something they're not. The type of people who will claim that its sexist and 'unequal' for a moving company to decide to hire 200lb males to carry stuff instead of 90lb girls. Extremists who don't care about equality or fairness between sexes, but just want the female persuasion to automatically have everything their way.

The irony is that the extreme feminist movement is a tiny fraction of the population and most women, obviously, don't agree with the concept that men should be treated worse than them or that its such an insane idea that females (or males) would be objectified from time to time.

This has gone longer than I intended but its just incredibly relevant that the 'feminists' we see in the gaming community or in the news are very rarely actually feminists at all. Anita Sarkeesian comes to mind.

this.

by definition and by creation the Feminist movement technically is about equality but it has been hijacked by emotional angry people (both men and women) who themselves appear quite sexist and beligerant in society, filled with some sort of logic that the only way to make up for women being treated poorly in the past is to bring men down a couple pegs today. Which, of course, is completely backwards theology to the core feminism cause being about women not being treated worse than men, and men not being treated worse than women

i.e. nobody.

well sargon told me feminists have autism and autism is bad and therefore evil

OP, Please Move to politics discussion.

OP's not a mod, so she can't move it.

No it isn't. It's about womens rights, ie. privileges. Saying people who identify themselves as feminists aren't feminists, is the worst argument ever. The problem is with the premise of feminism, where men and women are never equal, so female privileges are seen as a move towards equality.

You could've asked people 50 years ago if they supported gender equality and two-thirds would've said yes. That doesn't mean that they actually understood what it meant. Likewise, if you poll today's youth, most of them say that, in principle, they support equality between men and women. Yet when asked less subjective, more specific questions like whether they think it's best for men to be the main income-earners and for women to stay at home and take care of the house and raise the children, roughly a majority of today's American young men agree with that idea and nearly one-third say that there are circumstances under which it is acceptable to force someone to have sex with you against their will (which most of them somehow differentiate from rape). And those aren't Trump voters either. Those, statistically speaking, are the "progressive" Bernie Sanders voters.

And what would you say is my place?

Exactly. It's not particularly hard to find examples either in 2017 America. You just have to turn on the news and it's right there in front of your face. A few months ago, for instance, we had the largest protest action in the history of this country. Over 3 million Americans participated, about 80% of whom were female. It was called the Women's March. Do you figure that happened just for no reason...or could it have been that many, many, many, many, MANY people -- and women in particular -- were lamenting the "election" of a self-confessed rapist whose family fortune traces to a brothel owner? Or if you turned on the TV last night, you might have noticed that the highest-rated news anchor in America, Bill O'Reilly, was just fired for decades of sexual harassment and discrimination...as was his boss, Roger Ailes, last year (both of whom were vigorously defended by the current President of the United States). Just turn on the news in 2017 and you're bound to find examples of sexism and its consequences because it's all over the place.

Some of us see these sorts of things things and think to ourselves that maybe there is still a real problem here.

Personally, I tend to define the essence of each wave by the prevailing sorts of ideas held by its advance guard. For example, we could say that the first wave was defined by a Christian worldview and the second more by Marxist ideas (as the Redstockings groups formed the vanguard) like seeing women as an oppressed class in need of organizing (hence Marx-inspired slogans like "Women of the World, Unite!"). The more recent pair of waves -- the third and the fourth -- have been guided more by different strains of individualist thinking out of an ambition to broaden the movement and challenge traditional gender roles, the crux of which has been that each woman should be encouraged to define feminism for herself (which could be contrasted with the second wave's stress on common interests). The third wave originated with anarchistic punk bands called riot grrrl groups who tended to embrace postmodernist and/or post-structuralist ideas. (I grew up sort of in the midst of the third wave.) That wave might alternately termed "the girl power wave", as it tended to stress assertive, powerful roles for women comparable to those of men and the submerging of female identity. The fourth, current wave, originated online with organizations like Feministing and later Jezebel and is defined by a more of a humanist outlook that seeks to embrace female identity and insist upon authentic, diverse representations and humane treatment. And of course each of these waves has had its vanguard and its more conservative sections. The most recent two tend to be more liberal than the others (e.g. more supportive of lesbians, trans women, sexual liberty, etc.) due to their individualistic guiding philosophies, but perhaps less organized.

There are still second, third, and fourth wave groups out there right now. For example, here's a second wave feminist site.

As for me, I consider myself a waveless feminist who is philosophically agnostic. I think all of these waves have had their good points and bad points.

You're right, but how many people don't give a fuck about this? That would mean they don't feel any empathy for 50% of the people, or maybe they have completely no contact with any women.