What is pseudo feminism? My view. - Page 7

It justifies that comment, because you tried to defend your faux pas by saying, "it doesn't make a difference in my opinion". You had initially tried to prove me a man-hater, but when I clarified that my signature meant mankind in general, you tried to cover up for your embarrassing mistake by saying "it doesn't make a difference". 😆 Which does not make any sense whatsoever.

What makes you think I didn't notice the rest of your comments (about the discussion being repetitive for you)?
Its just that I was gobsmacked by your wonderful inference from my siggy, so concentrated on it. 😆

Originally posted by: Heisenberg.

What you've described is the advancement of female interests and rights, not of equality, feminism doesn't ensure that once women are on par with men, that it will stop there, it doesn't, if you look at western society, it protects the woman's legal and psychological needs first and the men's needs last or not at all. So what was once a noble and just movement, has evolved into hypocrisy, double standard and special privileges, at least in the west.

Society has been historically patriarchal with women being deemed inferior and even property. To ensure that all humans are equal a movement to uplift women was necessary. This upliftment is based in equity. The aim is not to become ahead or above men, but gain equity amidst all humans. Feminism is still relevant because statistically women are still behind men in many aspects.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

Society has been historically patriarchal with women being deemed inferior and even property. To ensure that all humans are equal a movement to uplift women was necessary. This upliftment is based in equity. The aim is not to become ahead or above men, but gain equity amidst all humans. Feminism is still relevant because statistically women are still behind men in many aspects.

Again, I reiterate, feminism is exclusively concerned with the interests and rights of one group only, it is not about equality... sure, you could do with feminism in places like India to uplift and empower women, but let's call it for what it is, it's purely about female interests and rights, and like all ideologies, it seeks to dominate,

When you have a group, be it political, social ideologies, religions, or whatever, that focuses purely on one group at the peril of others, you are bound to give rise to extremism, and that's what's happened to feminism in the west. The patriarchy is a myth in modern western society.

Originally posted by: Heisenberg.

Again, I reiterate, feminism is exclusively concerned with the interests and rights of one group only, it is not about equality... sure, you could do with feminism in places like India to uplift and empower women, but let's call it for what it is, it's purely about female interests and rights, and like all ideologies, it seeks to dominate,

When you have a group, be it political, social ideologies, religions, or whatever, that focuses purely on one group at the peril of others, you are bound to give rise to extremism, and that's what's happened to feminism in the west. The patriarchy is a myth in modern western society.

You cannot have equality when under privileged groups in society. To ensure equality you need movements to uplift under privileged groups. The intent is equity without the expense of others in society.

Our society has underprivileged groups which makes it necessary to have ideologies that uplift them.

In the end it is a balancing act. You cannot reject social movements to uplift the underprivileged. They are necessary for equity. At the same time you cannot go too far with these movements where you put others in peril. At that point it becomes counterproductive and hypocritical.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

You cannot have equality when under privileged groups in society. To ensure equality you need movements to uplift under privileged groups. The intent is equity without the expense of others in society.

Our society has underprivileged groups which makes it necessary to have ideologies that uplift them.

In the end it is a balancing act. You cannot reject social movements to uplift the underprivileged. They are necessary for equity. At the same time you cannot go too far with these movements where you put others in peril. At that point it becomes counterproductive and hypocritical.

At the expense of others?, it's already happening in the west, in a number of matters, where special laws exist that protect and favour women's interests and no such laws exist for the men. I think we've already reached that point where feminism has become counterproductive and hypocritical, and it's one of the main reasons why more and more women are becoming disillusioned by feminism.

You don't need to be a feminist to support the upliftment of women, and feminists don't have a monopoly over it either.

Originally posted by: Heisenberg.

At the expense of others?, it's already happening in the west, in a number of matters, where special laws exist that protect and favour women's interests and no such laws exist for the men.

Could you give me an example of laws that exist that favor women at the expense of men's interests?

Originally posted by: Heisenberg.

You don't need to be a feminist to support the upliftment of women, and feminists don't have a monopoly over it either.

Upliftment of women = feminism.

If you support uplifting of underprivileged women, you are feminist by default; whether you admit to it or not.

^Not necessarily at the expense of men (some cases, yes), but rather that favour/protect women, some examples I can think of from the top of my head are..

The Violence Against Women Act, which only protects women from domestic violence and not men who are stuck in abusive relationships

The Selective Act, which forces men to register for the draft, or they will be fined and imprisoned.

Laws that protect only girls from circumcision, not boys, can't remember the name

Reproductive rights, several cases of paternity frauds are committed every year because women have reproductive rights that men don't have. Several cases of men paying for children that women tricked them into having, and in some cases they're paying for children that are not even theirs.

Divorce laws and custody laws, courts favour women most of the time.

Boys are lagging behind girls academically, boys are getting lesser grades/honours than girls, fewer guys are going to uni, nothing to do with intelligence, but changes in social and cultural attitudes that places greater emphasis on females.

In the UK, retirement age is higher for men than women, though women have a longer lifespan.

I fully support upliftment of underprivileged women, but I am not a feminist, and no feminist gets to define what I am.

When I saw that video on the news I found it fishy at the first instance because the guy doesn't look like he's molesting the girl at all. He looks like he's just fending them off when thy start attacking him.

Media has been on some kind of overdrive to portray an atmosphere of insecurity.