General

This purported difference between theory and practice is misconceived, and is often an attempt to circumvent analysis. If the theory is descriptive, if it differs from the reality which it describes, the theory is simply wrong. If it is prescriptive, and the practice that it prescribes is different from it, then the practice is wrong in so far as the theory is right (and the rightness of the theory is not determined by the practice).

Also, the idea that unequal treatment can somehow "account for", in general terms, other unequal treatment is equally misconceived. It is impossible to have equal outcomes without equal treatment, as how people are treated is necessarily an important part of every outcome.

The only reason that sexism is wrong in the first place is because the difference in treatment has no rational basis. The reason that makes it wrong necessarily applies to every such case, so it is logically incoherent to claim that difference in treatment on the grounds of sex is justified because others unjustifiably differ in their treatment of others on the ground of sex. When so stated, the absurdity is plain. Indeed, those demanding inequality in the name of equality should be subject to the greatest of suspicion as to their motives, as much of the purported reasoning deployed in favour of such assertions is inherently sectarian and/or bigoted.


Not necessarily, often it is those who claim there is no issue who are most susceptible to implicit discrimination. A heightened awareness can counteract stereotypes or lead to procedures that minimise (implicit) discrimination

Also, real life is incredibly complex and messy. For example, having names on applications often leads to discrimination against woman and ethnic minorities, anonymised applications are better, however may lead to other factors playing a role, e.g. Less experience due to baby years. In an ideal world, a significant number of men might take baby years, and so it wouldn't significantly discriminate one sex, but in the current world it does. So we need to ask whether this amount of experience is really necessary, or it would be less discriminatory to look at a wider sample of applicants/using applicants gender to counterweight some of the imbalances.[/quote]

There is a fundamental difference between claiming that "there is no issue" (i.e., that others do not irrationally distinguish on the ground of sex) and stating that the people who cause the problems are those that think that it matters what sex that people are except when it is biologically relevant: the latter explicitly acknowledges, whereas the former explicitly denies, that there do or may exist bigots who improperly discriminate on the ground of sex (and the same applies equally to all bases on which people may irrationally discriminate).

Your example, I am afraid, does not make any kind of coherent case in favour of discrimination on the ground of sex other than where strictly biologically relevant. Either having more experience genuinely does make the candidate a better employee, in which case it is wrong to prohibit an employer from choosing a candidate on that basis, or it does not, in which case the problem is irrational discrimination on the ground of experience and sex has nothing to do with it. If the issue is that employers might be concerned about a gap in employment history because a person has looked after children, then, again, either this is a genuine cause for concern, in which case it is wrong to prohibit employers treating it as such, or it makes no difference in reality, and it is discrimination on the ground of parental career breaks, not sex, that is the issue. It is irrelevant whether, in fact, as things stand, discrimination against people who have taken career breaks to raise children adversely affects women more than men: if it is not wrong, the differential effect is irrelevant, and, if it is wrong, the prohibition of it would benefit women in the precise proportion in which they suffer detriment. There is no justification anywhere for taking specific account of anyone's sex.

Racism and homophobia are wrong. But disagreeing with feminism doesn't automatically make you a misogynist. There are people who disagree with feminism for that reason sure. And I would agree that they are bad people. But not everybody who disagrees with feminism is against it for that reason. They could disagree with it because they have more of an egalitarian point of view or whatever. Point is, its not so black and white that if you disagree with feminism you're an awful person. That's the point I'm trying to make.

I've said what I have to say and I'm done.

Firstly I'll just say that the word 'feminism' can indeed be a bit nebulous, since there's many different kinds of people who call themselves that. People might disagree with one kind of it, and might agree with another. So the real question is what kinds of feminism do they disagree with, and why.

At the same time, people who don't call themselves feminists are not automatically bad either. For example, some trans people have issues with feminism in general as they feel that the majority of feminists have failed to tackle the issue of Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists(TERFs) thoroughly enough, and that they could do more about this vocal, hateful subgroup. These trans people would not necessarily call themselves feminists, but this blatantly does not make them automatically bad.

I myself am an intersectional feminist as I mentioned earlier, and seek to take into account all the inequalities that people face in society rather than just the oppression of women only, which perhaps is a stance not so dissimilar to what people would call 'equalism'. At the same time, I dislike TERFs and their behaviour, I find them to be thoroughly toxic people, which is a sentiment that many other feminists share, and I condemn their actions which include their advocating to 'cure' trans people via therapy. I also condemn the actions of feminists who have said that men can't be raped - they certainly can be, and it's disgraceful to assume otherwise.

That kind of 'men can't be raped' feminism, and that of TERFs - that's not my feminism. And I wholeheartedly condemn theirs.

That said, educating people is key to show them what feminism is all about, and that it's not one singular movement. Feminism is an overarching ideology, and the reason it has multiple waves is that people who were unhappy with how it was currently working split off to form their own path/schism starting from a common ideology. For a similar example, one can look at how there's no such singular form of Christianity, but many different strands and denominations.

An example about the splitting of feminism was a major schism formed around the late 1970's, between anti-porn and sex-positive feminists.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_sex_wars


Also intersectionality:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality

But not all the guys who identify as feminists actually are feminists. This thread serves as a great example of that.

I guess maybe because they were taught by someone else who didn't know what that word actually means and perpetuates the cycle of misinformation and misunderstanding.

Simplest breakdown:

Feminist = Gender Equality = Feminist

Not being a feminist because the term doesnt specifically reference your gender is the weakest reason ever

Here's a couple of debates on the topic of using feminism vs equalism/egalitarianism:

(r/feminisms: Feminism vs Egalitarianism: a question of semantics)

(r/changemyview: I believe "Feminism" is outdated, and that all people who fight for gender equality should rebrand their movement to "Equalism". CMV)



What are some of these feminist issues, btw? Also what particular men's issues do you find concerning and that the world could work on? As for what feminism works on, feminists have worked on support for male victims of domestic violence and also teaching people that men can be raped by women, amongst other things.

Also to be fair, equalism/egalitarianism can be and has been hijacked before as well - people's quips about Animal Farm aside, everyone has a different idea of what is equal and how to achieve it, after all. For example, some believe it means giving more to all, some believe it means taking from one and giving to another. I'd say that both feminism and equalism/egalitarianism are wide umbrella's with multiple interpretations and representations, no?

I've been keeping track of this thread, but I've hesitated to post in it because last time I did, my post was deleted (I think it was because I called a troll a bad name).
Anyway, the feminist issues that you list above are real things that need to change. Please don't dispute that, you will never experience these things.
However, the male issues you listed above are also real things (and I'd like to add that there is an unrealistic masculine standard that society places on males, which may be the root of a lot of the emotional disorders.
Here's the part you're not going to like: a lot of men's problems (most) are coming from other men. Men are killing men, convicting and sentencing men to prison, etc.
That being said, actual, genuine feminism is about breaking down those inequalities. Feminism seeks to end those unrealistic masculine standards as much as it seeks to end unrealistic feminine beauty standards. Real feminists want men to achieve and grow and help move our society forward.

I know that it is difficult to see privilege when you're the one benefiting from society's gifts, but please try to see things from the other side: women all over the world live in fear of men that they've never met (more women are killed or assaulted by men than by other women). Not just the wage gap (real) or the glass ceiling (also real), but real, debilitating fear.

So, there's my 2 cents. I'll crawl back into my hole now.

This is where you're getting feminism wrong, it's not pitting men against women, it's not putting blame only one one sex, it's not only for helping women.

Many of the ' male problems' you just described are EXACTLY what feminism fights for, here are some things that would result from a feminist utopia

Men wouldnt be as likely to commit suicide because speaking about their problems and expressing their emotions wouldnt be so vilified.

Men wouldnt be less likely to be granted custody of their children because parenthood wouldnt be automatically considered to be more feminine than masculine.

Men's prison sentences wouldnt be so out of proportion to womens because men wouldnt be seen as violent predators.

You could also where whatever the *** you wanted, including pink, because it wouldnt be limited to femininity anymore.

Rape against men wouldnt carry so much stigma with it, meaning more reports and harsher punishments.

But the thing with all these male problems is they are DIRECT RESULTS of a misogynistic society and the demonization of femininity, so you fighting against feminism is completely counter productive to your want to improve these 'men problems'

Understand ?