Many LOLS had. Thanks.

"Feminism is the concept of Female Supremacy."

No it isn't. Downvoted.

*controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by MrFisk.

This is infuriating to watch because most of the examples of 'female supremacy' are legitimate examples of the evils done by substandard philosophy.

Anyone can find a dozen or so atrocities committed in the name of practically any ideological movement, which in themselves do nothing whatsoever to discredit its core ideals.

Feminism is not the pursuit of female supremacy, don't be retarded, although I suppose we do have to throw in the asterisk that there are those who call themselves feminists and fantasize about exactly that. Neither is feminism the simple pursuit of sex equality, but likewise a lot of dummies who haven't thought about it properly call themselves feminists for that reason. We don't need a grand theoretical framework to explain the idea that neither sex, or particularly the male sex, should dominate the other; that's, like, obvious. That's called basic rationality.

What feminism is, actually, is a confused and overblown patchwork ideology supported by mostly well-meaning but misguided morons in conjunction with a smaller number of loud-mouthed bigots. This is also a fairly accurate description of a lot of the backlash against feminism.

I chose to interpret this video as a somewhat exaggerated counterpoint to mainstream thought on sex politics, an example of devil's advocacy rather than the wholly sincere rant of a delusional. Whether that's true or not, it is the best way to watch it.
It will be interesting to compare its reception to this video on more or less the same theme.

I do consider myself to be oppressed by feminism; not as a man, which I'm not - I am a genderless mind - but as a rationalist. In reality, we are the most sorely persecuted sector of modern society.

I decided to wade into this morass further and I made an argument that wasn't even rude or insulting on the YouTubes. I was banned by the poster immediately for asking a question, which tells me pretty much what I need to know about those who are putting forward this anti-feminism crap.

Also I learned a new word "Mangina." Apparently I am one because I support the equality of women in the workplace.

If there is an argument to be made against feminism, this video and the poster and the people who upvoted it aren't the people to make it because they're not doing it in any intelligent way. This barely rises to the level of 9/11 conspiracy.

You're going to have to explain this to me. How are you in anyway oppressed by feminism. Cause for the life of me I can't see how anyone could be.

This isn't like the fucking FBI or anything...Feminism runs nothing, kills no one, hurts no one.

Feminism is oppressive to rational people in the same way that any stupid and pervasive idea that influences the explicit and implicit rules of society is oppressive.

Again, feminism is not the doctrine that women should be treated fairly; that's what everyone who's actually awake already believes. What feminism is, is a gloopy mess of paranoia, arbitrary rules, rape fantasies, political correctness, still-born philosophies, pointless taboos, obstructionism and pure seething insanity.

It causes real harm, including yes it could be argued, killing people. Look at all the resources, private and public, time and material, that are squandered on it instead of being spent on, say, science.

That's your argument, you say that it's oppressive to you as a rational person and then you present no evidence to that. Your argument isn't standing on anything whatsoever. You've basically pointed to "because this is how I feel about it." That's not convincing at all.

Haven't you ever had to make an argument where you've had to give evidence? I'm genuinely curious how "Feminism" as an idea can be oppressive. Especially when there is still a wage gap, and an underrepresentation of women in high offices.

I honestly don't understand this video or any of these arguments because you have not made your case at all.

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by kulpims.

In feminist theory there are many branches. There are two main branches that have sub-branches.

Liberal feminism - the idea that we are all equal through our capacity for rationality. Equality will come about through the practice and recognition of this equal capacity for rationality and as institutions change so too will women's capacity to demonstrate this. The reason that this currently can't be exhibited is because of a patriarchal system that views women as weak and soft minded. This leads lib fems to try to be "man-like" of mind so as to assert their equal status; girly but strong minded, ie. Thatcher(extreme example), Clinton, Rachel Maddow.

Radical feminism - Men are the oppressive class and women are the oppressed. (Try to deny it seriously. If not within the West then within the rest of the world) As a result women must form a opposition to this oppression by mens of taking sides. Women can still be equal of any attribute such as reason etc but none the less by virtue of their biological sex they are relegated to 2nd place based on that alone. The response is to form an equally if not more powerful class to overthrow the patriarchal system. Now this is where the original video things its anti men. It is anti patriarchy, anti a system millennia old that places political capital on birth right/biology. To argue against this risks committing a naturalistic fallacy whereby what IS is what is RIGHT. Through time we can cite all sorts of examples where that is not the case - slavery, pederasty, segregation. One way of addressing this patriarchy oppression is by banding together and attacking overt examples of gender/sex discrinination and oppression as is put forward in the video as reverse oppression (whatever). The other more radical feminism asks that women forgo their own proclivities and become political lesbians. This requires that they become a lesbian not only in solidarity with their sexed brethren but also actively reject men as a necessary part of a flourishing life.

So much of the discourse, on both sides, confuses the aims of which ever brand of feminism they prescribe (sometimes a mix of both) with instances of activism/oppression. Anecdotal evidence can only do so much in a systematic and ingrained norm such as gender roles.

The original video is laughably inane and self-agrandising in its selective use of anecdotes and conflation of one idea with another. It is as worse than radical-radical feminist arguments insofar as it cherry picks examples to highlight that which is unsystematic whereas rad fems point out things that are systematic but their ends are not understandable, or acceptable if understood, by most. That doesn't mean they are wrong.

TLDR; Lib fem, go with the flow and ask for gradual change. Rad fem, form a opposition of power and overthrow current system then restructure from what is divorced from historically contingient oppressive gender description.

Holy fuck this is so many kinds of pathetic. I can't even

You asked how bad ideas can be oppressive and I think I told you. We can consider these things intellectually; thinking and reasoning does produce evidence.

I don't know if I have to remind you, I shouldn't have to, but I'm not the guy from the video. Our opinions are not the same.

There's really no such thing as women. It's not a useful category, vast and arbitrary as it is. The characteristics of women are those of all humanity; no traits emerge to distinguish those groups. Biological sex is a trivial marker, not substantially different from hair color or whether you can curl your tongue, and gender is a personal construct. There's nothing to be said about women that doesn't apply to everyone - so what does feminism have to say? Nothing.

The phenomenon of men as the oppressor of women, so far as it exists, is just a silly little anthropological quirk of our social evolution. It's not something to be taken seriously. There are a hundred worse ways in which unregulated instinctual behaviours are damaging our society every day.

You mistake that which SHOULD be with that which IS. Women ARE oppressed world over in many different ways. Feminism has so very much to say because of the way society HAS categorised them.

How do you turn what SHOULD be into that which IS?

We are individuals and we are humanity, these are the only groups worth considering. As long you insist on weighing these great glommy categories MEN and WOMEN against each other then while there's still a single sexist, discriminatory man alive women will be measurably disadvantaged. All their billions under the heel of a single idiot? Come on. It's time for our society to get over it and make some progress.

Women aren't oppressed anywhere, actually. Stupid people do stupid things the world over, and we're all their victims. Humanity is oppressed. The real problem, the only problem, is the idiots.

Women offended = men at fault.
I'm sure I've heard that one in much standup comedy.

Female supremacy is keeping this video from getting sifted.

I'm annoyed by the word, because the loudmouth-femmenists have taken over with all the "Femme First" and all that bullshit.

Judge people on their merits; hiring people should have nothing to do with their sex, just their skills.

Joking is in many areas oppressive of men in politically correct places like Codes of Conduct. No one thinks to put in "don't make jokes about men's something or other" because men in general don't really care; there are however often things protecting women - which in my mind displays a lack of understanding on the organizers part, because they need to protect women from the big bad guys out there; their white armor polished and trusted steed standing ready.

Women can by and large take care of themselves just like guys can. Just like white people can and black people can.

Because its end-goal is female supremacy. Where it is right now happens to be in line with "equalism" because there are still areas where men and women are not equal (wages, repesentation in government etc), but when that balance is achieved the end goal is not to stop there.

In that respect there are a lot of ideas that can be considered oppressive though, Christianity, for one.

My main problem I guess with Femmenism is actually its proponents which often have an air of up-their-own-assedness and "i'm better than you" attitude which always infuriates me. Present company excluded - I value calm, rational discussions.

Certainly not by acting as if what you want already has happenened.
By over-individualising the world you are trying to overcome category mistakes like gender. But those category mistakes are widespread and have actual effects right here and now.

Its like saying of course climate change exists and here is the solution so just act like its been successful. Reason only goes so far. Praxis is how you attain that which should be. Action not reason. By relying on reason alone you favour the status quo and turn you back on 50% of the population and deny that others lack of reason does not lead to bad action and therefore bad consequences.

So its the means and not the ends which perturb you?

How do you propose those end get met? By ends I mean equilibrium/equality rather than female supremacy.

Further, if female supremacy is the end goal you imply that it is not yet met. Does it not entail that there is male supremacy? If there is and gender is not important then why not female supremacy? What possible objection could there be? Males have had it up until, on a folk-historical account, the mid 1980's.

I don't think you can look at it as either-or. I'm not sure you can even simplify down to single issues like "wages" because there will be outliers on either side.

I think on average (if I can use such a term) we still have a male supremacy in many if not most areas.

I think gender is important and our physical bodies dictate many of our abilities or potential abilities; I don't think it's possible to be entirely gender neutral on most issues. Women should have less winnings in Tennis, because they play less and they play less well. Hell, they could just abolish women's and men's tennis and only have a joint competition - then it certainly would favor it fairly. It would however mean that the female to male ratio would be 1:20 all of a sudden, since the male body is built stronger in general.

How it should be approached I don't really know. It won't be easy to change the people's minds in a positive way. Too many feminist proponents think they're Rosa Parks and feel completely justified in debasing and downright embarrassing behavior like the girl at the end of the video, the PyCon incident, "Elevatorgate" etc. I don't have a problem with them standing up for themselves at all - everyone should be free to protect their space, but they should also respect others' space (now I'm talking PyCon particularly).

Right now the male/female discussion has very little scientific base (at least as far as I know), we only have anecdotal stuff. It would be interesting to have studies going in neutrally and examining the basic differences in women, so we have some basis to argue from.

Some things are relatively simple - women can have babies, men can't - this means time off from work, etc etc. Right now employers consider this when hiring and shouldn't they?

Other things are grabbed out of thin air like: men focus on single things better, while women multitask better. I'd like to see some data for that and for other differences between the sexes.

Gorillaman seems to want to gender/sex out of the discussion entirely; I'm not sure that's really fair or helpful since we are different.

I suppose I would like people to not be thought of as a mass of blue and red, but rather as individuals and judged on the individual skills. Like say, compare ME and Serena Williams - there's no possible argument that I would beat her in tennis (or most any physical activity) ever. She should clearly be valued higher than me in those areas.

Sports solve the issue by going around it - making guy sports and girl sports. That's one solution, but segregating society is not cool. Imagine making guy workplaces and girl workplaces. Not really cool, is it? So, how do we find jobs, places in society that appeals to the individual? I would imagine we figure out the requirements of job and judge applicants on their merits - some women would beat all men in some jobs, and vice versa.

I don't think society is trying to keep women down, at least not consciously. Consider if the present position is caused natural evolution of society or if its patriarchal rule enforcing it? If you look at the hyper-muslim countries, I'd say it was the patriarchal rule, but over here? I'm not sure.

Ramble ramble.

Nice reply. Thanks Gwiz.

At the moment I am doing honours in ethics looking at gender reassignment surgery. The science behind it all is extremely subjective and there seems to be a lot of cherry picking of factors and studies where a certain result is desired. There are a few scientific findings that have consensus and they mainly involve how little difference there is between men and women. Lots of the differences we see are at the extreme end of the scale, aka sports analogies. In every capacities men and women are capable of doing pretty much the same thing. Some extreme cases will involve things that only men can do due to the outright strength involved but other things we may think to be too physical women have done and are doing in other 3rd world nations all the time. Women can be conditioned to be very strong and very tough. We just don't value that or pursue that in the West.

The Elevatorgate and other examples should simply be ignored. They are immediately identifiable as being ridiculous and threaten to undermine to the entire project of a meritocracy that seems to be at the core of the liberal tradition (liberal in the post enlightenment sense, not the Fox news "All liberals are evil" sense).

You are right that society is probably not consciously trying to keep women down. THis is one of the major criticisms that feminism brings forth. It is that we do it tacitly and automatically. When we see an all women rock band we say "That's an all womens rock band" but when we see an all male rock band they are simply "A rock band". Simple and largely harmless example but it extends to every facet of society. Look at CEO's. When a women makes CEO of a huge multinational it is noteworthy. There are certain assumptions made that she's a ball breaker or a tough business woman. All things we associate with masculinity. Its as if there is no role for femininity in powerful roles either from women or men.

Ramble ramble too. Running out of stuff to add without writing a HUGE thesis.

If men where to have a group where they asked for equal rights in areas they were not equal, it would be called misogyny, and immediately attacked for being anti female. Feminists are not asking for equality, they are asking for advantages. Feminists complain about being oppressed at the top end of the financial spectrum, but they have numerous advantages at the bottom end of the financial spectrum that they call equality. When huge numbers are in poverty (much more than those looking for executive positions), in numerous states women are able to get housing and food stamps, healthcare and welfare, all where men cannot in the same circumstance.

For me to support feminism, I would have to see them pushing for equality in all circumstances, not just "equal for me, fuck you for asking for more".

That's right gwiz just say things. It's end-goal is female supremacy, citation not needed because I said so. You're worried about what will happen when equality is achieved before it's even been reached.

I have to leave this thread, it's just gotten ridiculous. It's like arguing that black people might get the upper hand on us if we don't keep enough of them in jail.

You haven't brought any citations either, so Hello Pot, I'm called Kettle.

I haven't made any unsubstantiated claims, I have only asked questions. If you don't have the answer to those questions you can't assert something is the case without providing any evidence.

So if I ask, where does the idea come from that Feminism is based on the Supremacy of women there's either an answer to that question that's supported by facts, or there's an opinion by someone on the internet. Since all I'm getting are opinions and nothing I can check or investigate the claims of I left this post, it wasn't worth my time.

Then what is it?

LMGTFY

"Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women."

Seems pretty fair to me.

I think you made some good arguments earlier in the thread, but saying that "feminism is the concept of female supremacy" is just too broad a generalisation. Are there some elements that believe that? Of course.

And there are some women who hold ridiculous (elevatorgate) or hypocritical (pycon) positions.

But there are also some atheists who have done some pretty bad things (Stalin, Mao), but their views are not representative of atheism as a whole.

I know plenty of feminists (IMHO, it's kinda hard to meet an intelligent woman who isn't a feminist) and none of them espouse that kind of belief.

Personally, my favourite definition of feminism comes from a NZ blog:

"I couldn't help wondering though for a while afterwards what I should make of all this, you know, as a feminist? My conclusion is that feminism is essentially about women having choices and if your choice is to fling your undies at someone famous, I guess I'm allowed to be a bit embarrassed for you but also pleased that you won't be flogged by your father or brother for it."

Yes people lack the fundamental maturity of thinking outside their culture. Miss treatment of any kind (racial,sex,etc) is usually the proof of that. You can try to fix one problem at a time but I rather change the underlaying philosophy. Sadly I do not think humanity have that maturity for that neither. There for suffering due to stupidity is bound to continue for sometime...

Disgusting videos made by disgusting people. These mens rights losers only appeared AFTER feminism came to exist. The reason being all these losers feel they've lost something simply because woman have caught up a little. Half of these guys are losers that don't know how to talk to woman. They call themselves the beta males and hate alpha males that have social skills and the woman that like these men. Call these loser out they shout mangina, faggot, or pussy. Fucking hilarious. Apparently if you don't hate woman, you're a 'pussy' because a pussy is bad thing to these guys. I love pussy. These guys ADORE cock.

They claim you 'can't stick up for yourself' even if you are breathing down their throats. These guys have a lunatic like men vs woman misogyny that is jaw dropping. If you're a woman and get them angry with reality, they threaten to rape, beat, and kill you. If you're a man, they claim you're a woman or that you have no balls and are controlled by woman. These animals contribute to why the world is a horrible place. Humanity is garbage because of people like this.

I just watched the first 5 minutes. In the interest of fairness, I'm going to try to watch the rest, but frankly, right now it comes across as petty whinging.

Made me think of
Bill burr - Most difficult job on the planet i.e Female "work" vs. REAL work

http://youtu.be/rwPg2oarG_c

and
Bill Burr - Women's Rights
http://youtu.be/XlR6CdJtRWM

Moving this video to bluecliff's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

ITT: Middle to Upper Middle Class White people arguing over some dumb bullshit.

Looks to me like daddy's little princess got older and demanded more special privileges.

in b4 shit storm.

Same could be said for their opponents.

BUT MEN WERE ALLOWED TO BEAT THEIR WIVES WITH A ROD NO BIGGER THEN THEIR THUMB !!!

OMG IT MUST BE TRUE

You've got it mixed up.. I'll bet that alpha males are the most chauvinist bunch on the planet but they are the minority. Betas have to learn how to communicate. Then there's the unfitting to both category males, usually not too bright but not a complete tool either, has a huge and fragile ego, not good at communicating and most of all, has a weird concept of zero-sum game when it comes to rights of any people: any freedom granted to someone else is directly diminishing theirs. This is the bunch that are the most vocal about it.

" I value calm, rational discussions."

Reallly, gwiz665? That's rich....I don't fucking believe you from personal experience and on-going anti-interaction. Calm and rational to you is to ignore or whine when confused, and to avoid confrontation of any kind at all costs in this human's, off-topic and LTHO.

I value your sincere kindness however, and am grateful and indebted for many of your past efforts on my behalf...Oh and yer gals' ok as well, ya both got some rough edges that need a workout though, particularly in the realm of healthy social interaction.

It's dead, Jim.

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by Mordhaus.