So andromeda initiative is all about girlpower?

Mar 5, 2017 12:28:16 GMT DomeWing333 said:

Have you held an actual conversation with these types? Well actually I guess that's a silly question since you're doing so right now. I won't claim to be particularly active in the movement but I do consider myself a feminist whose beliefs include concepts from the movement's third wave.

I don't think it's particularly extreme to suggest that aspects of a person like their sex, gender, orientation, skin color, religion, and the combinations thereof might play a role in how certain policies affect them.

Misandry I haven't found to be that common. I will agree with you on the bias towards addressing problems that women face over the ones that men face. But there are more people like me than you might realize. And even if you still want to consider feminism a special advocacy group, many of the things they advocate for are actual issues of equality. So it still isn't actually a bad thing.

As for criticism of strict egalitarianism, I'm reminded of a quote that stuck with me from a gender studies lecture: "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." 

I object to identity politics. the notion that a person should be judged and given special dispensations according to race, skin color, or gender is abhorrent to me. It leads nowhere good.
Egalitarianism is about equality. FEMinism is about the advocacy of female interests.

Broadly speaking, females are equal in the eyes of the law in the west. There admittedly some cultural problems yet that prevents true equality, but that is hardly exclusive to females,
our society is not perfect, and males face problems specific to the male gender as well, from matters of longevity and suicide rates, to the fact that males are treated more harshly in court, to other matters.

Modern feminists, like other types of SJW, tend to focus on small issues and "micro aggressions" and blow them out of any reasonable proportion, if it's "manspreading", female representation in video games
(which is varied and nuanced these days), and other "crucial" problems.

They act as slacktivists and armchair rebels and enjoy the good life in the west, while ignoring for the most part REAL widespread problems such as female genital mutilation, or the hardcore misogyny
women in Islamic countries face, because to improve these issues would require more than ranting on Tumblr.

Which is how you get absurdities like this:

Mar 5, 2017 12:57:52 GMT salariansupremacist said:

I'd be curious to know which feminist texts you've been exposed to that would give you this impression. Modern 'third wave' (or perhaps fourth wave, depending on how you choose to delineate things) feminists are the least violent and aggressive feminists in history. I'm talking here about western feminism, of course, there is a greater militancy involved in feminist movements in countries already wracked with political violence etc for obvious reasons.

The general reason that 'egalitarianism' is denounced is not out of some misandric agenda, but rather for the same reason that 'all lives matter' is denounced. Essentially the word reorients the issue around an ideal that, although arguably noble, isn't practical on the level of tackling the problems in question. Just as 'all lives matter' obfuscates the issue of the unlawful execution of black men specifically, egalitarianism distracts from the fact that in most regards, it is still women that experience the majority of institutional sexism. Furthermore, it often transpires that even in the instances in which men are affected more harshly than women (sentencing disparity in court for example) the reasons are rooted in the intellectual ideas of feminism. As such, men can be served more effectively by tackling the issue through a feminist lens. To return to the example of sentencing disparity, research has shown that this can be rectified by increasing the proportion of female judges as they are less inclined to look upon female criminals with a paternalistic eye and give them sentences that match their male counterparts.

I appreciate that it can be difficult to discuss issues such as these in the modern internet environment, but I assure you, feminism isn't the authoritarian boogeyman it is portrayed as and egalitarian notions are welcomed in the discussion, even if the word is disparaged somewhat.

Modern feminism is the "least violent"? Should I be thankful that they are not strapping themselves with suicide bombs?

If we are talking about the level of rhetoric here, calling modern feminists "non violent" is laughable.

Misandry is common, and the hyperbole is practically out of control. At least from what I have seen from feminists on YouTube, and other hives of villainy.

You can denounce "all lives matter" all you want. I think that it's a perfect counter-phrase. Because that issue is hardly as simple as "unlawful execution of black man",

the situation is much more complicated than that. You are ignoring how many of these "unlawfully executed black man" were criminals (of the type that often shoot and kill cops),

the number of cops killed by black man, the high rate of crime in many black communities, individuals who were shot because they refused to comply with an officer and acted in suspicious manner, etc.

You can't take all these things and disconnect them from the reality cops operate in or the level of danger they are exposed to every day, and then make grand claims about it.

Mind you, less people would object to something like: "Black lives matter too", this statement as opposed to the original statement is obvious, and entirely unobjectionable.

Institutional sexism doesn't exist. Just like institutional racism doesn't exist. This is a common feminist buzzword which is completely disconnected from reality.

Institutional sexism exists for example in a country like Saudi-Arabia, where there are different laws in regards to women that are there to restrict and force specific rules on women.

As long as men and women are equal in the face of the law, institutional sexism does not exist. Individuals can be racist or sexist (like many feminists or BLM activists for example, but not only of course).

Feminism, like much of the regressive left, when they refer to "equality", they mean equality of outcome. No matter what you have to do to achieve this.

Egalitarianism is about equality of opportunity. Rather that creating quotas for female judges, or whatever, you allow women (and men) the same opportunities,

and sort the rest out via the usual methods, ideally a meritocratic process.

The difference between the two is that the first is an authoritarian approach (akin to communism), and the latter is a gentler, more libertarian approach, that accounts for the freedoms of the individual.

If less females choose to go into law or the STEM sciences, there are going to be less females in positions that require these things, there is no justice in trying to artificially enforce equality in these fields.

What you CAN do is encourage more females to choose these fields of study, if you can that is, because like it or not, on average males and females have different fields of interest.