"White anti-feminist men in Japan"

[ThirdSight]

Back in the day, I considered myself a feminist, dude and all. I did that for about the better portion of the day, before realizing I was wasting my time believing that women should have equal rights just as men do because they're a woman.

Should women get equal treatment in every aspect of life, just as men do. Absolutely, the answer's obvious. Should women victimize themselves extremely under ordinary circumstances in order to get to that point by? Hell no, it defeats the point of what feminism was created to do, which is create equal rights for everyone. Sure, Aristotle states that in order to get an uneven situation back into equilibrium, one needs to apply more force to the uneven side, but women have been doing that for years and we're still at a standstill.

[MissMisa]

Originally Posted by Bureda

You stupidity belials your vision.

You need to get your knickers off the twist and calm your manners down. My post was not an attack, but simply a mirror image of those theorems. You may not believe in those theories but you do incline in supporting them as you are a female.

You have not lived in a suppressed environment to truly understand the thinking or pain that these women went though. To you feminism is just a luxury, something you can have passive pride on without truly knowing its purpose - just because you're female.

You trying to direct your attacking post towards me does little to support your cause. You see, you are not showing me understand and respect, so my choice here is to simply return that favour.

If you truly wish to understand both sides you must be open to both points of view.

All your ignorance has said is "Look, I am a modern girl and I want equality". You have quality, you have freedom and what's more it does not really effect you as you're not a working woman.

Now, if you had to get your big arse off your seat and visited a third world country you may realise why women are treated as vessels. I am not saying its right, but I am saying that they have to do it in order to prosper.

You see, you have a choice in this country but in many countries around the world that choice does not exist. It is not because women are suppressed, it is because they are raised in that cycle and therefore have to live within that cycle to prosper.

If your father earned £150 a month at his work place do you think you would actually have much of a choice but to help your family.

Your bigotry is beyond compare, you try to understand your fellow sisters but you have no such experience.

Do you see where these women come from and how modernisation of a social group changed their views and opinions.

The rest of my post was not aimed at you. Sorry, I should have made that clear.

The other two paragraphs were aimed at other people who kept repeating the same thing over and over at me, and not understanding my actual views.

I am not just some whiney little bitch who thinks everything in the world is bad and that my life is so terrible because I'm a women. Not once have I ever expressed that view so I really have no idea where the 'All your ignorance has said is "Look, I am a modern girl and I want equality". You have quality, you have freedom and what's more it does not really effect you as you're not a working woman.' has really come from. I've acknowledged the fact that I now have a choice over what I do, and I am grateful to past feminists because I have that choice, just like black people are grateful to Martin Luther King for helping giving them a choice. I don't have pride for something I haven't done. I am grateful, but not proud for something that is not my achievement.

Being blunt is all well and good, but when it becomes insulting I tend not to take it seriously.

[Bureda]

Okie dokie, sorry if the other the replies after that seemed like attacks.
These 'males' trying to understand you only riled my sarcasm.

Anyway, you got a clear head on your shoulders, just a misunderstanding.

[MissMisa]

Originally Posted by Bureda

Okie dokie, sorry if the other the replies after that seemed like attacks.
These 'males' trying to understand you only riled my sarcasm.

Anyway, you got a clear head on your shoulders, just a misunderstanding.

It's fine Bureda, don't worry about it.

[Bureda]

Originally Posted by MissMisa

It's fine Bureda, don't worry about it.

I know, I am Bureda. I am just picking 'Aww' points.

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by Bureda

If that makes you happy, anyway, you support your own cause, good on you. I wont bash your good intentions.

A male feminist still makes me chuckle though.

I'm for multiculturalism and I'm not in a specific racial minority. I'm also for gay rights but I'm not gay.

What is so weird about being a feminist but not being a woman?

You're an idiot.

[Henbaka]

I think one of the problems people have with 'feminists' is that "in the field", there so many old mean hags that are mad at men and life in general. All movements have radicals though.


That being said, feminism is great, and has been very necessary for alot of great improvements in society. I think most people are "feminists" in some sense today. Unless you're not for equality, but hey..

Also there is nothing wrong with being a male feminist. Just like Ronin said.

[quixote73]

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

Just read the blog! Interesting stuff.

I can imagine anti-social LBH (Loser back home) types harbouring resentment towards feminism in the West and being attracted to Japanese society in which gender roles are perhaps (I've never been to Japan) more emphasised and where sexist attitudes could perhaps better thrive.

(Please note- I'm NOT saying that the more emphasised gender roles in Japan makes it an inherently sexist society.)

Interesting response. I hope you'll post this comment on the blog as well.

[quixote73]

I really didn't want to get involved in this thread any more than just asking questions because I feared that it would devolve into what it has -- a shouting match, insults being thrown around, and other nonsense.

I'll just comment briefly with the following points.

1) I have found the following definitions of feminism:
-- the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men (New Oxford English Dictionary)
-- the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men (dictionary.com)
-- Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes. (American Heritage Dictionary)
-- a doctrine that advocates equal rights for women (WordNet)
-- A social theory or political movement supporting the equality of both sexes in all aspects of public and private life; specifically, a theory or movement that argues that legal and social restrictions on females must be removed in order to bring about such equality. (Wiktionary)
-- the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes (Mirriam-Webster's)

I see nothing in those definitions nor in any other legitimate source which refers to hatred of men, matriarchy, or any of the other characterizations of feminism made by those who have identified as anti-feminist on this forum.

Being anti-feminist thus means to be against a doctrine, theory, or movement which supports equality of both sexes. Like racism or homophobia, anti-feminism can be manifested in many different ways, both overt and more subtle. It can be expressed in one's politics, language, or world view.

Those stating that they are opposed to sexual discrimination yet are proudly anti-feminist makes as much sense to me as those who claim to be against racial discrimination yet oppose the American civil rights movement. One cannot be for equality and be anti-feminist at the same time, no matter how one tries to twist it.

2) The word "radical" has several different meanings. It often is used with a negative connotation, but consider some of the definitions provided by the New Oxford Dictionary:

1 (esp. of change or action) relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough : a radical overhaul of the existing regulatory framework.
• forming an inherent or fundamental part of the nature of someone or something : the assumption of radical differences between the mental attributes of literate and nonliterate peoples.
• characterized by departure from tradition; innovative or progressive : a radical approach to electoral reform.
2 advocating thorough or complete political or social reform; representing or supporting an extreme section of a political party : a radical American activist.
• (of a measure or policy) following or based on such principles.
3 of or relating to the root of something, in particular

Also consider this definition from Wikipedia:

Radical feminism is a "current" within feminism that focuses on patriarchy as a system of power that organizes society into a complex of relationships producing what radical feminists claim is a "male supremacy" that oppresses women. Radical feminism aims to challenge and to overthrow patriarchy by opposing standard gender roles and what they see as male oppression of women, and calls for a radical reordering of society. Early radical feminism, arising within second-wave feminism in the 1960s, typically viewed patriarchy as a "transhistorical phenomenon" prior to or deeper than other sources of oppression, "not only the oldest and most universal form of domination but the primary form" and the model for all others. Later politics derived from radical feminism ranged from cultural feminism to more syncretic politics that placed issues of class, economics, etc. on a par with patriarchy as sources of oppression.

Now, of course, one may agree or disagree with the constructs of this strand of feminism, and in fact, there has been debate about radical feminism within the feminist community. However, there is nothing in radical feminism which states that women are inherently better than men, that patriarchy should be replaced with matriarchy, or any of the other false characteristics that have been assigned to it. It is radical in that it seeks to overthrow patriarchy and radically reorganize society, but it does not advocate hatred or replacing one oppressive system with another.

Both Dworkin and MacKinnon as well as other radical feminists are often misquoted. The misquotes are either taken out of context or pulled out of thin air. Usually these misquotes come with no citations or any indication of where it was taken from.

3) I'm sorry that one woman on this forum had some negative experiences with women who looked down upon her work (raising children and being a homemaker are indeed work). And I'm sorry that these experiences helped lead her to identify as an anti-feminist. Feminism is giving women -- and men -- choices in their lives to do and be who they want. Still, we cannot ignore the fact that domestic work (child rearing, housekeeping, etc.) are overwhelmingly expected to be done by women and not men, and that when men help -- if they help at all -- it is almost always done to a lesser degree than the women, even if the women are working outside of the home. I am not stating this to be the case with the aforementioned woman, but just that overall it is something in society that cannot be ignored.

My view of feminism can be summed up by this simple quote: "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people." Full equality and respect in all facets of human existence.

I'll leave you all to it then.

[Nyororin]

Originally Posted by quixote73

(Long message, cut for brevity, but still left as a "quote" so it`s clear who I`m directing this to.)

It isn`t the "goal" of feminism that is the issue - it`s the method taken to reach these goals.
I dropped out of the discussion when it dissolved into insult tossing - but I have yet to see anyone on here who said they were anti-feminist who was actually against the textbook definition of the movement. (ie. rights for women, etc.)
Instead, all those against it are against the actions taken to attempt to reach those ideals.

No matter how wonderful the core ideas are, if the followers are doing awful things - the movement is not going to look good. Even if it is pushing toward a truly good and respectable goal.

As a random example, let us say there is a group for eliminating car accidents. That is an all around positive goal, yes? But let us say that while two thirds of the group goes around trying to actively prevent accidents and spread information, the remaining much more vocal third decides that harassing people when they try to get in their cars or breaking those cars is a valid tactic. Yes, it does reduce the number of accidents - but there is obviously something wrong with those tactics. Even if that is the minority and the rest of the group doesn`t agree with their actions - unless they step up and actively try to stop those using the guerrilla tactics, they are indirectly supporting them and allowing them to be thought of as part of their group.

That`s the problem I have with feminism. Sure, it may be "radical" feminism that is a problem - but I don`t see any "regular" feminists stepping up and trying to stop them. They either turn a blind eye or say "Well, if it works!".

I may think that women deserve equality, but I`m not going to support a group that is willing to just let things go when it comes to women. Equality is the good with the bad - you can`t bash men (validly) if they are doing something discriminatory to women, then turn around and pretend that it`s okay (Or pretend not to even see it) if a woman does something similar to a man. That simply is not equal.

Two wrongs do not make a right.