So Other than GamerGate, Brexit, and Trump What's New?

[Chips]

out there when I try to understand whatever this "movement" is about?

Get some ridicule to what are simple questions. Yes, I'm sure you understand...

[Morkonan]

out there when I try to understand whatever this "movement" is about?

Get some ridicule to what are simple questions. Yes, I'm sure you understand...

AH!

But, at what is that ridicule, even if it was present, which it really isn't, directed?

Is it directed at you? Or, are you only choosing to perceive that it is directed at you because you may very closely identify with the subject at hand?

For instance, the mention of Christianity and other religious beliefs tend to generate responses that are sometimes hostile, sometimes far too critical and guilty of making unfair and often false judgements. In truth, some of the backlash can seem almost militant, almost violent.

Since I am a Christian and, for obvious reasons, closely associate that belief system with my most valued "self" there's an instinctive reaction to such attacks that I must remain aware of. I can't allow myself to assume the person is speaking directly to "me" and "of me" in that very negative way. They're reacting to the word as they perceive it, with all of their own ideas and bias, and they're not reacting to "me" as a person. Even if they make assumptions based on their own interpretation of religion, they're still only reacting to a mental or emotional picture that is largely in their own mind and that isn't likely to have much, if anything, to do with me or my own beliefs.

So, if someone denigrates or makes light of an extreme view of "feminism" what should your healthy response be? What should your reaction be based on your goals in making that response? That is the sort of question I ask myself in those sorts of situations.

I'm parodying an extreme interpretation that is, nonetheless, often forced into the forefront of conversations about "feminism." That's the portrait in my head that has been painted by the most vocal proponents of the belief system.

Does feminism seek to apply itself to pickle-jars?

Seriously?

For instance, would a feminist consider it appropriate for another feminist to criticize the Pickle-Jar Manufacturer's Association for a perceived bias against women in favor of men who are much more able, it seems, to open said pickle-jars?

This isn't a joke, even though it's kinda funny... (A girlfriend once labeled me her "Pickle-Jar Opener" so that's why this comes to my mind. )

If you are a "feminist" would you consider it appropriate for another feminist, or yourself, to undertake a campaign against such a manufacturer's association until they complied with your requests?

Meanwhile, in Bogatah, there isn't a Battered Women's Shelter and no social services to help women who have been abused by their husbands. But, the possibility of equally accessible pickles could be realized with an adequately funded media campaign...

[Aye Capn]

Did anyone get castrated by feminists?

Give the Palestinians a few Panzer divisions and their anti-Semitic eliminationism would be indistinguishable from their most-infamous peers. I did mention the relationship between capability and intent; hopefully that relationship is now more clear.

However, the deeper issue here is the pretense that no real harm is done from Feminist rape hoaxes, kangaroo courts, and witch trials. To us non-Feminists the list of victims and the hell they've been put through is truly horrifying. Lynch mobs threatening castration aren't the end of the Feminist terror but just the beginning. The more seriously one takes the crime of rape the greater the injustice of branding for life the falsely accused.

"Listen and believe" creates its own perverse incentive, identical in fact to the Stalinist purges. Did Brett Kavanaugh really force a girl to kiss him when he was 17? Never mind the possibility of a politically-motivated lie: accusations are proof of guilt. Off with his head!

*feminism* is a good thing ...

I said we non-Feminists were horrified by rape hoaxes. What do Feminists think of rape hoaxes? They're horrified, too: because the exposure of rape hoaxes undermines their regime of presumed guilt by accusation. Yes, of course the biggest problem with rape hoaxes isn't the destruction of an innocent man's life in the present but a hypothetical victim facing cross-examination in a hypothetical future.

"I want to offer my deepest apologies: to Rolling Stone’s readers, to my Rolling Stone editors and colleagues, to the U.V.A. community, and to any victims of sexual assault who may feel fearful as a result of my article."
-Sabrina Erdely, Feminist

Who's missing from the list of "victims" of the Phi Kappa Psi rape hoax? To ask the question is to answer it. Feminism, being an ideology of hate, doesn't so much erase the victims of false accusation as not acknowledge them as fully human in the first place. To consider Feminism a "good thing" one would have to be a Feminist.

... equality ...

Ahh Equality, that noble Feminist ideal inherited from the Committee of Public Safety. They do speak of it highly.

[Mightysword]

Lets correct some people here...Feminism is trying to get equal treatment and consideration for the sexes. That's it. That's all it is. Nothing more, nothing less.

......

So, do you consider feminism, as a movement, as "bad"? As detrimental to society? As detrimental to you?

You're asking a pretty binary question over a non-binary issue. Is feminism as an idea is bad? No. But I can also ask you a series of question, and give me own answer on them as reference.

- Is religion bad? No.
- Is communism bad? No.
- Is nationalism bad? No.

...etc...

But ... do you judge a person merely by the words they said, or you will judge them through action and result? The aversion people show to these things nowadays are attributed not really to the text or philosophy behind them, but due to how they are practiced by the people who hold up their banners.

So, with all these wonderfully wholesome beliefs about the value of every single human being, regardless of insubstantial differences like "sex," am I a bad person if I cringe when someone walks into the room and proudly shouts "I am a feminist." What if they're a vegan? What if they're a cat person and don't like dogs?

Do we really need a "movement?"

As with many things liberal, the reckless abandonment of fairness in pursuit of absolute control, frequently goes to the point of absurdity. Feminism in the current sense, is one example.

If you put these two quotes together you'll get an idea of where I stand. As brought up in the Trump thread, I have an aversion to activism for essentially these reason. It's not limited to just feminism, but to a lot of other movement or -ism these days. Originally, these idea were created and nurture by a few individual by good will, with a pure and just intention. Overtime they gather supporters, given a name, and become a movement. The problem is, as people start subscribing to the idea, the zealotry nature of human of doing something better than what was done before warped these movements. They are no longer just promoting the idea, they are controlled by it, and start seeing those who are not agree as less desirable element. In short, in their pursuit of the idea, they pervert it.


So, according to you: feminism is trying to get equal treatment and consideration for the sexes. Ok fair enough, but does that means if I don't want to subscribe to feminism I am against equal treatment and consideration for all sexes? I'm asking this question because it was just slapped on me by another poster in the Trump thread not too long ago. The practice of guilt is one that modern activist love to employ after all. Let's take a look at some of the defining trait of communism shall we:


- Communism is a political and economic system in which the major productive resources and wealth is divided among citizens equally or according to individual need.
- The goal of communism is to create a classless society.
- Communism is not anti-individualism. However, it does say that decisions should be good for the population as a whole, instead of just being good for one or two people.


****** fantastic idea don't you agree? I mean, that's utopia material right there! But I (and I will assume for most of the world) hate communism with every fiber of my being. So ... does that mean I'm a self-serving person who are against all of those noble idea? What do you think?

And religion followed the same path. Most modern religions had their root among the poor and suffered, something created to provide hope and succor to those who needed it. But as they gain followers and influence, organized-religions become a tool of power, a power used for control which result in some people now had growth an aversion to anything religious. Sit down and think for a bit, you'll be surprise how much of a parallel you can see between a movement and religion from how they were created, to how they were nurtured and run.


What I'm saying is I doubt the people who are arguing with you here strictly are against feminism as an idea, but we had seen enough of its malpractice that it doesn't quite instill a vote of confidence.

[fiksal]

*feminism* is a good thing ...

I said we non-Feminists were horrified by rape hoaxes. What do Feminists think of rape hoaxes? They're horrified, too: because the exposure of rape hoaxes undermines their regime of presumed guilt by accusation. Yes, of course the biggest problem with rape hoaxes isn't the destruction of an innocent man's life in the present but a hypothetical victim facing cross-examination in a hypothetical future.

Dont know and quite possibly dont care what others think in your example. But we can keep it simple, crime is bad and deserves varying degrees of outrage.

I see that as no reason for me not to apply for a feminism membership.

Next?

Feminism, being an ideology of hate

And to the dictionary we go!

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism

Definition of feminism
1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests

Your definition is a bit off the mark.

Maybe you should start your own dictionary

To consider Feminism a "good thing" one would have to be a Feminist.

I have no problem with that.

... equality ...

Ahh Equality, that noble Feminist ideal inherited from the Committee of Public Safety. They do speak of it highly.

What is that the reference to?

Not sure "equality" has to be a strictly feminist idea, even it is as part of the definition. But it itself is a good parallel concept.

I mean, that's utopia material right there! But I (and I will assume for most of the world) hate communism with every fiber of my being. So ... does that mean I'm a self-serving person who are against all of those noble idea? What do you think?

Not to sidetrack this too far; so the obvious utopia is obious.

But why is that do you actually hate communism with every fiber?

I'll need to think hard about what I hate with my "every fiber" but communism is not on that list, since it's kind of hard to hate something that I never experienced, never happened or no-one in my family experienced either. (Just to be clear I am Russian)

[Mightysword]

I'll need to think hard about what I hate with my "every fiber" but communism is not on that list, since it's kind of hard to hate something that I never experienced, never happened or no-one in my family experienced either. (Just to be clear I am Russian)

You kinda answer your own question there. I came from a communism country, my family had much wrong done to it. I have seen the dreadful thing that was done in its name, and by that I don't mean just the general inefficiency of the system, the famine and poverty that came from that. I don't know how communism were applied in Russia, but in the satellite countries that were forced to subscribe to it, there is this purge of the sinner and disbeliever that killed millions. We took up arm to fight against it, my father got 7 years in concentration camp for his effort. So yes, I hate it with every fiber of my being, would be strange if I don't.

But note that it's not because those physical harm that made me hate it. When I said those idea are fantastic and Utopia material I wasn't being sarcastic, I honestly meant it. I fully acknowledge that as far as society progression go, communism seem to be the next evolution that is better than everyone that had come before it. But its practice is a completely different story. I grew up with the daily brainwashing why communism is the best thing since slice bread, and even now looking at the text objectively, I still think that is true, the lie is in the execution.

So again, I don't judge an -ism base on its ideal or principal, but rather how it is done by those who preaches it.

[fiksal]

I'll need to think hard about what I hate with my "every fiber" but communism is not on that list, since it's kind of hard to hate something that I never experienced, never happened or no-one in my family experienced either. (Just to be clear I am Russian)

You kinda answer your own question there. I came from a communism country, my family had much wrong done to it. I have seen the dreadful thing that was done in its name, and by that I don't mean just the general inefficiency of the system, the famine and poverty that came from that. I don't know how communism were applied in Russia, but in the satellite countries that were forced to subscribe to it, there is this purge of the sinner and disbeliever that killed millions. We took up arm to fight against it, my father got 7 years in concentration camp for his effort. So yes, I hate it with every fiber of my being, would be strange if I don't.

I understand, that is a very valid reason; and a true one.

And sorry to hear

[clakclak]

Did anyone get castrated by feminists?

[...]

However, the deeper issue here is the pretense that no real harm is done from Feminist rape hoaxes, kangaroo courts, and witch trials. To us non-Feminists the list of victims and the hell they've been put through is truly horrifying. Lynch mobs threatening castration aren't the end of the Feminist terror but just the beginning.

Again there are no lynch mobs. Your false equation of feminism with the KKK only seeks to downplay the crimes the KKK commited. It is the old "hey look both sides are equally bad" when in fact they simply are not. The KKK murdering someone is not equal to a college girl holding up a banner. That should be understandable seeing how one is actually punishable by law and the other one is (apperently at least in the US) protected by freedom of speech.

The more seriously one takes the crime of rape the greater the injustice of branding for life the falsely accused.

Rape needs to be taken serious because it is serious crime. What happens if you don't take it serious can be seen in Saudi Arabia. Then again Saudi Arabia is the wet dream of everyone who hates feminism so that makes sense.

["Listen and believe" creates its own perverse incentive, identical in fact to the Stalinist purges.

No it does not.

Did Brett Kavanaugh really force a girl to kiss him when he was 17? Never mind the possibility of a politically-motivated lie: accusations are proof of guilt. Off with his head![...]

Brett Kavanaugh is:

1. Still free

2. Still has his head attached to his shoulders

3. Still a judge

So what are you on about?

[Chips]

But, at what is that ridicule, even if it was present, which it really isn't, directed?

Is it directed at you? Or, are you only choosing to perceive that it is directed at you because you may very closely identify with the subject at hand?

It wasn't directed at me, so what are you going on about? There were some questions, I assume you do not to wish to answer. That's fine if that's your choice. But it was incredibly simple.

For instance, the mention of Christianity and other religious beliefs tend to generate responses that are sometimes hostile, sometimes far too critical and guilty of making unfair and often false judgements. In truth, some of the backlash can seem almost militant, almost violent.

Whataboutery. Zero relevance.

Since I am a Christian and, for obvious reasons, closely associate that belief system with my most valued "self" there's an instinctive reaction to such attacks that I must remain aware of. I can't allow myself to assume the person is speaking directly to "me" and "of me" in that very negative way. They're reacting to the word as they perceive it, with all of their own ideas and bias, and they're not reacting to "me" as a person. Even if they make assumptions based on their own interpretation of religion, they're still only reacting to a mental or emotional picture that is largely in their own mind and that isn't likely to have much, if anything, to do with me or my own beliefs.

Not wishing to sound harsh, but it's not relevant.

So, if someone denigrates or makes light of an extreme view of "feminism" what should your healthy response be? What should your reaction be based on your goals in making that response? That is the sort of question I ask myself in those sorts of situations.

What are you on about? I make no mention of extreme anything. It wasn't part of the definition of feminism, and a question if you think it's a bad thing to be asking for.

I'm parodying an extreme interpretation that is, nonetheless, often forced into the forefront of conversations about "feminism." That's the portrait in my head that has been painted by the most vocal proponents of the belief system.

Does feminism seek to apply itself to pickle-jars?

Seriously?

For instance, would a feminist consider it appropriate for another feminist to criticize the Pickle-Jar Manufacturer's Association for a perceived bias against women in favor of men who are much more able, it seems, to open said pickle-jars?

This isn't a joke, even though it's kinda funny... (A girlfriend once labeled me her "Pickle-Jar Opener" so that's why this comes to my mind. )

If you are a "feminist" would you consider it appropriate for another feminist, or yourself, to undertake a campaign against such a manufacturer's association until they complied with your requests?

Meanwhile, in Bogatah, there isn't a Battered Women's Shelter and no social services to help women who have been abused by their husbands. But, the possibility of equally accessible pickles could be realized with an adequately funded media campaign...

Again, what are you on about and what relevance? None.

It was really very simple - I fail to understand why it's so hard to actually respond without irrelevant comparisons, talk about religion and unnecessary text of little point. I mean talking about religion? Seriously?

Then you're talking about extremism and so on - instead of just answering the very specific, and very narrow, question. Why is it so hard?

Again - do you fundamentally object to treating the sexes equally or believe that doing so is bad/detrimental (and if so, to who)? That's literally it.

You're asking a pretty binary question over a non-binary issue. Is feminism as an idea is bad? No.

Cheers.

But I can also ask you a series of question, and give me own answer on them as reference.

- Is religion bad? No.
- Is communism bad? No.
- Is nationalism bad? No.

They're nothing to do with the question - people were banging on about feminism. Also, definition of feminism as it was defined by the dictionary/wikipedia was provided to enable people to determine if there's anything wrong with the principle of feminism - equal treatment of the sexes.

Those have zero relevance. They also offer yet more opportunities to avoid, divert, disregard the questions posed. Can discuss them later if you like, but it's my choice if i engage or not as I may have little interest in doing so.

Given some of the responses I feel I should point out - I'm not supporting any actions by anyone anywhere upon any pretence of claim for anything - and certainly nothing to do with extremism.

Just trying to find out if some people here believe women shouldn't be treated equally as men.

It may be the case that some believe some men shouldn't be treated equally as other men, or some races, or religions - but that's not currently the question.

[birdtable]

Regretfully Christian views on women do not lean towards equality

1.Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

and extra bigotry

2. Slaves, obey your earthly masters[a] in everything, not only while being watched and in order to please them, but wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord.

So don't expect Christians to have a tolerant view of equality.... Slavery and subservient women appeal greatly..... cos the Lord says so.

[Morkonan]

It wasn't directed at me, so what are you going on about?

You weren't clear, so I thought it may have been referring to something I wrote. Calm your jets...

There were some questions, I assume you do not to wish to answer. That's fine if that's your choice. But it was incredibly simple.

Did I miss one? I'll go back and look. I will never refuse to answer a relevant question, just so long as it's an honest one.

Whataboutery. Zero relevance.

Saying that doesn't make it so...

Not wishing to sound harsh, but it's not relevant.

OK, substitute some other belief or value that someone holds very close to and defines themselves around. I just offered a personal example.

What are you on about? I make no mention of extreme anything. It wasn't part of the definition of feminism, and a question if you think it's a bad thing to be asking for.

What question? <will try to find it> Do you mean a question whether or not "Feminism" is a bad thing to be "asking for?" If so, my answer is that Feminism isn't something that's clearly defined. It attempts to apply itself to everything, without exceptions, and I don't think that's an appropriate task for it.

Again, what are you on about and what relevance? None.

Why is it not relevant? Explain that, please.

...I mean talking about religion? Seriously?

You can't understand how one can compare the two? "Seriously?" You do not understand how someone could forge an example by way of comparison and then have that example illustrate their interpretation of that thing?

This is a simple intuitive reasoning skill being used. The principle mechanic being used is "like vs like." And, it's being used to illustrate that I feel that some "Feminists" hold so strongly to Feminism that it is no longer a social action "movement" or some sort of interpersonal cultural force for change, but an entire "belief" system that many of the most fervent supporters hold very closely, perhaps even so deeply as to define themselves around it as "Feminists."

I find it difficult to believe that you failed to have been able to comprehend that simple leap of argumentative logic.

Again - do you fundamentally object to treating the sexes equally or believe that doing so is bad/detrimental (and if so, to who)? That's literally it.

I've answered that at length in my posts... several times, several posts..

I do not fundamentally object to treating the sexes equally nor do I believe that is a detrimental practice.

There. That's as plain as I can put my response to your question. IOW - That is the answer to the question that you posed to me.

However, believing in "equality" is not what "Feminism" seems to actually believe. It is "radical" equality. Equality in "the extreme" that is more often being promoted when the promoters use the label of "Feminism" and promote themselves as "Feminists."

Have radicals co-opted the word? Perhaps. But, that doesn't mean that knowing that "Feminism" may have been co-opted by radicals makes understanding "Feminism" as anything else that what they portray it as any easier.

ie: If bad people loudly shout that they are Feminists and that they are promoting things that they call Feminism, that is how Feminism will be defined in the absence of any other voices.

[Golden_Gonads]

Feminism is different things to different people. For some it's about equality, for others it's putting women ahead of men. There are extremists in all things, and as with all such things, the minority screw things over for the majority.

[Morkonan]

Feminism is different things to different people. For some it's about equality, for others it's putting women ahead of men. There are extremists in all things, and as with all such things, the minority screw things over for the majority.

A very concise observation.

So, would you say that since it's sometimes difficult to define "Feminism" we would need to find out how someone feels about more specific application of "Feminism" in order to know what sort of principles they define their interpretation of "Feminism" by?

Not all Feminists seem, by this interpretation, to hold to the same principles.

[Ketraar]

No this is BS. Feminism has one definition, it does not mean whatever one wants, thats not how words work. If everyone can put their own definition on words then they are left without meaning, which is what many try to do, in this example with Feminism.

Its like Democracy, everyone understands what it means even if it has nuanced aplications here and there but the meaning remains th esame.

So no a feminist is a person that supports feminism, which is turn defines movements that work towards equality.

Extremists are just that, they do NOT redefine the meaning, its like saying we should have a Despot rule a democracy because North Korea call its self democratic republic. Its just silly.

The idea the feminist try to put "women ahead" is just stupid and a fallacy used to discredit the movement, by cherry-picking oddities and turn a blind eye to the rest. yes one idiot acted badly, all others in close contact must be rotten too. Gimme a break.

MFG

Ketraar

[Mightysword]

But I can also ask you a series of question, and give me own answer on them as reference.

- Is religion bad? No.
- Is communism bad? No.
- Is nationalism bad? No.

They're nothing to do with the question - people were banging on about feminism. Also, definition of feminism as it was defined by the dictionary/wikipedia was provided to enable people to determine if there's anything wrong with the principle of feminism - equal treatment of the sexes.

Those have zero relevance. They also offer yet more opportunities to avoid, divert, disregard the questions posed. Can discuss them later if you like, but it's my choice if i engage or not as I may have little interest in doing so.

You seem to like to throw the word relevance around. I think Mork had addressed most of it, so I will only add a little bit of my own. No, those question wasn't meant to get an actual answer from you, nor an attempt to derail the discussion. That's why I already provided my own answer. It's meant to draw a comparison to show that your own very question is not as singular as you're making it out to be.

The idea the feminist try to put "women ahead" is just stupid and a fallacy used to discredit the movement, by cherry-picking oddities and turn a blind eye to the rest. yes one idiot acted badly, all others in close contact must be rotten too. Gimme a break.

Then may I suggest you guys do a little self-policing? How often do I see a feminist calling out another feminist for being extreme, or see an activist denouncing someone from their own circle? Not very often, or hardly at all. The reason you see criticism often coming from people with disagreement because otherwise you guys don't call yourself out. Rather, what happens more often is tacit or implicit approval, and yes, simply staying silence is the same.


I'm sorry but ... have you been following all the child abused scandal by the church? Using your argument, I feel like the Pope can just take the podium and declare something like:

"The bible never teach anyone to rape or being a pedophile, the Church had done far more good things that completely outweight the harm by these action. As such, the church believe the action of a few deviants do not reflect or damage its value and teaching thus have nothing to do with the church".

I mean ... technically he wouldn't be wrong, just like technically you are not wrong but BOYZ! Can you even imagine the public reaction to such statement? When you raise a banner to gather people to fight for a cause, you're responsible for all its associations both the good and the bad, and it is your job and no one else to sort out the bad apple. If you are unwilling to take on that task, other will do it for you and turn skeptical about your cause. You call it BS? I say that's just life, your logic is the same as asking life to be simple and easy, it never is. Being reflected by the action of its followers are something applied to every organization, any community, any nation or institution, what makes you think feminism or any kind of activism is beyond that?

[Observe]

I think most of us, give each other the benefit of the doubt and judge according to action.

When I meet a woman I don't know, I don't immediately label her. Sure, I naturally begin to label as my mind processes sensual data. What kind of clothes, haircut, how she carries herself, is she smiling etc? I begin to form an initial tentative view of her, even before she speaks.

To be honest though, I can't remember the last time I met a woman and labeled her a feminist right out of the gate. I might label her a conservative or liberal before sticking the feminist label on her. I'd have to get to know her better.

To me, the word feminist is almost meaningless, because no person is only a feminist and nothing else. Technically, I am a feminist male, because I don't think men should have an advantage over women in society.

[Mightysword]

To be honest though, I can't remember the last time I met a woman and labeled her a feminist right out of the gate. I might label her a conservative or liberal before sticking the feminist label on her. I'd have to get to know her better.

Technically, I am a feminist male, because I don't think men should have an advantage over women in society.

And here come back to one of the more important question posed by other: why need the label at all? When you say: you ARE a feminist male, BECAUSE you don't think men should have an advantage over women". Does this come with the implication that non-feminist males do not believe in those things? Why is it not enough to simply say "we are all going to work for the equality of all sexes/genders" ?

[Observe]

Why is it not enough to simply say "we are all going to work for the equality of all sexes/genders" ?

That's essentially what we end up doing. We can debate labels and semantics until the cows come home, but at the end of the day, how I have conducted myself on behalf of women (and men) is what matters.

If I was a women, I would want equal pay for equal work. Therefore, as a man, it is only right that I stand for that principle whenever I am in a position to do so. Whether I know the word feminist or not, it make no difference to how I behave.

If a person is kind and decent, they will support fairness - regardless of sex.

[Ketraar]

And here come back to one of the more important question posed by other: why need the label at all? When you say: you ARE a feminist male, BECAUSE you don't think men should have an advantage over women". Does this come with the implication that non-feminist males do not believe in those things? Why is it not enough to simply say "we are all going to work for the equality of all sexes/genders" ?

Because in the real world, woman's treatment and access is skewed against them, thus the need to focus on them. Its not really rocket salami, but you knew that.

And now I wait for the rebuttal that woman's suffering and unfair treatment is made up by feminists, or much like climate-change is a conspiracy to get men's privileges and how they are the true victims and will have too cook and clean and raise children, which is the women's job anyway.

Yes the world is perfect and why make movements to advance people's rights to standard? Its like racism, it was fixed ages ago.

MFG

Ketraar

[Mightysword]

Because in the real world, woman's treatment and access is skewed against them, thus the need to focus on them. Its not really rocket salami, but you knew that.

When you see the pendulum swing hard in one way, the natural instinct is to swing it hard the other way. I don't know what is rocket salami to you, but pulling the pendulum to the middle maybe not the instinctual thing to do, but it's the only way to stop the pendulum from moving ... for good.

Yeah, I know why people say "Black lives matter", given the in justice displayed many believe it's a natural rally cry. But "All lives matter" is the right to do if you want to solve thing permanently.

And now I wait for the rebuttal that woman's suffering and unfair treatment is made up by feminists, or much like climate-change is a conspiracy to get men's privileges and how they are the true victims and will have too cook and clean and raise children, which is the women's job anyway.

I don't think anyone here in the argument with you so far had said anything even remotely close to what you just said. It is a warped image or conjecture you conjured up in your mind, because activist like you tend to give yourself this siege mentality Us vs Them. Hey, I told you many times before right, your brand of activism is built on guilt, frustration, condemnation, and overall negativity rather than the positive hope and dream. The attitude you just displayed is the reason why me, and perhaps others refuse to subscribe to your idea. We believe and follow the cause, we just simply don't believe and follow people like you.

Yes the world is perfect and why make movements to advance people's rights to standard? Its like racism, it was fixed ages ago.

MFG

Ketraar

Again, no one here but you are saying that. You're giving a target for your own frustration through no one but your own conjecture. Even though all of us see the same problems, yours is not the only way to fix it as much you believe that it is. Either my way or it is the wrong way ... well, let's just say in many instances that's the mentality that creates as much problem as it solves.