Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#8 - anonymous (07/03/2014) [-]
Is that like saying all feminist suck because a small percentage of feminists engage in unreasonable behaviour?
User avatar #82 to #8 - bighornwizardsheep (07/04/2014) [-]
Not femenists, femiNAZIs.
User avatar #64 to #8 - gorginhanson (07/04/2014) [-]
large* percentage
User avatar #27 to #8 - majormayor (07/03/2014) [-]
"small percentage"
Even so, they still have a disproportionate/growing amount of influence and the moderates don't do enough to prevent that. It's a lot more divided than what the average FJ user thinks of "Feminist vs. Feminazi." I really don't like the term feminazi anyway.

It's funny how this is pretty much the main argument for feminists on here: But they're not real feminists! I don't even like teranin that much but at least he is somewhat decent at actually arguing.
#28 to #27 - teranin ONLINE (07/03/2014) [-]
thanks, guy.
User avatar #33 to #28 - majormayor (07/04/2014) [-]
When it comes to this subject, I think it is one that barely anyone on FJ knows any modicum amount of information. Most people base their views of the subject of what they see here. A lot of the arguments over feminism on FunnyJunk are crude and very simple, and many of them don't bring up much of anything about the ideology itself beyond the dictionary definition.
User avatar #16 to #8 - cupcakescankill (07/03/2014) [-]
you sexist piece of **** how could you even say that about women
#15 to #8 - whichever ONLINE (07/03/2014) [-]
I think feminists are fine.
feminazis on the other hand...
#9 to #8 - teranin ONLINE (07/03/2014) [-]
No, because feminism is an ideology, not a biological reality one did not choose and cannot change.
#10 to #9 - anonymous (07/03/2014) [-]
Oh I understand, all feminists do suck, though only a small percentage engage in unreasonable behaviour.
Oh I understand, all feminists do suck, though only a small percentage engage in unreasonable behaviour.
User avatar #11 to #10 - teranin ONLINE (07/03/2014) [-]
The ideology sucks. I never said every person who identifies as feminists suck. That was you.
#12 to #11 - anonymous (07/03/2014) [-]
Feminist ideology sucks? That ideology is "equal rights for men and women". So you don't like that? And if the ideology sucks, how does it work that not all feminists suck? Are they somehow detached from their ideology?

And I did not say that all feminists suck, I thought that was your viewpoint, because to you "all feminists suck because some do **** " is somehow not the same like "all men suck because some do **** ".
User avatar #13 to #12 - teranin ONLINE (07/03/2014) [-]
That's the dictionary definition, not the ideology.

Example, Christianity is defined as the belief that Jesus Christ is the Messiah. However, there's a lot more to it than that. The same is true for feminism. The application of their presupposed equality has manifested in an engine for superiority. I've explained this before.

You presented the statement "all feminists suck" as a strawman argument, where you attempted to construct my argument in a way that is suitable to your narrative and easy to knock down. You do this all the time. We're done again.
#41 to #13 - foogermier (07/04/2014) [-]
A major difference between Christianity and Feminism is that Christian definition is in fact truth, they / I do believe in Jesus Christ as Messiah, but there is more in addition. Feminism, on the other hand, says Feminists want equality, but in reality most Feminists just want women to be known as all powerful.

According to our society, everyone is equal, just some people more equal then others. Also, I am indeed a Christian, but everyone needs to produce logic. I hate it when people just post bible verses, it makes us all look bad.
#22 to #13 - anonymous (07/03/2014) [-]
Idealogy is fluid and varies from person to person and certainly within sub-groups. Arguing that one set of idealogies which you disagree with definitively characterises the entire group is simply wrong. You contradict your own point with the comparison to christianity. 'There's a lot more to it than that' - damn right. The dictionary definition of feminism holds to the same definition as egalitarianism, though with a focus on a subset of issues. As has been said numerous times on this site, you don't have a problem with feminism. You have a problem with faulty application which the internet has perfectly good labels for 'fembot' 'feminazi' etc. Take your pick of those.

Your resistance to recognise the difference is somewhat purplexing as all it does is stall any argument in such a way that you can only ever make yourself justified to yourself. ?Whats more, the initial point wasn't a strawman argument it was a perfectly valid commentary based on the content.
#24 to #22 - teranin ONLINE (07/03/2014) [-]
I've never claimed "all feminists suck" nor has that ever been my argument.  When it is presented as my argument, that is a strawman, because it was not my argument.  There are plenty of people out there who identify as feminists and who actually want equality.  They, unfortunately, are neither the ones directing the ideology as a whole in academia, lobbying, or legislation, and are as marginalized as every other group actually wanting equality before the female superiority feminism which makes up the primary body of the ideology.   
   
You argue that it is not the primary body, but even NOW (National organization for women) has done things directly providing female superiority under the law, like their lobbying for limitations to paternity testing to save men from paying for children that are not theirs.     
   
It's not a matter of resistance, it's a matter of truth vs lies, of actions vs definitions.  A definition is not, and has never been, a manifesto.  Just as there are people in the MRM who have I'm sure done or said things that painted men in a light of superiority, (which is why I won't call myself a men's rights activist) this train is shared in all ideologies.  Actions are what matter to me, not proselytizing.   
   
I really hope you're not that anon from before.  That person has been desperate to shame me or contest my arguments with logical fallacies for weeks now.  Seen in the full context my actions are the only sane move here.
I've never claimed "all feminists suck" nor has that ever been my argument. When it is presented as my argument, that is a strawman, because it was not my argument. There are plenty of people out there who identify as feminists and who actually want equality. They, unfortunately, are neither the ones directing the ideology as a whole in academia, lobbying, or legislation, and are as marginalized as every other group actually wanting equality before the female superiority feminism which makes up the primary body of the ideology.

You argue that it is not the primary body, but even NOW (National organization for women) has done things directly providing female superiority under the law, like their lobbying for limitations to paternity testing to save men from paying for children that are not theirs.

It's not a matter of resistance, it's a matter of truth vs lies, of actions vs definitions. A definition is not, and has never been, a manifesto. Just as there are people in the MRM who have I'm sure done or said things that painted men in a light of superiority, (which is why I won't call myself a men's rights activist) this train is shared in all ideologies. Actions are what matter to me, not proselytizing.

I really hope you're not that anon from before. That person has been desperate to shame me or contest my arguments with logical fallacies for weeks now. Seen in the full context my actions are the only sane move here.
#31 to #24 - blueracer ONLINE (07/03/2014) [-]
im under the firm impression that if you need to single your self out as a feminist then your doing nothing but choosing to side with "femnazi" because at this point in time i think its better and more appropriate to associate with others as an Equal Rights Advocate. because at the end of the day if you are a feminist and not a femnazi you want equal rights for all correct? this is also a solution to the whole mens rights groups as an equal rights advocate could be in favor of men being treated better and women being treated better. bringing both under one banner along with LGBT group and anti racism is really the most adult thing to do im my opinion.



thoughts?
#110 to #31 - greyhoundfd (07/04/2014) [-]
>Feminazis act like deranged ***** , so we treat all feminists like feminazis

>Feminists try to act extremely reasonable to balance this out

>We ignore them and tell them to leave the movement.

There is no possible solution to this which results in feminists being considered reasonable. Why is it so hard for you people to treat feminists and feminazis as two separate groups? Yeah, Westboro Baptist Church is full of complete ******** , but you send your complaints to them, not to the ******* unitarians.
#195 to #110 - blueracer ONLINE (07/05/2014) [-]
except femnazi still call themselves feminists. and yes asking them to leave the movement in favor of a more all inclusive movement one that lets both serious men and women in without scoffing at the first because "how could a man know anything about being a woman"


that fact of the matter is femnazi have ruined feminist name. but why even care when theres a movement that also fights for your rights just like the first, but also includes mens, trans, gay, black, and foreign peoples rights as well? do we not all deserve equality?
#222 to #195 - greyhoundfd (07/06/2014) [-]
It's just that the argument that you're using is the same argument that people use to say "Oh, you can't say faggot because that used to be used as an offensive word". If we're willing to acknowledge that the feminazis now "own" the feminist label, then the feminazis have won. If we want to fight them, we need to refuse to allow them to use feminism as a cover for their actions, because that's what they're doing. They're using the respect people have for feminism as a cover so they can continue their actions. If we as a society can force them to abandon the feminist label, then they will no longer have that respect.

In the same way, if we acknowledge that the offensive meaning of faggot is now it's sole meaning, then we will never be able to use the word again in open society, and the people who used it that way will have won. Saying " ****** " or "faggot" in a non-offensive sense is not racist or homophobic, why should referring to normal feminists as "feminists" instead of **** like "Women's Rights Activists" be any different?
#14 to #13 - anonymous (07/03/2014) [-]
There is no lot more to feminism than the textbook definition. There are only the fields where equality has to be established, and yes, there is the small percentage of morons who claim to be feminists when they actually hate men. A tiny minority, even a lot smaller than the minority of men who hurt women.   
   
The problem with your explanation is that you lack the actual proof. What you call proof are the few examples you can come up with, like this highly irrelevant tumblr quote, that, btw, I cannot even find via google. But even if I could, it is - ironically - your small percentage that does not represent the whole.   
   
So your explanation is a thesis.   
   
And whenever your thesis is being challenged, you allege the challenger uses impure methods and exclaim the discussion is over.
There is no lot more to feminism than the textbook definition. There are only the fields where equality has to be established, and yes, there is the small percentage of morons who claim to be feminists when they actually hate men. A tiny minority, even a lot smaller than the minority of men who hurt women.

The problem with your explanation is that you lack the actual proof. What you call proof are the few examples you can come up with, like this highly irrelevant tumblr quote, that, btw, I cannot even find via google. But even if I could, it is - ironically - your small percentage that does not represent the whole.

So your explanation is a thesis.

And whenever your thesis is being challenged, you allege the challenger uses impure methods and exclaim the discussion is over.
 Friends (0)