To be a feminist is to be evolved and enlightened

Dirius said:

Neither of those are subjects of inequality among genders, they are related to criminal violence (which specifically targets women). Society does not condone any of the 3 examples you presented, neither does the law.

(again we are talking about the western world).



I'm gonna have for a bit more consistent argument with examples, because you didn't really answer my question, you just stated that what I said is a "false perception of reality".

Click to expand...

Society "not condoning" it, doesn't mean there's enough being done about it. Women are the vast majority of victims in these three categories, which is a form of inequality regarding vital personal security.

Feminists are sexist.

They judge people based on gender and not on individual ability.

david starling said:

Society "not condoning" it, doesn't mean there's enough being done about it. Women are the vast majority of victims in these three categories, which is a form of inequality regarding vital personal security.

Click to expand...

And men are more likely to be victims of violent crime. Which is also not okay. Nobody should be assaulted, full stop.

But as Dirius said, this is about crime and criminals, not about society condoning it.

david starling said:

Society "not condoning" it, doesn't mean there's enough being done about it. Women are the vast majority of victims in these three categories, which is a form of inequality regarding vital personal security.

Click to expand...

A lot of problems in society could recieve better solutions or more resource investment. This doesn't mean that the problems you exemplified are being ignored, or that nothing is being done.

Also, bare mind that the very nature of some crimes are harder to adjust to the criminal justice system, and finding a solution isn't always easy.

I'm not against the fight to end these 3 examples. They just don't constitute inequality.

Dirius said:

A lot of problems in society don't recieve the resources they should. This doesn't mean that the problems you exemplified are being ignored, or that nothing is being done.

Also, bare mind that the very nature of some crimes are harder to adjust to the criminal justice system.

I'm not against the fight to end these 3 examples. They just don't constitute inequality.

Click to expand...

They do constitute gender inequality, because women are far more likely to be victimized than men. Men can be feminists, and concentrate on stopping these crimes against women.

Svencanz said:

This is a recent story from a Swedish newspaper and news website. It tells of a 46-year-old man who was killed by a 50-year-old relative because he refused to murder his daughters. The relative demanded the girls should be killed because they had "shaken hands with boys".
The 50-year-old man killed the father by sticking a pair of scissors into his throat. In the interest of fairness and non-prejudice, Swedish media and police never report races and nationality, or origin, of perpetrators.

http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/1LQ9e/46-aring-dodad-med-sax--for-att-han-inte-mordade-sina-barn

Click to expand...

That father was brave, and died a hero.

Dirius said:

Neither of those are subjects of inequality among genders, they are related to criminal violence (which specifically targets women). Society does not condone any of the 3 examples you presented, neither does the law.

(again we are talking about the western world).



I'm gonna have to ask for a bit more consistent argument with examples, because you didn't really answer my question, you just stated that what I said is a "false perception of reality".

Click to expand...

The belief that the western society is equal is from "my" perspective indeed a false perception of reality that many people embodies. What needs to be understood is that questions in regards to the equal rights and equal worth of women must include and be transformed into new terms that instead addresses women's HUMAN VALUE at all levels in its broadest sense to avoid the major error that many of those who opposes womens freedom and development often does when they are separating women's human value into different subcategories like violence as one separate issue and equality as one separate issue to make them seem like separate issues/entities when they in truth are highly connected. This then separates women into narrow categories and devoids them of their power and human dignity.


Y

david starling said:

They do constitute gender inequality, because women are far more likely to be victimized than men. Men can be feminists, and concentrate on stopping these crimes against women.

Click to expand...

The fact that women are victims of more crimes does not mean that "less" is being done about it. It just means that women are more likely victims of crimes because they are percieved as biologically weaker.

Women are, for example, also more likely to be robbed at gun point than men.

Children are more succeptible to crimes than adults. Doesn't mean society and law is unequal towards children, and neither does it mean that less is done to protect them (quite the contrary we do more).

ynnest said:

The belief that the western society is equal is from "my" perspective indeed a false perception of reality that many people embodies. What needs to be understood is that questions in regards to the equal rights and equal worth of women must include and be transformed into new terms that instead addresses women's human value at all levels in its broadest sense to avoid the major error that many of those who opposes womens freedom and development often does when they are separating women's human value into different subcategories like violence as one separate issue and equality as one separate issue to make them seem like separate issues/entities when they in truth are highly connected. This then separates women into narrow categories and devoids them of their power and human dignity.


Y

Click to expand...

Again, you are not really saying much about the subject, just intermixing poetic metaphors to make a confusing point about how you percieve women are treated on a surreal subjective level.

Its best if you go for actual arguments or examples.

Svencanz said:

This is a recent story from a Swedish newspaper and news website. It tells of a 46-year-old man who was killed by a 50-year-old relative because he refused to murder his daughters. The relative demanded the girls should be killed because they had "shaken hands with boys".
The 50-year-old man killed the father by sticking a pair of scissors into his throat. In the interest of fairness and non-prejudice, Swedish media and police never report races and nationality, or origin, of perpetrators.

http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/1LQ9e/46-aring-dodad-med-sax--for-att-han-inte-mordade-sina-barn

Click to expand...

It is certainly easy to identify that crime was committed by inmigrants of a different culture. The people involved are relatives of another similar case, which leads to the knowledge that they were Turkish inmigrants: https://www.defendevropa.org/2017/m...ath-honour-killing-refusing-murder-daughters/

On Thursday it emerged that the victim as well as the defendant were relatives of Fadime Sahindal, who was murdered by her father in 2002 – also in an honour killing – and became a nationwide symbol for this whole phenomenon.

Western society does not practice honor killing.

Dirius said:

Again, you are not really saying much about the subject, just intermixing poetic metaphors to make a confusing point about how you percieve women are treated on a surreal subjective level.

Its best if you go for actual arguments or examples.

Click to expand...

The "subject" originates from a distorted paradigm from which dysfunctional point of views are automatically created, thus of outmost importance to create new models of thought based on truth by identifying the roots of the current model/paradigm and then transforming it to a new and better one.
As I said it is important to Not separate women into separate categories and instead see their human value in its totality. Do you agree with this?

Y

ynnest said:

The "subject" originates from a distorted paradigm from which dysfunctional point of views are automatically created, thus of outmost importance to create new models of thought based on truth by identifying the roots of the current model/paradigm and then transforming it to a new and better one.
As I said it is important to Not separate women into separate categories and instead see their human value in its totality. Do you agree with this?

Y

Click to expand...

You are talking about paradigm and dysfunctional points of view, without actually mentioning which they are.

I can't agree with something that is in your head, if you don't write down what you are reffering to. I can't guess it out.

Dirius said:

The fact that women are victims of more crimes does not mean that "less" is being done about it. It just means that women are more likely victims of crimes because they are percieved as biologically weaker.

Women are, for example, also more likely to be robbed at gun point than men.

Children are more succeptible to crimes than adults. Doesn't mean society and law is unequal towards children, and neither does it mean that less is done to protect them (quite the contrary we do more).

Click to expand...

Men who commit domestic violence and family and "date" rape need to be shown the error of their ways. Only other men can do that effectively, and it takes moral courage to do it. I would suggest learning fighting skills before attempting to intervene, but it's also about changing the attitudes of other men, who haven't gotten the "No, it's NOT all right" message.

Dirius said:

You are talking about paradigm and dysfunctional points of view, without actually mentioning which they are.

I can't agree with something that is in your head, if you don't write down what you are reffering to. I can't guess it out.

Click to expand...

I am talking about your paradigm that you are "hinting" when you are claiming that there is no unequality in western countries. This paradigm from "my" point of view on the more "shallow levels" creates arguments that separates womens issues into separate categories (like not being willing to see the connection between sexual violence and equal rights for example) to defend ones underlying agenda or conviction, just as many of the feminists do when they have made their mind up. Do you follow me? My point is that if you have a conviction that you may or not be conscious of this shapes your argumentation and thus shines through in your answers. Thus peoples underlying conviction is the interesting part to identify, not their arguments per se.

Y

david starling said:

Men who commit domestic violence and family and "date" rape need to be shown the error of their ways. Only other men can do that effectively, and it takes moral courage to do it. I would suggest learning fighting skills before attempting to intervene, but it's also about changing the attitudes of other men, who haven't gotten the "No, it's NOT all right" message.

Click to expand...

So in your argument you re saying that only men can protect women from the dangers of life? That doesn't sound very feminist.

Anyways. Law enforcement agencies do what you suggest people should do. And finding someone guilty of a crime is done according to law. Prevention of crimes has to be done by both genders, and we as a society do enforce a lot in order to prevent crimes.

Svencanz said:

If you were to structure your sentences so they could be read, it would be easier to get your point across.
I live in an area of New Zealand where there is systemic and multi-generational family abuse going on. Mothers have to be taught that you can play with your children and that Fanta is not suitable as the sole form of nutrition for a one-year-old child. Fathers have to be taught that children are not "play things" - in the worst sense. There's not a lot that overall "policy" setting can do about this, at least in the short term. For many so-called families here, alcohol and methamphetamine are way ahead of the kids in the priority list. I'd love to watch a video of an "enlightened feminist" talking to these families and making differences where it counts, instead of endless yelling in protest marches.

Click to expand...

Whats your point?

Y

In the western world, feminism is focused on securing women's rights and to fight for social change to advance women's status. But, many critics charge feminism is "limited" in their scope or focused mainly on professional, white and affluent subsection of women. Intersectionality on the needs of minority, LGBT, third world, non-rich, disabled and older women are suggested for inclusion in their agenda. Feminists in the 1970s weren't inclusive of trans-women or non-binary biological females, nowadays they're completely.

Feminism believes they don't have full equality known as (cis-)male privilege, that cis-men have more liberties and advantages of being male than what women receive. Even if the woman is white/ Caucasian/European, she has less than her male counterpart, but she has more opportunities than let's say Black/African-American/ women of color. There are like 9 kinds of privileges I can think of: by race, biological sex, sexual orientation, religion, disability, age group, citizenship, place of birth (developed world) and income class.

The USA should be a "free" country for women as much for men, but the USA is behind northern/ western Europe in gender equality. As much there are many countries in the world where women have less rights due to laws, customs and religious beliefs. A few of them like Saudi Arabia strictly prohibit abortion, for example. Feminists worldwide believe abortion should be legal and safely performed to protect the life of a woman of an unwanted child, esp. in the case of rape and incest, or a life-threatening medical condition.

ynnest said:

I definitely do not hold the absolute truth. But to address your theory in regards to people developing their ideas based on rational arguments and facts- No that is not my experience in many cases.

Y

Click to expand...

Well, wouldn't your own ideas be based on rational arguments and facts?

Dirius said:

Well, wouldn't your own ideas be based on rational arguments and facts?

Click to expand...

Actually they are not since "facts" in many cases are a reflection of the current paradigm of "belief".

Y

ynnest said:

Actually they are not since "facts" in many cases are a reflection of the current paradigm of "belief".

Y

Click to expand...

Not exactly, the definition of a fact is that its validity can be reliably proven.

So you base your own ideology on blind belief instead?