Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: "Feminism = Equality" destroyed by feminism's own Michael Flood

  1. #1
    Senior Member Manalysis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    4,400
    Rep Power
    76

    "Feminism = Equality" destroyed by feminism's own Michael Flood

    Hi,

    I happened upon Wikipedia's "Antifeminism" page, and the article explains how to define antifeminism:

    "Feminist sociologist Michael Flood argues that an antifeminist ideology rejects at least one of what he identifies as the three general principles of feminism:

    - That social arrangements among men and women are neither natural nor divinely determined.
    - That social arrangements among men and women favor men.
    - That there are collective actions that can and should be taken to transform these arrangements into more just and equitable arrangements,
    such as those in the timelines of woman's suffrage and other rights. "

    So in order to be a feminist, it's not enought to believe that the sexes should be equal.
    You also have to believe e.g. that men are favoured, etc.

    IOW, if you think gender roles have a biological component, that men suffer disadvantages, and that not only women should have some public backing,
    you're an antifeminist. Show of hands?

    M

  2. #2
    Senior Member voidspawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,154
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Manalysis View Post
    Hi,

    I happened upon Wikipedia's "Antifeminism" page, and the article explains how to define antifeminism:

    "Feminist sociologist Michael Flood argues that an antifeminist ideology rejects at least one of what he identifies as the three general principles of feminism:

    - That social arrangements among men and women are neither natural nor divinely determined.
    - That social arrangements among men and women favor men.
    - That there are collective actions that can and should be taken to transform these arrangements into more just and equitable arrangements,
    such as those in the timelines of woman's suffrage and other rights. "

    So in order to be a feminist, it's not enought to believe that the sexes should be equal.
    You also have to believe e.g. that men are favoured, etc.

    IOW, if you think gender roles have a biological component, that men suffer disadvantages, and that not only women should have some public backing,
    you're an antifeminist. Show of hands?

    M
    Good spot and good counter M. Can't help but get frustrated by these bigots constant playground quality manipulation. Feminists don't get to define what antifeminist means. Anti- from their perspective is all they have to go on, but that doesn't translate into their gibberish (though you've nicely flipped it).

    I'm MHRA, and I speak out (when I can) against feminism. I have specific reasons, but at the core of it I still do think that feminists of the past who did define themselves as anti-sexist, would agree with me as I and others speak out against the excesses, bigotry, sexism and hatemongering of feminists. I don't have any liking for the history of feminism, it's incredibly dishonest from the start. But I do think that some feminists were sincere did challenge gender roles that needed challenging - there were male reserved (as in reserved for some males not any males) roles where being male wasn't any qualification or advantage, lots of things from doctors to lawyers to politicians etc, senior roles that should be decided on merit.

    Feminists who demanded equality of opportunity and said women who could do jobs as good as or better than men (or other women) should fully get opportunity for those jobs had my full support. Support that I now feel I was tricked into giving because what the support was requested for and what was done with it ended up wholly different things.

    A lot men and women here and elsewhere that now fall under the umbrella term antifeminist have had similar experiences, you support equality and you get hate filled bigotry.

    I think over all trying to ideological define antifeminist, is meaningless, to me it basically is the refusal to be treated like shit by bigoted dirtbags. It's opposition to ideology that has no need of it's own ideology, it isn't about women, it's about feminists who are women, men, and a billion other genders according to themselves. If feminists weren't control freak hatemongers there wouldn't be antifeminism, there would be no reaction to it.

    Modern feminism is the typical over reach of an action. It's gone way past its goals of saying as states, nations and societies men and women should have the same rights, be treated equally under the law and have no unfair discrimination or impediments to achieving their goals on the basis of sex. It's taken the commonly shared impetus towards living in societies that are not unfair and bastardized that into manipulatively and despicably bigoted towards males.

    Flood is lying, just like the typical way feminists behave. That's why antifeminism exists.
    Last edited by voidspawn; 07-03-2017 at 01:58 PM.
    "...especially when it comes to communication, it can be observed, if it is not a negotiation it's a war."
    Quote Originally Posted by menrppl2 View Post
    Can't live with em, life is great without them.

  3. #3
    I got out of the Army in 1966. just as the MSM started its big Marxist move to take over the society. I realize they were still stepping softly, but at that time they were already discussing the need to kill over 90% of the males on the planet. So, I for one, don't see how good it was at the beginning. Women overall are very easily led into misandry, since, ahem, Eve.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Manalysis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    4,400
    Rep Power
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by voidspawn View Post
    Feminists don't get to define what antifeminist means.
    Oh, I'll let them make their own definition, if they like. Freedom of speech, and all that.
    But I won't let them define what I mean by it.

    But I do think that some feminists were sincere did challenge gender roles that needed challenging - there were male reserved (as in reserved for some males not any males) roles where being male wasn't any qualification or advantage, lots of things from doctors to lawyers to politicians etc, senior roles that should be decided on merit.
    Yes, that's the irony.
    It was observed that there was divide, based on gender, that was seen as a hindrance, unfounded, and unjust.
    So it was decided to abolish this divide on the basis of gender.

    IMO that was flipped, and the result of the flip was 2nd wave feminism.
    Suddenly, there was a "gender paradigm", the gender divide made perfect sense, if one only reversed the hierarchy: Women on top, men down.
    All the other 'waves' are just gynocentric and gynocratic excesses.

    Traditionalists would perhaps also question whether gender roles were really a hindrance, unfounded, and unjust.
    Perhaps they are just adaptations to circumstances.
    Anyway, the second-sex-wavers rode forward on the wave of liberal goodwill from back in the good old days of "women's lib",
    and, yes, shamelessly abused that.

    you support equality and you get hate filled bigotry
    Indeed.

    I think over all trying to ideological define antifeminist, is meaningless, to me it basically is the refusal to be treated like shit by bigoted dirtbags.
    Yes, no ...
    To me, that is the relevance of the Flood quote in the first place.
    He makes the axiomatic background of feminism explicit.
    Feminist theory does not reach that position as a conclusion, say, after investigation - it _begins_ with them like Euclid with a point and a line.
    The rest merely follows from these postulates.

    And this gives a specific target for criticism, which "equality" does not (hard to champion inequality).
    It postulates that gender roles are social constructs.
    It postulates that men benefit from the present arrangement of gender roles.
    It postulates that there are collective actions that can and should be taken to transform these arrangements into more just and equitable arrangements.

    Note that this third postulate should really be the fourth, for one has been smuggled in, riding on the given third:
    The present arrengement is not just and equitable.

    All of these postulates can and should be refuted by reference to facts.
    The biological factor can be demonstrated by reference to facts.
    The disadvantages of men can be demonstrated by reference to facts.
    The adverse effects of gender programs can be demonstrated by reference to facts.

    Also, any contradictions in feminist theory and practice serve to refute these postulates.
    Re. biology vs. sociology, feminists flip-flop wrt. transfolk. Their gender reality is suddenly innate.
    Feminists also argue for gender apartheid where men outperform women.
    Etc.; and likewise for the other postulates.

    The end result should be to relativize the explanatory power and social utility of the gender paradigm in the first place.
    It is less fundamental than feminism assumes.

    Flood is lying
    No.
    It's much worse than that; infinitely much worse.
    Flood is _not_ lying.

    He's telling the truth - this is what they believe - and thereby painting feminism into a corner.

    M

  5. #5
    Senior Member mr_e's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Eastern USA
    Posts
    7,368
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by voidspawn View Post
    Good spot and good counter M. Can't help but get frustrated by these bigots constant playground quality manipulation. Feminists don't get to define what antifeminist means. Anti- from their perspective is all they have to go on, but that doesn't translate into their gibberish (though you've nicely flipped it).
    Someone I have been conversing with suggests to call it NON-FEMINISM as opposed to ANTI-FEMINISM. In many ways they are similar concepts, but "Non-Feminism" does not provide any ready handles for attack by Feminists. Non-Feminism is simply *NOT* Feminism. In order to counter it the *Feminists* must do the attacking and thus put themselves into a bad light by being the aggressors and displaying all their "Toxic Femininity"-- not to mention blowing their cover of "gender equity"-loving, peaceful people-- and rather demonstrating themselves to be the hatemongers we all know them to be.
    FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
    It's time to call it out for what it is.



    The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men

    http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

  6. #6
    Senior Member mr_e's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Eastern USA
    Posts
    7,368
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by polite_disagreement View Post
    I got out of the Army in 1966. just as the MSM started its big Marxist move to take over the society. I realize they were still stepping softly, but at that time they were already discussing the need to kill over 90% of the males on the planet. So, I for one, don't see how good it was at the beginning. Women overall are very easily led into misandry, since, ahem, Eve.
    You realize that they don't need to do much overt killing to achieve this result. All that is required is for them to abort the right babies and it's done. They could even do it on a very gentle slope so that it isn't noticed for a very long time what the game is.
    FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
    It's time to call it out for what it is.



    The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men

    http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

  7. #7
    Senior Member voidspawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,154
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by mr_e View Post
    Someone I have been conversing with suggests to call it NON-FEMINISM as opposed to ANTI-FEMINISM. In many ways they are similar concepts, but "Non-Feminism" does not provide any ready handles for attack by Feminists. Non-Feminism is simply *NOT* Feminism. In order to counter it the *Feminists* must do the attacking and thus put themselves into a bad light by being the aggressors and displaying all their "Toxic Femininity"-- not to mention blowing their cover of "gender equity"-loving, peaceful people-- and rather demonstrating themselves to be the hatemongers we all know them to be.
    I used to be in favour of the label NON-FEMINISM as it was accurate, and it is still a thing. Non-feminism is a different statement to anti-feminism. Of course the feminists and their mainstream media cronies latched on to anti-feminism, and not when men practised or declared, but only after women did and they became prominent. I've been reading and watching this debate for years, and even though it's just my observation anti-feminism was a label and declaration done far more by women than men. That later become more popularised, in no small part to the work of Karen Straughan, Alison Tieman, Janice Fiamengo, Diana Davies, Janet Bloomfield, Hannah Wallen and a bunch of others. Some of those are more anti-feminist than they are feMRA, and even Karen places her boot in both camps (MRA & anti-feminist) as things with problems in common.

    I'd like non-feminism to be a regular declaration, but that just shows how bad things are. A person is demonized for being anti-feminist and ostracised for being non-feminist. Feminism is so far out of control that even not yielding to their demands because you've no idea (or interest) in them is an act of hate.

    But you make a good point, and I'd be quite happy to oppose feminism from a declaration of a non-feminist stance. It is a valid stance to simply oppose having an ideology forced upon, in the same way it is valid to oppose having a religion forced upon you.

    Of course non-feminist is also a simple statement of not being a bigoted hated filled obsequious creep too. A position I hope that all people can relate to.
    "...especially when it comes to communication, it can be observed, if it is not a negotiation it's a war."
    Quote Originally Posted by menrppl2 View Post
    Can't live with em, life is great without them.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Manalysis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    4,400
    Rep Power
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by mr_e View Post
    Someone I have been conversing with suggests to call it NON-FEMINISM as opposed to ANTI-FEMINISM. In many ways they are similar concepts, but "Non-Feminism" does not provide any ready handles for attack by Feminists. Non-Feminism is simply *NOT* Feminism. In order to counter it the *Feminists* must do the attacking and thus put themselves into a bad light by being the aggressors and displaying all their "Toxic Femininity"-- not to mention blowing their cover of "gender equity"-loving, peaceful people-- and rather demonstrating themselves to be the hatemongers we all know them to be.
    Brilliant- All for it. A-feminism. Afeism. Afeists. Yay.

    M

  9. #9
    Senior Member mr_e's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Eastern USA
    Posts
    7,368
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by Manalysis View Post
    Brilliant- All for it. A-feminism. Afeism. Afeists. Yay.

    M

    Afeists... LOL
    FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
    It's time to call it out for what it is.



    The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men

    http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •