Feminism has nothing to do with the sheer existence of women. Feminism is about equality between women and men. Nobody who disagrees with feminism also believe all women shouldn't exist, and not believing in feminism does not mean that you want to be in a world without women.

Also, that's incredibly offensive. Your justification for being feminist shouldn't be "I'm feminist because I want to get laid," or "radical feminism is hot," because both are inherently not in line with feminism. Feminism is about seeing women as people, not a possible partner. If your reason for being a feminist is to sleep with women, that inherently breaks with the concept of feminism.

(That feel when you can't work out if smaiva is a god tier troll or just retarded lmao)



Equality is worth fighting for, but modern feminism's entire cause has been undermined by all these first world goobers that convinced themselves that they've been oppressed because of their gender to make themselves feel less guilty about their privileged lifestyles.

And of course the media is constantly stirring the pot... as we all know, a shitstorm is good business for them.

You just gotta learn to sift through the bs, there's always gonna be stupid people getting mad about stupid shit.

I'm sure you're not referring to my posts!!

The 'feminazis' are the loudest group of feminists by far, which may be why the legitimate 1st-world feminist issues are ignored by most people, and why people identify 'feminazi' perspectives as the current hegemonic 1st-world feminist narrative. I'm fairly certain this is true.

If modern feminism wasn't perceived by everyone to be utterly insane, more people would label themselves feminists. You ask people if they support equality of the sexes and you get super high percentage, you ask that same group of people if they consider themselves feminist and there's a massive drop-off. Similar studies to the one I've linked have been conducted in different 1st world countries, all with similar results.

Turns out being a shrieking feminazi/extremist turns people away from your ideology, rather than converts them.

So really, I don't think the fault lies with larger society for not parsing feminazi feminism from the rest of feminism - rather, the fault lies with the actual feminazis themselves (and to a lesser extent, the rest of the 'sane' feminists who clearly aren't being loud enough to lead the modern 1st-World feminist narrative).

I could say a similar thing with Islam. The narrative of Islam is that they're terrorists who want us dead. This narrative comes about from a relatively (w.r.t the entire Islamic world) small amount of extremist Islamic adherents, yet they are so loud - Loud enough that we have to remind people that #notallmuslims are terrorists.

The loudest group creates the dominant narrative. Usually, outside forces will have a very hard time changing that narrative, so the changing of the narrative has to start from within (meaning it's up to sane feminists to battle the feminazis, and it's up to the non-'death-oriented' Muslims to battle the terrorists).

I feel the biggest argument in recent years is the wage gap.
This is a point many get wrong. The wage gap takes in average annual incomes.
It does not consider jobs worked or overtime or anything of that nature.
Simply that women overall make less. Not in the same profession. Just less in general.
There are a lot of men who do not work jobs that you see women jumping at the opportunity of doing.
For example scaling huge ass poles to change a few lights with nothing but a small power cord holding you.
Overall modern day feminism is mainly a bunch of extremists.
They take studies like the Wage Gap study and twist and turn it until they get what they want it to sound like.
That is just what I think is the deal with Modern day feminism.

I havent read all of the answers, also i have forgot like 50% of what you´ve written.

Here are my thougts to feminism:

Women are not equal atm: less payment for jobs. put on a throne which makes them invisible to any men.

Women who are calling themself feminist are trash, they just use a word to identify themself with something they dont really understand.
There are some real feminists who try to reach equality, but they are so quiet that we cant here them.

For the most part today, Women are imperior to men, they are like queens while all men are just pawns. Its disgusting, a failed version of feminism has put our world into a situatuin in which men are spineless and women are way to arrogant, because they think they have the right to. (because of this "years of torurment" which is partially true, and men think they are right, because they are to stupid to start thinking about it in a critical way. Not a historical or emotional way.)

3rd wave feminism makes a mockery of 1st and 2nd wave feminism. we aren't all equal. the closest we can get is quality under the law. Though i think it can be saved from public a relations stand point. But that would have to come from with in.

It's all about "muh equality" until it comes to serving in the military. Then women get hit by reality like a truck. Next world war will eradicate the extreme modern feminism that was born in the US. Women will cower in fear and search for protection in men, then things will fall in their natural order.

You honestly can't be serious with that claim. There's so much wrong with it on so many levels that it honestly dumbfounds me somebody would even think to write it down, let alone believe it.

First off, modern weaponry has been the greatest equalization between the genders in the history of warfare. A bullet doesn't care how much physical training you've had when it ruptures your vital organs. The "reality" of the modern military is that most of the physical requirements for joining an infantry corps is under the assumption that you will undergo protracted battles over long distances. The reality is that the physical requirements for serving in the military are reaching antiquated status, since mechanized warfare has eliminated a lot of the endurance that was previously needed as infantry, and most battles are now won with abundant usage of artillery and airstrikes, with boots on the ground serving as a formality of occupation.

Second, you clearly don't pay attention to history, because world wars have, historically, only furthered feminism because women are forced to take more roles that are typically held by men due to conscription and enlistment. And they have historically shown themselves more than capable of adopting these new roles. Even female enlistment would just mean that women would adapt to a combat role, particularly since modern combat has been democratized so people from a wider variety of demographics can still serve at reasonable capacity.

Third, how in the hell would a world war even cause women, collectively as a gender, suddenly just be meek? Unless you're proposing that the next world war would be waged between genders, which is so ludicrous I shouldn't even need to be explaining this, there is literally no reason a world war would cause a gender to suddenly become docile. There will be women who will not want to fight in a war. There will also be men who will not want to fight in a war. It's pretty standard that nobody wants to fight in a war, because war is terrible. This has nothing to do with gender, and everything to do with the fact that nobody wants to die.

Lastly, natural order changes. If humanity should really give a shit about the natural order, we should have stayed hunter-gatherer societies, because THAT was the original natural order. Honestly, how dense do you have to be to subscribe to natural order being a reason for anything for humanity when humanity has literally usurped the natural order through it's history several thousand times over. The natural order means jack shit, it's just a cover for tradition, and tradition is subject to scrutiny just like any other principle of society.

Seriously, everything about that statement was just factually, historically, and morally impaired.

Women are a liability on the battlefield because they'll become an emotional wreck when they are under enemy fire and the person next to them has their guts hanging out of their stomach. That's how things are. Being a soldier is not about just having the physical strength to wield a rifle, like you claim. When I said natural order, I was referring to women being biologically built to take less risks than men, hence why you rarely see women being good leaders. But please, keep telling me how that is all because of misogyny.

Absolute nonsense. There is nothing to back this claim up what-so-ever. In fact, peer reviewed research into this area which appears in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology paints a totally different story. This article considers research conducted by the Boston University School of Medicine and the Veteran's Administration's National Center for Post traumatic Stress. Their findings indicate no measurable difference between deployed men and women later suffering post-traumatic stress or depression. The research indicates men are actually slightly more likely to develop substance misuse habits after deployment. No citation as I paid for access to this article.


I wouldn't think risk taking would be a desirable quality in a solider? So, kinda a moot point?


I'm not one of those people who will deny that biology plays a huge part in who we are. And, that there are inherent differences in the biology of men and women that tends to create rules as to how we function in society as a whole. What I am not prepared to do however, is accept massive generalisations and sweeping statements based upon nothing more than your own limited anecdotal experience. What do you personally know about leadership? Have you researched this or just declared it to be a fact? Let's actually look at the science:

Traditionally, the perceived important leadership characteristics have all been masculine in nature. Yet, more recently research has started to indicate that many of these traits i.e. assertiveness, individualism and task orientation do not exclusively contribute to the efficacy of leadership. Instead, more and more research supports the efficacy of transformational leadership which favours traits (such as collaboration and empowerment) which are more typically associated with women. Citation. Studies show women are rated more competent in taking initiative, practicing self-development, integrity/honesty and driving for results. Citation.

The above is pretty ropey research, as you cannot assert any of these traits to be exclusively male or female. However, if you consider it from a totally number based point of the view, it isn't difficult to discover that a balanced representation of women improve corporate performance. Companies with higher (than the measured average) gender diversity on their boards report a higher return on equity (> 10%), a higher operating result (> 48%), and stronger stock price growth (> 70%). In addition, having at least one woman on a board decreases the rate of bankruptcy by 20%. Citation. It's pretty clear that businesses do best under the combined leadership of men and women.


This still applies.