WMN: t3_3i9n2q_t1_cufiyvp

[TITLE]

CMV: Modern feminism is hypocritical and flawed

[bmoreraven]

To say that women and men are equal is simply incorrect. I absolutely do not mean to say that one is better than the other, only that there are fundamental physiological differences between men and women that feminists appear to disregard. Now, in my opinion feminism seeks to advocate that anything that men can do, women can also but only when its convenient. To me it seems like feminists want to have their cake and eat it too. I will give a few examples that I always think about to illustrate my point. 1. The Ray Rice incident. What happened was unfortunate and of course he shouldn't have hit his wife. However, if this was Ray hanging out with another football player and knocked him out, this would not have been a story. Its because he punched a woman that this became a big deal. How can the feminist movement suggest "Men should NEVER lay their hands on a woman" but still say that men and women are equal. My answer is that its because men are generally stronger than women, but then that's my point. If you are going to advocate that they are equal then they should receive equal treatment. Again, CMV. 2. Rape cases. In college I have been required to watch numerous sexual harassment videos and attend mandatory training seminars on sexual assault. In these videos they always paint the male as a bad guy and its always targeted towards men. Perhaps I have misunderstood something but if a guy and a girl are both under the influence and they decide to have sex, the girl can then decide the next day that maybe it wasn't a good idea and that the guy should have known better. The guy is then facing rape charges. Why is this on the guy? People use the phrase "Victim Blaming" and say that its not on the girl regardless of the fact that she drunk. So what if she had gotten drunk and drove her car into a tree. Can she then say "Maybe that wasn't a good idea" and then get off the hook? 3. The draft. This one has also bothered me. According to the United States Selective Service Act, all men between ages 18-25 are required to register for the draft and may be picked for military service if the draft were to be implemented. Why are feminists all over the country not outraged about this? Shouldn't it be men AND women that are required to register for the draft? After all, men and women should be able to perform wartime duties equally right? It just seems like people pick and choose when its convenient for gender equality Of course there are certain things that should be equal. Wages, education, etc. However I feel that a push for gender equality in every aspect of life is fundamentally wrong. CMV! _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

[RattlingTongue]

So with point 1 and 2, you have to think about context. The incident in point 1 has to be viewed in the context of women having been abused by their partners for centuries. Sure, women might hit their partners too, and that's not nice, but men do it and have done it more. Point 2 is the same. I totally see where you're coming from and logically what you're saying makes sense. But annoyingly it's not that simple. You have to look at it in historical context. Women are raped more than men. Women are in far more danger of being raped than men, all the time. With this in mind, the sexual harassment videos you watched probably knew this too. If you knew everyone in your class loved apples, you wouldn't bring an equal amount of apples and oranges to give out, just to be fair. That would be odd, because you've learnt from past events how the majority of people behave. That said, generalising about a group of people is never cool, and rape cases can only be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. It's tricky and complicated and dangerous. Which is why it makes sense to look at context. [STA-CITE]> To say that women and men are equal is simply incorrect. [END-CITE]Now let's just look at this bit. Feminists believe that 'men and women should be equal'. My PSE teacher in school used to say 'men and women are different but equal' and I think this illustrated my point pretty well. Men and women are fundamentally not the same, but we should have equal rights and be seen as having equal worth in society. Men and women are not the same, but they are equal.

[MrMercurial]

[STA-CITE]>To say that women and men are equal is simply incorrect. I absolutely do not mean to say that one is better than the other, only that there are fundamental physiological differences between men and women that feminists appear to disregard. [END-CITE]You're misunderstanding the type of equality in question. Two things can be equal in some respects but not in others. When feminists argue for equality between men and women they are not (usually) claiming that men are identical to women.

[Jonas223XC]

You're missing the point on the ray rice "incident" [STA-CITE]> The video of the incident showed Rice’s girlfriend (and soon-to-be wife) hitting him twice, once before getting on the elevator and once on the elevator. Then it shows her moving aggressively toward him in what appears to be an attempt to strike him a third time. (Please note this not a defenseless woman cowering in the corner.) Rice responds by hitting her in the face and she hits her head on a handrail, which then knocks her out. The eventual response to this incident? Ban Ray Rice from his lucrative association with the NFL by and fire him from his team, the Baltimore Ravens. These two things obviously shame him, put a big DV on his forehead, cut off his income, his prestige, and his association with his friends and teammates. A very harsh and far too stringent response in my opinion. But wait. What would happen if we reversed the roles here? [END-CITE][STA-CITE]> Let’s see. [END-CITE][STA-CITE]> Imagine this: Ray Rice hits his girlfriend before getting on the elevator and then again on the elevator. Then moves aggressively toward her in what appears to be a third attempt to hit her. As he moves in to hit her, she hits him in the face and he hits his head on a handrail, knocking him out. What is the response to this? My guess is she would get accolades and be seen as a hero, a woman who successfully protected herself from an abuser. She would likely be on talk shows and be held up as a role model for all women. Rice would likely be arrested for domestic violence while she is seen as a hero. [END-CITE][STA-CITE]> Do you see the problem here? For the same behavior she is a hero and he is shamed and banished. [END-CITE]http://www.avoiceformen.com/featured/domestic-violence-double-standards-shackles-for-men-chuckles-for-women/

[bmoreraven]

Wait, isnt that exactly my point?

[Jonas223XC]

Yes. I agree with you, but for different reasons than what you stated

[anriana]

The Equal Rights Amendment failed partially because conservative organizations were horrified at the idea of women being drafted into service. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment#Opposition_to_the_ERA

[thor_moleculez]

It's always frustrating when people rail against feminists who say outrageous things without actually providing links to the offending speech, since it forces other feminists to apologize for what might be a misrepresentation of the thing they actually said. But here goes nothing: 1. A feminist might say that men shouldn't use violence against women because men are powerful enough to defend themselves against women without needing to resort to very much violence, or any violence at all. What they're trying to express might be the idea that since you're only justified in using as much force as is reasonable to prevent harm to yourself, and that men could in most cases prevent a woman from inflicting any sort of meaningful harm on them with a very minimal use of force, men shouldn't use very much force when protecting themselves from women. I think this is an overgeneralization; some men are really weak and some women are really strong, and that matters in evaluating when and how much force is justified. Some men are perfectly justified in using a lot of force against a woman to defend themselves. But the underlying principle, that men should be careful not to use too much force when defending themselves against women, is a good one, and I don't think it very charitable to declare all of contemporary feminism flawed because some, *not all*, feminists are making a hasty generalization. 2. This one is easy; a tree is not a moral agent with a duty to respect your autonomy, so getting drunk and crashing into a tree is entirely your fault. However, a person who wants to have sex with you *is* a moral agent with a duty to respect your autonomy, and if such a person decides to fuck you while your capacity for rational decision making has been subverted by alcohol, they are raping you. So comparing a drunk driving accident to being raped while intoxicated is a disanalogy. Feminists see this bad comparison made *a lot*, so you're not alone in this error. It's like the [Wasson selection task](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7NE7apn-PA) of feminist thought. 3. If you ask feminists about the draft, most will give you a two pronged answer; first, that women should be allowed to serve in the military in any capacity in which they are able, including combat, and second, that nobody should be forced to serve against their will. That's an implicit argument that the draft is unjust, so essentially you're asking why feminists aren't outraged that women aren't also subjected to this unjust treatment which men are subjected. If they're right that any sort of draft is unjust, and I think they are, then you're asking feminists to beat women down here rather than raise men up, which is a perverted sort of justice if you ask me. You might want to say that feminists should advocate for ending the draft, and that's fine. Problem is, feminist activists tend to be women, and women are perfectly justified in focusing on issues that affect them. They aren't obligated to focus their activism on men's issues. Feminists who are men are perfectly capable of addressing the draft issue, and should do just that. Heck, you could do that yourself, right now! Alright, so to wrap this up; if you approach feminism in good faith and in a non-facile way, you're going to find that the project as a whole is not at all flawed or hypocritical. Unfortunately, it's pretty obvious your exposure to feminism has been via the bad faith arguments typical of the MRA/redpill/etc. movements. I highly recommend learning about feminism from sources that aren't explicitly hostile to it. Read bell hooks' [*Feminism is for Everybody*](http://www.amazon.com/Feminism-Everybody-bell-hooks/dp/0745317332), it's a really great intro to feminism, especially for people like you who have been exposed to it uncharitably. e: Also, I'm only going to reply to OP.

[bmoreraven]

These are all really good points. I suppose having lived in a particularly liberal area, I have been exposed to a lot of super-feminists and just assumed they were all like that. Feminism described as "Raising women up" makes perfect sense. I guess Im used to feminism that lowers men, which is where I get frustrated. ∆ One thing though about your second point. [STA-CITE]> if such a person decides to fuck you while your capacity for rational decision making has been subverted by alcohol, they are raping you [END-CITE]This wasn't exactly what I meant. I think this scenario that you are referring to implies one of the "moral agents" be in a sober state of mind. I was referring to a case where perhaps both parties were equally intoxicated. Then what happens?

[thor_moleculez]

Being drunk doesn't mitigate your moral responsibility to respect another person's autonomy, so both parties being drunk doesn't change much.

[bmoreraven]

I think you missed my point. If both parties are equally drunk then its not fair to claim that one of them is at fault and the other is a victim

[thor_moleculez]

Oh, that's what you're trying to say. Whomever feels as though they would not have consented if they were sober was raped. That might be one or both parties. Or neither!

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/thor_moleculez. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/thor_moleculez)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][/r/DeltaBot]

[awa64]

[STA-CITE]> According to the United States Selective Service Act, all men between ages 18-25 are required to register for the draft and may be picked for military service if the draft were to be implemented. Why are feminists all over the country not outraged about this? [END-CITE]Because it's been 40 years since there's been a draft and no sign of a reason why there'd be a return to the practice. It's like being outraged over the [Texas Obscene Device Law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_obscenity_statute)—yes, it's ridiculous and worth objecting to/fighting over when it does come up, but it doesn't come up often enough to make it a focal-point issue.

[Enchanted_Bunny]

1. It's wrong to hit anybody. Men *shouldn't* ever lay a hand on a woman nor should they lay their hand on a man. And when feminists are talking about equality they're not making the claim that women are as physically strong on average as men. They're talking about equal value as a human being in society, not physical prowess. 2. "Perhaps I have misunderstood something but if a guy and a girl are both under the influence and they decide to have sex, the girl can then decide the next day that maybe it wasn't a good idea and that the guy should have known better. The guy is then facing rape charges." Is this what really happens most often? Or, is it more often the case that the female is drunk, the man is not, and he takes advantage of the situation. Two drunk people having a one-night stand does not result in rape charges nearly as often as one sober and one drunk/unconscious person does. 3. First of all, there are feminist groups such as SWAN (Service Women's Action Network) who push for female-inclusion in Selective Service. Second, the Draft is not a relevant issue today. Neither you nor anyone else is going to be drafted any time soon. Feminist groups--like any politically-active group--typically focus on *relevant* issues that actually affect people. So it's no wonder you don't see a lot of attention placed on it by feminist groups because at this point it doesn't really affect anyone one way or the other. Yes, men have to sign up for it, but it's only a relic of a system that is no longer used. If people were actively drafted and the majority of feminists supported the current system, you might have a point. But since the draft is not something that is likely to happen any time in the near future, you can't really blame feminists for wanting focus on more relevant issues. It's difficult to address your problems with feminism because you haven't brought up any specific examples of mainstream feminists. You have no citations. There are also multiple schools of thought on feminism so I don't know if you're attacking intersectional feminism, third-wave feminism, both, neither, etc.

[yertles]

To be honest, I don't think there is a good answer to this one that doesn't ultimately boil down to having the cake and eating it too. The only thing that really makes sense as a response to this is that feminism is, at it's core, about advancing women's issues. The logical framework for advancing that idea is that everyone should be equal, but it is about making progress on issues where women are disadvantaged in some way to men, so your 3rd point isn't all that relevant; feminists might agree, in theory, that there are some areas where men are disadvantaged but they are not going to advocate for those issues to any noticeable extent because that isn't what the movement is about. You have to remember that feminism has a very large political/agend-ized component to it and the ultimate goal isn't to be as ideologically consistent as possible with regards to "equality", which is why you don't see feminists going to bat for "men's rights" issues. There is a reason why many feminists prefer to be called feminist than egalitarian; the focus is on women's issues.

[Momentumle]

[STA-CITE]> There is a reason why many feminists prefer to be called feminist than egalitarian [END-CITE]One problem with using egalitarian is that also has many ties to distributive justice. Something not every feminist necessarily agrees with.

[bmoreraven]

Hmm. I suppose I equated feminism with gender equality. I guess when I think of MRA they only focus on the mens issues rather than women. ∆ However this seems to only apply to my draft argument. They simply haven't addressed the issue. However with domestic abuse and rape issues feminists have taken a stance and I dont think it can coexist with men and women being equal.

[yertles]

I don't disagree that mainstream positions on issues like that can definitely be a little inconsistent, but again you have to remember feminism is primarily about women's rights. Your rape example, yes there is definitely a double standard. Double standards aren't equality. An even better example for your first one - female on male domestic violence. There's a huge double-standard there but you don't see advocacy for that in the larger feminist community because it isn't a women's issue, which in large part supersedes the fact that there are some highly inequitable issues in our society. Many/most feminists will pay lip service to those kinds of issues, but the proof is in the pudding - the fact that there isn't really any *action* on those issues shows you that it is really about (beneficial) equality *for women*, not just "equality" as an altruistic goal.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/yertles. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/yertles)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][/r/DeltaBot]

[bananaruth]

I think the problem you're having is that you are assuming that along with feminism making life equally good for women, feminism also seeks (or should seek) to make it equally shitty. Imagine this scenario: You give two little kids ice cream cones. The first one drops theirs before getting to take a bite. To make it fair and equal, you decide to knock second kid's cone to the ground. WTF? Why would you do that? Why would you chose to make the situation worse for either kid? Along that line of thinking, it makes zero sense to advocate for it being okay to hit women or for women needing to register for the draft or to try to revoke the idea that a woman being drunk does not allow for consent. The vast majority of feminists think the draft is wrong, that consent is mutual, and that it is wrong for anyone to hit anyone. But, being feminists, their focus is on womens issues and the issues you describe above are really mens issues - men should not be hit, men cannot consent while drunk, men should not have to register for the draft. That's not to say that feminists don't care about mens issues, but it isn't their main focus. Complaining about that is like complaining that because you support a local food pantry you don't care about starving children in third world countries. You can care about both problems.

[bmoreraven]

Just to clarify, I in no way "advocate for it being okay to hit women or for women needing to register for the draft or to try to revoke the idea that a woman being drunk does not allow for consent" So I guess my issue is not that I expect that women's rights groups would advocate for the men's issues, just that you can't say that both genders are equal and then also say that women should be treated differently in rape and domestic abuse cases

[bananaruth]

[STA-CITE]> just that you can't say that both genders are equal and then also say that women should be treated differently in rape and domestic abuse cases [END-CITE]But they aren't saying that. That was my whole point. They are saying "women should not get hit". This in no way means or implies "it's okay if women hit men or men hit men". They are not asking for women to be treated differently. They are advocating for women to be treated *well* (which happens to be how everyone should be treated).

[BadKeyMachine]

I'm not necessarily inclined to argue that I perfectly agree with every common feminist ideology, but to address in particular your three points. 1. *most* feminists, and people, acknowledge that there is a discrepancy between the average strength/height/etc. of men and women, and this is one of several reasons why *domestic* violence(not what Rice hitting one of his teammates would be) has a particular stigma attached to it. I don't know much about Rice's wife, but I would guess that Rice, being a pro football, is able to hurt her physically in a way she is likely not able to hurt him. There is a video of this (don't watch it), it's not the equivalent of dudes beefing and trading punches or wrestling on the ground on the locker room(which would be shitty and childish). It's a man who takes a swing and knocks a woman out cold, and then drags her out of the elevator, appearing to be annoyed that she's being "dramatic" about it. Additionally, domestic violence's particular stigma goes back to its history, where not that long ago at all degrees of domestic violence against women were very accepted in society at large. This is no longer explicitly true in the way it was because of the work of - among others - feminists. 2. I would have to see the video you're referring to to have a real opinion on it, but suffice it to say if campus rape is a problem(and evidence suggests it is), it is appropriate to talk to men about sexual assault if there is a pattern of men sexually assaulting women on campus. This doesn't mean men as a gender are bad guys, of course...that would be absurd. You should not feel targeted by this unless you have intentions of raping or taking advantage of someone, or believe those things are "normal." Again, though, I would really have to see the video to tell you what about it I agree or disagree with. 3. Your average feminist is not going to fight to extend the reach of a program they very likely fundamentally disagree with. In fact, the only reason women can join the military in America in an official capacity at all is because groups of women demanded it. On matter of pure technicality, I agree that women should be a part of the draft, but much more importantly I would not want legislators or any movement to work to increase the scope of a service that I disagree with fundamentally and that modern warfare suggests will never be invoked again(with any luck).

[AutoModerator]

**Note:** Your thread has **not** been removed. Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our [wiki page](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/feminism#link) or via the [search function](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/search?q=feminism&restrict_sr=on). Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*

[UncleMeat]

[STA-CITE]> Why are feminists all over the country not outraged about this? Shouldn't it be men AND women that are required to register for the draft? [END-CITE]How about neither? NOW opposes the draft, by the way.

[CatRelatedUsername]

And what would you say to those who support the selective service?

[BenIncognito]

Stop supporting old and outdated ideas.

[CatRelatedUsername]

For someone with 61 deltas, I'd have expected something a little more compelling.

[Izanagi1221]

If someone supports Selective Service, they can serve themselves. Your question is like asking "But what about the people who want women to stay home and be housewives?" Both questions presume that people's political views entitle them to remove other people's agency.

[CatRelatedUsername]

You realize the purpose of the selective service, right? There exists the potential for the country to need to call on those who are able bodied to contribute to a war effort, and as citizens we need to respect that. Why should you be able to take advantage of the fruits of citizenship without also acknowledging that your rights must sometimes be defended, even at great inconvenience to you?

[Izanagi1221]

Yes, because the Vietnam war was something the United States needed /s. The United States hasn't engaged in a defensive war since WWII, the exception being our unbelievably incompetent and politically motivated response to 9/11. My rights haven't been "defended" since WWII either, since nobody has had even a remote chance of taking over the US since it developed the atomic bomb. In cases where there is an actual threat to the US, we would have more than enough volunteers to fight at full strength (2.2 soldiers volunteered by 1941 in WWII). There is absolutely no need for an obsolete, immoral, politically disastrous, sexist policy like the draft to exist when we have enough military strength to decimate any foreign power that deluded itself into thinking it could survive a war with the United States without being leveled. Not to mention, using the draft would cause greater turmoil in this country than any attack short of nuclear war.

[CatRelatedUsername]

[STA-CITE]>Yes, because the Vietnam war was something the United States needed /s. The United States hasn't engaged in a defensive war since WWII, the exception being our unbelievably incompetent and politically motivated response to 9/11. My rights haven't been "defended" since WWII either, since nobody has had even a remote chance of taking over the US since it developed the atomic bomb. [END-CITE]You're conflating misuse of the draft with the draft itself being bad, when in reality those are separate issues. You are entirely within your rights (and also entirely correct) to think that the draft has been misused in the past, but it doesn't logically follow that the draft *in and of itself* should be removed as an institution, seeing as it still conceivably has a use. It's like saying knives are bad because they can kill people, so we should ban all knives.

[Izanagi1221]

No, my point is that the draft has been misused, is immoral, *and* is unnecessary, all of which are reasons why it should be abolished. It gives politicians the power to force unwilling men into unpopular, unnecessary wars while reinforcing the idea that men are supposed to risk death in exchange for their citizenship, and it is unnecessary given the *massive* size of our military (which outspends the next 13 or so nations combined).

[UncleMeat]

Are there feminist groups that explicitly support the draft? I'd say they are foolish for supporting bad government policy. "What about the draft" never felt like a good criticism of feminism to me.

[CatRelatedUsername]

[STA-CITE]>I'd say they are foolish for supporting bad government policy. [END-CITE]Why is it foolish? You can support the idea of the selective service, while also acknowledging that there is the potential for it to be abused. [STA-CITE]>"What about the draft" never felt like a good criticism of feminism to me. [END-CITE]And most of us who support the idea of the draft take your "answer" as dodging the question; it avoids having to deal with an area where women are generally deficient in comparison to men, through no fault of their own. The entire argument as to whether or not the draft should exist is ancillary, and unrelated, so I'll ask more directly; if the democratic majority wanted the draft to stay in place, but didn't want women to serve, what would be your response?

[Aclopolipse]

[STA-CITE]> And most of us who support the idea of the draft take your "answer" as dodging the question; it avoids having to deal with an area where women are generally deficient in comparison to men, through no fault of their own. [END-CITE]I don't think that dodging the question was intended here. OP asked why feminists aren't concerned about the draft, and UncleMeat pointed to a prominent feminist organization which, indeed, has a decidedly anti-draft position, meaning no selective service for women or men.

[CatRelatedUsername]

I wasn't actually accusing them of dodging in that post (I may have phrased it as a more direct accusation, though), just pointing out that it feels like a cop-out. It presumes that both parties agree that the draft is a bad thing, with no allowances for a world in which the draft and feminism can coexist. Many of us would like to hear their stance on what precisely they would do if they couldn't get rid of the selective service, and simply saying "but the draft is bad" isn't really an answer at that point.

[Aclopolipse]

Okay, now I see what you're getting at. Though I could only speak for myself as a feminist, I do think that the two can co-exist, but the draft would need some reforming first. As in, allow more people to be drafted into non-mainline infantry roles, allowing the vast majority of women who can't make it as foot soldiers, as well as people over 25, to be easily put into military work. Ideally, if it has to exist, the draft would function as a check for "hawkish" leaders - people will be a lot less likely to vote for a guy who wants war in some faraway land if they themselves may be pulled from their peaceful lives and sent to said faraway land. And in order to accomplish that purpose, as many people need to draft-able as possible.

[CatRelatedUsername]

[STA-CITE]>Though I could only speak for myself as a feminist, I do think that the two can co-exist, but the draft would need some reforming first. As in, allow more people to be drafted into non-mainline infantry roles, allowing the vast majority of women who can't make it as foot soldiers, as well as people over 25, to be easily put into military work. [END-CITE]And that's a fair response (fairer than I've gotten from others, at least), but you still have blatant inequality. The men will still be put into front-line positions, and will still be doing the lion's share of the fighting and dying.

[UncleMeat]

I don't know of any feminist groups that explicitly support keeping the draft exactly as it is. If they exist, I'd be interested in hearing about it. As it stands, I'm only aware of groups that either have no stance or take a stance that affects men and women equally. This either means ending the draft or having women sign up for selective service. Feminist groups tend to focus on problems that affect women. But does that make them hypocrites? If there exist problems in the world caused by gender roles and feminists are not actively working on every single one of these problems are they hypocrites?

[CatRelatedUsername]

[STA-CITE]>I don't know of any feminist groups that explicitly support keeping the draft exactly as it is. If they exist, I'd be interested in hearing about it. [END-CITE]And that's neat, but you're still dodging the question; I'm not asking for their response, I'm asking for *yours*. You're (implicitly) an adult, who can draw their own conclusions based off of a mix of reasonable evidence, personal beliefs, and past experience. So I'll ask again; if the democratic majority wanted the draft to stay in place, but didn't want women to serve, what would be your response? [STA-CITE]>Feminist groups tend to focus on problems that affect women. [END-CITE]So, then this runs counter to the claim that feminists are egalitarian in nature, doesn't it? There's nothing wrong with focusing on women's issues, but many of the more virulent MRAs started off as guys who were annoyed at feminists claiming to be something they're not. I know; I've watched those seeds sprout within 4chan over the last few years. Edit: Oh look, now I'm being downvoted for asking a question.

[waldrop02]

I'm not /u/UncleMeat, but here's my response: I disagree with the majority, and feel that there is a potential argument for the unconstitutionality of the draft. The majority supported (and I realize this is an extreme example) slavery, but that doesn't make it any more acceptable, and wouldn't make it any more acceptable if the slavery wasn't based on race.

[CatRelatedUsername]

[STA-CITE]>I disagree with the majority [END-CITE]Yes, we already know that, but that's not what I've been asking. [STA-CITE]>unconstitutionality of the draft [END-CITE]The draft has repeatedly been found to be constitutional by the SCOTUS. It isn't remotely comparable to slavery. More telling, though, is the SCOTUS ruling in Rostker v. Goldberg in 1981, where they stated that Congress's "decision to exempt women was not the accidental byproduct of a traditional way of thinking about women", that "since women are excluded from combat service by statute or military policy, men and women are simply not similarly situated for purposes of a draft or registration for a draft, and Congress' decision to authorize the registration of only men therefore does not violate the Due Process Clause", and that "the argument for registering women was based on considerations of equity, but Congress was entitled, in the exercise of its constitutional powers, to focus on the question of military need, rather than 'equity.'" So what is your response to their ruling? Not to mention the fact that your example has a problem; slavery is still allowed, so long as it is as a punishment following conviction, which ostensibly is not race-based.

[waldrop02]

[STA-CITE]> Yes, we already know that, but that's not what I've been asking. [END-CITE]To expand, I would continue, as I do now, to focus my resources and time on the abolishing of the draft, rather than expanding it to include more people. [STA-CITE]>So what is your response to their ruling? [END-CITE]I disagree with the ruling, as well. It relies on the assumption that excluding women from combat roles is also a valid policy choice and constitutional, which is an assertion I disagree with as well.

[UncleMeat]

If the draft must exist then I would be against it being just for men. But I also think that it isn't an incredibly high priority thing, since it seems very unlikely that an actual draft will be called in the foreseeable future. In a very loose sense, focusing on the problems facing women before focusing on the problems facing men runs counter to the claim that feminists are egalitarian. In general, I think that feminists would say that many of the problems men face are caused by gender roles. By focusing on eliminating forced gender roles, feminism will help men as a nice added bonus. I don't think that many feminist groups are *explicitly* focusing on problems facing men but I don't think its unreasonable to say that women (in general) are more oppressed by gender roles than men.

[CatRelatedUsername]

[STA-CITE]>If the draft must exist then I would be against it being just for men. But I also think that it isn't an incredibly high priority thing... [END-CITE]So equality isn't a high priority on your list? [STA-CITE]>By focusing on eliminating forced gender roles, feminism will help men as a nice added bonus. I don't think that many feminist groups are explicitly focusing on problems facing men [END-CITE]Then what is so wrong about the MRAs? So many feminists object to them simply on principle, without being willing to listen to their ideas.

[UncleMeat]

[STA-CITE]> So equality isn't a high priority on your list? [END-CITE]Come on. There is a limited number of problems that I can work on at a given time. I think that the draft is a problem in principle but that it is incredibly unlikely to actually harm anybody in the foreseeable future. To me, that means that its reasonable to focus on other areas of equality first. It doesn't mean that I don't value equality. Its also not really politically feasible right now. Gender roles are still so strong in our society that there is no way that activists could get women signed up for the draft. Better to spend effort elsewhere and address the problem later. I *also* don't think the draft is a good idea in the first place so I'm not a big fan of efforts to reform it. I'd rather just see effort to end it entirely. [STA-CITE]> Then what is so wrong about the MRAs? So many feminists object to them simply on principle, without being willing to listen to their ideas. [END-CITE]As a broad generalization, MRAs don't tend to be working towards the same goal as feminists (dismantling gender roles) but from a different angle (by focusing on problems facing men). The most visible MRA bloggers and writers tend to be extremely hostile to feminism. Its a little weird to focus on random bloggers but, unlike feminism, there doesn't seem to be a strong academic foundation for MRAs. With feminism you can point to papers and books written by feminists and organized activist groups for a solid basis of what modern feminism is. With MRAs you are (mostly) stuck with what a few de facto leaders write online. I don't have a problem with the principle of people focusing on how gender roles harm men. I have a big problem with the current execution that seems to be more focused on opposing feminism.

[ivorystar]

[Case in point.](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2ygdlk/cmv_im_a_man_who_finds_mra_more_irritating_than/) For a lot of people there's a sentiment that MRAs are not actually men's rights activists because they spend far too much time complaining about feminism instead of focusing on men's issues as proven by many, many of the responses in the thread. In the same way that people complain about 'tumblrina feminists', many mras I have encountered have the rhetoric of 'we live in a feminist society' and when pointed out that a huge majority of our leaders are men, they respond with 'they're all feminists'...that's just jumping into conspiracy theory land, especially when there's bill after bill being introduced in an attempt to abolish abortion.

[CatRelatedUsername]

[STA-CITE]>Come on. There is a limited number of problems that I can work on at a given time. I think that the draft is a problem in principle but that it is incredibly unlikely to actually harm anybody in the foreseeable future. [END-CITE]And do you not see the problem here, in the eyes of those who would disagree with you? You are giving preferential treatment to one group over another. You are committing a necessary evil (in much the same way that I would view the draft) simply because of the realities that we are faced with and the way that our world works. Just because it is necessary does not mean we should be have to be silent about opposing it, and just because it is evil doesn't mean it should not be done. [STA-CITE]>As a broad generalization, MRAs don't tend to be working towards the same goal as feminists (dismantling gender roles) but from a different angle (by focusing on problems facing men). The most visible MRA bloggers and writers tend to be extremely hostile to feminism. [END-CITE]But (aside from the later academic argument), don't you realize that the same criticism can be said of tumblr feminists? In both cases, we're working with stereotypes of groups that may or may not hold up to reality. [STA-CITE]>I have a big problem with the current execution that seems to be more focused on opposing feminism. [END-CITE]That you *observe* to be focused on opposing feminism. Just as you would probably state that many MRAs have a skewed view of feminism, is it not inconceivable that you could be subject to the exact same (but reversed) problem?

[supertyler898]

I think for the most part that the draft today isn't really much of an issue becuase I think any war that actually enacts the draft probably will kill most everyone anyway. HOWEVER, it is important to note that the draft was a huge justification for universal male suffrage while universal female suffrage (50 years after too I think) had no such obligations. That's why the draft matters.

[UncleMeat]

I don't think its controversial to say that people should be able to vote even if they cannot be drafted...

[supertyler898]

That's not the point. The point is removing the assumption that men were historically privileged while women were historically oppressed. If one group of people obtains a privilege for free that another group has to DIE for are they really oppressed?

[UncleMeat]

Yes, because the modern understanding of oppression isn't some scale where everything sums up into a single number. The draft is only a problem in principle. Basically everybody agrees that it isn't a credible threat to men for the foreseeable future. There are worse problems facing *men* right now, let alone women.

[Aclopolipse]

Who are you pointing to as your "feminists" here? I'm honestly curious. Are they young, impassioned idealists from websites like tumblr or reddit? Are they pop culture commentators, like Rachel Maddow or Anita Sarkeesian? Are they established feminist authors with an academic presence? Do you know whether or not they're even feminists at all? I don't ask for the sake of being rude - I ask because it's very common, especially with the state of social media allowing you to be selective in who and what you follow, that a non-feminist has little exposure to feminism or feminist thought, and only sees feminist opinions through a few sources, if not just one, none of which may be feminist themselves (r/tumblrinaction regulars, I'm looking at you). The result of this is a person whose entire idea of what feminists are and what they want is assumed from something not indicative of the whole, especially if the source(s) are considered fringe by feminists themselves (shoutout to the TERFs).

[RU_Crazy]

How about those gender studies "professors" that convince their impressionable students that the regrettable sex they had was actually rape? How about Jon Stewart? Watching any of his shows from the past 5-7 years is vomit inducing - this coming from a guy who watched nearly every episode for a solid decade. There's only so much male bashing people can take before you just say fuck it and group the whole lot of them together. Its a natural reaction to the cesspool western media has become. I don't think we truly appreciate how hostile the media is toward me because we essentially take it for granted. Its utterly ubiquitous. Essentially every male in the news or in media is portrayed as either masculine (out of touch and an enemy) or androgynous/feminine (look how modern he is!!). For the better part of 40 years we've been telling boys they are defective; their natural instincts are immoral; and girls are superior. And then you see an outpouring of women asking: where have all the confident men gone? Gee I wonder...

[CatRelatedUsername]

[STA-CITE]>Are they young, impassioned idealists from websites like tumblr or reddit? Are they pop culture commentators, like Rachel Maddow or Anita Sarkeesian? Are they established feminist authors with an academic presence? Do you know whether or not they're even feminists at all? [END-CITE]inb4 "no true scotsman" 3rd wave feminism is flailing around for much the same reason as Occupy Wall Street died out; they can't excise the individuals who've coopted their movement and corrupted the message with raw crazy. Edit: Downvotes? Really?

[RU_Crazy]

When the majority of the people who adopt a particular insignia are "not true" to the movement you must pause and reevaluate whether your definition of the movement no longer comports with reality. Does it make more sense (from a logical or practical level) to adjust your internal understanding of the definition or to tell the rest of the world to start calling themselves by a different name?

[CatRelatedUsername]

When both parties identify and define themselves in the same way, does it not make them the same group? With feminism, the general guideline is the "advancement of equality between the sexes," and which obviously (and understandably) pay deference to women over men, but the application of that guideline is *incredibly* varied, some of which leads to decent people, and some of which does not. That is all anyone has ever described feminism as, either within or without the movement.

[Aclopolipse]

It's good that you mention no true scotsman, because that's the root issue with the difficulty you're describing. It's extremely difficult to weed out troublesome individuals from a movement that has no central authority, no primary organization, and no clearly defined criteria for membership, especially in a society where literally any literate person with internet access has a voice. You can't have someone who is *not* a true feminist, because nobody has the authority to say that they aren't.

[CatRelatedUsername]

[STA-CITE]>You can't have someone who is not a true feminist, because nobody has the authority to say that they aren't. [END-CITE]See, this is why I prefer 4chan; step out of line, and you get eaten alive by the other users.

[Vacation_Flu]

[STA-CITE]> Do you know whether or not they're even feminists at all? [END-CITE]According to who's definition? Edit: I can only assume the downvotes are coming from people who believe theirs is the only definition, and anyone who has a different definition isn't really a Scotsman- I mean, feminist.

[HOU_Civil_Econ]

Here is the mainstream (as in 95% (large number pulled out of the air) of the population) feminist position on these three issues 1. Violence is not okay no matter the gender of perpetrator/victim unless used to stop the unjustified violence of another 2. Sex without consent is rape no matter the gender of the perpetrator/victim 3. FUCK THE DRAFT You have fallen victim to two separate things. Weakman fallacy: Yes there are people who claim to be feminist who hold the views you post. There are a small percentage of nutters who claim every label we have ever decided to use. Confirmation bias: You are going to notice every time some nutter makes one of the original claims. Why would you bother taking note of a feminist who makes my claims. TL;DR, yes there are fringe nutters who call them selves feminists who make the claims from your OP. People stating sane Feminist positions don't make the news.

[TheLeftIncarnate]

[STA-CITE]>Here is the mainstream (as in 95% (large number pulled out of the air) of the population) feminist position on these three issues [END-CITE][STA-CITE]>1. Violence is not okay no matter the gender of perpetrator/victim unless used to stop the unjustified violence of another [END-CITE]This is not a specifically feminist position. The feminist position sees a continuation of institutional violence in interpersonal violence, and depending on context denies female violence is violence at all or always defensive. See the position of NOW on domestic violence for a simple introduction. [STA-CITE]>2. Sex without consent is rape no matter the gender of the perpetrator/victim [END-CITE]This is also false. In reality mainstream feminist thought acknowledges rape of men only if perpetrated by another men via penetration. Mary Koss, who literally informed the FBI definition of rape, is on record saying that women can not rape men. This is also the most prevalent view of the general public. [STA-CITE]>You have fallen victim to two separate things. [END-CITE][STA-CITE]>Weakman fallacy: Yes there are people who claim to be feminist who hold the views you post. There are a small percentage of nutters who claim every label we have ever decided to use. [END-CITE]They are academic and public institutions. Most catholics don't think they are literally eating the boy of Christ in communion, but that's Catholic dogma. Ignorance on the part of "catholics" doesn't change catholicism, especially die to the hierarchical power structure of the church. Feminism is similar. Here's the difference between your feminism and actual feminism: yours is institutionally irrelevant. If OP should be hit by his spouse and call the police, it is predominant aggressor policy and remnants of the duluth model that will make it so that he'll be arrested. If he was raped by a woman, it'll be rape as patriarchal oppression and sex as violence theories that negate his experience. It won't be your nice "violence is wrong" and "anybody can be raped" feminism, it will be the above.

[BigHarryDeal]

[STA-CITE]> Yes there are people who claim to be feminist who hold the views you post. There are a small percentage of nutters who claim every label we have ever decided to use. [END-CITE]Or, "yes, but no *true* Scotsman....." [STA-CITE]> Sex without **consent** is rape no matter the gender of the perpetrator/victim. [END-CITE]Everyone agrees with that statement. However, there is much debate about the definition of the bolded word.

[Celda]

[STA-CITE]>Sex without consent is rape no matter the gender of the perpetrator/victim. [END-CITE][STA-CITE]>Everyone agrees with that statement. [END-CITE][No](https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3i395g/this_is_how_mary_p_koss_one_of_the_most_prominent/cud097h). If a woman drugs a man and has penis-in-vagina sex while he's unconscious? That is not rape, it is unwanted contact - according to Mary Koss.

[thor_moleculez]

[STA-CITE]> Or, "yes, but no true Scotsman....." [END-CITE]That's not a charitable interpretation of what the person you quoted was trying to say. The weakman fallacy points at your interlocutor's uncharitable emphasis on the weaker arguments made in the name of your platform that don't enjoy your platform's full endorsement. HOU_Civil_Econ is essentially saying, "OP, to justify your condemnation of all contemporary feminism by pointing at the minority of fringe feminist ideologues is just shoddy thinking."

[Javalavadingdong]

[STA-CITE]>Here is the mainstream (as in 95% (large number pulled out of the air) of the population) feminist position on these three issues Violence is not okay no matter the gender of perpetrator/victim unless used to stop the unjustified violence of another Sex without consent is rape no matter the gender of the perpetrator/victim FUCK THE DRAFT [END-CITE]Citation needed, I feel like you just made these stats up.

[very_old_guy]

[STA-CITE]> Sex without consent is rape no matter the gender of the perpetrator/victim [END-CITE]If a man and a woman are both drunk and have sex, and they both regret it the next day, are they both guilty of rape?

[Enchanted_Bunny]

I think not, because for one, we are still liable in the legal sense for what we do when we're drunk. There is also the principle of dominance to take into account. Generally, we don't see an 18-year-old having sex with this 17-year-old girlfriend as something that is as bad as, say, a 40-year-old having sex with a 12-year-old. The former example is just an example of "teens being teens." Though the boy was older, the age difference is not enough to be considered a form of dominance over the girl. It's different with the latter example. The man is experienced in life and is fully developed mentally. The girl is inexperienced and can easily be manipulated. This is the crux of why child molestation is wrong. Because children have not developed enough mentally and emotionally to understand truly the implications of sex, but the adult *has* and has the responsibility not to use the child for his own pleasure. At the heart of why we find this wrong is the *power differential.* A stronger, more developed individual is *taking advantage* of a weaker individual. If two 12-year-olds engage in sexual activity, then--while we might find it alarming--we tend to see it as experimentation between two ignorant children, and it warrants discussion and correction, not punishment. This is because the power differential is equal. The case of a drunk man and woman having sex is the same. Both parties have had their inhibitions knocked out by alcohol, thus the power differential is equal. Sex is probably a bad idea at this point, but if it happens, it is not rape. In the case of a man who is sober with a woman who is drunk, the power dynamic changes. Now, the man is at an advantage because he has his faculties intact. If he were to have sex with the drunk woman, it would be taking advantage of his greater power over his faculties, and thus would be considered rape. The same goes with a sober woman and a drunk man, by the way.

[very_old_guy]

I completely agree with your moral position on all points. The issue arises when the law holds the man accountable for drunken sexual behavior, but not the woman. I guess it varies by jurisdiction but I believe that's quite often how the law works. And, AFAIK, modern feminism broadly supports that law.

[Enchanted_Bunny]

What makes you think modern feminism supports this? I'm not trying to be glib, just asking sincerely.

[very_old_guy]

I've just seen that point defended pretty fiercely quite a few times by self-proclaimed feminists. Just casual observation in other words.

[shinkouhyou]

I think the mainstream feminist position is "it's really hard to tell and it's best to never be in a position where you have to ask that question." Sometimes it's possible to go back and re-analyze the situation to determine whether a rape/assault occurred, and sometimes it's not.

[yertles]

It is a point of debate, but I don't know if it is closer to OPs position being a weakman, or yours being a no-true-scotsman... And, conveniently, confirmation bias is going to play heavily into which one you think it is on either side.

[HOU_Civil_Econ]

You're correct about weakman vs. no true scotsman I believe confirmation bias is wholly on my side. No newspaper outside the Onion is going to go with the headline "Feminist says sensible things". Even if they did people saying sensible things is wholly unremarkable and thus unlikely to be remembered. I realize that my argument is not really much of an argument. I just hope to get OP to think about whether his view of feminist thought is coming from outrage porn clickbait titled "look at what stupid random thing this twitter user said in the name of 'feminism'".

[bmoreraven]

Actually most of what I read about feminism isn't bashing it. Rather, its articles or posts I see (mostly on twitter and facebook) from old friends who I have to believe think that all men are out to rape and beat women. They seem to all want gender equality and at the same time *special* treatment for women. The two are mutually exclusive Basically the way I see domestic abuse issues is that a man should never hit woman and that is because men *in general,*are naturally stronger than women and could hurt a woman more than she could hurt him. However I would guarantee these facebook warriors would refute me on the second part of that.

[ChefExcellence]

[STA-CITE]>Basically the way I see domestic abuse issues is that a man should never hit woman and that is because men in general,are naturally stronger than women and could hurt a woman more than she could hurt him. [END-CITE]I'm not clear on the point you're making here. Are you simply saying men shouldn't hit women, and if so what does that have to do with feminism? "Equal rights, equal lefts" is a view usually espoused by anti-feminist MRA types.

[Vacation_Flu]

[STA-CITE]> "Equal rights, equal lefts" is a view usually espoused by anti-feminist MRA types. [END-CITE]Not sure why that would matter. Just because something is believed by bad people doesn't mean it's *wrong*. I'm sure they also agree that Lincoln is the state capital of Nebraska, but the legislative building isn't going to move to Omaha because of that. I'm no MRA, but if you get clobbered in a fist fight *you* started, you aren't going to get much sympathy from me. Especially if you started a fight with somebody bigger than you. That's not changed by the gender configuration involved.

[ChefExcellence]

I think you may have misunderstood my comment - I wasn't expressing my opinion one way or another (For the most part I agree with you, for what it's worth), I was just confused as to how the bit I quoted relates to OP's view on feminism.

[Vacation_Flu]

Ah, I see. Well, I'm not OP, but I have encountered my share of self-proclaimed feminists who, when pressed, have outright said that a man should never hit a woman even in self-defense for the *exact* reason you quoted. I have no idea how prevalent that view is among modern-day feminists, so it would be wrong of me to ascribe that view to feminism in general. But if the majority of feminists OP encounters are anything like the ones I know, that could easily make a person think it's something that "feminists believe".

[yertles]

I agree, it's definitely something that needs to be considered, but confirmation bias can also work in the other direction. It may not be from internet articles, because like you say, that isn't sensationalized, but if your experience and general attitude is that "feminists are normally level-headed and reasonable", then you will tend to re-enforce that idea when you see examples of it and discount examples to the contrary as "vocal minority". I think both sides are guilty of it, but to be realistic, OP's "side" probably falls victim to it moreso. However, the sheer frequency and absurdity of some examples of what many call the "vocal minority" does lend some credence to the idea that it isn't just a made-up boogeyman; there are enough people out there presenting things this way that it seems unlikely that it is just a small fringe thing. Obviously there isn't any way to measure or quantify that, it is just based on personal experiences but those are still valid and do indicate the true state of things to a certain degree.

[Bunyardz]

[STA-CITE]>(as in 95% (large number pulled out of the air) of the population) [END-CITE]This is the only problem I have with what you're saying. I know people who identify as feminist and who fully believe the three things you listed, but "I am a feminist" is a simple sentence that can be said by any idiot who so chooses. In the majority of my interactions with self proclaimed feminists, nearly all of them are much more concerned with elevating women's status rather than achieving an egalitarian society. The first time we hear the word "feminism", most of us are in an elementary classroom, and we're not taught that feminism is a gender-neutral movement for social change, we're taught that it is a movement based on the advancement of women's rights, a belief system that claims to want an egalitarian society, but that assumes that the majority of inequality exists in the form of oppression specifically of women. Ultimately I think this really comes down to how we define feminism. Is feminism an academic definition as written down by a team of well respected sociologists? Or can feminism be understood as the aggregate beliefs and actions of everyone who says "Im a feminist" ? I think people will readily come to defend the academic definition of feminism which basically states that feminism wants equality for men and women, and that gender issues are important on both sides of the spectrum. It would be hard to have a problem with feminism if we define it like that. However I think people who have a problem with feminism specifically have a problem with the alleged proponents of feminism, who very clearly are more likely to be biased towards women's issues. It is true that in spirit, Feminism is supposed to be about equality and justice for all, but when we make claims like "95 % of all feminists are concerned with equality in equal measure for both men and women" , we are being dishonest to the reality that the majority of people who call themselves feminist are concerned almost exclusively with women's issues. Now you can argue that people like that aren't "true" feminists, but how is a layperson supposed to distinguish between the two? If we looked at the beliefs of everyone who claims to be feminist, we would find that most of them are disproportionately concerned with womens issues. So sure, you could push that group aside and say that they should be ignored, and they arent part of feminism, but they will still go around telling everyone they're feminist, and more and more their beliefs become associated with mainstream feminism, and it eventually becomes impossible for an outside observer to understand what feminism is, since half of it's proponents seem concerned with equality, and the other half is obsessively concerned only with women's rights. "Feminism" in the way you are describing it exists only as an idea, that intelligent, educated, critical-thinking individuals may understand, but ultimately your perception of feminism is not representative of the general beliefs of the millions of people who describe themselves as feminist. If mens issues are truly as important to you as women's issues, why don't you describe yourself as an egalitarian, so there can be no confusion about your beliefs? If you tell someone you're a feminist, there's no way for them to immediately know whether you believe strongly in equality, if youre only concerned with women's issues, or if you're some sort of radical ideologist, all of those people shortsightedly choose to identify themselves under the same blanket term "feminist", making the statement literally as meaningless as saying "I believe in politics" , "I am a feminist" literally does nothing to narrow down exactly what your beliefs are, the only thing that can be said for certain about people who call themselves feminist is that they dont think men are superior to women. Is that belief seriously specific enough that everyone who holds it needs to be grouped together into a single ideological group?

[HOU_Civil_Econ]

Let me know if you feel the following is not a fair summary of your position [STA-CITE]>Because many (if not most, I would agree with that even) feminist focus on ways in which women are harmed, they are not really egalitarian. This is not because they don't hold egalitarian views on issues that negatively men, but solely because they choose not to focus on those issues. [END-CITE]I would describe myself as an egalitarian because I believe that when anyone is held back/harmed based on irrelevant characteristics we are all made worse off. For whatever reason I find that my public commentary is mostly about racial issues. Because I focus on one aspect of egalitarianism would you claim that I am not really egalitarian. It seems like claiming some charity doesn't really want to help people because they only focus on helping hungry/disabled/poor/sick people.

[Bunyardz]

There is definitely logic behind what you're saying but the reason I think it doesnt perfectly apply to feminism is that feminism tries to describe itself as THE global movement for gender equality. As such, as a whole the movement should be equally concerned with men's issues and women's issues. Naturally some people will be more concerned with one or the other, after all people can't possibly focus on every aspect of something they wish to study. You are an egalitarian who happens to focus on race, so one might call you a racial egalitarian. Similarly, one might call a feminist a gender egalitarian. Just as you wouldn't exclusively be concerned with one races issues, a feminist should not exclusively be concerned with women's issues. Egalitarianism requires acknowledging and dealing with inequality on all parts of the spectrum. You could argue that one person could believe in gender equality, but choose to focus on women's issues for the sake of choosing a more specific area of study, and that is a fair point. But when the vast majority of people in a movement that describes itself as egalitarian, focus solely on half of the issues within the movement, although these individuals may still be described as having egalitarian values, the aggregate effect of the movement on society becomes less and less egalitarian, and more biased towards the "segment" of equality that is most commonly focused on within the movement. For a movement or ideology to be truly egalitarian, the proponents must treat all aspects of equality with equal importance, and quite simply put, feminism is a force that claims to be about egalitarianism, but as a whole is more likely to address issues within one half of the spectrum rather than the spectrum as a whole.

[bmoreraven]

[STA-CITE]> Violence is not okay no matter the gender of perpetrator/victim unless used to stop the unjustified violence of another [END-CITE]I agree, however from what I've seen, society thinks its a bigger deal when it is against women. I can't tell you how many posts I have seen about Ray Rice and how "A man should never lay his hand on a woman." Sure. But shouldnt it be "A man should never lay his hand on anyone"? I acknowledge how this can be compared to the Black Lives Matter vs All Lives Matter. Its different though because violence happens all the time *regardless* of gender. I'd bet that theres more men on men violence than men on women (I have nothing to back this up, just an observation). [STA-CITE]> Sex without consent is rape no matter the gender of the perpetrator/victim [END-CITE]So this is where I think people get a little fuzzy. My argument was that two people are drunk and mutually decide to have sex. Obviously if the girl is passed out and the guy tries to have sex then that would be rape. But what about an instance where they both agree to it beforehand, but are both very drunk. Is one of them more culpable than the other the next morning?

[roussell131]

[STA-CITE]> however from what I've seen, society thinks its a bigger deal when it is against women [END-CITE]Society thinks it's more worth talking about, but that's not because it thinks it's a bigger deal. This is the sort of thing that's considered so basic most people don't find it worth saying out loud, but the reasoning is that violence against women (specifically abuse) is way, way more common, and that men are also probably better capable of defending themselves. Not so much because they're physically bigger, although they are, but because the idea that they have the right to be aggressive or violent is ingrained in them in a way it isn't for women. Women are more likely to just let it keep going. This is similar to Black Lives Matter, but not in a way you're thinking. Matt McGorry had a really great, succinct explanation on Twitter: "#BlackLivesMatter doesn't mean other lives don't. Like people who say 'Save The Rainforests' aren't saying 'Fuck All Other Types of Forests.'" That's it in a nutshell. The hubbub around Ray Rice et al has more to do with the *urgency* of the problem than simply how bad it is. If men and women were equally affected, you would hear us talking about them equally. Even if man-on-man violence were more common, and in no way do I think that's a given, it would still be categorically different. If you get a fight with a dude at a bar, that violence doesn't scar you in a way domestic abuse does.

[BigHarryDeal]

[STA-CITE]> violence against women (specifically abuse) is way, way more common [END-CITE]Men are actually much more likely to be assaulted than women. Keep trying.

[chillin223]

Are you claiming much more likely to be assaulted by another man or by a woman?

[bgaesop]

I cannot begin to parse this question

[chillin223]

Should have been "much more."

[bgaesop]

It does say "much more". Your sentence doesn't have a subject in it. There are words missing, it makes no sense as written.

[chillin223]

Is he claiming men are much more likely to be assaulted by other men then women are? Or is he claiming that men are much more likely to be victims of domestic violence?

[bgaesop]

Okay, finally I can tell what you're asking. I don't know what the OP was claiming, but I can tell you what I'm claiming: men are much more likely to be assaulted than women are, either by men or by women. Men and women are about equally likely to be victims of domestic violence.

[roussell131]

Read. The. Whole. Comment.

[bgaesop]

[STA-CITE]> This is the sort of thing that's considered so basic most people don't find it worth saying out loud, but the reasoning is that violence against women (specifically abuse) is way, way more common...Even if man-on-man violence were more common, and in no way do I think that's a given [END-CITE]It is. You're just completely wrong about this. Men are far more likely to be the victims of violence than women are.

[quetzalKOTL]

[STA-CITE]>society thinks its a bigger deal when it is against women. [END-CITE]That's true, but that's not a feminist ideal. The idea that it's horrible to hit a woman (but not necessarily a man) is benevolent sexism--sexism that is done out of goodness, and appears to benefit the recipient, but still maintains a sexist and damaging status quo. It's similar to "women and children first" or men paying disproportionately for dates. Women benefit, but it's very paternalistic: women are weak, and they should be protected and cherished. Feminists generally are not fond of this idea that women should be cherished, because they think it's opposed to the idea that women should be respected as equals. [Recently, Donald Trump said that he cherishes women, and feminists were not amused.] Yes, there are definitely some feminists who think that it's always worse to hit a woman than to hit a man (independent of the idea that it's worse to hit someone weaker than you.) But feminists are probably much less likely to believe that than nonfeminists.