First off, I would never say feminism is evil.
I think it's wrong, fundamentally, as it views the world through a Marxist lens (women are the proletariat, men are the bourgeoisie) and bases most if not all of it's assumptions on the concept of social constructivism.
So for me it's simply a matter of disagreement.
Secondly, all of those "extra" things definitely have everything to do with feminism.
This is what is taught to students studying this stuff. This is what feminist professors print.
Of course if you simply define feminism as a bland form of equality, it's easy to disown everything feminism does that you disagree with. I think that's a dishonest tactic myself. If you want to talk about fallacies, that's a cut and dry "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
People like Erin Pizzey left feminism back in the 60's because when she went to meetings there were portraits of Chairman Mao hanging on their walls and the content of the discussions were so anti-male and obsessed with destroying marriage and convincing women they were oppressed even by their own male loved ones, she said she had to leave.
It's no surprise to me that feminism still holds these sorts of views to this day.
Now, I feel as if you're just an instinctual feminist (non-ideological type of feminist that equates feminism with strong female family members) and that you're not neck-deep in the movement today. Majority of feminists fit right into the picture I'm painting and you can't escape this if your eyes are open to it.
Name some things that still need to be made equal if you don't mind, because at this point all feminism seeks to make equal is perceived inequalities within cultural and social assumptions, stereotypes etc and this amounts to micro-management of individuals. That's not something you can legislate for. Though feminists lobby to have certain slurs cause for massive fines.
Equality is not always about treating everyone the same. I agree. But it is about treating people in such a way that the outcome for each person can be the same. This means putting things in place to support people to achieve similar outcomes.
Equality in my view is the striving for equality of opportunity. Not equality of outcome. How would you even achieve such a utopian dream?
And yes, I see there's some biases for men too that are unfair but I think it's ridiculous that people only see what effects them.
Do you mean people in here only see what effects men? Because if you're talking about people in general then I have no idea what reality you're living, I honestly don't, nobody sees or cares for the most part what effects men. I could cite a ton of examples but this should really be self-evident. If I namedrop even one issue men face I'll be accused of being a sexist MRA and laughed into silence, haha.
It's not a competition on who gets screwed over the most, but on a whole it does seem like men are valued more because of these biases that has existed
It became a competition once feminism started throwing men under the bus. I personally am fine with the areas of society that men have it worse, it only becomes a problem when people start spewing bullshit about men oppressing women and men's lives being akin to "life on the easiest difficulty" which is a feminist quote. When people start slapping you in the face constantly with male privilege bullshit you have to slap back with examples of how it's not that easy. You can't blame the pissing contest on the person that only joined in to avoid getting pissed on.
As to men being more valued, I would direct you to Male Disposability Theory. If men are more valued, why is it the assumed role of a man to die in order to protect a woman? This is a gender role feminists conveniently seem to forget about. The fact is and evolution backs this up, societies that don't value women above men tend to either vanish or become horrible places to live. One womb is worth more than one penis in evolutionary terms.
Anyway, how exactly has affirmative action helped women? That's an interesting claim.
I didn't see any sexist generalizations about fathers, but this is UMF someone would've pushed back if one was made.
It was Matt, he said men are terrible and fathers won't pay child support. That's a sexist generalisation that only I pushed back against.
I don't think they look for the less stable parent, that wouldn't be very smart. I'm not big on the logical fallacy terms, but this shouldn't be turned into a flagpole issue as though if this one thing is true then the whole thing is a sham. I looked up the Tender Years Doctrine, and okay the court system does favor mother's more in custody cases. However, I don't see why keep using family courts as the sticking point for why feminism is evil.
So explain why there are more unemployed mothers with custody than there are employed fathers. Yes, fathers abandon families often enough but I don't think that's the explanation.
The reason I used the Tender Years Doctrine as an argument against feminism and it's influence in the family court is because that doctrine was specifically a women's movement victory. It's quite literally a feminist legacy.
c'mon gang
