There's no reason to make things more complicated than they are. If you ask normal people "Do you support freedom?" and 90% say "Yes", that doesn't mean 90% are libertarians. People DISAGREE what "being for freedom" means.
Feminism has a very simple definition that every single feminist all over the world will agree on: (1) Fighting for e…
There's no reason to make things more complicated than they are. If you ask normal people "Do you support freedom?" and 90% say "Yes", that doesn't mean 90% are libertarians. People DISAGREE what "being for freedom" means.
Feminism has a very simple definition that every single feminist all over the world will agree on: (1) Fighting for establishing and/or defending women's rights and (2) Fighting against sexist attitudes against women in society. That's it, no more needed. But then Bryan foolishly seems to argue that everyone agrees what rights women should have and what constitutes sexism against women. This is obviously not true, misogynists don't think that they're misogynists - and here's where the DISAGREEMENTS come up.
Bryans absurd definition of feminism clearly shows where the disagreements are. He seems to disagree with feminists about what things are sexist (two examples: Feminists surely think calling women "hypersensitive" and believing women were freer in the 19th century than today is sexist, but Bryan does both things), and he then uses massive whataboutism to show how men are being treated sexist, and thanks to this (minimizing sexism against women, emphasize sexism against men), men win the oppression olympics, which according to his weird definition of feminism means "feminism is wrong."
The view that men are treated worse than women is absurd, but it's also not a logical argument against feminism (the fight for women's rights and against sexism against women). Feminism is not about who is treated worse. It's about the fight for women's rights and against sexism against women (including Bryans sexism about the hypersensitive women), no matter who is treated worse overall.
There's no reason to make things more complicated than they are. If you ask normal people "Do you support freedom?" and 90% say "Yes", that doesn't mean 90% are libertarians. People DISAGREE what "being for freedom" means.
Feminism has a very simple definition that every single feminist all over the world will agree on: (1) Fighting for establishing and/or defending women's rights and (2) Fighting against sexist attitudes against women in society. That's it, no more needed. But then Bryan foolishly seems to argue that everyone agrees what rights women should have and what constitutes sexism against women. This is obviously not true, misogynists don't think that they're misogynists - and here's where the DISAGREEMENTS come up.
Bryans absurd definition of feminism clearly shows where the disagreements are. He seems to disagree with feminists about what things are sexist (two examples: Feminists surely think calling women "hypersensitive" and believing women were freer in the 19th century than today is sexist, but Bryan does both things), and he then uses massive whataboutism to show how men are being treated sexist, and thanks to this (minimizing sexism against women, emphasize sexism against men), men win the oppression olympics, which according to his weird definition of feminism means "feminism is wrong."
The view that men are treated worse than women is absurd, but it's also not a logical argument against feminism (the fight for women's rights and against sexism against women). Feminism is not about who is treated worse. It's about the fight for women's rights and against sexism against women (including Bryans sexism about the hypersensitive women), no matter who is treated worse overall.