Why is there so much hate towards feminism??

[byebyebye]

Byebyebye just totally missed the point.

No s**t men are discriminated against. No one is saying they aren't. But that doesn't mean that women are ALSO not discriminated against. If I had the time and energy, I could spam the board with lists of crap that affects women more, like human trafficking, domestic violence (a problem for men, but more abused are women), reproductive rights (not just abortion, did you know in some places women need signed permission slips from their husbands to get their tubes tied? Crazy) and then all sorts of crazy individual items against women that probably don't signify any ingrained discrimination but were nuts enough to make the news.

Just because men face discrimination doesn't mean women also don't experience discrimination. Fact!

Tell me one way in which females are discriminated against in the law. We aren't talking about societal discrimination like doing more housework. If you read my post you'll know what real oppression is. I'm just angry how everyone thinks females are so discriminated against, being a guy is so good etc when your gender has $100,000,000 of government funding spent towards you every year as opposed to the measley $500,000 men recieve.

Edit: Lol... reproductive rights? Did you even read my post? In every single westernised country men have zero reproductive rights at all. Unless you're talking about Africa or something.

[repsDTGdaily]

No? Where did I day that at all? I want laws to favor all people equally. That includes men not having to pay alimony forever, for men getting the rights to their child should that want them, and recourses for men falsely accused of rape being more available to them (they're there, but little resources go towards reminding men that they're there and helping them access them. ).

No, men can go get vasectomies without any sort of permission whatsoever. That's why I mentioned it. And if men DID need permission, that's also completely unfair and something that needs to be changed. Your body should be your body.

Rape is a whole clusterf*** that discussing here won't help - men AND women get totally shafted by it. Men do sometimes rape. Women do sometimes use rape as revenge. Then there's the whole grey area of 'regret rape', yes than no rape, and how it's prosecuted. I don't even know, it just needs to get fixed for both sexes.

I've not seen any women in this thread state that they wanted men to be subservient or lesser than them. I worry just as much about 'nazi males' who want me to be handed from father to husband, have kids, stay home, and 'serve' my husband, then my sons, as part of my 'essential womanhood' as you do about 'nazi fems' who randomly castrate men (this happened. Tied him to a tree and did it, wtf). It's frustrating - I've been nothing but even handed, acknowledging guy's issues with discrimination, stressing my belief in equality...and then somehow that gets turned into my wanting laws favoring one group over another? It makes me wonder if you're reading what I'm writing.

It was the whole "human trafficking, domestic abuse" etc. There's nothing that can be done about any of that other than punishment afterwards. I agree that the whole rape thing is a gray area, but you can't enable women to file false claims by not giving them the same punishment as is given to a man who gets convicted of rape. I don't know how they "fix" that, though. I can see women being reluctant for fear of lack of evidence.

[repsDTGdaily]

Tell me one way in which females are discriminated against in the law. We aren't talking about societal discrimination like doing more housework. If you read my post you'll know what real oppression is. I'm just angry how everyone thinks females are so discriminated against, being a guy is so good etc when your gender has $100,000,000 of government funding spent towards you every year as opposed to the measley $500,000 men recieve.

she did, tubes tied vs vasectomies.

abortions should only be done in early term, imo

[acrawlingchaos]

I want laws to favor all people equally.

So don't I. Show me where men in this thread stated otherwise.

I don't think a convoluted political movement is needed to achieve it. Just because I do not support feminism, does not mean I do not support equality.

[byebyebye]

Good read for everyone in this thread who is not convinced the system is broken:http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...post1114204283

[byebyebye]

By the way Bookish, if you read my post you'll realise women contribute to domestic violence at an equal rate to men. Women perpetrators also get away with domestic violence more often then men.http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

Shows how much the feminist movement has askewed your perception.



http://smu.edu/experts/study-documen...dy-may2006.pdf
Summary: 21.45% of couples reported violence. Male-to-female violence was reported in 13.66% of couples, while 18.20% for female-to-male violence. Thus, women are 1.33 times as likely to be violent. (Severe violence only raises this ratio to more than 2x as likely.)

[Bookish]

So don't I. Show me where men in this thread stated otherwise.

I don't think a convoluted political movement is needed to achieve it. Just because I do not support feminism, does not mean I do not support equality.

I never said anyone said otherwise, I was responding to someone suggesting I was in favor of laws benefiting women at the expensive of men. I don't. Any time you favor one class over another, it breeds envy and feelings of injustice which then cause negative consequences all around - I am definitely not advocating this at all.

[Bookish]

By the way Bookish, if you read my post you'll realise women contribute to domestic violence at an equal rate to men. Women perpetrators also get away with domestic violence more often then men.

Shows how much the feminist movement has askewed your perception.



Summary: 21.45% of couples reported violence. Male-to-female violence was reported in 13.66% of couples, while 18.20% for female-to-male violence. Thus, women are 1.33 times as likely to be violent. (Severe violence only raises this ratio to more than 2x as likely.)

Hm. Because I can find plenty of statistics that say otherwise.

From the American Bar association:
In a 1995-1996 study conducted in the 50 States and the District of Columbia, nearly 25% of women and 7.6% of men were raped and/or physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, or dating partner/acquaintance at some time in their lifetime (based on survey of 16,000 participants, equally male and female).
Patricia Tjaden & Nancy Thoennes, U.S. Dep't of Just., NCJ 181867, Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence, at iii (2000)

Approximately 1.3 million women and 835,000 men are physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States.
Patricia Tjaden & Nancy Thoennes, U.S. Dep't of Just., NCJ 183781, Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, at iv (2000)


Intimate partners committed 3% of the nonfatal violence against men.
Callie Marie Rennison, U.S. Dep't of Just., NCJ 197838, Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief: Intimate Partner Violence, 1993-2001, at 1 (2003)

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, between 1998 and 2002:

Of the almost 3.5 million violent crimes committed against family members, 49% of these were crimes against spouses.
84% of spouse abuse victims were females, and 86% of victims of dating partner abuse at were female.
Males were 83% of spouse murderers and 75% of dating partner murderers
50% of offenders in state prison for spousal abuse had killed their victims. Wives were more likely than husbands to be killed by their spouses: wives were about half of all spouses in the population in 2002, but 81% of all persons killed by their spouse.
Matthew R. Durose et al., U.S. Dep't of Just., NCJ 207846, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Family Violence Statistics: Including Statistics on Strangers and Acquaintances, at 31-32 (2005)

I tried to get a good mix of male/female researchers and backers. It's easy toget statistics to prove your point, but I do believe the majority of studies find that women are more adversely affected by domestic violence than men, though they are not the only ones affected.

Re: laws - Generally, the US does not have laws that discriminate against women (though there are a lot of reproductive rights laws either working their way through the legislative process or possibly enacted that will change this, have to look into that more. But I think you're equating laws that discriminate against men with judges that are discriminatory. I haven't seen any custody laws that explicitly state the mother should have precident, rather the judges making these decisions are biased in favor of mothers. And that is a cultural bias, not legal discrimination. I haven't read every custody law out there, of course, so if you know of one that specifically states 'mother always gets custody' I'll be happy to acknowledge that as a discriminatory law.

I'll agree that the sex based discrimination most people face in the US is completely culturally based, rather than legally enforced.

[jojo279]

It's because some very threatened guys did everything they could back in the day to malign the movement. These were guys who simply didn't like the fact that they were losing the privileges that had previously been afforded to them just because they're male. Imagine, one minute you can automatically pass every woman on the career ladder because you're male. The next minute you actually have to compete with women.

Now, a good, ethical man knows that no one should be handed any unearned privileges. But not every man (or woman for that matter) is a good person who wants to do what is fair and right. Good people of both genders should keep fighting to end discrimination.

[jojo279]

Tell me one way in which females are discriminated against in the law. We aren't talking about societal discrimination like doing more housework. If you read my post you'll know what real oppression is. I'm just angry how everyone thinks females are so discriminated against, being a guy is so good etc when your gender has $100,000,000 of government funding spent towards you every year as opposed to the measley $500,000 men recieve.

Edit: Lol... reproductive rights? Did you even read my post? In every single westernised country men have zero reproductive rights at all. Unless you're talking about Africa or something.

I have to seriously question your government spending numbers. What is your source for them? I find them really hard to believe when Wall Street received a multi-trillion dollar bailout, most of which went to men, since wall street finance jobs are held overwhelmingly by men.

[Bookish]

Edit: Lol... reproductive rights? Did you even read my post? In every single westernised country men have zero reproductive rights at all. Unless you're talking about Africa or something.

You do understand the difference between reproductive rights and parental rights, right? Men absolutely have reproductive rights - you can have a vesectomy fairly inexpensively without the clinic refusing you because 'you might change your mind'. You can have sex, or not, and nothing legally prevents you from getting any willing woman pregnant. I'll concede men's reproductive rights are stepped on in the cases a women wants an abortion and the man doesn't, but I don't see an easy solution to that as women bear 100% of the medical risk and necessary involvement of pregnancy. Women on the other hand can be turned away by doctors when the request sterilization, in some cases cannot be sterilized without male permission, bear the burden of (relatively expensive) birth control, and have a myriad of laws right now dictating what she can or cannot do while pregnant, what she may not do if she doesn't want to remain pregnant, or what procedures she must endure if she does not want to remain pregnant. Various safe means of aborting a pregnancy can be denied her because of her doctor's religion, personal beliefs, or how the people of her district voted.

Parental rights, ie - parent's rights after the kid is born, are a totally different subject. And men do not have 'zero rights' there. Over statements and exaggerations don't help you much, it makes it easier to mentally discount your argument. There are fathers with sole custody, and many many fathers with shared custody agreements. The fact that the court system discriminates against fathers is wrong, harmful, and needs to be corrected, but it doesn't remove all rights.

[geek23ka]

this thread is ridiculous.

[itsagoodday]

this thread is ridiculous.

Hey girl, this thread is about feminism. I'm sure you meant rivagulous.

[geek23ka]

Hey girl, this thread is about feminism. I'm sure you meant rivagulous.

lol

[repsDTGdaily]

It's because some very threatened guys did everything they could back in the day to malign the movement. These were guys who simply didn't like the fact that they were losing the privileges that had previously been afforded to them just because they're male. Imagine, one minute you can automatically pass every woman on the career ladder because you're male. The next minute you actually have to compete with women.

Now, a good, ethical man knows that no one should be handed any unearned privileges. But not every man (or woman for that matter) is a good person who wants to do what is fair and right. Good people of both genders should keep fighting to end discrimination.

i don't see how that's an issue this day and age....the laws are equal for both men and women in the work place. the only thing more feminism could do is to suppress males in the workplace by saying a certain percentage of women should get the job or be promoted. companies are doing this now to avoid lawsuits

[jojo279]

i don't see how that's an issue this day and age....the laws are equal for both men and women in the work place. the only thing more feminism could do is to suppress males in the workplace by saying a certain percentage of women should get the job or be promoted. companies are doing this now to avoid lawsuits

You know, there was a study out recently where resumes were submitted to university science departments and those people in hiring positions were asked to evaluate the candidates based on their resumes and then make a salary offer. When the exact same resume had a male name on it the candidate was rated more highly and offered a higher salary. These same results had been found in countless earlier studies. So yes, discrimination against women in the workplace still exists. There may not be official quotas for male hires, but there might as well be because male applicants are given preference, as this study, and multiple other studies have shown. Please, stop burying your head in the sand about discrimination and start helping so that feminist agitation is no longer necessary.

I tried to include a link to this study but received a message saying that I must remove the link before posting. Google it. The results of the study were posted by scientific american.

[footmenrow]

You know, there was a study out recently where resumes were submitted to university science departments and those people in hiring positions were asked to evaluate the candidates based on their resumes and then make a salary offer. When the exact same resume had a male name on it the candidate was rated more highly and offered a higher salary. These same results had been found in countless earlier studies. So yes, discrimination against women in the workplace still exists. There may not be official quotas for male hires, but there might as well be because male applicants are given preference, as this study, and multiple other studies have shown. Please, stop burying your head in the sand about discrimination and start helping so that feminist agitation is no longer necessary.

I tried to include a link to this study but received a message saying that I must remove the link before posting. Google it. The results of the study were posted by scientific american.

And there are countless other studies which will refute that.

Ironically, my statement is just off the top of my head which probably nullifies my argument.



I'll just leave this

[jojo279]

And there are countless other studies which will refute that.

Ironically, my statement is just off the top of my head which probably nullifies my argument.



I'll just leave this

What study refutes this? As I said above, I can't link to my study because I don't have 50 posts yet, so here's the title and citation: Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students PNAS 2012 109 (41) 16395-16396; doi:10.1073/iti4112109

Also, I watched your youtube video. All it did was blame women's choices. The study I described said that the resumes were the same for the male and female applicants and that the only thing that changed was whether a man's name or a woman's name was at the top of it. The men were rated more highly than the women with the exact same resume and were offered more money. There is nothing about the results of this study that you can refute by pointing to women's choices because the women and men had the exact same resume and were being considered for the exact same job.

[Charuto222]

I think it's a strong judgemental, stereoptypical generalization to assume that all feminists do is "all they do is yelling and complaining.

Most definitely. However, the reason people think feminists are like that is because the loudest ones who go the furthest out of the way to make sure their voices are heard are like that. The worst thing that ever happened to the feminist movement is the subdivision of crazy, militant, man-hating hypocrites and extremists that came along who have nothing better to do than scream about the evils of men and patriarchy and how women are better than men, along with throwing false statistics around to convince everyone that men are evil and making up hyperbole about how every aspect of manhood exists for the sole purpose of objectifying women.

Feminism isn't receiving any kind of special hate here, the same thing would happen to any other group under similar circumstances. If a subdivision of the gay rights enthusiasts came along who made sure they got the most media attention of all gay rights enthusiasts and they had a similar attitude toward heterosexuals the gay rights movement would lose a lot of support too, it would be one of the worst things that could happen to gay rights right now.

IMO if you're a feminist and you want to do good for feminism, and for women as a whole for that matter, and actually for men as well. Hell for the greater good of society. And if you want feminism to be as respected and supported as Hypacia and Susan B intended for it to be, then the number 1 thing I think you, as a feminist, should work toward is the permanent expulsion of this subdivision of feminists from the movement that you represent.

[geek23ka]

Most definitely. However, the reason people think feminists are like that is because the loudest ones who go the furthest out of the way to make sure their voices are heard are like that. The worst thing that ever happened to the feminist movement is the subdivision of crazy, militant, man-hating hypocrites and extremists that came along who have nothing better to do than scream about the evils of men and patriarchy and how women are better than men, along with throwing false statistics around to convince everyone that men are evil and making up hyperbole about how every aspect of manhood exists for the sole purpose of objectifying women.

Feminism isn't receiving any kind of special hate here, the same thing would happen to any other group under similar circumstances. If a subdivision of the gay rights enthusiasts came along who made sure they got the most media attention of all gay rights enthusiasts and they had a similar attitude toward heterosexuals the gay rights movement would lose a lot of support too, it would be one of the worst things that could happen to gay rights right now.

IMO if you're a feminist and you want to do good for feminism, and for women as a whole for that matter, and actually for men as well. Hell for the greater good of society. And if you want feminism to be as respected and supported as Hypacia and Susan B intended for it to be, then the number 1 thing I think you, as a feminist, should work toward is the permanent expulsion of this subdivision of feminists from the movement that you represent.

except for the patriarchy bit (and i realised it's an overused term, so might even agree there) i agree with you.

dworkonian feminists are my least favorite kind. they seek to control women and force men to the fringes. IMHO. they are vocal, but definitely a minority.
signed - the feminist of bb.com

[Charuto222]

dworkonian feminists are my least favorite kind.

They are EVERYONE'S least favorite kind (except themselves). Yet Dworkin's work is still being taught in women's studies classes across the nation. That's a problem.

[geek23ka]

They are EVERYONE'S least favorite kind (except themselves). Yet Dworkin's work is still being taught in women's studies classes across the nation. That's a problem.

if i were teaching a class on feminist theory, i would include it. but i would ask my students to critically examine it. i hope professors are doing that these days.

[repsDTGdaily]

You know, there was a study out recently where resumes were submitted to university science departments and those people in hiring positions were asked to evaluate the candidates based on their resumes and then make a salary offer. When the exact same resume had a male name on it the candidate was rated more highly and offered a higher salary. These same results had been found in countless earlier studies. So yes, discrimination against women in the workplace still exists. There may not be official quotas for male hires, but there might as well be because male applicants are given preference, as this study, and multiple other studies have shown. Please, stop burying your head in the sand about discrimination and start helping so that feminist agitation is no longer necessary.

I tried to include a link to this study but received a message saying that I must remove the link before posting. Google it. The results of the study were posted by scientific american.

I believe I said "laws". Never said discrimination doesn't happen. Regardless of these studies, you still can't prove each and every case of discrimination unless you perform these fields tests on each and every hire. I believe my statement still stands


Edit: guessing you want the government to be involved in free market hiring.

[acrawlingchaos]

this thread is ridiculous.

.... like a moth to a flame.

[geek23ka]

right now, jeff. i am ragestroking and crying at the same time.

IHH SMH

[melvimbe]

You know, there was a study out recently where resumes were submitted to university science departments and those people in hiring positions were asked to evaluate the candidates based on their resumes and then make a salary offer. When the exact same resume had a male name on it the candidate was rated more highly and offered a higher salary. These same results had been found in countless earlier studies. So yes, discrimination against women in the workplace still exists. There may not be official quotas for male hires, but there might as well be because male applicants are given preference, as this study, and multiple other studies have shown. Please, stop burying your head in the sand about discrimination and start helping so that feminist agitation is no longer necessary.

I tried to include a link to this study but received a message saying that I must remove the link before posting. Google it. The results of the study were posted by scientific american.

I have no doubt that descrimination still exists in many areas of society and the workplace, but I wouldn't take a study on science dept hiring practices and extrapolate it to all workplaces. I'm sure if you perform the same study replacing a science dept with Hooters, a nursing department, elementary school you're going to get drastically different results. These are female dominated jobs, the same as there are male dominated jobs. Granted, I would think a Science dept wouldn't be dominated one way or the other. And yes, I understand why women would be more interested in the higher paying jobs and ending favortism there. Point is, I don't think you take what happens in a few science dept and extrapolate it to the entire workplace.

As an aside (and I'll probably get flamed for this), I don't see a problem with attractive people using that to their advantage in business/life. I'm not saying it should be used to exploit and take advantage of people, but if being attractive helps a salesperson make sales, why is that a problem? I use my intelligence as an advantage at work all the time. Both are talents people are either born with or develop. And to be clear, I'm not saying that people should be treated as just a pretty face or just a brain either.

[Brruuuaaaahhhhh]

Ladies, what do you think of this? Was the woman in the video justified in what she did?








If Ramsay had been the aggressor, it would have marked the end of his career, even if the slap was unsuccessful.

[Artemis00]

Ladies, what do you think of this? Was the woman in the video justified in what she did?

If Ramsay had been the aggressor, it would have marked the end of his career, even if the slap was unsuccessful.

Absolutely not. Violence is never justified unless for self defense, protecting another or within the participation of a sport (wrestling, BJJ, boxing, kickboxing, etc...where both parties completely agree to the terms of that sport).

[Charuto222]

If Ramsay had been the aggressor, it would have marked the end of his career, even if the slap was unsuccessful.

True but this is more because of white knighthood than it is because of feminism. It's not uncommon for me to be downtown and see a drunk chick hit her boyfriend, he restrains her just enough so that she can't hurt him (or anyone else), she screams for help and 4 other guys jump him and beat his ass. Maybe the dumbest of the feminists are pushing for this, but the dumbest guys who aren't even feminist are pushing for it too, and white knights push for it harder than anyone.

Feminists > White Knights

Actually, the pile of dog**** that the nearest feminist stepped on > White Knights

And before anyone tries to defend this by saying "well women aren't as strong as men so they need the extra protection", let's cover the massive gaping holes in this extremely poorly thought out "argument". First of all, if that were the real reason then I would get just as much of a social/legal backlash for hitting a guy who is 50 lbs smaller than me and has no idea how to defend himself as I would get for hitting a woman, but everyone knows that this is nowhere near the case. On top of that, does anyone here think that your average man's muscles can overthrow the US legal system? Me either, and guess what a woman has on her side when she initiates violence against a man? So who has the unfair advantage here?

The real reason women embrace it is because, hey why not? Free favoritism being handed to you on a silver platter? Most people aren't gonna turn that down. The real reason males embrace it is because they think it will make women want to fukk them.

[rdferguson]

I read the "Female 'Purity' is Bull" article linked in the OP and am frankly offended by it.

I value sexual purity. I value it, and so I practice it. For the last 12 years I have had plenty of opportunity to void myself of my V-plates, and have been quite deliberate in holding onto them: I have every intention on remaining a virgin until marriage, and if I'm going to be in a relationship with someone, then it's probably not going to work out unless we're on the same wavelength there (I also acknowledge that it's entirely possible that I won't marry, the result being that I won't have sex, either). So the first thing I'd point out is the built-in assumption that the desire for sexual purity is a one-way street. Admittedly, there are double-standards in society about what's sexually moral when a man does it vs when a woman does it, however the author of the article appears to take great pride in framing things as though a man who values sexual purity in a woman is invariably a disgusting, misogynistic, hypocritical*, vile Creten who doesn't have a leg to stand on. My beliefs about sexuality are that if I marry you, my sexuality isn't about me, it's about you under God, and vice versa. With that being the framework I work with, I see any sex I might get up to outside of marriage to be a demonstration of devaluing the relationship I might have with my future wife or with my God, because it's saying "this thing that's reserved for you, I'm going to keep it for myself." I don't expect the members here to generally share this sentiment or accept it, but it is my position, and it's a position of mutuality. I don't expect the woman I'm to be with to live up to any sexual standard that I don't hold myself to. Likewise, if a woman doesn't share my sexual values then neither of us would be happy being together. And I value women on non-sexual levels -- as mentors, as friends -- so if you're not someone whose sexual values marry up with my sexual values, thus you're someone I wouldn't marry, that does not in any way mean that I think you're a lesser being: how keen I would be on marrying you is not a reflection on how much value I think you have as a human being -- if it were, then since I plan on marrying somewhere between 0 and 1 women, the natural implication would be that the other 3.5 billion females (and, honestly, all 3.5 billion males) aren't that valuable.

The author of the article (Lindy West) gives an example of someone who was raped over a long term period, and didn't try to escape because she believed that having been raped meant that she was all used up and a waste of a human being. The issue here isn't that she believed chastity outside of marriage is good, the issue here is that she believed that physical contact means more than context, and that her value as a human being is something that other humans can give or take away. In the same way that if I marry I want it to be with someone who has practiced chastity outside of marriage, I want to marry someone who doesn't walk around punching people in the face for laughs. Yet if someone has punched her in the face for laughs, at no point am I going to think any less of her for it. Likewise, if a girl has been sexually violated I will not deem her as having done anything wrong. Being raped is no more an act of defiance against your sexual purity than being punched in the face is advocacy of violence. I hate rape, and I hate that the author is implying that because I value sexual purity I enable people to get raped. Being raped is not a reflection of your value as a human and I detest that there are people teaching girls that they can be used up like a "chewed up piece of gum."

I'm not sure if I should chuckle or facepalm over the West's responses to the article "Why Good Girls Have Become As Extinct As Unicorns." The original article is openly hypocritical, and I can't read it as anything other than self-defecating satire (there might have been a clue in it being authored by "Typical Bloke"). The most prominent point of the article, which West appears to have missed as being the point, is the double-standards men hold women to (it's okay for me to **** anyone, but if you do it you're a crappy person; you need to live up to certain sexual standards to have any moral character at all while it's all well and good for me to **** you and your sister too). Now it's possible that the author of the original piece was a typical bloke preaching about how crappy women are, but I'm more inclined to think that the whole piece was a jab at how crappy "typical bloke[s]" are. Of course I'll never know for sure.

*Everyone's a hypocrite on some level, if you ask me, and flat-out denying that you are one is proof that you're hypocritical about your hypocrisy.

<><><><>

I don't identify as a feminist. I know that OP and many others will argue that feminism is really about equality between men and women and that any indication to the contrary is wrong, but I can't find myself agreeing with that. Equality and equity don't need another name. In the western world, women do not have any legal disadvantages -- their rights are the same as men, or they receive equity giving them enhanced rights in order to make up for non law-driven disadvantages. Modern feminism still seems to pretend that the law in the western world has women at a disadvantage, and that's "the patriarchy." Of course, if it's shown that women not only receive the same rights as men but are granted equity, that's also "the patriarchy." If I push you down that's bad, but if I see you down and give you a hand up, that's bad. How dare I display that you're inferior to me by being male and supporting you. All too often I see feminists using this logic at a personal level and a societal level. Most modern feminists I either know personally or have read from have the attitude that it's okay for people born with a penis to exist, so long as they have no volitional influence, big or small, on anything to do with women. Masculine involvement is "the patriarchy," and therefore evil.