If you cant recognize that men are oppressing women
Now this is entirely your interpretation. I didn't say anything to this effect.
human rights are just as if not more important than animal rights
Yes, that's correct.
When it is a way of life for many.
You always bring in the argumentum ad populum. Even if your stand is correct, your fallacious argument makes you sound otherwise. Going by this argument, you won't be able to make a case for your own issue of gender discrimination. Because you always want to follow the established way of life! How ridiculous! Now I agree to you that we can't discuss anything.
Thanks for your input anyway!
You didnt start with a discussion. You started with an attack.
"You always" ? Who is "you"
You started this post belittling feminism and our current work and then you expect me to give you patience and respect?
Answer this:
Do you believe that woman all over the world are oppressed?
Not all women are oppressed and modern feminism is more of overpowering and claiming all men are evil than actual equality.
Nowadays we see violent women (and some men as well) claiming preposterous things like "women can be raped by being looked at for more than 3 seconds" and other nonsense. However, in all those angry riots you never see feminists arguing for fair treatment of women in the Middle East where they're raped and stoned and treated brutally. So feminism is, at best, a hypocrite movement that disingenuously tries to distort the truth while hiding the real issues and in some cases (not so few in today's society) trying to impose a fascist point of view of dominating men and trying to solve the issue by shifting it to the other side extremely
Please show me a single instance of a woman (feminist or otherwise) claiming that women can be raped by being looked at for more than 3 seconds.
Here are some definitions of feminism:
"1. the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes. 2. organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests" - Merriam Webster
"the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes." - Google Dictionary
"The advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes." - Oxford English Dictionary
"advocating social, political, legal, and economic rights for women equal to those of men." - Dictionary.com
"the belief in the social, economic, and political equality of the sexes. Although largely originating in the West, feminism is manifested worldwide and is represented by various institutions committed to activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests." - Britannica
You may notice that every one of these definitions uses some form of the word "equal" in reference to gender. Nothing about this suggests female supremacy or violence toward men. I have been involved in feminist activism for the entire 30 years of my life and not once have I ever encountered a woman who is hateful or violent toward men, and if such a woman exists, she's one in a million and not anyone we would associate with our movement. We do talk about global issues of women's oppression all the time (for instance, literally in the exact comment you replied to). I don't know why anti-feminists are so threatened by us that they insist on coming up with this fiction.
There are several of these over the top crazy women and men who claims themselves feminists and want to be superior to men. I have to admit I don't personally know any of them, most women I know are completely decent and intelligent, I was referring to the stuff you see in the US and Canada and some European countries as well where the feminist movement is now more of supremacy and picking on men, either by belittling them or by demonizing them.
These definitions are to refer to the original movement of feminism for equal rights and so on, I'd say they need to be updated. Why claim yourself feminist? Isn't that just transferring the problem of sexism to the other side, so to speak?
The “fem-“ prefix in “feminism” refers to the fact that we need to uplift women to achieve gender equality. In a similar way, “black lives matter” does not mean “no white lives matter;” it means that black lives are not being treated with equal respect to white lives which matter equally, so we need to talk about respecting black lives. “LGBT rights” does not mean “straight people shouldn’t have rights.”
Still waiting for an example of a woman who says that being looked at for 3 seconds is rape...
Also, you can’t just say that you personally believe a word means something when every authority on the English language agrees that it does not.
If LGBT doesn't mean straights shouldn't have rights then why not LGBTS for instance? Why aim for inclusion of the minority (homosexuals and others) while ostracizing straight people? Moreoever why rotulate people in labels?
And Black Lives Matter only aim is to destroy everything specifically their black neighbourhoods, black stores and rioting against mostly black policemen. The same people who support BLM get outraged by a silly sentence of "it's ok to be white" so not very inclusive there so BLM is more racist than the supposed people they're rioting against.
Language evolves with time, a meaning it had 30 years ago is different from what it is being used nowadays and perhaps the dictionary should change to better reflect the reality of today. Because if machism is sexist then so is feminism
I don’t think that you and I fundamentally agree on the premise of fighting for the rights of oppressed minorities and on that basis this argument probably isn’t going to go anywhere. There’s no reason to fight for rights for straight people in the context of sexual orientation equality or white people in the context of racial discrimination when their rights aren’t an issue in those contexts. You can fight for the rights of white people who are victims of sex trafficking, for instance, because there is an issue there. There are solid rebuttals for everything you said with respect to “black on black crime” but it doesn’t sound like any minds are going to be changed here so probably best that we don’t go further into it.
Why does inclusion of one mean exclusion of another? That's a construct in the minds of the dominant, who will engage in all sorts of mental gymnastics to justify clinging to power.
Also I'm only gonna say this once: You don't want me wading into this debate. It's not a challenge to your precious concept of (toxic) masculinity. Leave that shit in the Stone Age where it belongs.