What at one point started as a human rights movement seems to have been co-opted in the 60's to encourage a breakdown in self sufficient family units. Thereby increasing reliance on the state.

Currently it seems to be an effective divide and conquer agenda.

Whole family units, especially with extended family, have historically been fairly self reliant.

Single parent homes tend to be reliant on the state for, child care, education, financial aid, healthcare. Pretty much all facets of life.

Having children institutionalized from an early age ensures that state and societal propaganda is accepted as truth.

Furthermore, punitive child support and falling wages help to ensure that adults are kept on the hamster wheel instead of pursuing self education, reliance, and development of healthy habits.

Feminism at its heart actually promotes equal rights for everyone, and at no point espouses special rights for women. Pretty libertarian if you think about it

That may be correct in theory but is proven false in practice

It's more that in practice, the demands of feminists are never-ending and almost comical in scope. Men, in general, have long ago ceded equality to women (the younger ones were raised by the first generation of women who had equal rights, and are on the whole, happy to support equality). Feminists are like a dog with a bone, though, and keep "fighting" a war that is over.

Classical feminism vs neo feminism. These dumbshit gender fluid non binary binary weirdos are neo feminism and mentally challenged

Then why isnt it called egalitarianism?

Because egalitarianism had existed for centuries before feminism did and did nothing for women's rights

Lol. I bet your one of those that thinks European history s anti women.

Because he's lying.

There's a difference between lying and having a different opinion...

It's not an opinion if it contradicts fact.

"My opinion is that giraffes are carnivores," doesn't fucking matter. Because you're just WRONG.

... dude

noun: opinion; plural noun: opinions

a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

Then it's meaningless, because it contradicts fact.

Nope, checked again, "meaningless, because it contradicts fact" isn't part of the factual definition of opinion. I guess you're the one that's out of arguments now?

Then it's meaningless, because it contradicts fact.

Try the fuck again. He was wrong. He knows he was wrong. He was proven wrong. Get over it.

Not an argument

Already proved my statements. The argument is above. Get over it.

That sounds like an opinion to me.

Feminism at its heart actually promotes equal rights for everyone

No, it was literally never EVER about that, and if it was, they would call it egalitarianism.

and at no point espouses special rights for women.

Which is why it explicitly only fights for women having more rights than men, of course.

Pretty libertarian if you think about it.

And so even if you were accurate, it would be outside meaningful consideration on that point alone.

I would argue that they didn't call it egalitarianism because such a movement had already existed for centuries and did nothing to advance the cause of women's rights.

Can you show me an article or something that shows that's feminists want special rights? Tried looking but couldn't find any

Can you show me an article or something that shows that's feminists want special rights?

EVERY SINGLE THING THAT THEY HAVE EVER DONE, EVER.

SO YOU’RE FOR GENDER EQUALITY?

Unfortunately, gender equality is not what you think it is but what the highest politicians and judges think it is. They define it as “equality of outcome” and “equality of income”; i.e. women’s quotas, affirmative action, high taxes to redistribute wealth from men to women, harsh alimony laws focusing on women’s issues while neglecting mens’, and so on.

SO YOU’RE FOR EQUAL RIGHTS?

The term “equal rights” has also been redefined by politicians and now includes “the right to be represented.” Just like parents have the duty to make sure their baby is not underfed, men have the “duty” to make sure that women are not underrepresented. Therefore, any area with less than 50% women automatically infringes on the inborn rights of women. ”Equal rights” is another term for women’s quotas and affirmative action.

SO YOU’RE FOR EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES?

Equal opportunity has also been redefined. Previously it meant “Everyone starts at the same starting point and earns his way up to the top.” Now it means that women are given the opportunity to start at a high position and then earn their right to may there by doing a satisfactory job. Equal opportunities is now, too, another word for women’s quotas, affirmative action, and so on.

SO YOU’RE FOR EQUAL PAY? AND YOU THINK THE GENDER PAY GAP IS A MYTH?

The gender pay gap exists. It is not caused by discrimination by men, but by women’s own choices, limitations, and pregnancies. When politicians vow to close the gender pay gap, they don’t mean to fight discrimination (since there isn’t any to fight), but to enforce women’s quotas (only for the highest paying jobs, of course, since that closes the pay gap best), to lower qualification standards (to qualify more women for well-paying jobs like doctors and professors), to make kindergarten mandatory (so mothers have no chance to stay home), to expand government (so women have always a guaranteed place to find work), and so on. “Closing the gender pay gap” is another term for women’s quotas, socialism, and expansion of government.

I am not making this up.

When you read high-level political texts (EU parliament international treaties, UN declarations, etc.) this is exactly what they mean when they write “equal” or “equality.” They mean “enforced equality of outcome” and “enforced equality of income.”

Just to give you one example of many: When the EU parliament (representing 28 countries) voted to enforce women’s quotas in the European Union (passing with a ⅔ majority), they justified it by using terms like “equality”, “equal opportunities”, “equal rights”, “equal participation”, “equal academic and professional rights for men and women”, “eliminate inequalities”, “elimination of the gender pay gap”, “shared responsibilities”, the fight against the “democracy deficit”, “equal treatment”, and a lot of other terms following feminist redefinitions you thought only existed in crazy feminist blogs.

This is a real-world example of what “equality” means. This is how far feminism has infiltrated world politics. “Equality” is feminist newspeak for “misandry.” “Equal rights” is feminist newspeak for “less rights for men.” If you are upholding principles like “men and women are equal,” you are part of the problem.

just like how Black Lives Matter promote equal rights? that is a fucking joke

Were not talking it BLM were talking about feminism

Yes I know I was just pointing out how stupid is it to say feminism promotes equal rights for all and how its very similar to saying the "Black Lives Matter" term is meant to promote equal rights for all.

Feminism promotes that women are the victims of 1000's of years of patriarchy and now its their times to rule over men. the sad part is that in slave societies the women did rule over men because they were seen as more loyal to the masters and the men were left uneducated.

There actually is an "ism" that promotes equality for all its called humanism.

LOL, dudes feel so threatened by everything.

lol have a fucking argument, since the purposeful erosion of male rights has been ongoing since the 1840s.

Right, I am so lacking in rights.

Not an argument.

Little Marcus, are we looking for an argument today? You can probably find one outside, buttercup. Go sell alpha male brain damage somewhere else.

Hi. You have no argument. Stop shitposting on subjects you don't understand.

I'm not sure you understand: I'm not trying to argue with you.

Absolutely correct. The entitlement of women is unprecedented, particularly young women. And I'm a woman.

Its because they learned long ago that in slave societies they don't educate the men because the women are much more loyal to the slave owners.

Feminism was funded by the CIA

I thought it was a Jewish plot to destroy Western Civilization?

Well, it's a plot to destroy family units.

Edit: sorry I hurt your feelings.

Excerpt from Their Angry Creed, by Herbert Purdy.

It was 1969. Kate invited me to join her for a gathering at the home of her friend, Lila Karp. They called the assemblage a “consciousness-raising-group”–a typical communist exercise, something practiced in Maoist China. We gathered at a large table as the chairperson opened the meeting with a back-and-forth recitation, like a Litany, a type of prayer done in catholic church. But now it was Marxism, the Church of the Left, mimicking religious practice:

“Why are we here today?” she asked.

“To make revolution,” they answered.

“What kind of revolution?” she replied.

“The Cultural Revolution,” they chanted.

“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.

“By destroying the American family!” they answered.

“How do we destroy the family?” she came back.

“By destroying the American Patriarch,” they cried exuberantly.

“And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she replied.

“By taking away his power!”

“How do we do that?”

“By destroying monogamy!” they shouted.

“How can we destroy monogamy?” Their answer left me dumbstruck, breathless, disbelieving my ears. Was I on planet Earth? Who were these people?

“By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!” they resounded.

In short, jews.

[removed]

Not an argument, kiddo. It's straight from the book. Either refute the content or the author or just leave.

Rule 10. Removed.

It's more that in practice, the demands of feminists are never-ending and almost comical in scope. Men, in general, have long ago ceded equality to women (the younger ones were raised by the first generation of women who had equal rights, and are on the whole, happy to support equality). Feminists are like a dog with a bone, though, and keep "fighting" a war that is over.

not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

Then it's meaningless, because it contradicts fact.