u/Intelligent-Bird-313

What is feminism?

Well, to lots of people, it’s an entire way of life. It’s a badge, a t-shirt, it’s the centre point to their friendships, their community, their work, and political identity.

To others, it’s a word they feel is best left avoided.

To some, it’s an entry ticket.

To be waved around enthusiastically by performative men, who are hoping to date women of a left wing persuasion.

And to many, “feminism” is simply a synonym for “gender equality”.

“If you believe in equality, you’re a feminist”, asserts a small army of pop-celebrity feminists, wagging their finger at society, as they attempt to monopolise the concept of gender equality itself.

But I don’t think that’s true.

Feminism doesn’t own the idea of “gender equality”.

Such a thing would be like Cadbury’s trying to own “chocolate”, or Mcdonald’s trying to claim “French fries”, or Walkers putting their flag down into “crisps”.

No.

Feminism is a particular means of reaching said equality, that is based upon a series of theoretical ideas and frameworks, loosely woven together, into a political movement.

Simply – gender equality is the mountain, and feminism is one (of many) roads that promises to take us to it.

And yes, there are other roads.

I know this to be true, because the vast majority (83%) of people polled in the UK believe in total equality of the sexes… but only 35% of those polled identify as “feminists”.

I know, some will claim that those 83% are disillusioned “secret feminists”, but that doesn’t answer the question:

If feminism really is about gender equality, then why do most people who believe in such a noble cause, identity as something else?

It’s a good question.

So what is feminism?

And why do so few identify as such?

What do you think?

~
Are you a Feminist? YouGov (UK)

Why are you not a feminist? YouGov (US)

LONG AHH EXPLANATION!!!

Based off the album question from earlier, I see Harvey playing alto sax since he likes jazz, 1950’s fashion, and all things vintage. I can see many old jazz records in this guy’s room just collecting dust on his shelves since they’re too old to play but not too old to collect. In a school band, alto saxes are either the dumbest, cockiest bums alive or the coolest beings in the band (or at least in the woodwind section). Harvey is most definitely the latter, and despite the stereotype that saxes always forget their sheet music and barely ever practise, Harvey would practise a lot in his free time and would keep his sheet music organised in a folder. Sax players also kinda got an ego going on, and I can definitely see Harvey getting proud and cocky on occasion. Also, since he’s a people pleaser, I have no doubt this guy will be the director’s favourite either naturally or via teacher’s pet tactics.

I’m a clarinetist who does colour guard during marching season and bagpiping in my free time, and I sure as heck do not foresee Harvey in any of my sections. Bagpipes will be too loud for Harvey, as he doesn’t like rock or metal, and I cannot see Harvey tossing flags or even participating in marching band. He’s just too elegant for that. Harvey would get the solo in the feature jazz piece during concert band. Clarinet is a nice classical woodwind, but I’m not sure Harvey would stick for long after being called “Squidward“ even once. All other clarinet stereotypes would fit Harvey decently, but a lot of clarinetists outgrow clarinet for a sax, in which Harvey may have done if he ever did play clarinet. I considered Harvey to be a flautist for a while, but stereotypically, Harvey wouldn’t fit well since flautists are known to be yappers while I see him as the most mature one in the room who maintains the elegance. Harvey also would not tolerate the “what, I can’t hear the flute” jokes and likely change instruments after his section is told to play louder for the millionth time. All opinions are valid, but not all are safe from debate!!! I got many reasons why Harvey should be alto sax and alto sax only. 😝 😝 😝

TLDR: Harvey would be an alto sax player, the end.

First post ever, and I’m pretty excited. As a Catholic, I’ve been thinking about the Bible and realised all the misandric acts commited during the recording of some events featured in the Bible. The Bible I’m quoting directly from is the USCCB online Bible. I would like to place a boundary that this is strictly for historical discussion only, as the Bible is a book that has been recording parts history. I get religion is a sensitive topic; therefore, let us focus on male rights discourse instead of focusing on the religion aspect as to avoid heated argument and discrimination (this is my religion, here). This is a male rights sub after all, having nothing at all to do with religion (unless we count male advocacy as a religion, in which I am a seriously devout disciple).

1. Genesis 19: 31 - 36 — I don’t care how desperate these daughters of Lot were, if they got their father drunk, then slept with him, guess what’s that called? He was forced to penetrate; therefore, the only correct answer is rape. If feminists think the Bible itself and Bible times were patriarchial, full of toxic masculinity, have them read this. There is absolutely no excuse to rape.

>The firstborn said to the younger: “Our father is getting old, and there is not a man in the land to have intercourse with us as is the custom everywhere. Come, let us ply our father with wine and then lie with him, that we may ensure posterity by our father.”

>So that night they plied their father with wine, and the firstborn went in and lay with her father; but he was not aware of her lying down or getting up. The next day the firstborn said to the younger: “Last night I lay with my father. Let us ply him with wine again tonight, and then you go in and lie with him, that we may ensure posterity by our father.” So that night, too, they plied their father with wine, and then the younger one went in and lay with him; but he was not aware of her lying down or getting up. Thus the two daughters of Lot became pregnant by their father.

Luckily for Lot, even male survivors are seen as righteous in God’s eyes, according to 2(nd letter) Peter (chapter) 2: 7-9. Even God knows male survivors aren’t at fault for being raped. Guess who can’t fathom that, still? Society. If people think God is so archaic, how come his opinions on male survivors of rape are much more progressed than the human race’s? Clearly, we have much work to do to enhance our perspective regarding male survivors, and survivors as a whole.

>and if He [God] rescued Lot, a righteous man oppressed by the licentious conduct of unprincipled people (for day after day that righteous man living among them was tormented in his righteous soul at the lawless deeds that he saw and heard), then the Lord knows how to rescue the devout from trial and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment…

2. Exodus 1: 17-18 — the reason why baby Moses had to be sent off in the Nile. The king had royally decreed adro-infanticide.

>The king of Egypt told the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was called Shiphrah and the other Puah, “When you act as midwives for the Hebrew women, look on the birthstool: if it is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, she may live.”

Also, in the same chapter, verse 22:

>Pharaoh then commanded all his people, “Throw into the Nile every boy that is born, but you may let all the girls live.”

* * * Many believe that during the Passover, God chose to slay all male firstborn, which is not at all stated or specified in either Exodus 12: 12 or Exodus 12: 29. It was every firstborn in general. As a (female) firstborn, I am very offended! /s

Exodus 12: 12

>“For on this same night I will go through Egypt, striking down every firstborn in the land, human being and beast alike, and executing judgment on all the gods of Egypt—I, the LORD!”

Exodus 12: 29

>And so at midnight the LORD struck down every firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh sitting on his throne to the firstborn of the prisoner in the dungeon, as well as all the firstborn of the animals.

God knows, I may be wrong. Maybe every male firstborn really was slaughtered and it was just not recorded in Sacred Scripture but in Sacred Tradition. Anyone is welcome correct any facts or quotes I got wrong or misinterpreted. I acknowledge my humanity and ability to fall to wrong premises and fallacies. * * *

3. More andro-infanticide when our very own Saviour was born, accounted in Matthew 2: 16! These ancient rulers (King Herod, in this account) just hate baby boys.

>When Herod realized that he had been deceived by the magi, he became furious. He ordered the massacre of all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had ascertained from the magi.

Those are all historical accounts of misandry/androcide/violence against men and boys I could find as of now. If anyone finds anything else, you are absolutely more than welcome to link or quote it down to the verse. Praying for y’alls as we comment, and I am very interested to hear all sorts of perspectives on this very intriguing matter.