If I see some traits of Feminism as a threat or unfair is because I´m biased?

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, Parththakkar12 said:

I know that men are privileged. Does that mean that any guy who wants to critically look at feminism is wrong? I never said the whole movement is full of shit, I'm just wanting to critically look at it.

There's fundamental problems with the whole notion of equality/privilege which I'm pointing to. There's also fundamental problems with the whole patriarchy-bashing thing. Do you see that?

Due to perceiving through a conditioned lens, there is limitation and distortion. I understand your perspective because I’ve worn that lens. And I can wear that lens if I want to. For example, if I was communicating with a woman that hated men, I may use this lens to describe the perspective of certain men. Yet that won’t help you. You already have that part down. That is the lens that you are deeply immersed into. I’m not saying your view is wrong, I’m saying your view is incomplete and very limited. 

Part of the problem is a desire to control the narrative through the lens a person is wearing. Most  people are attached and identified to one lens and they want to define things like what counts as a “critical analysis” of feminism.  Or to define what counts as “fundamental problems”. Or to define “patriarchal-bashing”. There is some truth to it, yet it is incomplete, very limited and distorted. From one lens, your posts appear reasonable, from other lenses many of your posts appear as mansplaining and dripping with male privilege. The type of stuff that makes women roll their eyes. Yet you seem so immersed in your man cave that you are unaware and don’t care. 

Trying to be understood and to persuade others will not lead to expansion and depth. Letting go of defense mechanisms and stepping into another’s perspective and experience is where the expansion is. There was a point in my life that I got very curious about women’s perspectives and experiences. I made a lot of female friends and asked them a lot of questions about their views and experience. I really wanted to understand, relate and experience it. I asked hundreds of questions, allowed space for her and listened. I didn’t correct the women, talk over them, control the narrative or mansplain. I didn’t care about “being a man”. I wasn’t afraid of looking weak or like a “beta male”. I wasn’t trying to impress her or to get in her pants. I had no agenda. I genuinely wanted to learn, understand and expand. This allowed me to put on their lens and see through many different lenses. Yet very few men are willing to do this and they remain contracted within their own self-centered lens. For me, being limited to one conditioned lens is a prison. I can’t stay there for very long. 

And it’s not just women. I’ve done this with black and brown people, LGBTQ people, polyamorous people, drug addicts, criminals, people with paranormal abilities, people with psychosis, autism, bipolar and others. If we were out for lunch, I would be asking you lots of questions about Indian culture. 

Debating one’s current perspective will further contract them into that perspective. It will not allow for depth and breadth. One would need to sever their chains of conditioning to explore. Yet not everyone is interested in that. 

[Parththakkar12]

27 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Part of the problem is a desire to control the narrative through the lens a person is wearing. Most  people are attached and identified to one lens and they want to define things like what counts as a “critical analysis” of feminism.  Or to define what counts as “fundamental problems”. Or to define “patriarchal-bashing”. There is some truth to it, yet it is incomplete, very limited and distorted. From one lens, your posts appear reasonable, from other lenses many of your posts appear as mansplaining and dripping with male privilege. The type of stuff that makes women roll their eyes. Yet you seem so immersed in your man cave that you are unaware and don’t care. 

Ah okay now I get why you have a problem with the whole 'controlling the narrative' thing. When you have different 'lenses' in the society that don't get along, both will compete for dominance! The key here is to integrate both of them. That's where the resolution to this whole thing lies. It's the best we can do, given that all lenses are limited in their own ways.

33 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Trying to be understood and to persuade others will not lead to expansion and depth. Letting go of defense mechanisms and stepping into another’s perspective and experience is where the expansion is. There was a point in my life that I got very curious about women’s perspectives and experiences. I made a lot of female friends and asked them a lot of questions about their views and experience. I really wanted to understand, relate and experience it. I asked hundreds of questions, allowed space for her and listened. I didn’t correct the women, talk over them, control the narrative or mansplain. I didn’t care about “being a man”. I wasn’t afraid of looking weak or like a “beta male”. I wasn’t trying to impress her or to get in her pants. I had no agenda. I genuinely wanted to learn, understand and expand. This allowed me to put on their lens and see through many different lenses. Yet very few men are willing to do this and they remain contracted within their own self-centered lens. For me, being limited to one conditioned lens is a prison. I can’t stay there for very long. 

Nice! I'm happy to see that you're not just brainwashed by one perspective/the media. I do the same with the collective egos in the world! I learn a lot by seeing that they're a part of me and integrating them.

Now about taking action : You HAVE to take a stand in order to take action. I'm not saying that the stand you take has to be absolutely true, in fact it's relative to the situation at hand. It also doesn't mean that other perspectives aren't valid, they are. However, you need to be 100% on board with a certain course of action, which requires some degree of black-and-white thinking. Also ,this is the case on a social level cuz most people are dogmatic and will passionately support your stand/action in an absolutist way! The stand you take may or may not be what you authentically believe, but the sole purpose of doing it is to take the action you want to take. What do you think about this?

[Parththakkar12]

Also, the whole theory of 'Empowerment of women entails dis-empowerment/reverse oppression of men, so we'll empower women by dis-empowering, shaming and scapegoating men' assumes that if one side wins, the other one has to lose. It assumes separation and absolute existence of zero-sum game. A more conscious way of going about this would be to find the win-win scenarios which work for both sides. It'll require commitment from both sides to care about each other!

Edited January 5, 2020 by Parththakkar12

[Forestluv]

7 hours ago, Parththakkar12 said:

When you have different 'lenses' in the society that don't get along, both will compete for dominance!

 

4 hours ago, Parththakkar12 said:

Also, the whole theory of 'Empowerment of women entails dis-empowerment/reverse oppression of men, so we'll empower women by dis-empowering, shaming and scapegoating men' assumes that if one side wins, the other one has to lose. It assumes separation and absolute existence of zero-sum game. A more conscious way of going about this would be to find the win-win scenarios which work for both sides. It'll require commitment from both sides to care about each other!

When a person is self-biased, they cannot see inequalities. Both sides seem equal. Men have more power, control, earn more for the same work, get more speaking time and decision-making. They don’t see the imbalance due to conditioning. Men can be in work meetings that are 80% men, men get 80% of the speaking time, interrupt and talk over women. This will seem balanced for both sides to men. Many men are literally unable to see the inequality due to their conditioning. If we set up work meetings with 50% women, gave women 50% of speaking time, allowed women 50% of decision power and cut off men when they spoke over on time - it would appear unbalanced to men. Men would complain that they aren’t getting equal time. Men would complain that they are being oppressed and how unfair it is. Men would complain that women are being toxic and bitchy. Men will say they are being dis-empowered as women are empowered to 50%. Men that are conditioned to perceive an 80:20 split as normal and fair will perceive a 50:50 split as being unfair and oppressive. To me, you are wearing an 80:20 lens and think it’s a 50:50 lens.

From a male perspective, gender equality for women looks like male oppression. When you say finding solutions that work for both sides, this is coming from a male dominated perspective. It is like being in a work meeting that is 80% men, men get 80% speaking time and 80% decision making power and saying “ok everyone. Let’s be conscious about this and find solutions that are win-win, solutions that work for both men and women in our company. Let’s care about each other”. And then the men set the rules of discourse for the meeting, control the narrative, talk over women, correct women and win all the votes. The men give a few crumbs to women and leave the meeting with policies that disproportionately benefit themselves. This will seem fair and balanced to the men that have been conditioned to perceive these inequalities as normal. 

Do women have 50% representation in your government? Do women hold 50% of the most powerful positions in your government? If not, why aren’t you advocating for equal representation?

The reason I am not engaging with you about examples of toxic femininity and male issues is that you already have that part down. If I was speaking with a woman that thought women were angels and that men are privileged and have no issues, I would try to highlight examples in which women  an overstep too far and examples of male issues. Yet you are already an expert in this area.It would be counter-productive to engage in that. 

[Ananta]

9 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

The vast majority of women simply want equality and to be treated in a decent manner free of oppression and harassment from men, yet this will appear as demanding and threatening to a privileged male who wants to maintain the status quo. 

Bingo! 

[Parththakkar12]

2 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

When a person is self-biased, they cannot see inequalities. Both sides seem equal. Men have more power, control, earn more for the same work, get more speaking time and decision-making. They don’t see the imbalance due to conditioning. Men can be in work meetings that are 80% men, men get 80% of the speaking time, interrupt and talk over women. This will seem balanced for both sides to men. Many men are literally unable to see the inequality due to their conditioning. If we set up work meetings with 50% women, gave women 50% of speaking time, allowed women 50% of decision power and cut off men when they spoke over on time - it would appear unbalanced to men. Men would complain that they aren’t getting equal time. Men would complain that they are being oppressed and how unfair it is. Men would complain that women are being toxic and bitchy. Men will say they are being dis-empowered as women are empowered to 50%. Men that are conditioned to perceive an 80:20 split as normal and fair will perceive a 50:50 split as being unfair and oppressive. To me, you are wearing an 80:20 lens and think it’s a 50:50 lens.

All of these are perfectly legitimate problems. Not everyone would agree, but I do.

2 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

From a male perspective, gender equality for women looks like male oppression. When you say finding solutions that work for both sides, this is coming from a male dominated perspective. It is like being in a work meeting that is 80% men, men get 80% speaking time and 80% decision making power and saying “ok everyone. Let’s be conscious about this and find solutions that are win-win, solutions that work for both men and women in our company. Let’s care about each other”. And then the men set the rules of discourse for the meeting, control the narrative, talk over women, correct women and win all the votes. The men give a few crumbs to women and leave the meeting with policies that disproportionately benefit themselves. This will seem fair and balanced to the men that have been conditioned to perceive these inequalities as normal. 

The reality is, that we live in a patriarchy which is occupied by men. All solutions to these problems have to be approved by these men in power. Up until now, all men have been on board with all the equal rights, women in the workforce, overall betterment of women, etc. Had they not been on board, none of this would have ever happened!

Potential solutions to these problems which arise from hate-mongering and vengeful ideations will literally not fly with the men in power! They will not help the feminist cause. If your solutions don't work for men, good luck implementing them!!

Even if we solve all the inequality problems, heck if we reverse the 80/20 to 20/80, it'll still be a patriarchy, but with women in power! The system structure is fundamentally patriarchial and masculine in nature. Changing this would literally mean feminists design a new system from scratch, and then compare it with the current one. Then we'll consider uprooting the patriarchy!

If you ask me what I think would work, I honestly have no clue! Solving problems like these isn't a one-man show (or even a one-committee show), the society literally has to evolve into a new system where both men and women find their authentic niche.

Edited January 5, 2020 by Parththakkar12

[Forestluv]

7 hours ago, Parththakkar12 said:

Up until now, all men have been on board with all the equal rights, women in the workforce, overall betterment of women, etc. Had they not been on board, none of this would have ever happened!

Even without knowing your gender, it is completely obvious that you are a male. Everything you write is going through a conditioned male filter. Don’t you want to expand beyond that? Being limited to the filter I was conditioned with during my upbringing would be awful to me. It would be like being imprisoned. As soon as I left the household of my childhood, I started questioning everything that was programmed into me from my parents and society. Religion, politics, gender roles - all of it. I wanted to be free of it, explore, grow and expand. 

To me, everything you are saying sounds like it is coming from a spokesperson for men. You seem really unaware about the plight of women through history, what they have had to endure, oppression and the courage of women that have stood up to oppressive men. To say that men have been on board for equal gender rights, women in the workforce and overall betterment of women is absolutely absurd. It is so absurd that I don’t know if you are serious or are trolling me. Women have been slowly gaining rights in spite of men. Men have been resisting gender equality for centuries - often violently. Your framing of men as the caring providers toward gender equality is a grotesque distortion and very disrespectful to the courageous women that stood up to men and suffered terribly for doing so. I’d like to think that you are unaware rather than intentionally doing so. Go read up on the suffragettes who fought for women’s right to vote. Men were not on board for their equal rights or betterment. Men saw them as a threat, imprisoned women and tortured women in prison to oppress women. Literally horrific physical torture.

As well, men have resisted women in the workforce. Men have resisted every step of the way, and exposed women to awful work environments including sexual exploitation, sexual harassment and abuse. Read up on women in the workforce in the 1970s. Courageous women stepped up and put their own welfare on the line to fight for better conditions. For a man to take credit for such efforts and say it was only through the goodness of men that women have any rights is dripping with male privilege and arrogance. It’s gross to anyone familiar with female oppression. Step outside of your male bubble, get curious and learn about female oppression. Read books, watch documentaries, ask women questions and learn from women. Put all this male-biased programming aside and expand. Do you really want to live your life in a hyper male-biased contraction? To me, that would be awful.

7 hours ago, Parththakkar12 said:

Potential solutions to these problems which arise from hate-mongering and vengeful ideations will literally not fly with the men in power! They will not help the feminist cause. If your solutions don't work for men, good luck implementing them!!

This is a form of “concern trolling”. You seem to see women striving for equality as a threat and want to maintain the status quo. You are not an advocate for the upward progression of women. Your advice  to women on how they should proceed seems hollow to me. 
 

 

[Ananta]

6 hours ago, Parththakkar12 said:

Up until now, all men have been on board with all the equal rights, women in the workforce, overall betterment of women, etc. Had they not been on board, none of this would have ever happened!

???? That's funny!

 

I've had some brutality by men starting at the age of about 8 when after heading home from the store on my bike after getting a gallon of milk. I was stopped by a group of 3 older guys. They threw my milk, slapped my face, pushed me around and then into a ditch and kicked in the spokes of my bike. All while laughing and thinking they were very cool. Cool until I ran home and got my dad, who got in his car and found them about a mile down the road. ?

I've had other incidents unfortunately through out the years, men trying to follow me, hurt me or try to push me around, because they are bigger and stronger, but yeah, still it never made me a man hater or anything like that. I really blame the person themselves, not the gender as a whole.

I also know some very sweet, caring  and intelligent men. Also, men like @Serotoninluv who will stand up for women, because they know discrimination against women is wrong.

[Parththakkar12]

7 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

To me, everything you are saying sounds like it is coming from a spokesperson for men. You seem really unaware about the plight of women through history, what they have had to endure, oppression and the courage of women that have stood up to oppressive men. To say that men have been on board for equal gender rights, women in the workforce and overall betterment of women is absolutely absurd. It is so absurd that I don’t know if you are serious or are trolling me. Women have been slowly gaining rights in spite of men. Men have been resisting gender equality for centuries - often violently. Your framing of men as the caring providers toward gender equality is a grotesque distortion and very disrespectful to the courageous women that stood up to men and suffered terribly for doing so. I’d like to think that you are unaware rather than intentionally doing so. Go read up on the suffragettes who fought for women’s right to vote. Men were not on board for their equal rights or betterment. Men saw them as a threat, imprisoned women and tortured women in prison to oppress women. Literally horrific physical torture.

I know this! Everything I say comes after taking all of this into consideration. Women have had to fight tooth and nail against the status quo for their rights, and there've been men who resisted that. However, there've also been men who wanted these changes to happen and still want them to happen. Feminists would literally be dead in the water without these men!

Imagine a scenario where all men ever wanted was to dominate, subjugate and control women. Feminists wouldn't stand a goddamn chance against that! Look at the times before the feminist movements happened.

7 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

This is a form of “concern trolling”. You seem to see women striving for equality as a threat and want to maintain the status quo. You are not an advocate for the upward progression of women. Your advice  to women on how they should proceed seems hollow to me. 

I'm not saying what anyone should do. I'm just telling you how it is.

11 hours ago, Parththakkar12 said:

Up until now, all men have been on board with all the equal rights, women in the workforce, overall betterment of women, etc. Had they not been on board, none of this would have ever happened!

When I said 'all men' I meant 'men as a whole'. Men in general have chosen to implement and accept the changes proposed by feminists out of their free will, never forget that. (sometimes willingly, sometimes with resistance) If that weren't the case, women wouldn't have voting rights today.

I see you having a filter of 'Feminism good, status quo bad' or in some cases 'Man bad, woman good'. There've been women who resisted feminism! How about you expand your perspective to integrate the ones that may not agree? It'll add nuance to your reasoning. (Just a suggestion, it's okay if you don't want to) I used to have this perspective, believe me, I've seen women suffer! My biggest concerns when I was a kid was that movies are male-oriented and male-dominated, and that they don't show me the female perspective.

Edited January 6, 2020 by Parththakkar12

[Parththakkar12]

Women's problems with this system go a lot deeper than inequality/oversexualization/sexual vulnerability. Equality is not the cure-all that most people make it out to be. The ultimate conclusion of that would be that we'll live in a world of one homogeneous gender. But that's not the world we live in! There are very very fundamental differences between masculinity and femininity, even on an energetic level. Tell me this, have you felt into masculine energy/feminine energy? Have you studied the dynamics between them first hand? If you leave your paradigm of separation/zero-sum games and look at that, you'll see that what's good for one is good for everyone, because everyone is one!

Deep emotional healing and conflict-repair is required on both sides. The physical embodiments of the masculine and feminine, aka men and women have hurt each other a lot and all of it needs to be brought to the surface and healed with each other. Now before women say 'No I didn't hurt men at all!' or 'I'm not responsible for what men did to me!', an implication of oneness is that you are the oppressor who's oppressing you! So doing this healing will take intense amounts of responsibility on both sides.

Edited January 6, 2020 by Parththakkar12

[Eph75]

On 2020-01-05 at 8:16 AM, Parththakkar12 said:

Now about taking action : You HAVE to take a stand in order to take action. I'm not saying that the stand you take has to be absolutely true, in fact it's relative to the situation at hand. It also doesn't mean that other perspectives aren't valid, they are. However, you need to be 100% on board with a certain course of action, which requires some degree of black-and-white thinking. Also ,this is the case on a social level cuz most people are dogmatic and will passionately support your stand/action in an absolutist way! The stand you take may or may not be what you authentically believe, but the sole purpose of doing it is to take the action you want to take. What do you think about this?

It doesn't have to be black or white, one stance where you can take action is to notice that the debate itself is toxic and seeing that there are toxicity/downsides to both sides of that coin. Assuming the "gray" in the color scheme could be e.g. to step in and help moderate the conversation in such a way that it allows for a more nuanced and healthy debate. No need to pick sides, if two sides fight/compete then it implies that one side will win, while it is better off reaching a collaboration that produces something new, somthing better, maybe parts of the old, the good stuff, but maybe needing to let go of something for the greater good. Where there is a winning side there are also losers. 

That goes for the feminist debate, it goes for the immigration debate as well as for the gender binary/non-binary debate and so on. 

We're slowly moving towars a future where we will greatly benefit from adopting, not a male, not a female nor something inbetween those, but a mere human perspective where - in this case gender is only some functional traits, women bear children, men have (generally) more muscle mass.

A woman that does not want to have children and maybe have great muscle mass at the same time as holding qualities that fulfill the requirements of a given task is as much suited for that task as any other human being. 

The empathic, slender man that embraces his feminine side may prefer to embrace what would be seen traditionally female. 

All with no judgement. 

Pausing and exploring what makes up our current stance, regardless of side we have consciously or unconsciously chosen - or being somewhere inbetween for whatever reasons - could help us to pick up on where we have our own dogma.

It is only within ourselves we can change the world, by seeing and being who we can in order to influence the world in a positive way.

Edited January 6, 2020 by Eph75

[Parththakkar12]

6 hours ago, Eph75 said:

t doesn't have to be black or white, one stance where you can take action is to notice that the debate itself is toxic and seeing that there are toxicity/downsides to both sides of that coin. Assuming the "gray" in the color scheme could be e.g. to step in and help moderate the conversation in such a way that it allows for a more nuanced and healthy debate. No need to pick sides, if two sides fight/compete then it implies that one side will win, while it is better off reaching a collaboration that produces something new, somthing better, maybe parts of the old, the good stuff, but maybe needing to let go of something for the greater good. Where there is a winning side there are also losers. 

The purpose of taking a stand isn't to debate and prove yourself right! That's the whole point, you can never be 100% right.

You want your action to be uni-directional. So, the stand you take is like an agenda which informs your course of action so that action goes seamlessly according to what you want to do. If you're certain about your stance, debating is just a waste of time and won't get you anywhere. Debating is useful when you're wanting to rub up against people you disagree with so that you're able to work on yourself/find your authentic beliefs/what you authentically want.

At least that's how I decide to enter debates!

Edited January 6, 2020 by Parththakkar12

[Forestluv]

12 hours ago, Parththakkar12 said:

I'm just telling you how it is.

This is the contraction I am pointing at. The ego wants to control the narrative. You keep saying you know. You keep talking over people, correcting people and “telling them how it is”.

This is a contracted mindset that will not allow for exploration, growth and expansion. If you are content within your current paradigm, great. Be happy and content there. I wish you the best. Yet you won’t deepen and expand with a mindset that talks over others, thinks I know it all, corrects others and lectures others about how it is.

[Eph75]

"It" is black & white only if "we" are black & white. It is one thing to be dogmatic by choice, but it is a real strength to know our dogmas. Question is, if we know we are being dogmatic, can we stay dogmatic? 

[Annoynymous]

12 hours ago, Parththakkar12 said:

 

When I said 'all men' I meant 'men as a whole'. Men in general have chosen to implement and accept the changes proposed by feminists out of their free will, never forget that. (sometimes willingly, sometimes with resistance) If that weren't the case, women wouldn't have voting rights today.

@Parththakkar12

@Parththakkar12 man, your level of delusion and lack of perspective is damn high.

I invite you to my country, live here for few years then you will know how exactly many man violate and discriminate against women.

Not only in my place, but also in many places women are treated literally as "slaves" by many men. In fact it is a norm to do so in most of the third world countries. Here, men decides for women about when they will be "allowed" to go out, do what and don't. They control their lives like a master. If anyone tells them about feminist movement they will straightforwardly condemn them, deny them, threat them and start violence against them. They will do that because they won't like their "privilege" over women being stripped off by feminist movement. 

So your statement that men in general have supported feminism is absolutely absurd and laughable. You are talking from toxic masculine standpoint which will cause you disservice if you hold onto them for long.    

Edited January 6, 2020 by Annoynymous

[Parththakkar12]

4 minutes ago, Annoynymous said:

@Parththakkar12 man, your level of delusion and lack of perspective is damn high.

I invite you to my country, live here for few years then you will know how exactly many man violate and discriminate against women.

Not only in my place, but also in many places women are treated literally as "slaves" by many men. In fact it is a norm to do so in most of the third world countries. Here, men decides for women about when the will be "allowed" to go out, do what and don't do. They control their lives like a master. If anyone tells them about feminist movement they will straightforwardly condemn them, deny them, threat them and start violence against them. They will do that because they won't like their "privilege" over women being stripped off by feminist movement. 

So your statement that men in general have supported feminism is absolutely absurd and laughable. You are talking from toxic masculine standpoint which will cause you disservice if you hold onto them for long.    

I said that feminism has had its success because of support from men. The failure of feminism has also been because of unconsciousness of men! One day, when the men in your country will become conscious enough to support feminism (with contribution from feminist women) the level of oppression will go down! Until then, feminism will not work, in fact chances are even the women will resist it.

Edited January 6, 2020 by Parththakkar12

[Annoynymous]

@Parththakkar12 your idea of feminism failing/winning without/with support of men is the thing that makes you biased and deluded.

[Parththakkar12]

@Eph75 I have parts of me which are dogmatic and purposefully so. The purpose is to take a stand for inspired and decisive action. I don't want to be willy-nilly and weak in my action, that's why a few dogmas are in place for that purpose!

[Parththakkar12]

@Annoynymous  Feminism is a fight for women's rights! If women are the ones fighting for the rights, guess who's giving the rights? Men!

Have there been feminist movements in your country? Did they succeed or fail? If they failed, why so?

[Eph75]

Knowing where you are dogmatic means you know where you are deliberatly unwilling to find out what you are missing, perspectives that you know probably will change you own perspective - not switch perspective but shift into a new, own perspective.

That new perspective will allow you to have as stong action will/action logic as with your old perspective. The actions will only be different, more informed and hence more powerful. 

That is self-actualization  developmental growth, new greater understanding and new stronger ways to interact with the world in which you operate.