[Tietäjä]

It's going to be a very gradual an answering process. Brace yourself.

If whatever else they do is secondary, then you can be a 'good' feminist and a terrible human being (I didn't check radfemhub, I'll take your word for it).

I suggest you read this and this. Since you're probably well more into the theory than I am, you can probably explain it to me.

And yes, this is - that you can be a very terrible human being while being a celebrated feminist - one of the reasons why I don't support the movement.

I don't know. To me, it feels a little like saying "yes, slavery is bad, but we shouldn't forget that slave owners have a lot of responsibility because they need to care for their slaves". Of course, the analogy doesn't hold: slave owners can choose to not keep slaves, while men can't change their gender without some extremely invasive surgery and hormonal treatments.

Yes, however someone's made the value decision to call "being housewife" the slave, and calling "being a mine shaft worker" the slaver. This is purely a value decision that appreciates the opportunity to participate in work force above the opportunity to stay home. This is very visible because of the history of where feminism came from and how feminists are right now. When the movement came out, it was a movement of those women who already had things excellent. They were upper middle class. Intersectionality is a very new a term for feminists and they still struggle with the issue that the woman really doesn't want to go to the mine shaft even if it'd be "empowering" above a housewife's duty.

If you really want to compare old-system housewives to slaves, then you'll also want to remember that a husband could be held legally responsible for his wife's crimes, ergo, if your slave murdered someone, you could get hung. It's not a "pick your cherries" festival; but again, a very entwined system of two genders where both have strong roles which both involve responsibilities and (dis)&advantages

Phrasing it like that, I'm having a hard time taking seriously anyone who's concerned with either "women's rights" or "men's rights"; 'proper' feminism takes both into account.

I call no true scotsman. Please provide with an accurate definition of what a proper feminist is like and then proceed to tell me if radfemhub feminists are proper feminists or not, and have a proper feminist inform them if they're not.

Let's assume you would do this. You'd find a true scotsman who would then champion down radfemhub and tell them "Could you please understand that both women and men have problems in our societies and these problems are sometimes entwined so that it might be a good idea to try solve them together". I'll tell you what the answer will be: your true scotsman will be called a not true scotsman, instead, the title will be "We've had enough of you apologists".

Objectifying women is wrong, but objectifying a woman may not be, if that's what she wants.

One of the main issues feminism struggles with is drawing the line between the two.

No, you're missing the point. What feminism struggles with is the fact that sexuality can also be a source of power: especially for a very beautiful woman like Beyonce. They're not willing to admit, that through sheer force of a beautiful body, she holds power. This is of course, passive power in compared to say violence, which is active power (bulky caveman). But it is still there, and what "empowerment" is to Beyonce is probably best described as using that power in practise.

Just that, it'd be a bad beat for a lobbyist group to admit that women aren't a homogenous group (and men aren't either) and that what is "priviledge" is mostly defined very heterogenously. It doesn't fit the scheme.

I don't agree feminism opposes rigid systems of social rules in general; it's just opposed to one that currently defines what behaviour is appropriate for each of the genders.

Here's the question: we know what we're being liberated from. Do we know if what we're being liberated into is better than what we're being liberated from, and from whose perspective is it better?

However, if your goal is 'creating equality', then taking from the over-privileged portion of society and giving to the under-privileged portion is an entirely valid action

Define privilege. Remember that there are also value decisions related to privilege.

The major difference is that we consider our gender more sacred and more personal than our income level.

Notice: we are also able to define income level accurately person per person (apart from "grey" trade). Privilege is more vague. It is very difficult to measure, and both genders seem to have their ups and downs - notably, I would have gladly given up my privilege of obligatory military service to any keen feminist willing to take this privilege from me. Saying that one gender has more than the other requires an amount of value calls that appreciate certain things over others. This isn't typically how "science" works - most scientific discussion isn't based on making value choices and then asserting reality as a sum of implications of these choices.

Which one do you reckon would have more privilege, in Netherlands - a girl born into the royal family or a boy born into an immigrant Indonesian family? Surely the boy, since he's a patriarch-to-be. It's not so easy as to say "all men have privilege x". Male privilege is also attached to social status. So is female privilege. Both downsides are also attached to social status: say, poverty tends to have an inheritage (children of poor tend to remain poor and so on).

Just because they call themselves feminists doesn't mean they are that.

I call no true scotsman again. Why and how are you in a position to define someone as a feminist, or not feminist, especially when we're discussing acredited people like Julie Bindel, Sheila Jeffreys, and Andrea Dworkin.

I'll get to the economic bit on the next post.

But the point is: If I could label myself a feminist, and know that doing so I would only support the egalitarian feminists I would gladly do so and embrace their tools and knowledge. Hell, I would even donate money for that cause, honestly. But I can't. The true scotsman will always be a massive problem for the movement, and if I'd support the movement, I'd also support things like plans to murder male fetuses.