[javert]

I agree.

One of my problems with feminism is that it elevates women to a priviliged status while leaving males with low status behind, which just makes them worse off overall.

We have to stop this groupism and treat everyone properly, period. The only rights there are are human rights.

[DINKDINK]

>One of my problems with feminism is that it elevates women to a priviliged status while leaving males with low status behind

I disagree. You're confusing Misandry and Feminism.

[javert]

There is no one definition of feminism. Feminism is a "big tent" term. So generally, you can't sustain an argument that feminism doesn't say or do X, Y or Z, within a fairly broad scope.

That is my bigger problem with feminism: people with more reasonable views are providing cover for people with less reasonable views, since they all just call it "feminism."

For many feminists, feminism absolutely is about "overthrowing patriarchy," which in practice means taking retribution against all men---including all those men that are already at the bottom of the pyramid (like, say, the ones who serve as cannon fodder in wars). That is reprehensible. Those men need our help, not to be treated like crap even more.

The only kind of intellectual position that is a respectable one is an intellectual position that is well defined. "Big tent" terms and movements should be rejected. They always consist of better people providing cover for worse people. "Islam" is another example.

[dragonwriter]

> That is my bigger problem with feminism: people with more reasonable views are providing cover for people with less reasonable views, since they all just call it "feminism."

That applies to pretty much everything -- from agile development to democracy -- not just feminism.

> For many feminists, feminism absolutely is about "overthrowing patriarchy," which in practice means taking retribution against all men

The support for the claim that this is particularly interpretation of "overthrowing patriarchy" is in fact the goal of "many feminists" is non-obvious. Please identify it.

[javert]

> That applies to pretty much everything -- from agile development to democracy -- not just feminism.

No it doesn't. It doesn't apply to most concepts. If it did, concepts would not work.

Democracy is rule by the majority. There is no ambiguity there. That there are many implementations doesn't make the term ambiguous.

> The support for the claim that this is particularly interpretation of "overthrowing patriarchy" is in fact the goal of "many feminists" is non-obvious. Please identify it.

It is not non-obvious. You just have to listen to feminists.

[DINKDINK]

>For many feminists, feminism absolutely is about "overthrowing patriarchy," which in practice means taking retribution against all men

Patriarchy is defined as "a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it." Overthrowing such a system =/= 'taking retribution against all men'

[javert]

I wrote an answer, but HN gobbled it up because it said I was posting too fast. I don't want to write it again. Sorry.