A lot of feminists are against discrimination that also harms men.
No they don’t.
Unless you’re talking racism or prejudice against homosexual men. This has a lot more to do with political alliances within the Democratic Party or among some of today’s socialists in the U.S., Canada, and Europe if they’re not white nationalists.
But feminism today is largely about socially and politically positioning women superior to men, and mainly through increasingly lessening female responsibility through legislation and judicial actions.
You are correct that feminists can be male or female. However, female feminist almost wholly, support alpha males. This would probably fall under the Red Queen theory or hypothesis (I have a professor that referred to it as a hypothesis but a popular book I’m reading on some of it refers to it as a hypothesis–but then that author [Matt Ridley] also incorrectly referred to AIDS as a virus, when it’s HIV that is, and AIDS is the resulting syndrome from HIV).
Feminism will eventually–and already has begun too I would argue–place men (alphas, betas, and omegas) back to square one of ancient Babylonia, Egypt, and Rome. To continue “progress” one can not stop rebelling when a new fight is one, be that female sexual revolution of the '70s or gay marriage. One would have to be child-like naive to believe otherwise. Very soon feminist will promote polygamy as the new righteous war to wage against sexual oppression, and then multiple spouses. This way they can share rich or powerful men as legitimate wives. They already do as mistresses.
I just face reality. I’m pretty politically agnostic. So, I try to see things as they are.
Life is predicated on competition and selection and prejudice and discrimination are central to that. It’s only regard as social and “patriarchal” when men are the ones prejudiced (against “fat” women) and the ones discriminating (favor slimmer more curvacious women). When women and feminist women do it it’s called “natural.”
Hey… women may not even be held responsible for the prenuptial contracts they sign now. And use common law is based in part on precedents.
abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/03/long-island-woman-wins-groundbreaking-prenup-battle/
Judicial activism does not even attempt to free the tens of thousands of men in the U.S. that singed papers in the hospital stating the new born child id theirs. They often sign under the “meeting of the minds” (to use a contract law phrase and crucial principle) that they are the biological fathers. Once DNA evidence proves otherwise and their girl friend knowingly deceived them, they are still stuck under court order to be financially responsibly for that child till that child turns age 18.
If that woman goes out, gets impregnated by another man, and the father cannot be tracked down, or she says she does not know who the father is, the guy paying child support for the child that already not his will have his child support payments raised to adjust to the new financial needs of this woman that has given birth to another child (another child not his).
More young men need to become aware of the logical errors one can make: false-positive errors and false-negative errors. Women are indoctrinated to regard all approaching men (unless they are clearly rich, powerful, of high status, or extraordinarily handsome) with the logic of false-positive error choice. That is to say the man is considered a rapists, a killer, a deceiver until proven otherwise. Like approaching a used needle. You treat it as though it has infectious pathogens on it. The price paid being wrong is a lot smaller than the price you will pay for a false-negative error of choice, in which you’re sure the used needle has no infectious pathogens on it, but it turns out you’re wrong. Now you have hepatitis or HIV.
Women carry disease, bank raiding, child support for kids not yours, deception. If she dates you she will ditch you when the rich guy or drug dealer comes along. Now the courts have given her precedent to get out of prenuptial contracts. Feminism is about tilting the benefits for woman at 99% to 100% and the risks they face to 1% to 0% in relationship to men. They may not have achieved the 99% or 100% goal yet but they are increasingly inching closer to it. They may only be at 60% or 70% now.
But it’s a difficult thing. Because in many parts of the world men have about 99% benefits and 1% risk in relation to women. Those might be called “masculinist” societies. And they oppressive women and some of the men treat some of the girls and women as less than bugs to be squashed. Feminism is needed in these places.
