LGBT celebrates its differences. It welcomes everyone. It is open minded and tolerant.

Feminism bullies, ridicules, excludes, creates us/them divides and is continually hypocritical.

You could not have 2 more different different approaches. You don't need to be a bully. You don't need to threaten or ridicule or divide.

A few (repeated examples) to highlight my point. Matt Taylor bullied by large numbers of feminists for wearing a shirt designed by a woman, showing women wearing bikinis. Do women wear bikinis? Yes. Yet, he was mercilessly attacked by at least 10,000 radicals.

Domestic violence. It's repeatedly reported as a man thing (note: someone close to me was stabbed by his wife while she was high on drugs - but it wasn't domestic violence.. As the media says, that's only a man thing). Also note the absence of mental abuse that goes almost ignored.

Code.org who didn't bother to put a link to encourage boys, but explicitly put one to encourage girls on their main page. This was no accident - they have a quota to meet, apparently at any cost. Mind you, this could equally be attributed to political correctness.

I greatly respect how the LGBT community has embraced most people to support their cause without alienating anyone or demanding ridiculous quotas. I am totally gay friendly. Yet, I strongly oppose feminism. I believe in equality, but not equality for one gender or skin colour or sexual orientation.

I respect movements that embrace differences rather than reject them. Bullying is not required.

Several years ago there was a initiative to create equality in education. Any student that was a minority in their class received a minor bonus as an incentive. The initiative was however deemed a failure when it was realized that the majority of student fulfilling the requirement was men and not women. Afterward it was sent to the courts which promptly declared the initiative as discriminative against students who weren't minorities. Now only a short time ago a new initiative was suggested by a government study, with the primary difference from the old one being that it will now only apply in studies where men are the majority.

So excuse me for having a hard time finding those old-school feminists that talks about equal rights. The only time I saw one was in a opinion piece a year ago where equal rights was described as the "old" feminism movement, and I saw a lot of hatred directed at her rather than support in the comments.

That was my point: the people most active in online discussions do not necessarily represent a majority view. They are simply the most vocal. Talk to people around you - family, friends and coworkers. Does a significant proportion of them share these beliefs?

The people most likely to comment on matters like this in online discussions are people with extreme opinions on them.

I cannot comment on the swedish initiative as I'm not familiar with it.

The implication of that is that in any given pursuit, true equality will not create proportional representation. (And common sense tells you that fixing that with incentives is impossibly complex and therefore will never be achieved)

I normally would not nitpick that, but "de jure" has a different meaning, "According to law; by right", that would be applicable in this context.

(genuinely curious)

I guess there's this notion that, pre-feminism, women had fewer rights but were otherwise left alone and unharmed, in peaceful domestic spaces. But that's really the wrong way of looking at it. Prisoners in solitary confinement are left and alone and not physically harmed, but no one would say they aren't suffering. The way women have historically been denied access to the public sphere and convinced of their inferiority is itself a kind of imprisonment, and it's a massive crime.

And the same doesn't happen concerning DV towards males?

>or in some places explicitly made legal

Duluth model anyone?

I am not sure why we need to assign a badness rating to this kind of thing. And people should not need to equivocate based on some sliding scale of injustice. Anger does have a role to play in changing society. It just gets tricky when people base their whole world view and identify on a single issue. Feminist views are interesting and elucidating but need to be read with a critical eye. Of course a lot of the victims will have no choice in how profound these issues are to them so it is best to be forgiving.

While I find them more tolerant on average, this is not true of the entire group and they do not welcome everyone.

>Domestic violence. It's repeatedly reported as a man thing

Haven't recently studies found that lesbian couples are the most violent and among heterosexual couples the violence is far more equal than public perception?

> Yet, I strongly oppose feminism. I believe in equality, but not equality for one gender or skin colour or sexual orientation.

That means you're a feminist. I'm sorry you're not able to get your definitions straight.

> Bullying is not required.

Calling people out on their bullshit isn't bullying.

When the effect is merely to pressure, and not to convince, then in that particular context, people who may have been legitimately oppressed have (temporarily) become the oppressors.

The difference between calling people out on their bullshit versus bullying is this: In "calling people out" -- people are shown their self-contradiction in such a way that they are given a chance to better live up to their moral system. It becomes bullying when people are only vilified, placed in an irredeemable category, then effectively punished in some way.

Putting pressure on someone to behave themselves isn't oppression. You can't possibly have gone through life without seeing actual oppression.

> It becomes bullying when people are only vilified, placed in an irredeemable category, then effectively punished in some way.

Nobody is irredeemable; but some people don't want redemption. When people refuse to behave themselves, they get shunned. This is a normal human defense mechanism.

I have, in actuality, been the subject of ethnic/racially based harassment, to the point where the police got involved. (The perpetrators were caught, but I was pressured by the police to not file charges.)

I grew up in a part of the country where the family had to drive 45 miles to visit with friends who were also asian, but not the exact same ethnic group. Yes, I know a little about actual oppression. Yes, there were other weird group hazings I experienced in my youth.

When people refuse to behave themselves, they get shunned. This is a normal human defense mechanism.

The default human reaction is to label the different as the wrong and the other. The normal human defense mechanism, when not properly cultivated and educated, is precisely the psychological foundation of oppression. I know this first hand.

Do you know why the Freedom of Speech is enshrined in the US Constitution? It's precisely because normal human defense mechanisms result in the outright oppression of those with different points of view. And it's precisely this sort of lack of self-awareness and self-examination that allows normal people to take on the role of oppressor.

Oppression is usually viewed by oppressors as putting pressure on the oppressed to behave properly.

Or the real estate industry colluding to keep out a minority from living in a certain area.

Or asking someone not to wear a demeaning shirt.

All totally the same thing.

you are condoning bullying. bullying is threatening and demeaning in a way a shirt can only hope to one day accomplish, for the record.

If wearing a t-shirt once can make others feel uncomfortable and not included, and this situation is wrong, then it is also wrong to permanently or too severely sanction the t-shirt wearer. Such a situation should be discussed calmly and resolved.

and who decides what behavior is acceptable? you? don't make me laugh.

you, and those like you, are bullies. plain and simple. cut and dry. black and white.

some might even call you "thought-bullies."

Old school maybe. Old school feminism is incompatible with the new stuff.

I disagree with that definition. I think that view means the parent poster is an educated, rational person. Are you sorry for me as well?

This is board with many nerds. It is fair to say that we have all been bullied to some degree. Bullying may not be violent to the degree that it physically hits people over the head, but it is far more violent than anything feminism complains about.

And Doctor Matt Taylor was bullied for what clothing he choose to wear. By feminists.

Anything? Like rape, beatings, and murder? You have some listening to do, friend. In fact, your comment is a perfect illustration of the fact that misogynistic men are bitter because of their experience of being shunned or ignored by women -- essentially the non-act of not getting loved -- while women are afraid of getting abused, raped or murdered by men; acts that happen in communities all over the world.

Not all men; but the minority that do are poisoning the well. If a woman didn't risk slander, abuse and rape she would be free to be flirtatious and gay, but if she's experienced that, she will put up her guard, and rightly so. Responding to that with more bitterness and slander, well that's just rushing down the spiral.

People want to have fun with each other. But if one has interactions with 100 others every week, and even one of them threatens you, then you will be threatened every week. Racism and sexism exist and is carried out by a minority, but that doesn't mean that you won't meet it constantly throughout your life. If you don't have that experience, then you are privileged. But since you haven't seen the other side of the coin, you will think that those who do are hysterical and exaggerating.

I wonder how we ended up here.

Then it isn't violence. Bullying implies violence. You're describing something else.

Have a look at what constitutes bullying [0]

Violence is but a subset of it.

Unless we were to water down the definition of violence to include any manner of ridicule. At which, you're diluting the definition of violence under the guise of staying steadfast on the definition of bullying necessarily including violence.

[0] http://www2.gov.bc.ca/myhr/article.page?ContentID=44eaf3f0-f...

That is incorrect. Dictionary definition: "Persistent acts intended to make life unpleasant for another person."

So if I followed you around HN for the rest of the week responding to all postings/comments with insults and browbeating, that would be completely non-violent but still bullying.

https://www.wordnik.com/words/bullying

Or is it just if I'm oblivious to the harassment I cause & don't care to find out, then it's somehow morally superior to someone repeatedly and strenuously asking me to stop?

I'll just assume you meant "bullying" instead of "harassment" since that was the immediate topic.

From my brief research it seems Matt Taylor wore the shirt because he liked it, not with an intention to harass women, so it fails the intent clause of the definition. And it appears he only wore it once, so it would also fail the persistence clause. Thus it wouldn't be bullying by that definition.

I suspect that wearing that shirt would qualify as harassment under some definitions, such as US workplace law. And I personally think it's in terrible taste in most contexts.

Especially given cases where it can be more damaging to a person than physical assaults against their meat.

Feminism, on the other hand, is a sociopolitical movement, based on a particular understanding of history and what the future should look like. Sociopolitical movements (for example, the various anti-LGBT movements out there), can bully because they are trying to change society's beliefs.

But it's not bullying that changes a society's beliefs. It's commerce, coexistence, and exposure which does this. If anything, bullying can produce the opposite of the intended effect. Pseudo-activism can be recognized by the primacy of outrage in its actions. Pseudo-activism actually thrives on the generation of outrage among the "enemies." This in turn generates more outrage on "their" side in a (literally) vicious cycle. When observing activists, ask yourself -- What has primacy: a moral message, or the generation of outrage? Hateivism lives through outrage, and it optimizes the maintenance and generation of more outrage.