نقل قول:The EU’s latest document is a called: “The European framework national statute for the promotion of tolerance”[4] which is a document elaborated with a view to being enacted by the legislatures of all the 28 unfortunate nations that are members of this club. What’s wrong with “promotion of tolerance” one might ask. As you will see in the following lines, “promotion of tolerance” means something entirely different than what it means to reasonable people. And basically the entire document looks more like a statue of the Thought Police and the Ministry of Truth. In the Section 1 of the document, the EU defines its terms. So terms like “hate crime”, “group” and “tolerance” are being introduced. Of particular interest is the EU’s definition of “group libel”[5]:

“Group libel” means: defamatory comments made in public and aimed against a group as defined in paragraph (a) – or members thereof – with a view to inciting to violence, slandering the group, holding it to ridicule or subjecting it to false charges.

As we will soon see, feminists are also de facto part of the “group” notion – so holding feminists to ridicule, as they deserve, will now be a crime. We know this from the Section 2e of the document which says[6]:

The purpose of this Statute is to: [...]
e) Take concrete action to combat intolerance, in particular with a view to eliminating racism, colour bias, ethnic discrimination, religious intolerance, totalitarian ideologies, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, anti-feminism and homophobia.

Yes, you read it correctly. The European Union is dedicating an entire law to force the governments of 28 nations to take concrete action to combat anti-feminism. The other elements of the list should also be looked with suspicion despite the fact that they seem well-intended. For instance, campaigning against male circumcision can bring you criminal charges of “Islamophobia” under this law. Campaigning against female circumcision, though, will bring you a big pat on the back from the politically correct Eurofanatics, despite the fact that the practice is illegal everywhere in Europe. Also, the “totalitarian ideologies” is quite vague and contradictory, given that the EU itself sponsors Communist organizations, it’s being lead by a Maoist and now attempts to deem feminism as a State truth. In the Section 3, the one dealing with the guaranties of rights, the EU explains us clearly that it wants the State to make sure that no individual dares to be an anti-feminist[7]:

Tolerance (…) shall be guaranteed towards any group (…), especially in the enjoyment of the following human rights:
Explanatory Notes:
(…)
Guarantee of tolerance must be understood not only as a vertical relationship (Government-to-individuals) but also as a horizontal relationship (group-to-group and person-to-person). It is the obligation of the Government to ensure that intolerance is not practised either in vertical or in horizontal relationships.

Therefore, not wanting to hire feminist ideologues, which tend to be competent at exactly nothing, can now bring you a criminal lawsuit. Also, the rights allowed under the Section 3 of this document can be limited under the Section 4 of this document if they happen to create inconveniences to the sexual trade union of feminism. But they are perfectly fine if they destroy men’s lives though. Section 4d explains it quite clearly[8]:

The rights guaranteed in Section 3 are subject to the following limitations, applied in a proportionate manner as necessary in a democratic society:[...]
(d) Public morals.
Explanatory Note:
Examples: tolerance does not denote acceptance of such practices as female circumcision, forced marriage, polygamy or any form of exploitation or domination of women.

What is not explicitly forbidden means it is implicitly allowed. And since the explanatory note of the Section 4 states that the list is exhaustive – the only logical conclusion that one can draw is that tolerance means acceptance of such practices as male circumcision, polyandry or any form of exploitation or domination of men and this is even necessary in a democratic society. You can’t make this stuff up! And if this amount of feminist privilege isn’t enough, here’s some more. The Section 6 of the document, dealing with implementation explicitly tells us that the State must make female privilege the rule of the land. The section 6a reads:

To ensure implementation of this Statute, the Government shall:[...]
a) Be responsible for the special protection of vulnerable and disadvantaged groups.
Explanatory Notes:
(i) Members of vulnerable and disadvantaged groups are entitled to a special protection, additional to the general protection that has to be provided by the Government to every person within the State.
(ii) The special protection afforded to members of vulnerable and disadvantaged groups may imply a preferential treatment. Strictly speaking, this preferential treatment goes beyond mere respect and acceptance lying at the root of tolerance (…). Still, the present provision is justified by the linkage between historical intolerance and vulnerability.

Does this kind of rhetoric sounds familiar? Because it sure does to the World War II veterans who fought for the freedom and the independence of several European nations in order for now to be told that they are privileged for having seen their fellow men being killed or tortured by the State. It is an act of extreme naïveté to think that this provision will not be used to advance the cause of the long march through institutions of feminism and its connected ideologies. The EU makes it perfectly clear that this is the case. Section 6b reads:

Without prejudice to existing control mechanism, set up a special administrative unit in order to supervise the implementation of this Statute.[...]
Explanatory note:
ii) The special administrative unit should preferably operate within the Ministry of Justice (although the Ministry of the Interior is another reasonable possibility).

It is a chance of one in 30 billion for such a body not to be lead by a politically correct ideologue. Also, the Ministries of the Interior are the ones managing the secret services in most (if not all) European nations. In Sweden there have already been reports of the FRA (the Sweden’s NSA) closely supervising Fathers’ Rights Activists in a STASI-like manner. What makes you think that this might not come to your country next if this law is passed? Section 7 deals with penal sanctions and basically opens the door to criminal charges and arrests for people who dare to disagree with the politically correct ideologues that run the European Union. Section 7a reads:

The following acts will be regarded as criminal offences punishable as aggravated crimes[9]:
(i) Hate crimes (…)
(ii) Incitement to violence against a group(…)
(iii) Group libel as defined in Section 1(b).
(iv) Overt approval of a totalitarian ideology, xenophobia or anti-Semitism.
(v) Public approval or denial of the Holocaust.
(vi) Public approval or denial of any other act of genocide the existence of which has been determined by an international criminal court or tribunal

So, basically, ridiculing feminism shall be regarded as a criminal offence punishable as aggravated crime. This is exactly how the Criminal Code of Romania looked like during the Marxist-Leninist dictatorship. In the 1950s, one could get up to 10 years of imprisonment for speaking against “the social order.” The social order was Stalinism back then. Now it’s Marxism-Feminism. The differences between them are becoming increasingly harder to notice. Also, the EU itself is in violation of Section 7a(ii) and Section 7a(vi), considering that class warfare is openly promoted by various committees and subcommittees of the European Parliament and considering that the crimes against humanity committed in Europe by the Communist regimes are publicly denied by the EU[10]. If you are a minor and dare to hold anti-feminist views and express them, the Big Maoist Brother has a special place for you designed by the Thought Police – an indoctrination camp. Well, they don’t call it like that but the purpose is identical. Section 7b reads:

Juveniles convicted of committing crimes listed in paragraph (a) will be required to undergo a rehabilitation programme designed to instill in them a culture of tolerance.

So if a 14 year old boy dares to notice that women are not oppressed in Europe and that the education system in which he is forced to go is centered around girls and girls only, the boys will be sent to a “rehabilitation programme” to instill in him a “culture of tolerance.” The Soviet Union had a similar program for those who dared to disagree with the Marxist-Leninist approach. It was considered that those who disagreed must be mentally challenged or something else has to be wrong with them to disagree with the wonders of scientific socialism. The same line of reasoning is used here as well. Since feminist ideologues know all too well that their ideology is so thin that even a prepubescent child can see through their lies, they are deeming all dissenters as being sick and in urgent need of “rehabilitation.” This is how totalitarianism consolidates itself! And since some people might be reluctant to send people to jail or to “rehabilitation programs” for speaking the truth, the EU takes care to introduce a carrot as well to stimulate the allegations to skyrocket. Section 7f reads[11]:

(f) Free legal aid will be offered to victims of crimes listed in paragraph (a), irrespective of qualification in terms of impecuniosity

So, basically, one can sue anyone for holding anti-feminist views, demand money, claim to be a victim, send the “offender” to jail and all this on taxpayers’ money. Isn’t the EU a wonderful place? Section 8 deals with “education” and basically demands that everyone be subjected to politically correct propaganda starting with 7 year old children in elementary school and ending with judges and lawyers. The last section of the document, Section 9, deals with mass-media and demands that all mass-media be remodeled using the ideological lens of the statists that run the European Union and kindly makes another subtle suggestion that the Internet should be regulated – for your own safety, of course. Because heaven forbid you might see something you don’t like on the Internet! The problems with this document aren’t only related to feminist ideology being shoved down the throats of 28 unfortunate nations since it also contains provisions that basically grant special privileges and entitlements to immigrants over the taxpayers. It’s like me coming into your house without your consent and then have the State put you in the bathroom while granting the rest of the house to me. Also, the first Section basically makes satire illegal – even satire of historical figures (if those figures happen to be non-white men). The whole document is a mess for any person that doesn’t subscribe to political correctness. But even for the feminist-oriented content alone this document is worth opposing fiercely. Our most basic right – freedom of speech and conscience – is severely under threat right now and, as usual, the mainstream media remains silent about the issue. What’s next? The good news is that we found out about this fairly early so there is a decent amount of time to engage in activism. The European Union, albeit a totalitarian body, is a very slow institution. Consequently, it takes a lot of time for such nonsense to end up on the voting table of the European Parliament and it can be dismissed at any of the bureaucracies that goes through. This process can take up to 2 years. For instance, the proposal to stamp out economic freedom has first been made by the European Commission (the only body that has the right to propose legislation – just like in the USSR the Politburo had the sole right to summon a vote in the Supreme Soviet) in 2011. If we are to follow the EU’s usual protocol, sometime this month another meeting regarding this document will take place after the ECTR presentation that took place on September 17[12]. At least one more meeting with FEMM committee[13] (and yes, the European Parliament actually has a committee called FEMM) must take place though it is not unlikely to have this document also go through another judicial committee, even though the September 17 LIBE meeting is said to have included the opinion of ”Group of Eminent Legal Experts” and this could be deemed enough. After these committees, the next big step is have it go through the Council of the European Union (also known informally as the Council of Ministers). These long names and acronyms might seem complicated (and arguably they are) but the main idea is that after the ideologues in the small committees are done putting their totalitarian worldview on paper, this document needs to be seen by the Ministers of the 28 nations that are members of this club. The Council of Ministers doesn’t have clear standing members and its membership varies depending on the topic discussed. But its composition is always the same: one minister from each country that belongs to the EU. Most likely, this document will be discussed when the Council will meet to discuss social issues – which means that each country will be represented by a Minister from the social issues (Minister of Welfare, Minister of Women – for the UK and Germany -, Minister of Labor, etc.). Sometimes a secretary of State is sent to represent the country in the Council though these situations are rarer.

یه نفر نوشته: شهریار جان خلاصه ای از این مقاله مینویسی؟ ببینیم این فمنیست ها چه غلط هایی میکنند!

نقل قول:این جنبش مادین‌گرایی (feminism) با همین نامگزینی خود از آغاز نشان داده که بدنبال برابری نیست و بدنبال «برابرتر» بودن است. جنبش بسیار گمنامِ نرین‌گرایی (masculinism) نیز بهمڃنین بیراهه میرود, ما تنها یک جنبش درست (با ڃشمپوشی) داریم که همان پادگُنـگرایی یا anti-sexism باشد: Sexism - WiKi

نقل قول:"You're not going to wear a wedding ring, are you? Don't you know that the wedding ring originally symbolized ankle chains worn by women to prevent them from running away from their husbands? I would not have thought you would be a party to such a sexist practice."

undead_knight نوشته: اون موقع ها احساس میکردم یک جای ای ناستدلال میلنگه ولی پیداش نمیکردم،الان یادم اومد:))
Genetic fallacy
نمونه:

تو در این مورد داشتی از ریشه واژه برای نتیجه گیری در مورد کل مفهوم فمنیسم استفاده میکردی.
[MENTION=14]Mehrbod[/MENTION]
گفتم توی گلوم بعدا گیر نکنه:))

Dariush نوشته: به این تصویر دقت کنید، من چیزی نخواهم گفت از دیونماییِ عریانِ درون‌اش و همچنین چیزی نخواهم گفت از تجربه‌های خودم از سوار شدن در مترو.

Mehrbod نوشته: feminism که ریشه‌یِ واژه و معنی کهن و از یاد رفته‌یِ آن نیست, خود واژه و معنی همین امروزین آن است!

مانند این است که من نام جنبشی را بردارم «مردگِـرایی», سپس بگوییم آماج ما رسیدن به برابری میان زن و مرد (زن = مرد) است!! شما چه میاندیشید؟ ((:

femin+ism (≈زن‌+گِرایی,‌ یا درستِ آن, مادین{نر و ماده, نرینه و مادینه}+گرایی)

همچنین این فرنود نبود, روشنگری درباره‌یِ روانشناسی زن‌گِرایان بود که با گزینش چنین نامی از بیخ بدنبال برابری نبوده‌اند. سپس در
فرنودی نشان دادم که نام جنبش در جایگاه یک بازبرد-تیل (reference point), میتواند و میشاید که روند اندیشه را سوگیرانه (i.e. biased) سازد.

پارسیگر

undead_knight نوشته: جل الخالق!:))
تو معانی دیکشنری رو قبول نداری.
feminism definition - Bing
بعد درست نخوندی دیگه این سفسطه کلا سفسطه اشاره به ریشه ها هست و این از ریشه(چه تاریخی و چه غیر از اون) یک چیز برای اثبات چیزی استفاده بشه که حال حاضر هست.
باز هم داری این سفسطه رو تکرار میکنی، البته شاید دلیلش این باشه که "گرایی" در فارسی معنایی کمی متفاوت با ism انگلیسی داره.
معنایی دیکشنری رو حتی اگر اونها که فمنیسم رو "جنبشی برای برابر سازی حقوق" عنوان میکنند هم نپذیری معانی رادیکال ترش "جنبشی برای احقاق حقوق زنان" هست که باز هم لزوما به این معنا نیست که از ریشه واژه میشه به نابرابری رسید.

هرچند این مسئله ربطی به درستی یا نادرستی سایر استدلال های مطرح شده بر پاد فمنیسم نداره.

feminism (n.)
1851, "state of being feminine;" sense of "advocacy of women's rights" is 1895, from French féminisme (1837); see feminine + -ism.