> You begin by implying that discrimination and disadvantage for women is equivalent to men
The reason you say 'imply' is because I didn't actually say this.
You said they aren't equivalent, and I asked for qualification. The difference is the burden is on you, not me; You can't flip it around and say "Well, prove it isn't".
Demonstrating anything is hard, especially something this broadly stated, which is why I never made any such claims in the first place, and if I had I'd make it a less broad.
But yes, I strongly suspect men and women are equal in many places, but not world wide, or even in all localities, which is again why I don't want to have to prove your generalisation; If I feel I can demonstrate something, I'll narrow down the claim as appropriate.
> There are a ton of studies showing
If you gave a citation, I might be able to get some context from it, e.g country, culture etc. I'm not keen on assuming a universal form of feminism, nor do I assume you need to be a feminist to fight gender inequality (much like you don't need to be religious to be good - "Without [religion], you'd have good people doing good things, and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion").
Tell me social calculus you are using to determine that "abortion legislation affects women more than men". Seems to me you need to decide on a very specific definition of "affect".
> If you move beyond the most developed countries
There is little feminism. It's nice to chalk all women's' rights progress up to feminism, more "feminism by the dictionary"; but that's not the same as "feminism the ideology" - that feminism is a very specific culture of beliefs and discourse that isn't necessary or sufficient for the improvement of women's rights. The lack of distinction is on purpose, to make it seem like there is only only set of beliefs compatible with the development of women's rights.
> that doesn't make focusing on women's issues wrong any more than the Prevent Cancer Foundation is evil for not tackling Alzheimer's
That's true, unless "focusing on women's issue" also involves promoting ideologies.
In cases where that ideology is harmful to men, it's more akin to a christian organisation refusing funding for men with HIV.
> why is it suddenly limited to law
The context here is when people say "what about men". in the context of any subject, this is not done to change the topic, but the change the focus of the topic.
"what about men" in the context of rape, is in the context of rape law, and how it also affects men.
However, it could also be in the context of prison rape. Maybe that is a worthy topic, but I'd also argue that it is a different topic (prisoners rights/care, and the disproportionate number of men in prison).
> that doesn't somehow make the women's issues unimportant.
Agreed, but I didn't say this. you brought up disproportionate effect.
> It is viewed differently by society (she asked for it).
which society? Can you demonstrate this is a common opinion in modern western countries. I hear this all the time, but have met few people that don't aggressively disagree, or at least have a more nuanced opinion.
> In some places the law is burdensome on the victim to nearly impossible levels.
Which places, in relative to burden on 'perpetrator'. There are other places where an accusation of rape can be devastating without any burden of proof.
Maybe we should be talking specifics?
> making out that it's sexist in reverse to be a feminist.
Can you quote me on that? I have a broad view of what constitutes "feminism" (pretty much anything), and a different view on how feminist discourse is often practiced.
> If they do, they are wrong to do so.
No one will yank their feminist credentials though, and people will still equate feminism with good; "it can't be bad, it's feminist".
If no one denies harmful groups the feminist label, it can no longer be assumed that feminist groups aren't harmful.
> but you shouldn't be rejected because you are a woman
Can I be a surrogate then? Or the legal mother of my child? (I'm male, obv)
> There was a time when women were literally property
Not anymore, and not during my lifetime - so what has this got to do with anything?
"there must be some subconscious influence from the past" - or something like that?
> Just as racism is better, but not solved
again, tell me what you mean by "solved".
> Clearly the wage gap is caused by multiple factors that are hard to split
yet the soundbite is repeated, again and again, by respected feminists without any nuance. other feminists do not call out this behavior.
It took a lot of effort, by many risking reputation and ridicule, to establish that it was more complicated. Maybe we see different sides of the feminist sphere?
> A nonsense example
Maybe I misinterpreted the following:
> We are not at a point of gender equality yet, so to imply that feminism is wrong when it tries to push for more rights for women is misleading.
--
When I have the time, I think I might break some of this down. The linear nature of HN isn't ideal for long threads...