system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
I think feminism is a radical movement and it actually has a negative impact in respect of equality. CMV.

I do accept the fact that for a very long period of time society did not hold women in a position of equality, in a lot of matters, some of which were and, more sadly, **still are** very harmful to the women who have to live in those circumstances.


I also accept the concept of equality of rights, because, we are all human beings and the concept of somebody being superior **just because** is, of course, nonsense.


What i don't believe in, is **ABSOLUTE** equality. Women are different from men - anatomically, emotionally etc.


I love the fact that I can pay for my wife's dinner and I don't consider it gender biased, be cause we **are** different. She is not dis-empowered and non-independent because of this. I think that women should be treated more carefully, as they are significantly more emotional than us guys.


The whole fact that we are ignoring this diversity instead of embracing it - and using it efficiently and harmoniously, is a severe detriment in my opinion.


All the more, the hate speech of some of the feminists directed towards the male population, representing them as lower life forms is another thing I don't agree with.


For example if it becomes mandatory to hire a percentage of women, it **might** be discriminatory towards men, if not all the women would be sufficiently qualified. Of course, there is such a thing as discrimination against women and this somehow prevents it, but I don't think that it is a permanent solution.


Schools should teach mutual respect for all human beings, and teach that diversity is good. I think that this would have a tremendous effect in 2-3 generations.


We need to understand that a speech oriented towards "males have ruled, we must now rule in order to be equal" is not a true speech about equality, but of vengeance and spite.


If the solution does not imply teaching respect and common sense, it will only widen the gender gap, and I think that this is what feminism does - it provides a unilateral, reverse-biased solution to the whole issue, which of course will only stir tension and hate.


**Thus, I think that feminism delivers hate speech instead of real solutions, and I think it does a great deservice to women worldwide.**


P.S. Don't give me the "feminism is not about that, you're wrong" speech. It is about how women are **better** and it mostly provides the same inflamatory speech about oppression and/or ani**males**.


**Edit: Thank you all for your contribution to the discussion. A clarification is due, I guess: I had zero previous knowledge of feminism, nor did I research it before posting here, so I didn't make a difference between feminism and extremist (or radical) feminism - the latter of which I strongly oppose and which is the subject of this post.**


**Edit 2**: What I argue is that people acknowledge that **women produce a lot more estrogen** than men, and that **men produce a lot more testosterone** than women do. **This causes us to behave differently**, and anybody who says differently is **blatantly** ignorant and against all science and common sense.

**Dear feminists**: The issue in a promotion shouldn't be about whether she is strong or frail and I don't get the emphasis on this matter. The issue should be: **does this *person* have the required technical and/or people skills to do this job well**? I think this is what you should be marching towards, instead of saying that men are not stronger ( I don't even care if they are or not, the issue is about skills and rights, not about strongness - what am I missing?).

**Dear extremist "feminists"**: You are bad people.
gpt
>Don't give me the "feminism is not about that, you're wrong" speech. It is about how women are better and it mostly provides the same inflamatory speech about oppression and/or animales.

Do you think it's possible to cherry-pick examples of the most radical members of any group, and then use those examples to generalize across a larger group as if they were representative?

Say, Christians.  Or atheists.  Or liberals.  Or conservatives.  Or men's rights activists.  Or feminists.  Or [your choice].

Do you think it would be difficult to take any of those groups -- or any other that you chose -- and find a few self-identifying members who say idiotic things?  Do you think it's reasonable to hold people responsible for the words and actions of others on the basis that they may have *some* beliefs in common?