There's no contradiction there. The first post is stating that the title "feminism" indicates that the approach being used is to favor one gender over another in order to make up for injustice, and since that is not the actual approach desired by most feminists, the title feminist should not be used.

Haha, you write "I logic iz Hard." and then get on my ass for saying "logics" (which I use about as frequently as "internets"...pluralizing is fun!).

I didn't say I personally decided that feminism means female superiority...I'm aware that many people who call themselves feminists are pursuing equality and not superiority. My point is that that name is not well suited to that philosophy, as it indicates clear bias towards only one group (females) over the ideal of…

Why would an equalist see attempts to correct systemic oppression of women as female superiority? An equalist would want all forms of systemic oppression to be removed. If people are ONLY trying to correct systemic oppression of women and not any other form of systemic oppression (something that could appropriately be…

This seems like a non-sequiter... why does the failure of the equal rights amendment mean that we shouldn't call the pursuit of equality equalism but rather feminism? Equal rights amendment was a much more appropriate choice of title than Womens Rights Amendment, as it was about equal rights regardless of sex, not on…

I understand what a lot of people refer to as feminism, and I see that the title feminism is inappropriate for that philosophy, and equalism a more appropriate choice. I also understand that there are feminists who look down upon men as inferior, and think that the title feminist is completely appropriate for them.

How many people have you met who label themselves equalists? I've never met another! Also, it seems highly unlikely that someone who called zerself an equalist would think that things are already completely equal and we shouldn't actively strive for equality...

Again, I've known people who label themselves feminists who believe in female supremacy. I understand that historically the term is associated with movements for equality, but that does NOT mean that many people claiming the title (even people involved in those movements towards equality) did not believe in female…

I understand that historically feminism has been associated with movements pursuing equal rights for women, not female supremacy. However, names matter, especially names of ideologies, so to label your ideology "feminist" rather than "equalist" indicates a clear bias towards females rather than a pure striving for…

You don't have to jump to post-feminism, you just need to convert to equalism. Women may face far more unfair obstacles than men, but the fact is, there are some aspects of our society that are unfairly biased against men as well. Favoring one gender over another in order to make up for injustice should not be the…

Repeating a level until you can get through it "flawlessly", figuring out the solution to the puzzle, is perhaps more of a challenge than blazing on with accepted losses. Whether this is actually more challenging or not, it's at least a different sort of challenge. It's a bit like how I used to restart my tony hawk…

If both people have a gun in that situation, at least one person is going to be badly injured. If neither person has a gun, everyone can walk away from the heated situation unscathed. The solution is not to even up the force being used, but to prevent force from being required at all.

But there is a proven link between aggression and violence. Even in its original context that claim is super dumb.

"I completely agree that there are several people who should not have guns. There are also several people who should not have cars. Unfortunately that's what happens in a free country, people get what they shouldn't have and end up killing other people." We regulate who can have a drivers license or own a car quite a…

Yup, the way in which the presence of guns encourages the escalation of minor spats by instilling this sort of confidence is a central issue that doesn't seem to be addressed enough in these gun-control debates. Heck, there was a story a little while ago about a guy getting shot because of a late pizza.

Yes, there are tens of thousands of people who absolutely should not be allowed to own a gun. It's a very common thing for people to be unable to control their emotions, that's exactly the point of the pro-gun control people...

We already ban lots of weapons, and it has done quite a bit to reduce the amount of deaths caused by those types of weapons. Only a total idiot would think there should not be any restrictions on the guns that you can buy, or would think that some such restrictions are not already in place. It won't solve the problem…

This. This dude clearly has anger issues and is just in denial about it. He definitely should not own a gun, but unfortunately he walks around with one every day. The people in his community should not feel safe.

Guns don't cause violence because of competition, they cause violence because they are designed for that very purpose. Guns are designed to destroy, hurt and kill; they are violent in their very nature and to use one is to be violent. There are times when violence may be necessary, but most civilians, especially…

You said you shouted profanities to the degree that it scared your family members. Scaring other people through your verbal tirades qualifies as emotional abuse. Pointing to other unhealthy people freaking out over video games does not prove your point at all; those people should ALSO not have access to weapons. There…