[Dragon]

IMO, political correctness is essentially sweeping the underlying problems under the rug. Racism, for example, isn't gone when people don't use racial slurs. It's gone when they use them in jokes and they're understood as being just a joke.

Oh, I get it! Just like sexism is no longer a problem because we joke about women drivers all the time! (You are very wrong)

Until it's actually become nothing but a joke, you can't really say the serious version is dealt with.

One of the highest grossing comedies in german cinema last year, with over 2.4 million viewers (which is about the same as the first Avengers movie, to put it in perspective) was "Er ist wieder da", a film in which Adolf Hitler suddenly appears in modern-day Germany.
The fact that jokes about Nazis have become mainstream should tell you something.

Actually, both examples quoted support my position. Yes, I feel that the civilized world has largely (though not entirely) gotten over sexist attitudes. And yes, most people don't actually seem have a problem with women driving, at least around here. Overt sexism is pretty much a joke, but it's still an area where some things are not allowed to be said. The US is a bit behind, and there are still things you're not allowed to say, but feminists have largely won their fight. Notice that most of the time we hear of feminists, they're fighting for privileges or preferential treatment for women.

Of course, there's a chance that I might have a wrong impression. Sexism is something Poland (and the rest of the former Soviet block) is actually better about than the rest of Europe, thanks to the Commies, no less. For everything that they did, the egalitarianism of the Communist ideology did extend to women and it was one of the few things in it that did largely work out.

Now, maybe I did get a poor impression from what German censorship affects media (especially video games), but it seems to me that swastikas, explicit mentions of Hitler and such are still censored heavily. It's not "anything Nazi-related", I did exaggerate a bit. Perhaps it's just video games, but note that comedic stuff is generally easier to get past censorship of all kinds (being explicitly a joke, not to mention parody and satire enjoys a degree of protection) than serious depictions. That said, if the Nazis are an acceptable subject of jokes now, it might be an indicator that the government is simply keeping useless censorship laws around and the German public wouldn't have any problems with having Nazis in video games.

[karajorma]

Notice that most of the time we hear of feminists, they're fighting for privileges or preferential treatment for women.

If that's all you ever hear about feminists, you need to stop going to men's rights websites so often. In the real world that's not what's going on the vast majority of the time. 

[Bobboau]

what if that's all you hear FROM feminists and you can't even name a men's rights website?

[karajorma]

Then stop hanging out with militant feminists. The majority of feminists are not after special privileges or preferential treatment for women. They might not spend as much time as they should arguing for men's issues but anyone claiming that the equality battles have all been won is deluding themselves.

[Bobboau]

I really wish I could get away from a few of them /*looks at people in my life not on this forum*/

[Mongoose]

Tell them to go make you a sammich.

[Bobboau]

that would... probably end poorly.

[karajorma]

If you film it, it would go viral though.

[Bobboau]

if I survived to upload it.

[Grizzly]

what if that's all you hear FROM feminists and you can't even name a men's rights website?

Mabye ask why they are saying that?

[Bobboau]

Because they have explained why at great length whether I wanted to hear it or not repeatedly. and it's more than just one person, though there is one person in particular I'm addressing here.

Their position seems to be that oppression in the past not only justifies but mandates a equal and opposite oppression at a later point of different individuals. Though that's not how they would word it.

and all the typical SJW bs you and I argue about except involving phone calls in the middle of the night.
Oh, and getting spammed with gore, which is honestly sorta boring, but it's the thought that counts.

[Macielos]

Which is why, as MP-Ryan already mentioned, we need to handle this at a federal level.

Couldn't agree more. For now, however, EU did not only fail to propose a complex solution for the entire Union, they also criticize national governments trying to handle the crisis on their own - like Denmark or Hungary. There are some plans in motion to reinforce Frontex, but they doesn't seem to do the job. For now it's mostly a "if I ignore them, maybe they will go away" policy.

I am not sure how it is over at you, but refugees that are placed in dutch detention camps do not recieve benefits. To recieve social benefits you have to be a dutch citizen, and the refugees that are placed are not: They are waiting for the completion of the process that will indicate if they get a shot at becoming a dutch citizen or not. That this is a process that can take years is a problem. A similar and related problem is the process that refugees in The Netherlands have to go once their refugee status has been denied, which takes so long that people have been driven to suicide over it.

It highly depends on policies of particular EU member states, but e.g. Germany and Sweden provided a wide range of social benefits to refugees. I tried to deepen the subject and found this article which summarizes it quite well:
http://www.euractiv.com/sections/social-europe-jobs/aid-refugees-how-do-european-countries-compare-317293

GERMANY:
Basic needs – housing, food, clothes and health care – are covered by initial welcome centres.

Asylum seekers receive €143 per month per adult for personal needs. Syrians benefit from extra protection.

SWEDEN:
Asylum seekers can request a daily allowance while waiting for their request to be processed. This is worth between €60 to €225 a month per adult depending on their personal situation, such as whether they are single or part of a larger family. Minors receive between €36 and €159 a month.

Asylum seekers are housed either in a reception centre or find lodging themselves, in which case they receive a monthly allowance of €37 for someone who is single, and up to €89 for a family.

What is more, police and authorities are given instructions to tolerate visitors' assaults on women and other violations of law. If you send them a signal "we won't punish you", then how could you expect them to change?

Where did this happen?

After Cologne New Year attacks, for example. The case went out after a few days, when media revealed it.

Notice that most of the time we hear of feminists, they're fighting for privileges or preferential treatment for women.

This is so-called third wave of feminism. While first-wave feminism was aimed to fight for women's political and economical rights (fighting REAL discrimination), second was trying to draw public attention for domestic violence and women's place in a family, third-wave seems to be a promotion of some irrational social constructs and an attempt to guarantee benefits to women from the simple fact they are women. Ironically, third-wave feminism is sexist - how else could we name gender parities and quotas, the idea we have to put some percentage of women on the list regardless of their qualifications? Generally it's an attempt to equalize things that are not equal by nature.

[qwadtep]

Then stop hanging out with militant feminists. The majority of feminists are not after special privileges or preferential treatment for women. They might not spend as much time as they should arguing for men's issues but anyone claiming that the equality battles have all been won is deluding themselves.

Every social cause is made up of a vast, silent, moderate majority and a tiny, loud, extremist minority. Because the latter is the one that gets all the attention, the former ends up throwing their weight behind them. It's the reason you get common-sense objectives like equal pay, scientifically- and morally-questionable ones like women in the military, and outright contradictory ones like increased sexual openness but an end to sexual humor, under the same banner.

Obviously not every feminist reads the SCUM Manifesto, but it's hard to deny that the movement as a political entity isn't sick and ailing.

[karajorma]

It's not really been a political entity for a very long time.

Notice that most of the time we hear of feminists, they're fighting for privileges or preferential treatment for women.

This is so-called third wave of feminism. While first-wave feminism was aimed to fight for women's political and economical rights (fighting REAL discrimination), second was trying to draw public attention for domestic violence and women's place in a family, third-wave seems to be a promotion of some irrational social constructs and an attempt to guarantee benefits to women from the simple fact they are women. Ironically, third-wave feminism is sexist - how else could we name gender parities and quotas, the idea we have to put some percentage of women on the list regardless of their qualifications? Generally it's an attempt to equalize things that are not equal by nature.

Nope. I think you completely misunderstand what third wave is about.

The problem is that third wave has no really defined goals beyond an end to sexism. It's third wave because these are the people who grew up once all the obvious major cases of inequality in the West had been dealt with. So it's a very different from second wave which actually had defined goals. Beyond that it's impossible to define what it is. It's like if you ignore the religion itself in defining what is a Muslim or a Christian. You end up with extremists who make it the basis of their entire existence and are ready to lynch anyone who shows the slightest indication of different thinking. Then you end up with moderates who don't care about other people except when it infringes upon them. Then you end up with groups who consider certain things very important while ignoring other issues.

At this point anyone who talks about feminism as if it's a single entity is wrong. What you have is several movements with differing (and sometimes completely contradictory) goals all lumped under the same heading. Little wonder that most people find feminists to be confused, they seldom notice that it's not the same people who are arguing for different things. Funnily enough it's not actually 3rd wave feminism that is sexist so much as grouping every single feminist under one banner regardless of what they are actually protesting for or against just cause they are women.

[Bobboau]

all big problems solved.
searching desperately for a cause to go to war over.

I think you summed that up pretty well.

but you also have people fighting for the same goal and explicitly rejecting the banner because they don't want to be associated with the other people who have sized the banner and take every opportunity to wave it in as many faces as possible.

Sort of like the Atheist/Agnostic schism where you have people that completely agree with everything Atheists believe except they think the Atheists are assholes so they call themselves Agnostics, act like they disagree about something, and the two hold each other in mutual distain.

[qwadtep]

It's not really been a political entity for a very long time.

Say that to all the women who support Hillary purely because she's a woman and it's current year and it's time to have a president that isn't an old white man.

[karajorma]

There were loads of people who supported Bush purely because they thought he was someone you could have a drink with. Are they BeerDrinkerists?

People pick candidates for all kinds of stupid reasons. I say feminism isn't a political movement because you can't see people holding rallies saying that you should vote for her because she is a woman. Most feminists in fact would actually be horrified by the idea that Hilary being a woman would be more important than her politics.

all big problems solved.
searching desperately for a cause to go to war over.

Hmmmm. All the obvious major cases of inequality in the West had been dealt with. When I edited that sentence earlier I accidentally removed an important word. There are still major issues that affect women (and men for that issue) but there is nothing you can rally around now. You often see them try to do it with pay equality or the glass ceiling but that always runs into a brick wall when you realise that female bosses do it too and that it's due to cultural issues and not something you can legislate against. Now there's nothing you can pass a law against. The easy battles have by and large been won.

That doesn't mean that all the big problems are solved. What it means is that there is no easy consensus on how to solve the remaining problems. 1st wave was really easy. Women couldn't vote. It was easy to see how to solve that problem. As time has gone on, the problems have gotten harder. And that's why feminists will often go about it in completely the wrong way, actually damaging their cause. Sure, sexual objectification of women is an issue. But harassing a scientist over his shirt is not the way to solve that.

What feminists these days need to realise is that we're at the point where feminists issues are rapidly reaching parity with the issues that affect males. And that sexism against males reinforces the exact same stereotypes about women that they want to defeat. It isn't doing women's rights any good at all to act like women are the only victims when instead both sexes should be fighting inequality together.

[Grizzly]

Their position seems to be that oppression in the past not only justifies but mandates a equal and opposite oppression at a later point of different individuals. Though that's not how they would word it.

Well, how do they word it? This is not the first time I have seen these kinds of arguments levied against feminism as a whole and they turned out to be strawmen (strawwomen?). Because honestly, when we get to the point that men are opressed, you'd know it.

This is so-called third wave of feminism. While first-wave feminism was aimed to fight for women's political and economical rights (fighting REAL discrimination), second was trying to draw public attention for domestic violence and women's place in a family, third-wave seems to be a promotion of some irrational social constructs and an attempt to guarantee benefits to women from the simple fact they are women. Ironically, third-wave feminism is sexist - how else could we name gender parities and quotas, the idea we have to put some percentage of women on the list regardless of their qualifications? Generally it's an attempt to equalize things that are not equal by nature.

How did you come to the conclusion that the gender distribution of whatever process you currently have in mind is natural?

What feminists these days need to realise is that we're at the point where feminists issues are rapidly reaching parity with the issues that affect males. And that sexism against males reinforces the exact same stereotypes about women that they want to defeat. It isn't doing women's rights any good at all to act like women are the only victims when instead both sexes should be fighting inequality together.

This is a thing already: It's commonly referred to as "Toxic masculinity".

[karajorma]

I know it's a thing. But it's a thing most feminists spend less time worrying about than the extinction of the lesser wattled umbrella bird. Let me put it this way. I've seen more articles from feminists complaining that pink razors cost more than blue razors than I've seen complaining about men being treated unfairly in divorce courts. Which one do you think really hurts women more?

[Grizzly]

The latter, obviously (Yes I know it's rhetorical).
Mabye it's because I spend my time more with the academics though, 'cause I am not relating to any of this.