So, as usual, there is no debate about discrimination of men and the topic is just ignored by everyone :P

Ok, kinda used to it :P

I am not fully sure. On the other hand I can understand these (feminist) women's point of view, ie. that only women should actively participate in the discussion inside the movement of what it is like to be a woman, decision making on what should the feminist agenda be like etc. "Pro-feminist" men are merely deemed to be there for approving whatever the real feminists come up with, not to participate in actual decision making of it.

For example, wouldn't it feel odd if the head of some feminist organization was a man? Or the leader of a gay rights organization was a hetero? I dunno, maybe that has happened already, but I can understand if many members of the organization would not approve that. (Yet, at the same time that view also contradicts some feminists' idea that there should be no genders, we are all just humans just the same.)

Yet, at the same time, that only stresses how someone, who is not really part of the agenda, can't expect to be a full member of the movement. Hence, I don't feel I can be a (full) member of either gay or feminist movements, even though I may approve (at least part of) their message.

Because they are just as discriminative as any other human.

That is idiotic [of the polish police, not of keeveek]. Black is a skin colour, doesn't have to be a "race". Why not make a skin colour category.

The issue with categorisation is, of course, categorisations (we're on a continuum of colours, and shapes, that is polarised in our mind into separate categories with their own archetypes), but mostly racism (the idea that these are "categories of people", with inter-dependant features, that is, irrelevant things that get inferred from skin colour as a marker of "race"). These are two mostly separate issues. Our brains work on categorisations, that are always a bit wrong, and debunked by borderline cases - borderline cases that are far from being anecdotical. But that's a practical shortcoming, that we must deal with. The other issue, racialism, is more important. By using "race" categories and spporting the concept of race, one (individual or institution) supports the notion of race as "package of traits", with all the implicit determinism that comes with it. And this is simply outdated.

The first issue is that there's a lot of people who are black when next to very white people, and are white when next to very black people. But whatever, just deal with the most relevant description of skin tone. The second issue is that there are people who have a dark skin and a thin nose, and who have a dark skin and are not good at music and are not big children at heart and are not superstitious smelly lazy rapists or whatever. The idea of distinct "races" is scientifically wrong, and incidentally allows for a lot of linked assumptions. It's time we do without.

Skin colour is not a matter of four categories. And is not interdependant with other physical traits, and even less with mental, or sociocultural, traits. That's all. I feel that the latter point is widely accepted nowadays though, at least in western mainstream explicit culture (and often fought and shamed where it isn't). It's not often officially contested. Heck, even racists nowadays feel like they have to start their sentences with "i am not racist", isn't this a progress in itself ?

Not really all that relevant, but I can't resist posting movie clips.

It's hard for there to be a hierarchy in something which doesn't really exist. After all the recent DNA sequencing, nobody's been able to find a set of genes that express race, and I have as much DNA in common with folks outside my "race" as within my "race." I think that ends up coming out as about 85% of the variability, or something like that which is an amazingly small portion of DNA.
Depends, do you mean feminists or "feminists"? The former want equality in all things to the extent that physiology and the latter are basically the modern equivalent of Nazis that openly acknowledge thinking that men are inferiors and day dreaming about the time when we're unnecessary.

Obviously, there's room in the middle. But, in the US they tend more towards the latter as there's very little left to actually accomplish in that realm and few people are sticking up for men's rights due to the apex fallacy.

That's just a flagperson issue. A representant must represent the group's issue, so there would be some (misplaced) irony if they wouldn't. It's their symbolic function. It doesn't go further than that.

One of the best candidates to France's latest presidential election was named Eva Joly, and is of norwegian ascend, and very audibly so : she has a thick norwegian accent. She was just doomed for that, her mere candidacy was absurd at a pragmatic level : french people, as a whole, would not select her to represent them. Although she was objectively one of the few candidates featuring a brain.

So, there's no objective reason for that. Some of the best researchers in gender studies (or what is -wrongly in my opinion- called "feminist anthropology") are male. They are not disqualified by this. I'm heterosexual and I'm a fervent proponent of homosexual rights (at a personnal level, I wouldn't feel ill at ease being part of a gay movement, or -heck- even lead or represent one). I'm for gender equality, yet I belong to the favourised category. These are global collective issues. Feminists are just the people who, in a society, wish for gender equality of rights, representation and opportunities. Even if complaining that there's not enough [insert minority] in positions of power would seem odd if in the complaining group, the same hierarchy was visible. It would only seem odd because one could suspect that, instead of being random, there's the same power structure determining it. It would leave the group open to such -possibly false- assumption. But that's the only issue I see, a merely symbolic "what? here TOO?".

This is not very serious.

Because simply there is NO such thing as different races in human kind. The term race is used incorrectly. Of course people around the globe are different physically, but it has nothing to do with "race", but with the fact people were "mating" with different people from the same region. Just like, hm, breeding animals. Sorry for using that kind of words, but my english isn't the best in the world.

We have 97-98% of our DNA the same as chimpanzees. We probably all have around 99,99% the same DNA as every other human on the planet.

If you look deeply enough in the past, we were all Afircans.

That's more or less it.

There are a few genetic traits like blue eyes that you never see in Africans or Asians, but you don't see any genes that affect all Europeans or all Asians or whomever that are unique to that group.

It kind of blew my mind a bit when I found out about it. For how limited the genetic diversity is in humans, we do often look quite different from each other.
You'll find that Americans have an odd perspective on feminism as we're pretty much the only country where the feminists won and things are essentially settled. Pretty much everywhere else the complaints are substantive without having to pretend like the same problems aren't happening in the reverse.

EDIT: I'm well aware that Tim isn't American.

(actually yes you do)

Back at university I had 2 female classmates. They were very militant about men being much more inferior than women and also about men being disgusting perverts who only want to fuck women.
Once, I held door for them and after lecture and scolding I recieved I never dared to do something similarly pervert again.

It's because fenotype and genotype are different things.

The same genotype may give totally different result in morphology due to environmental influence, for example.

The same genes may give the different outcome.

It is only because we are generically coded to pick up on and recognise the extremely small subtleties between human individuals. There is still the same diversity between for example two chimpanzees as between two humans, but we do not pick up on the same signs there as easily as we are not coded for them. or extreme examples - the penguins in Antarctic where the chick can find their parents in the multitude of other thousand penguins all huddled together and to us looks very identical.

This is so true. I couldn't believe my Korean friend that most whites look the same to Koreans just like we have difficulties to distinguish between them. Even though the differences are obvious to them.

I'll have to look into that, but I'm guessing that I was sloppy in my wording.
Trust me, that's not genetic, it's a lack of exposure. After the first 5 months here in China I had largely lost my ability to tell white people apart. There probably is a genetic component, but most of that is learned with experience and exposure.