Feminism... For... or Against?

Originally Posted by skycloud86

Of course they chose to, but many men don't put in any effort once they get married, and the couple settle down into an unequal relationship.

What is your point even?

You even admitted to people choosing their demise. If they chose it, they also, at all times, had the option of canceling it and move on. Individual freedom / responsibility.

Movements aren't meant to compensate collective stupidity, gender unrelated one at that. For whatever reason they actually seem to contribute to exactly that, though. Ha, irony.

Here you used the same wonky argumentation:

So, women are to blame when society tells them to place their looks above everything else, and a magazine comes along and offers them a lot of money to pose and sell their looks via that magazine?

Because, yes, they are. If you sell yourself, your values or what defines you for money, it yet again was your choice to do so. It makes your integrity questionable in the first place, if there ever was any.

If anything you appear to have repeatedly stripped women completely of individual freedom of choice and responsibility, as if it was men's responsibility that women should be well. That's inevitably more condescending than people plainly saying it's women's fault to begin with for not taking charge of their own well-being.

Hello All,

(The title probably got your attention; please read bold text below and you will understand)

I'm an Fe-Aux (INFJ), and I would like more T in this thread...

I haven't yet formulated a response for the thread (per the actual topic), as I only skimmed the first few pages of posts, and my eye caught a few comments I believe I will find to be evident in the remaining thread responses; this is going to cover about 18 pages of semantics and emotional viewpoints, and perhaps 1 page of for/against rational responses. I'm not indicating that Feeling doesn't have a role here (I'm an Fe-Aux), just that Fe/Fi has such a prominent role in these discussions, it edges the T aspect completely out of the conversation, and that's a shame, because T focuses on what works. When it's applied in a humanitarian (F) context, it can't help but ignore gender differences where applicable (let's face it, if biology didn't create differences, than why did sexual differentiation occur? It's not a question of "if", but where to draw the lines), because it has no choice. T judgement at it's core, is pure "calculation". Less F, more T please...

If folks truly desire equality of viewpoints here, than we should all take care not to jump on individuals who express viewpoints we don't like, or simply don't "get" - I didn't even have to read very far into this to know this would spiral out of control; folks without a leading F function are probably beating their heads against a wall right now (T's, I can empathize with your pain)... Some of them are probably even supportive, but using verbiage that doesn't translate well to many with F preferences. Advice to Fx individuals (Dom's or Aux's):if you don't like a viewpoint, then ask that person for non-anecdotal (as in "there was this one time I..."), consistent, logical supporting evidence - if they are a thinking individual with whom it's worthwhile to engage in dialog, this will result in (1) the person offering you information that may be helpful to your understanding (pro or con, understanding the "enemy" helps one form new strategies), or (2) the person will recognize fallacy in their viewpoints, and over time they will adjust them accordingly [or (3) inertia, either ask a different way or move on - your choice]. "Win-win"...

Trying to actively adjust someone's thinking or feeling via argumentation is a lousy tactic, and it's quite possible that some folks here are posting inflammatory remarks just for kicks... reacting emotionally in that situation essentially causes "win-lose" (the win goes to the troll). I think that's covered in "Trolling 101"...

One of the original posters back on the first page asked about an alternative label: "Egalitarianism (from French égal, meaning "equal") is a trend of thought that favors equality of some sort among living entities". Wiki it, it's meaning can vary by context, but the word itself obviously indicates a state of equality.

So, long story short, I think half of feminism's problem is one of marketing; it would be worth considering "ditching it" in favor of a gender-neutral terminology - some feminist supporters may not like the idea, and that's their right, but then my question to them is: "how badly do you want to 'sell' your product" (which is, 'ideas')? Marketing 101...

So for now, 'upvote' for Egalitarianism, that's a notion I can get behind...

Originally Posted by MissingLinc

In divorce court usually. You ever heard of a guy getting alimony payments for example? It's like an urban legend.

The person who has the higher income usually pays alimony.

The fact that it's usually the man, means they're more likely to pay.
But there are cases where the man receives alimony.

@Erbse

You are confusing agency and choice in your "selling yourself" example. It's a bit like here when politicians complain that low income families don't eat healthily enough. However, no matter how much you budget, for some people fresh fruit will be an expense they cannot afford without degrading their natural diet further. Their choice is therefore pretty much non existent.

Thus, it's more important to look at the structural factors that underpin behaviour. However, I agree with you agency is terribly important. As I said earlier, certain leading lights of the radical feminist ilk strip women of agency in their theorising. However there is no doubting that freedom of choice only exists between like actors, and agency only exists when you have equality of opportunity.

Originally Posted by Paradox1987

@Erbse

You are confusing agency and choice in your "selling yourself" example. It's a bit like here when politicians complain that low income families don't eat healthily enough. However, no matter how much you budget, for some people fresh fruit will be an expense they cannot afford without degrading their natural diet further. Their choice is therefore pretty much non existent.

Thus, it's more important to look at the structural factors that underpin behaviour. However, I agree with you agency is terribly important. As I said earlier, certain leading lights of the radical feminist ilk strip women of agency in their theorizing. However there is no doubting that freedom of choice only exists between like actors, and agency only exists when you have equality of opportunity.

If I understood him correctly he said 'Why is it a good looking women's fault if a magazine / agency approaches her offering a pile of money to her to sell herself' and my answer plainly is that she still agrees to the deal.

Granted, a pile of money can be very lucrative, in this case the women in question either sells out her integrity, or keeps her integrity and solely does it for the money. Dependent on the sum I couldn't blame her. To say it's the an agency's fault, or societies' is yet again stripping people of personal responsibility for their actions regardless.

Whether or not one has a real choice depends on the status quo prior to accepting such a deal. If you're living on welfare, well, probably not so much of a choice. If you got a job however and are making enough, yet plainly want even more, then one in fact does have a choice.

I won't get into the 'influenced by mass media' debate, though, as everyone that's dumb enough to be influenced by it doesn't have anything useful to contribute anyway. Most certainly not in my mind.

DISCLAIMER: I did not read through all the pages of this thread and I'm just responding to the topic at hand.

Originally Posted by Erbse

If I understood him correctly he said 'Why is it a good looking women's fault if a magazine / agency approaches her offering a pile of money to her to sell herself' and my answer plainly is that she still agrees to the deal.

Granted, a pile of money can be very lucrative, in this case the women in question either sells out her integrity, or keeps her integrity and solely does it for the money. Dependent on the sum I couldn't blame her. To say it's the an agency's fault, or societies' is yet again stripping people of personal responsibility for their actions regardless.

OK, problem. Why does this have anything to do with the integrity of the woman in question? A photographer pays her to take her picture and then he owns that picture. He can sell it or use it however he wants, including airbrushing it and changing it to suit his needs. So she could have thought that she was taking just an innocent pircture and it could turn out completely differently.

Originally Posted by Erbse

Whether or not one has a real choice depends on the status quo prior to accepting such a deal. If you're living on welfare, well, probably not so much of a choice. If you got a job however and are making enough, yet plainly want even more, then one in fact does have a choice.

I won't get into the 'influenced by mass media' debate, though, as everyone that's dumb enough to be influenced by it doesn't have anything useful to contribute anyway. Most certainly not in my mind.

The only part of mass media influencing that matters to me is where is the outrage against it? Tipper Gore had a huge campaign against certain types of music and mothers have been against shock jocks and Newt Gingrich/Rush Limbaugh radio shows for decades as well. Neither of these are as ever present to consumers as are touched up pictures of half starved girls used by advertisers (the pictures, not the girls) to make real girls buy things because they think that's what will make them happy.

I don't think women in this country have a cultural identity yet. We don't know what we want to be and are still trying to be who we think we're supposed to be. Hopefully one of these days it will become acceptable just to make your own choices and not try to live up to someone else's ideals.

Originally Posted by Siren

OK, problem. Why does this have anything to do with the integrity of the woman in question? A photographer pays her to take her picture and then he owns that picture. He can sell it or use it however he wants, including airbrushing it and changing it to suit his needs. So she could have thought that she was taking just an innocent pircture and it could turn out completely differently.

It's not so much a question of integrity, for as long as afterwards said person doesn't jump onto the victim wagon. If you agree on a photo shooting, or anything related to you modeling to some sort or the other, it's your choice accepting the offer. You should be aware of your rights and possible consequences before acting. If shit backfires and you feel cheated / used it's mostly due to a lack of foresight.

I don't doubt that majority dwell in ignorance and feel abused when they find themselves being thrown out while in tears in one of the bazillion casting shows, but if you suck, or they say you suck, then that's just that. Suck it up, you've signed yourself up for it after all. If you can't deal with possible negative consequences just stay home in the first place.

Whoever has not yet realized that the media doesn't care about your well-being actually deserves what they have coming. Not because it's morally / ethically correct (since it isn't) but it is business, an individuals well-being doesn't exist in business. If you need a first hand wake-up call, they're sure to deliver. Don't tell me however, that it couldn't have been avoided with a shred of intelligence.

While many of them are young, and in some cases even too young to see through these things you can still point towards their parents for supporting their kids' idioticy.

Bottom line being, the can only truly wind up being a 'victim' if you played a game whose rules you haven't fully grasped, or made use of.

The only part of mass media influencing that matters to me is where is the outrage against it? Tipper Gore had a huge campaign against certain types of music and mothers have been against shock jocks and Newt Gingrich/Rush Limbaugh radio shows for decades as well. Neither of these are as ever present to consumers as are touched up pictures of half starved girls used by advertisers (the pictures, not the girls) to make real girls buy things because they think that's what will make them happy.

I don't think women in this country have a cultural identity yet. We don't know what we want to be and are still trying to be who we think we're supposed to be. Hopefully one of these days it will become acceptable just to make your own choices and not try to live up to someone else's ideals.

I couldn't be arsed to start, or join any sort of campaign. I'm adaptable, very much so even - constantly moving in a Grey shade. I'm no friend of absolute positions. I don't like it, I don't consume it - period. I won't fight against it merely because I dislike it, though. Far too much of an energy waste. Likewise I don't let others label me a supporter due to un-outspokenness, because it would be far too easy to shred them with their hypocrisy apart.

Such a life may not be for everyone, and everyone is free to do what they want, I however cannot be bothered. Constantly checking for external sources to blame without for once trying introspection instead is an immense no go as well, though. One that probably is the largest cancer society suffers from - people become so adapted to external stimuli that they forget themselves as an individual. This however, too, lies within the power of every individual to change, assuming they'd want to in the first place. Most simply don't, though.

I saw this thread and was curious...

... and saw that things went largely exactly as expected.

Originally Posted by Duck_of_Death

Research "satire", guy.
It's a keyword.

You seem to be rather serious for someone posting satire.

Those minority groups are equal.
On paper.

Why should they stop there?

There is no "equality" because people don't want to be "equal."
That includes the minority groups as well.

How are you defining equal, and how do you know everyone doesn't want to be equal, including all minority groups?

Seeing as how those two elements play into (and largely control) this issue, I think the "tribe vs. tribe" mentality should take a backseat.

Yes, tribalism is often negative.

Believe you me when I say it: Those in power want us fighting among each other.

Which is why they like to portray feminists as all being part of the extremist fringes of feminism.

You have eyes, don'cha?

Yes, and they don't seem to be locating any male bashing.

Originally Posted by Arclight

@skycloud86

You argue that there are no real differences between the genders.. I am going to take a flyer here and guess you haven't paid very much attention at all to what is actually going on this thread. Yeah... Those differences that don't exist are clearly not presenting themselves as examples of those differences, right before your very eyes, right?

OK, where in this thread do you see differences between males and females?