# Feminism... For... or Against?



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

*Define what you think feminism is.

Do you consider yourself a feminist?

Why or why not?*

Executive summary for future posters and points to consider before you rant/flame:

This thread has ended up focusing heavily on several different issues,
-misandry vs. feminism
-are feminists striving for equal rights or are they man-hating whiners
-what feminism even is
-whether or not women today are equal to men (some say yes, others no)
-and whether or not being a feminist makes you think men are misogynists
-if being an anti-feminist makes you a misogynist
-if women's rights are at stake, why? is it societal oppresion, or a lack of hard work, or the nature of the sexes?

as you can tell, a lot of these are playing with semantics or gross generalizations. as you debate, be on the looking for misunderstandings and refusal to take into account what the other person is saying and using your own definitions of the terms here over their points, which probabaly define feminism or anti-feminism very different ways.

The mirriam webster definition of feminism is posted somewhere in this thread cut and paste along the lines of
1. goal of social, political, and economic equality between the sexes
2. activism on the behalf of women's issues

but the working definition many people on the thread who take issue with feminism seems to be a combination of
extreme/radical, agressive feminism mixed with misandry/blaming lack of equality on others or ignoring present equality.

So many of the proposed anti-feminists are pro-equal rights, which makes sense or no sense depending on your view of feminism.

With this is mind you can now
1. debate peacefully without name-calling or taking the other out of context
2. not bash either gender as no person, no matter how irritating, is the representative of a single sex
3. keep your cool and make your points because those can speak for you
4. contrinute fascinating dialouge on this heated topic


----------



## alphacat (Mar 17, 2011)

It's basically just woman empowerment movement.

My view of it is the same as my view on religion, minority rights and gay rights: you're free to do whatever you want just don't bother people with it.

To me, lobbying for equal rights is perfectly fine, and I believe we've achieved it in the US. However, now we have a subset of people who annoyingly call everything misogynistic. I like to be a gentleman, and I enjoy traditional gender roles, if you don't enjoy it, you don't need to participate. The same goes with burka, it's a tradition, if people want to wear it, don't hassle them for it. There are now people who say that the traditional role of 'mother' should be overturned....

Anyway, it's these vocal and radical feminists that make the entire term something cringe worthy.


----------



## You Sir Name (Aug 18, 2011)

Pro-feminism; because I don't believe anyone should be punished for being born.


----------



## MissingLinc (Jan 20, 2012)

I support feminism when it means equality. I don't support it when it means cutting men's balls off.


----------



## You Sir Name (Aug 18, 2011)

Is there a term for wanting the equality of all humans? Humanist? I'd really like to know this term, if it exists.
I know all humans are born equal, so that would be a great term for me to know.


----------



## You Sir Name (Aug 18, 2011)

MissingLinc said:


> I support feminism when it means equality. I don't support it when it means cutting men's balls off.


I'm fairly sure you're confusing feminism with misandry. Don't let the extremists take a perfectly good word and shit all over it.


----------



## Duck_of_Death (Jan 21, 2011)

adverseaffects said:


> *Define what you think feminism is.*


For females: A coping mechanism used by outcasts who will then predictably resort to slinging mindless rhetoric in order to fruitlessly bring down well-adjusted, genuinely self-confident individuals.

For males: The only viable option to getting nookie for themselves.



> Do you consider yourself a feminist?


No.



> Why or why not?


Because things were so much better 60 years ago.
Duh.


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

@Duck_of_Death

Dead serious or troll?? /:-*

Not sure so I'll just launch ahead as though you aren't~
Do you believe women are already in an equal position to men so they should stop whining, or they should in fact be inferior?

Please clarify your definition-- you say it's a coping mechanism to make women feel better and to bring down well-adjusted males, but is the coping mechanism point the chauvinist finger of blame to feel better or is asking for equality a coping mechanism when women should be in their gender-segregated position of cooking and "nookie"?


----------



## Duck_of_Death (Jan 21, 2011)

Dead serious.


----------



## timeless (Mar 20, 2010)

Duck_of_Death said:


> For males: The only viable option to getting nookie for themselves.


----------



## MissingLinc (Jan 20, 2012)

You Sir Name said:


> I'm fairly sure you're confusing feminism with misandry. Don't let the extremists take a perfectly good word and shit all over it.


There seems to be a lot of extremists out there, or maybe they just have bigger bullhorns in the media? When I hear these feminists speak, I don't hear "We want equality, equal pay" or some such thing. I hear "we really, really, REALLY hate men!"


----------



## MissingLinc (Jan 20, 2012)

Duck_of_Death said:


> Because things were so much better 60 years ago.
> Duh.


Speaking as one whose lived during those times I presume? ;-)


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

MissingLinc said:


> There seems to be a lot of extremists out there, or maybe they just have bigger bullhorns in the media? When I hear these feminists speak, I don't hear "We want equality, equal pay" or some such thing. I hear "we really, really, REALLY hate men!"


Funny, I've never heard a woman say that. :-/


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

Duck_of_Death said:


> Dead serious.


Whoops sorry dude edited first post, please reply to that?


----------



## Eerie (Feb 9, 2011)

Duck_of_Death said:


> For females: A coping mechanism used by outcasts who will then predictably resort to slinging mindless rhetoric in order to fruitlessly bring down well-adjusted, genuinely self-confident individuals.
> 
> For males: The only viable option to getting nookie for themselves.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

alphacat said:


> To me, lobbying for equal rights is perfectly fine, and I believe we've achieved it in the US.


You can like it as much as you want, but the truth is, equal rights between men and women do not exist.



> However, now we have a subset of people who annoyingly call everything misogynistic.


Whilst I don't necessarily agree with them, I can understand them. It must be horrible living as a woman in a patriarchal society.



> I like to be a gentleman, and I enjoy traditional gender roles, if you don't enjoy it, you don't need to participate. The same goes with burka, it's a tradition, if people want to wear it, don't hassle them for it. There are now people who say that the traditional role of 'mother' should be overturned....


I do agree, I prefer modern relationships myself, and wouldn't be able to have a relationship with a more traditional woman.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

MissingLinc said:


> I support feminism when it means equality. I don't support it when it means cutting men's balls off.


And when does it mean that?


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

My two cents:

I am always surprised when a man or woman says they are not a feminist. As far as I am concerned, the definition of feminism is equal rights under the law and equal human rights, so I don't understand why someone would identify as not a feminist.

For further thinking points, it makes me sad when because I identify as a feminist, people think I hate men, and in high school was rumored to be a lesbian for saying I was a feminist.

I love being a woman and I think I'm as good as any guy, and smarter than a lot of them, and I don't ever think I should apologize for being a woman or wish to be a man. My voice is just as strong in a woman's body, even if it gets less attention. I also don't think any man should apologize for being a man, and I'm not interested in getting men to apologize for "oppressing women" or the like, because if women are oppressed that's done by a system that is perpetuated by individual choices, not a collective gender. That does not mean that let's ignorant guys off the hook. I view myself as an equal to men and men as an equal to me and would ideally like to find a guy as smart as me.


Though any guy who equates me with a vagina, no, he's not my equal. 

My pyramid of human inferiortity

SUPERIOR---------------------------- Gandhi
---------------------------------those who give back 
-------------------------------good citizens in general
-----------------------------decent folk with some flaws 
-----------------------------those who don't know better
INFERIOR---------- bigots, idiots, ignorant folk, prejudiced people


----------



## You Sir Name (Aug 18, 2011)

MissingLinc said:


> There seems to be a lot of extremists out there, or maybe they just have bigger bullhorns in the media? When I hear these feminists speak, I don't hear "We want equality, equal pay" or some such thing. I hear "we really, really, REALLY hate men!"


That's because they are not feminists, they are misandrists. Misandry is the hatred of men. Feminism is the belief that women should be able to have the same amount of freedom as men. This also includes believing that women should be punished exactly the same as a man would for committing the same crime, it's not all candy and lollipops.

Also, YES. The media shoves the idea that feminism = misandry. It's unbelievably aggravating, especially considering I've known handfulls of feminists, have communicated with entire groups of feminists (via internet!), and have only encountered one woman who was a misandrist. One.


----------



## MissingLinc (Jan 20, 2012)

skycloud86 said:


> And when does it mean that?


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


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Duck_of_Death said:


> For females: A coping mechanism used by outcasts who will then predictably resort to slinging mindless rhetoric in order to fruitlessly bring down well-adjusted, genuinely self-confident individuals.


You really take it personally, don't you?



> For males: The only viable option to getting nookie for themselves.


That's strange, I'm a male feminist but I have almost no sex drive, but keep slinging that mud.



> Because things were so much better 60 years ago.
> Duh.


Please tell me you're kidding.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

MissingLinc said:


> There seems to be a lot of extremists out there, or maybe they just have bigger bullhorns in the media? When I hear these feminists speak, I don't hear "We want equality, equal pay" or some such thing. I hear "we really, really, REALLY hate men!"


They are just a vocal minority, and to compare them to most feminists would be like saying the Tea Party is the entire US Republican Party.


----------



## alphacat (Mar 17, 2011)

skycloud86 said:


> You can like it as much as you want, but the truth is, equal rights between men and women do not exist.


And which rights are missing for women in the US that men have?

PS. You're one of those people I was talking about, man. You can certainly have your view, but do you really have to bother me? Stop quoting me for godsakes.


----------



## Duck_of_Death (Jan 21, 2011)

adverseaffects said:


> @Duck_of_Death
> 
> Dead serious or troll?? /:-*
> 
> ...


Women aren't in an equal position to men. And you wanna know why?
Because they hold themselves back.



> Please clarify your definition-- you say it's a coping mechanism to make women feel better and to bring down well-adjusted males, but is the coping mechanism point the chauvinist finger of blame to feel better or is asking for equality a coping mechanism when women should be in their gender-segregated position of cooking and "nookie"?


And I never said that they brought down "males." 
They bring down "people."

They are unwilling to adapt to the environment and expect everybody to accommodate them.

That is their problem and no one elses.


----------



## MissingLinc (Jan 20, 2012)

adverseaffects said:


> Funny, I've never heard a woman say that. :-/


They don't really come right out and say it... actually I think they did, at least on blogs like Feministing, but I don't follow them regularly to lift some quotes as examples. It's more like you can just feel the raw hatred and it colors everything they say.

Is that always true? Probably not, but the saner voices aren't being heard because they're not screaming the loudest.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

You Sir Name said:


> That's because they are not feminists, they are misandrists. Misandry is the hatred of men. Feminism is the belief that women should be able to have the same amount of freedom as men. This also includes believing that women should be punished exactly the same as a man would for committing the same crime, it's not all candy and lollipops.
> 
> Also, YES. The media shoves the idea that feminism = misandry. It's unbelievably aggravating, especially considering I've known handfulls of feminists, have communicated with entire groups of feminists (via internet!), and have only encountered one woman who was a misandrist. One.


The patriarchy doesn't like it when women have an opinion, so they publicise what they see feminists as, and ignore the reality.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

alphacat said:


> And which rights are missing for women in the US that men have?
> 
> PS. You're one of those people I was talking about, man. You can certainly have your view, but do you really have to bother me? Stop quoting me for godsakes.


They don't get paid as much.
There's still a rape culture in the US.
They are objectified as sex objects in the media.
They are considered worthless after they reach middle-aged due to ageism.

I can go on for quite a while.

It's not just about rights, it's also about respect for women.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Duck_of_Death said:


> Women aren't in an equal position to men. And you wanna know why?
> Because they hold themselves back.


And how do they do that?


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

MissingLinc said:


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


I don't really know much about alimony and divorce courts. Do you have evidence that men are discriminated against in such cases?


----------



## Duck_of_Death (Jan 21, 2011)

skycloud86 said:


> You really take it personally, don't you?


Not really. I'm just bored.



> That's strange, I'm a male feminist but I have almost no sex drive, but keep slinging that mud.


Well, maybe you're just weird.



> Please tell me you're kidding.


Let me think about it for a second.

*second later* Nah...pretty sure I was being serious there, guy.


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

@Duck_of_Death 
In order for you to make yourself clear, you need a clear definition. Your post implies you believe with hard work a woman can be the equal of men and are not infeior in worth at the core. Am I misinterpeting you or do you believe a woman is the equivalent of a vagina?

In that case, your view of feminism is whiney people expecting things to be handed to them, am I misinterpeting you?

If I were to define feminsim as equal rights for men and women under the law, is that still objectable to you?? If I work for what I have, am I considered an equal in your eyes?


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

adverseaffects said:


> My two cents:
> 
> I am always surprised when a man or woman says they are not a feminist. As far as I am concerned, the definition of feminism is equal rights under the law and equal human rights, so I don't understand why someone would identify as not a feminist.


It's because either 1) the person has latched onto an inaccurate definition of feminism for whatever reason (see all the "feminism means kill all men, omg I don't support that!" posts in this thread) or 2) they actually don't support those things. I know 2 sounds pretty horrid but all you have to do is read between the lines of some of the responses in this very thread and it's pretty obvious.




alphacat said:


> And which rights are missing for women in the US that men have?
> 
> PS. You're one of those people I was talking about, man. You can certainly have your view, but do you really have to bother me? Stop quoting me for godsakes.


Suggestion: If you don't want people to "bother" you about your views, do not post about your views on open discussion forums on the internet. If you're afraid of dissenting opinions you might as well just type your posts into notepad and save them on your desktop.



Duck_of_Death said:


> For females: A coping mechanism used by outcasts who will then predictably resort to slinging mindless rhetoric in order to fruitlessly bring down well-adjusted, genuinely self-confident individuals.
> 
> For males: The only viable option to getting nookie for themselves.
> 
> ...


lol, someone's bitter.


----------



## You Sir Name (Aug 18, 2011)

I'm gonna leave this thread for a bit because it seems the misogynists are starting to roll in, but before I do, I must say: Skycloud knows what's up. B)


----------



## You Sir Name (Aug 18, 2011)

And adverseaffects!


----------



## MissingLinc (Jan 20, 2012)

skycloud86 said:


> I don't really know much about alimony and divorce courts. Do you have evidence that men are discriminated against in such cases?


Seriously? Google a bit. I don't think you'll have to go very far.



> They are objectified as sex objects in the media.


You know who's perpetuating this problem? Women. Unless they're somehow being violently coerced into being centerfolds on Maxim through some nefarious means like being given handsome sums of money.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Duck_of_Death said:


> Well, maybe you're just weird.


Or maybe I actually have respect for women. 



> Let me think about it for a second.
> 
> *second later* Nah...pretty sure I was being serious there, guy.


OK, so men being treated like toddlers by their wives is your idea of things being better? Do you need a second mummy to do everything for you, cook all of your meals and tuck you in at night, making sure the monster under the bed won't get you?

I guarantee you, you wouldn't like the world of sixty years ago compared to today.


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

Shahada said:


> I know 2 sounds pretty horrid but all you have to do is read between the lines of some of the responses in this very thread and it's pretty obvious.


That's what I'm digging to find out, at what point it poor communication of the feminism ideal obsucring what feminism actually is and people thus responding to stereotype, and how often is it just sexism? Do people even know the difference?





> Suggestion: If you don't want people to "bother" you about your views, do not post about your views on open discussion forums on the internet. If you're afraid of dissenting opinions you might as well just type your posts into notepad and save them on your desktop.


Interesting point. The only place to get anywhere is discourse and that's why views are best stated in a clear, reasonable matter, not to say you become wishy-washy but without defensiveness or agression, or else your views will become conflated with the attitude the other person is reading into it and confused with a streotype. In order for reasonable discourse both sides must be able to delinatea their views in full. I don't want mud-slinging, _I want people to be honest about how they see it._ And if I ask them to be honest, they shouldn't be villified for it. Even if I think they're wrong.~


----------



## alphacat (Mar 17, 2011)

skycloud86 said:


> They don't get paid as much.
> There's still a rape culture in the US.
> They are objectified as sex objects in the media.
> They are considered worthless after they reach middle-aged due to ageism.


Your arguments are so absurd that I don't even want to respond. But I will anyway.

1. There are many factors involved, including choice of major. Read up:
The Wage Gap: Why Men Earn More - BusinessWeek

2. 'Rape culture'? What does that have to do with equal rights? Men get raped too, ever heard of the saying 'don't drop your soap'? How about the Catholic church? The fact that you're bringing rape into the discussion of 'equal rights' shows how little you can come up with.

3. Men are objectified too. Ever heard of Twilight? Ever heard of Justin Beiver? People in the media are 'objectified' because they're in the media. In fact, I OBJECT to the use of 'objectifying' people. I find that unless you discount the person underneath, there's nothing wrong with appreciating beauty.

4. Who exactly consider them useless? Are you talking about forced retirement? Men are forced to do the same, you know. Also, forcing people to retire doesn't have to do with thinking they're 'useless'. Mind making more crap up?


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

MissingLinc said:


> Seriously? Google a bit. I don't think you'll have to go very far.


As long as there's something out there that doesn't come from some heavily biased, MRA site where bitter ex-husbands and misogynists gather to complain about women, I guess I could.



> You know who's perpetuating this problem? Women. Unless they're somehow being violently coerced into being centerfolds on Maxim through some nefarious means like being given handsome sums of money.


So women who choose to take the money are to blame, when these misogynistic magazines aren't?


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

alphacat said:


> And which rights are missing for women in the US that men have?
> 
> PS. You're one of those people I was talking about, man. You can certainly have your view, but do you really have to bother me? Stop quoting me for godsakes.


Point of thread is not to get on pedestal and preach but to have discourse and possibly broaden our horizens, in whatever direction.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

MissingLinc said:


> Personality definitely, and I think men and women are genetically different


The only genetic difference between men and women is the Y chromosome.



> and predisposed to behaving in certain ways.


Maybe so, but societal expectations and gender roles play a huge part as well.



> Equality doesn't mean we're all exactly the same


Noone is saying that, although men and women are not that different anyway. There's more difference between two individual men and two individual women than there is between a random man and a random woman, and the main differences are differences which are obvious, such as the genitals, prostates in men, uteruses in women and so on.



> there are differences in cultural norms, behavior, personality and gender that have to be considered before we start making accusations of malicious bias or bigoted discrimination.


I agree.


----------



## Duck_of_Death (Jan 21, 2011)

skycloud86 said:


> Of course you have to earn it, otherwise you wouldn't be respecting women, you would be telling them that you respect them.


Glad we sorted that out.



> There's some men out there who think their wife is their second mother. They're usually spineless morons who need a woman to wait on them hand and foot because they don't have the ability to look after themselves.


Really? I wasn't aware of this.
You're so informative, guy.
Thanks.

By the way, these women chose to marry these deadbeats.
Whatever happened to women's choice, huh?



> I don't believe it will always be crap, we have to advance sometime.


Tell yourself whatever it takes to get you up in the morning.
It still doesn't make it any less true.



> So I don't need to tell you that you wouldn't get the same lifestyle as a white man would have done, then.


I'm leaving myself out of this. I'm referring to society as a whole.


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

alphacat said:


> By the way, I think I can speak for most people who are posting that we all respect woman.
> 
> In fact, I think we can all agree that equal rights is good, can't we?
> 
> ...


Point made, I see your point. I honestly believe, and the other posters male and female, are free to disagree with me, that men and women *hold more common ground on this issue than contention*, but for some reason always end up talking past eachother.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

alphacat said:


> What specifically is bothering me is when people come in here and start attacking others, calling them misogynists, and making up facts to prove their point.


Who exactly is making up facts, and do you have proof that they are making up these facts?



> Yes, rights are good, but not everything have to be equal.


There can never be true equality, but why not get rid of the inequalities that we can get rid of?



> Men and women are genetically different, can't we all agree to that?


Wrong. Men and women are almost the same genetically, the only difference being the Y chromosome.



> I honestly don't see much wrong with our society today (the US)


Really? You can't? And please stop assuming that the whole forum is American.



> that warrants the points of radical feminists.


Maybe not radical feminism, but mainstream feminism is certainly still needed in some ways.


----------



## Cover3 (Feb 2, 2011)

adverseaffects said:


> But the dictionary defnition of feminism is equal rights for women. What you're saying isn't true because before men and women did not have equal rights so when women began seeing themselves as equals and advocating for that, they developed a term for this ideology.
> 
> This is what I see, people picking a term and painting it with their own prejudices, not on purpose, just out of what you see and here, which is how prejudice works.
> 
> ...


Did you not even read what I said? I clearly made the distinction between people actually shooting for equal rights between genders and those who are feminist activists, I'm not painting anything, you just didn't care enough to read my whole post.


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

Ok guys, changing the playing field.

In all future post, please differntiate between these two terms-

feminism vs. misandrists
misogynist vs. anti-feminism

and when working with the term feminsim please understand this is what it means:
*From Miriam Webster's dictionary:
Definition of FEMINISM
1: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes 
2: organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests *

So if you say you are against feminism, the way it will be interpeted is against politcal, economic, and social equality of the sexes.

If you say you are against radical feminism, misandry, and name-calling, say that instead.

I was interested in the differences in how we VIEW feminism, thus why I asked for the defintion, because I was aware that was a lot of confusion of WHAT exactly it meant, but since we skipped staright from debating the definition to arguing, I think we should clarify terms. I'll add this to the original post as well.


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

Cover3 said:


> Did you not even read what I said? I clearly made the distinction between people actually shooting for equal rights between genders and those who are feminist activists, I'm not painting anything, you just didn't care enough to read my whole post.


Ok but feminists activists are shooting for equal rights between genders. That is my point.


----------



## You Sir Name (Aug 18, 2011)

To everyone who is against feminism: Please stop hating humans irrationally. Give everyone an equal chance, they deserve it.



MissingLinc said:


> The word feminism to me has become a perjorative term that if some identifies themselves as such I immediately get suspicious. More often than not it's more about getting back at white men because we suck and like, stuff, than it is about simply supporting equal rights for all.


Dude... I fully explained that this is wrong. That's misandry, not feminism. Why are you ignoring my post? It's selfish and rude.


----------



## Cover3 (Feb 2, 2011)

> So if you say you are against feminism, the way it will be interpeted is against politcal, economic, and social equality of the sexes.


Why is the post asking for a definition if you're going to force-feed us one? I gave you exactly what you wanted, and you ignored it, close this thread already...



adverseaffects said:


> Ok but feminists activists are shooting for equal rights between genders. That is my point.


Then your point is sadly mistaken.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Duck_of_Death said:


> Really? I wasn't aware of this.
> You're so informative, guy.
> Thanks.
> 
> ...


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.



> Tell yourself whatever it takes to get you up in the morning.
> It still doesn't make it any less true.


Guess I'm just not as cynical as you (although maybe my privileges are allowing me to see more potential for a better world).



> I'm leaving myself out of this. I'm referring to society as a whole.


Because society back then was so wonderful for everyone? Just as long as you were white, straight, preferably male and preferably Christian (in the US at least). Being middle-class really helped, and no silly extremist politics such as communism or even socialism. Also, you should preferably abide to strict gender roles and societal expectations that would probably be too strict for the Victorians.


----------



## Cover3 (Feb 2, 2011)

> 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.


Isn't that equally true for women?


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

skycloud86 said:


> Exactly! Women are pressured into sacrificing their careers for their family and their home. Why should a woman have to run the household?


Some would say they're naturally adapted for that position, and there are scientific theories and facts that support that premise. For instance, how the mirror neuron in primary somatosensory cortex has been found to be larger and more active in females than males, or how women have shown to have better hearing, smelling, and tasting than men in experiments. 

Taking MBTI statistics into account, over 3/4 of feelers are female. Not that I'm advocating single households, as both parents are needed for stability, and there has been an increase of single parent households since the 60s, not surprisingly: majority divorced. 



skycloud86 said:


> And that's a shame, because people should, in a capitalist system, be paid for what they do and how well they do it, not because they are male or female.


We don't live in a vacuum; everything is connected, making reality complex. All else constant, it would work that way. Finally, I don't believe we live in a perfectly capitalist society, especially the more socialized countries like Canada, Australia, England. 



skycloud86 said:


> I don't mean in that regard, I mean when it comes to jobs. A middle-aged woman who is perfect for a job is very likely to be overlooked for a younger, more conventionally attractive woman who isn't, especially if the person doing the hiring is male.


Can't disagree there, though a few hard studies would help me strengthen my position of that issue. It sounds a lot like ageism _and_ sexism to me.


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

Cover3 said:


> Why is the post asking for a definition if you're going to force-feed us one? I gave you exactly what you wanted, and you ignored it, close this thread already...


Welp, sorry about that? I hardly thing I ignored it, I responded to it. I'm not attacking you, please calm down.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Cover3 said:


> Isn't that equally true for women?


There's women who let their husbands do all of the housework, who don't help out with the kids or would prefer to always be out with their friends instead of spending time with their husbands?


----------



## alphacat (Mar 17, 2011)

skycloud86 said:


> Who exactly is making up facts, and do you have proof that they are making up these facts?


Didn't want to specifically point you out, but ok:



> Whilst I agree that prison rape against males is very common, it almost never happens outside of the US


I will eagerly await your statistics and sources for such information. I hope your ass isn't the place you pulled that out of.



> Wrong. Men and women are almost the same genetically, the only difference being the Y chromosome.


Man, I'm not even sure where to begin.

1. I said " Men and women are genetically different, can't we all agree to that?", hence, I'm not wrong. In fact, you stated why I'm not wrong in your second sentence. I really have a hard time believing you're this dense.

2. Did you know that genetically we're 97% the same as oragutans? That means we're only different from orangutans by 3%, right? /sarcasm That little Y chromazone marks the difference between day and night, please don't act like 'oh it's only this tiny thingy that differentiates the sexes'.





> Really? You can't? And please stop assuming that the whole forum is American.


You should work on reading comprehension. If I assumed the entire forum were American, I'd just say "our society". The fact that I specified, means, I don't assume there are only Americans here, and I'm telling people the context of my statement, which is, I find the society I live in, the US, quite balanced.


----------



## Cover3 (Feb 2, 2011)

skycloud86 said:


> There's women who let their husbands do all of the housework, who don't help out with the kids or would prefer to always be out with their friends instead of spending time with their husbands?


No, every woman is perfect, every single one of them are wonderful human beings, and to suggest otherwise is pure and evil misogyny, I'd even say it's almost as despicable as nazism.



> Whilst I agree that we don't really live in a perfectly capitalist society, how are those three more socialised?


They're absolutely not, 40%+ taxation constitutes savage neo-liberalism.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

WamphyriThrall said:


> Some would say they're naturally adapted for that position, and there are scientific theories and facts that support that premise. For instance, how the mirror neuron in primary somatosensory cortex has been found to be larger and more active in females than males, or how women have shown to have better hearing, smelling, and tasting than men in experiments./quote]
> 
> How do any of those help women run a household?
> 
> ...


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

Cover3 said:


> Why is the post asking for a definition if you're going to force-feed us one? I gave you exactly what you wanted, and you ignored it, close this thread already...
> 
> 
> 
> Then your point is sadly mistaken.


You seem determiend to apply a definition to feminsim that does not exist. 
Any other defintiion of feminsim is your subjective interpetation that you have a right to as well, but that doesn't mean that's what other people are working from. I was trying to help clarify the debate by point out the gap in what the term "feminsim" evne means according to who you ask. I'm not trying to exclude people's points, but trying to make it clear what each person is actually trying to say by having it so we all are working on one term for one idea and not conflating different ideas. That way each person can be properly heard.


Onto personal viewpoint----

I don't think it's unfair to say that most feminists believe that feminism means equal rights as that is what the term meant before it was "corrupted" by stereotype, and that is what most feminists argue for.
I'm merely trying to help clarify the arguement.

If a feminist comes to you and says they want equal rights, are you going to tell him/her, "No, you don't, because you are a feminist?"

Doesn't make any sense to me.

Besides the fact we have a dictionary definition....


----------



## Duck_of_Death (Jan 21, 2011)

skycloud86 said:


> 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.


Cover said it above.
Blame always automatically falls on men.





> Guess I'm just not as cynical as you (although maybe my privileges are allowing me to see more potential for a better world).


It's always about you, isn't it?





> Because society back then was so wonderful for everyone? Just as long as you were white, straight, preferably male and preferably Christian (in the US at least). Being middle-class really helped, and no silly extremist politics such as communism or even socialism. Also, you should preferably abide to strict gender roles and societal expectations that would probably be too strict for the Victorians.


Did you not read the part where I said the world has always been crap?
While feminism isn't the cause for the failure of the modern world, its emergence is indicative of larger social epidemics.

Research the decline of the Roman Empire if you're so inclined.
The parallels are frightening.


----------



## MissingLinc (Jan 20, 2012)

You Sir Name said:


> To everyone who is against feminism: Please stop hating humans irrationally. Give everyone an equal chance, they deserve it.
> 
> Dude... I fully explained that this is wrong. That's misandry, not feminism. Why are you ignoring my post? It's selfish and rude.


Sorry, I'm speed reading through everything here. Glad you see it's wrong.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Duck_of_Death said:


> I also started the Chicago fires.
> 
> 
> 
> The world centers on you!


Not the world, just trolls who initially followed me from thread to thread making sexist comments, then let it carry over into other threads for months.


----------



## You Sir Name (Aug 18, 2011)

alphacat said:


> Which is perfectly fine.
> 
> I grew up as an Asian American, and trust me, racism is very much lives. Even non-malicious forms of racism, such as people who ask me 'where did you come from', even though I speak perfect English, and even after I say 'I'm from California' they would grin and ask again.
> 
> I'm all for equal rights and improving the society. However, there's fighting the good fight, and there's seeing what you want to see in everyone. Equality can be achieved without overturning every social norm, and labeling everyone who disagrees as misogynists.


I... never did. :S
I was replying to a user who said that, in America's current state, feminism isn't needed anymore, and I was correcting her by informing her that it is still needed very much where I live; the dirty south, A.k.a America.


----------



## Zanimus (Aug 25, 2011)

@knittigan

Yes, because laws all work exactly as intended and no one ever breaks them. When questioned of why someone has an all-male staff they need simply say "there weren't any qualified females." Or replace "female/male" with any other "minority/majority" And that would fly, right?

No, of course it wouldn't.

It's absurd to say that no one ever got a job they weren't qualified for because of affirmative action/equal rights laws.


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

Zanimus said:


> @knittigan
> 
> It's absurd to say that no one ever got a job they weren't qualified for because of affirmative action/equal rights laws.


Don't think she said that....? whatchu reading?


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

Duck_of_Death said:


> I also started the Chicago fires.
> 
> 
> 
> The world centers on you!


I like, responded to your troll posts with actual answers...
how embarrassing...


----------



## Duck_of_Death (Jan 21, 2011)

adverseaffects said:


> I like, responded to your troll posts with actual answers...
> how embarrassing...


Uh...I wasn't "trolling." I was being serious (with a bit of satire sprinkled in).
Feminism may have been pertinent several decades ago, but now the movement is generally farcical.

While prevalent, sexism and racism are no longer the central concerns in the world--social class and corporate "warfare" are the hot button issues of the moment.



Promethea said:


> Not the world, just trolls who initially followed me from thread to thread making sexist comments, then let it carry over into other threads for months.


First of all, I'm no less sexist than you.
Secondly, I consider myself a counterbalance to the rampant male bashing.

Thirdly, I never followed you. If you were there, I didn't see you. 
If you showed up after me that's on you.


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

Duck_of_Death said:


> Uh...I wasn't "trolling." I was being serious (with a bit of satire sprinkled in).
> Feminism may have been pertinent several decades ago, but now the movement is generally farcical.
> 
> While prevalent, sexism and racism are no longer the central concerns in the world--social class and corporate "warfare" are the hot button issues of the moment.
> ...


male bashing huh?


----------



## Paradox1987 (Oct 9, 2010)

adverseaffects said:


> *Define what you think feminism is.*


Very hard question. Feminism cannot be said to have a single unifying voice, standpoint, aim or definition. It is women centric thought, most certainly. However, Crenshaw (and others) have gone on to show that essentialist feminism (or radical feminism a la MacKinnon and Dworkin) cannot begin to claim to speak for women. Their definitions of many things strip women of agency, they reinforce stereotype norms of both a class and race. Rather a woman's experience is likely to be intersectional, in that your identity will overlap with many different things. E.g. it is possible to identify as being all: Christian, black, female and lesbian all at the same time. Therefore, it becomes very hard to define feminism.



adverseaffects said:


> *Do you consider yourself a feminist? *


To the extent that I am capable of women-centric thought.



adverseaffects said:


> *Why or why not?*


No further than above because of the general incoherence as to what feminism stands for, or any clear doctrinal definition which covers the complexity of any woman's experience.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Duck_of_Death said:


> Uh...I wasn't "trolling." I was being serious (with a bit of satire sprinkled in).


I think it would have been better for you if you were trolling.



> Feminism may have been pertinent several decades ago, but now the movement is generally farcical.


Of course, and what of the gay rights movement? Are African-Americans now equal? I could name many other oppressed groups.



> While prevalent, sexism and racism are no longer the central concerns in the world--social class and corporate "warfare" are the hot button issues of the moment.


So something not being a "hot button issue" means that it should be disregarded?



> First of all, I'm no less sexist than you.
> Secondly, I consider myself a counterbalance to the rampant male bashing.


What rampant male bashing?


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

skycloud86 said:


> I think it would have been better for you if you were trolling.


yeah... i was so relieved... for humanity...


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Duck_of_Death said:


> Uh...I wasn't "trolling." I was being serious (with a bit of satire sprinkled in).
> Feminism may have been pertinent several decades ago, but now the movement is generally farcical.
> 
> While prevalent, sexism and racism are no longer the central concerns in the world--social class and corporate "warfare" are the hot button issues of the moment.
> ...


Nope. You actually went to more than one thread that I personally started, to troll me, then you seemed to get a taste for the topics I frequently post in, in order to make more misogynistic comments -- but I can clearly see you won't own up to it.

So far as countering the "male-bashing" -- no dear, no one is bashing males, just misogynists. Male =/= misogynist. And understanding -that- could help you a lot, I think.


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

Paradox1987 said:


> Very hard question. Feminism cannot be said to have a single unifying voice, standpoint, aim or definition. It is women centric thought, most certainly. However, Crenshaw (and others) have gone on to show that essentialist feminism (or radical feminism a la MacKinnon and Dworkin) cannot begin to claim to speak for women. Their definitions of many things strip women of agency, they reinforce stereotype norms of both a class and race. Rather a woman's experience is likely to be intersectional, in that your identity will overlap with many different things. E.g. it is possible to identify as being all: Christian, black, female and lesbian all at the same time. Therefore, it becomes very hard to define feminism.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have seen the light and it is an intelligent, carefully worded post.


----------



## Paradox1987 (Oct 9, 2010)

Duck_of_Death said:


> While prevalent, *sexism and racism* are no longer the central concerns in the world--*social class and corporate "warfare"* are the hot button issues of the moment.


You mean to say you can't possibly begin to see even a tiny bit of evidence that the two things I emphasised in your post might possibly be linked?

Whilst I'm not a Marxist, even I can see that class norms are reinforced, and I assure you class norms have a race and gender. This is demonstrable in many different ways, and far too much literature exists to point this out in many ways. However, a prime example would be if you compare women and men's sentences for crimes of violence in court. Now women are very unlikely to commit a crime of violence; so they get tougher sentences. This is because (it is postulated) that their deviance from gender norms - by being violent - is worthy of being "double punished". Even feminists have double punished women. This is because certain class and race norms determine what appropriate behavioural norms are.

So, your viewpoint is a wee misguided. Plus, I'm an ethnic minority, and racism isn't dead, I assure you.


----------



## knittigan (Sep 2, 2011)

Zanimus said:


> @knittigan
> 
> Yes, because laws all work exactly as intended and no one ever breaks them. When questioned of why someone has an all-male staff they need simply say "there weren't any qualified females." Or replace "female/male" with any other "minority/majority" And that would fly, right?
> 
> ...


I'd respond, but it appears someone already has:



adverseaffects said:


> Don't think she said that....? whatchu reading?


Anyway, I'm still curious how, if affirmative action doesn't mandate employers to hire minorities "for jobs they don't even deserve" and that any minority hired under affirmative action _must be as qualified as any other candidate_ in order to be hired in the first place since it is illegal to hire an underqualified candidate, you think that women hired under affirmative action policies are "getting jobs that they don't deserve". Why don't they deserve them? They've been systematically discriminated against in the past, they're often hugely underrepresented in the fields in which these policies are in place, by law they're just as qualified as any other candidate, studies have proven that the quality of their work is as good or in many cases superior to their coworkers... I'm genuinely curious as to why you seem to believe that they don't deserve the jobs since it's quite unapparent to me. 

It's also worth mentioning that as minorities, many people hired under affirmative action will take their skills and abilities to communities where they are lacking (e.g. Aboriginal candidates who have been accepted to medical school as a result of affirmative action policies often return to their communities to provide medical care there -- if you know anything about Aboriginal communities, you might know that many of them are severely lacking in basic necessities).

Since I can see your response coming, I'll mention that in the case of reverse discrimination (I'm going to be generous and assume that when you say women "don't deserve" jobs you aren't being reactionary and sexist and don't _actually_ mean that they do not deserve them on the basis of their sex and instead mean that they are underqualified), less than 1% of claims filed are found to be legitimate. It isn't a reality.

Generally speaking, when people speak out against affirmative action it's because they've never known what it is like _not_ to get a job that they're qualified for when their competition is a member of a minority (especially visible) group. Of _course_ men are used to getting hired over women and the same goes for white people (in the Western world, at least), straight people, cisgendered people, able-bodied people, non-old people. And because they are, they find it threatening and somehow a violation of their natural and unquestioned right, when that privilege gets forcibly taken away from them.

In an ideal world, affirmative action wouldn't be necessary. If people were hired solely on the basis of their merit, it wouldn't exist, nor will it continue to exist when hiring practices reflect that. The simple fact of the matter is that today the world we live in is not one where this happens.


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

knittigan said:


> I'd respond, but it appears someone already has:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, nature is fun when you're the one on top. Then nature shifts and it's unfair :'-( boo hoo

Got in a discussion about this in class today actually, with a slightly different application.


----------



## Paradox1987 (Oct 9, 2010)

adverseaffects said:


> I have seen the light and it is an intelligent, carefully worded post.


This is without a doubt, the nicest thing someone has said to me all week :blushed:. Thank you.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

To me, feminism is just a counter movement to machismo. I think both of them are stupid and people should live their lives without trespassing the rights of others. I will make a movement called notrespassingism and it will be about living while letting others live. HOORAH!


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

I am now a notrespassingist.


----------



## Arclight (Feb 10, 2010)

_"Nobody can hurt you without your permission"_

I am for equality..There is a form of feminism that strives for this. 

There is another form of feminism that strives to have power and seeks to punish those it deems responsible for their poor self esteem.
This form of feminism I find extreme and hurtful towards the cause of equality.


----------



## Paradox1987 (Oct 9, 2010)

Arclight said:


> I am for equality..There is a form of feminism that strives for this.


Aye, I agree with you. Equality is a fantastic goal; however it's a bit of an amorphous concept which I don't think can actually be achieved in reality. If only because I am unsure as to what objective benchmark you can give to equality?


----------



## Arclight (Feb 10, 2010)

Paradox1987 said:


> Aye, I agree with you. Equality is a fantastic goal; however it's a bit of an amorphous concept which I don't think can actually be achieved in reality. If only because I am unsure as to what objective benchmark you can give to equality?


 In a political sense..In that we have the same rights. You are however correct that inequities will always exist. That is because males and females are not identical.


----------



## Paradox1987 (Oct 9, 2010)

Arclight said:


> In a political sense..In that we have the same rights.


This is what I don't think is possible. Even if we give (defined politico-legal rights), they will inherently conflict. E.g. a journalist will always declare their freedom of expression, and a celebrity will always declare their right to privacy. Who wins? If one wins, where's the equality. Though, don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of human rights. Just playing devil's advocate there.


----------



## Arclight (Feb 10, 2010)

Paradox1987 said:


> This is what I don't think is possible. Even if we give (defined politico-legal rights), they will inherently conflict. E.g. a journalist will always declare their freedom of expression, and a celebrity will always declare their right to privacy. Who wins? If one wins, where's the equality. Though, don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of human rights. Just playing devil's advocate there.


 That inequity has nothing to do with gender though.. Which is the realm of equality we are talking about. Political equality in this respect, is pretty much what the Western world has achieved. Meaning women gained the same political status as men. Their vote has equal value. 
That women don't earn as much as men or pay more for haircuts and dry cleaning , that parental rights seem to almost always favor the female or things like a male's sexuality is dirty and perverted while a female is erotic and sensual.. these things are something else entirely. 

Beats me.


----------



## Paradox1987 (Oct 9, 2010)

Arclight said:


> That women don't earn as much as men or pay more for haircuts and dry cleaning , that parental rights seem to almost always favor the female or things like a male's sexuality is dirty and perverted while a female is erotic and sensual.. these things are something else entirely.
> 
> Beats me.


Sadly, I too am stumped as to how to solve the structural inequalities that exist between men and women. I know that the legal response to the structural inequalities has been to pass questionable legislation, add women and stir. The problem is, even equality laws can bite you in the ass. I have a friend at the Canadian Bar, and he was telling me how when the domestic violence laws were first criticised, he faced cases in which the complainant was actually also convicted because she had hit her long term proven abuser in rage once. 

Over here (the UK), until 2003, we had no provisions to screen witnesses or allow them to give evidence from a different room via. videolink. It is also an offence to refuse a summons to give evidence. So my seniors remember a time when women abuse complainants often ended up imprisoned for contempt because they didn't want to face their abusers openly in a courtroom. However, I fear this may end up derailing the thread, so I'll stop my musings on the practicalities of equality.


----------



## Waiting (Jul 10, 2011)

As some others said, if it is for equality then sure, I have no problem with that movement. The few feminists I've actually spoken to, however, seemed to be extremely condescending toward men and on some serious self righteous power trips. They also had some interesting pre-programmed word twists to things I said. Those particular feminists are deluded in my opinion, it seemed like arguing just to argue.


----------



## Waiting (Jul 10, 2011)

Paradox1987 said:


> Sadly, I too am stumped as to how to solve the structural inequalities that exist between men and women. I know that the legal response to the structural inequalities has been to pass questionable legislation, add women and stir. The problem is, even equality laws can bite you in the ass. I have a friend at the Canadian Bar, and he was telling me how when the domestic violence laws were first criticised, he faced cases in which the complainant was actually also convicted because she had hit her long term proven abuser in rage once.
> 
> Over here (the UK), until 2003, we had no provisions to screen witnesses or allow them to give evidence from a different room via. videolink. It is also an offence to refuse a summons to give evidence. So my seniors remember a time when women abuse complainants often ended up imprisoned for contempt because they didn't want to face their abusers openly in a courtroom. However, I fear this may end up derailing the thread, so I'll stop my musings on the practicalities of equality.


This stuff goes both ways though, the system is just screwed up. I got put in jail for getting punched in the face several times by my ex. After I got hit a few times, I hugged her so that she couldn't hit me in the face anymore and kept repeating "calm down... calm down... calm down." Neighbors called the cops, and we *both* got arrested, and SHE almost did not. While the witness who called the cops was talking to an officer I turned in her direction because I heard her saying "he was holding her and she was screaming..." I yelled to her, "You watched the entire thing, why don't you tell him the truth that I held her so she couldn't hit me anymore." She paused, then admitted to the officer that I was telling the truth. Regardless, with visible abrasions in the area of my eye, and my ex having not a mark on her, I still went to jail, and was very close to having to spend the weekend there. While if I'm not mistaken, they brought her directly to the courthouse for pending release.


----------



## Duck_of_Death (Jan 21, 2011)

skycloud86 said:


> I think it would have been better for you if you were trolling.


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




> Of course, and what of the gay rights movement? Are African-Americans now equal? I could name many other oppressed groups.


Those minority groups are equal.
On paper.

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



> So something not being a "hot button issue" means that it should be disregarded?


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

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



> What rampant male bashing?


You have eyes, don'cha?


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

Duck_of_Death said:


> You have eyes, don'cha?



Exactly my thoughts. Do you have eyes?


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

Waiting said:


> This stuff goes both ways though, the system is just screwed up.


I would agree there are both pros and cons to being a woman or a man in at least Western society, as that's all I can speak for.. and often these pros can be exploited if you conform or "milk" the idea of a gender identity, and cons if you deviate from them because you will still be recognized as part of the whole insead of the individual.


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

Arclight said:


> like a male's sexuality is dirty and perverted while a female is erotic and sensual.. these things are something else entirely.


That may be true from a male perspective or in some situations, but there I don't entirely agree with it. For example, I grew up and still live in a conservative area, and there at least, the stereotype is "guys have it on their mind all the time, but girls don't even know what it IS." I made sexual jokes from time to time and I distinctly recall being pulled aside and told, "girls do not make sex jokes, boys do that" by a teacher who I didn't know had been eavesdropping, it was very unnerving. And it is generally acknowledged guys masterbate, but where I grew up, people dind't even know girls COULD masterbate. I actually had to educdate some of my girl friends that it was even possible for them, and they were taught not even to look at their privates... the most painful incident was when one of my girl friends asked me in total confidence, "what is an orgasm? is it when he gets an... e-erection?". And many of my girl friends did not even know girls could orgasm. And because I was ok with talking about sex or admitting I had sexual desires, one guy told me, "You're really weird. Girls don't think about stuff like that."
Just saying, in at least some cases girls are taught to hide their sexuality or to not even be aware of it....

I do understand what you're saying, bceause tons of movies or sitcom will have a joke about the son being horny or looking at a porno or getting caught masterbating, and it's a big joke, but these issues are rarely explored with women. Only in recent years has female masturbation, sex drive, and even menstration been explored in popular media. Before we just looked pretty and acted clueless. This is all general of course.

I only bring this up because for years, I thought I was the only girl with sexual desires and it was a huge source of shame for me, and when I tried to talk about them with my friends I got the "ewwwww that's weird" response and I would go about trying to collect information on the mechanisms, rules, ect., of sex in extreme secrecy about my house with fear of getting caught (reading my mom's nursing books, sneaking on her computer).

On the whole other side of the issue, in many cases girls are over-sexualized while at the same time rewarded for a demeanor of "innocence" or being "classy", or "pure" as opposed to "slutty". My own boyfriend, who is a really nice guy, saw a cheerleader on TV dancing and said something to the effect of "what a slut"-- female sexuality may be eroticezed for men, but we are also punished for experssing it. I suppose it's the fabled madonna/whore complex, not really sure. I know not all guys are this way.


----------



## Duck_of_Death (Jan 21, 2011)

Paradox1987 said:


> You mean to say you can't possibly begin to see even a tiny bit of evidence that the two things I emphasised in your post might possibly be linked?
> 
> Whilst I'm not a Marxist, even I can see that class norms are reinforced, and I assure you class norms have a race and gender. This is demonstrable in many different ways, and far too much literature exists to point this out in many ways. However, a prime example would be if you compare women and men's sentences for crimes of violence in court. Now women are very unlikely to commit a crime of violence; so they get tougher sentences. This is because (it is postulated) that their deviance from gender norms - by being violent - is worthy of being "double punished". Even feminists have double punished women. This is because certain class and race norms determine what appropriate behavioural norms are.
> 
> So, your viewpoint is a wee misguided. Plus, I'm an ethnic minority, and racism isn't dead, I assure you.


I know racism isn't dead. I'm a minority who has lived in Yokelville, USA all of his life.
And I face discrimination more than you'd believe, even to this day. 

I don't let it get to me. Nor do I blow it up to ridiculous proportions.
It made me see the cruel reality of life and I'll be damned if I'm not a better man for it.

The point I'm making is: Without genuine conflict or adversity, we are nothing. How one deals with these aspects of life reveals more about his or her character than the other way around.

I'm still standing and I'm willing to push back. And I have no intent of falling down or going limp anytime soon.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

*Define what you think feminism is.*

Its the radical idea that women are equal to men.

*Do you consider yourself a feminist?*

I have never officially taken this as a title, but every time I introduce the radical idea that misogyny is wrong, I am labeled something along the lines of "man hating feminazi." Apparently to some, when a woman dislikes being treated like an object, or considered of inferior intelligence or overall value -- she becomes a threat, and therefore must be caricaturized and thusly marginalized. Ignorance is the driving force behind the cretins who feel threatened by the radical idea that women are equal to men. They don't realize how deeply ingrained in our culture, these ideas are, that perpetuate the idea that women are inferior and mostly useful as decoration, trophies, and sex objects. The misogyny runs rampant in casual every day language and media, and on a regular basis these things are absorbed as -normal-. When a person sees that they are not normal, and they are oppressing women, that individual is marginalized as a "feminazi ******** manhater" and if hes a male, then hes called a "******" or told hes only trying to "get pussy by seeming more sensitive." Men are not naturally beasts who *have to* objectify and disrespect women, but because of their physical dominance throughout history, they have been enabled to until most of culture became more civilized and mentally focused, allowing for a more even playing-field. Some of them still desperately want to cling to the belief that men naturally treat women poorly because they don't have any true self-pride. They need to turn to gender stereotypes to focus on an imagined gap between sexes, particularly with a focus on male superiority, so that they can have a sense of pride without actually working for it. Its why you see the most ignorant of bigots in certain regions where there are many low-class unintelligent people. Alternately, misogynists have often been scorned by women, perhaps because of some initial ignorance to women, and alienation from that sex; leaving them more bitter than ever. 

*Why or why not?*

I believe in HUMAN rights -- *that includes women*. And I have always been very culturally aware. I also grew up around simple-minded ignorant sexist bigots, and I know their language well -- better than even they do. 

Here is a very simple example: "How do I get girls" -- "get girls." At a very young age the misogynist learns the language of women as commodity to obtain. They just hear these things on such a regular basis, they don't stop to think about what they have learned. They have learned that women are these overly-emotional, irrational, strange creatures that they can't even begin to comprehend -- not like them one bit (dehumanizing).. and acquiring one is for purposes of entertainment and sex -- or simply care-taking. The misogynist learns that women serve purposes but not equal purposes.


----------



## Cover3 (Feb 2, 2011)

> Here is a very simple example: "How do I get girls" -- "get girls." At a very young age they learn the language of women as commodity to obtain. They just hear these things on such a regular basis, they don't stop to think about what they have learned. They have learned that women are these overly-emotional irrational strange creatures that they can't even begin to comprehend -- not like them one bit.. and acquiring one is for purposes of entertainment and sex.


The wording does evoke possession, but it's so mainstream that guys using it don't necessarily intend it too, hell, I've used the term before, it doesn't mean I think any less of women, the objectifying thing also goes both ways, even though it's downplayed and not widely acknowledged, sometimes the behaviors of men being described as 'objectifying' or looking at a girl like a 'piece of meat' applies to women as well, it's just that no straight man in his right mind would complain about a woman staring at his muscles or w.e.


----------



## Arclight (Feb 10, 2010)

@_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?


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

@Arclight
interesting, although many men do indentify as feminists... although none have dared to post yet. Come on guys.
*I also agree though that besides physical differences there are many brain/cognitive differences between men and women.* And while first are foremost they are human beigns with FAR more similarities than differences... men and women are in many ways very different!

But I by no means believe these differences contribute to how you view feminism, the other gender, or your values in general. *I in fact believe both men and women are capable of thinking for themselves as individuals and may come to many conclusions regarding gender roles as individual that deterr from the prescribed "norm" of their gender.* Moreso than gender when it cmoes to opinions/values regarding sex roles, I tihnk culture, up-bringing, personality type, general openess to questioning beliefs, empathy, self awareness, other-related awareness, and life experiences are the key deterimators.

Last of all, while being a male or female plays a part in cognition, I think that is not expressed in a men think X way, women Y way, but merely tendencies-- more men tend to be Ts, more women tend to Fs, more women a certain attatchment styles men another... tendencies are by no means rules and and overall allowance for indivudal differences must be recognized.

I'd also like to thank @Promethea for her post, it was great.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

I'm curious why this is in the sex and relationship subforum. 

Define what you think feminism is.

Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women. ~ _wikipedia_

Are you a feminist?

I don't like labels, but I believe in equality for everyone as best as possible and should continue efforts to ensure everyone has equal rights.

Why or why not?

We are all one species, let's start treating everyone as such.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

I'm for _everything_ that demands equal rights for humanity which can be achieved in non-violent ways. I'm all for diplomacy and dialogue. So, I guess I'm for Feminism - because in my view, feminism is the struggle for equal rights for women. If it evolves into something that goes against my value of non-violence, then at that point I withdraw my support. So, the first rule is non-violence and pro-diplomacy, then struggle for equal rights. If they cannot be achieved through non-violent means, then I will continue to support them silently without supporting the violence.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Cover3 said:


> The wording does evoke possession, but it's so mainstream that guys using it don't necessarily intend it too, hell, I've used the term before, it doesn't mean I think any less of women, the objectifying thing also goes both ways, even though it's downplayed and not widely acknowledged, sometimes the behaviors of men being described as 'objectifying' or looking at a girl like a 'piece of meat' applies to women as well, it's just that no straight man in his right mind would complain about a woman staring at his muscles or w.e.


The problem is that it is mainstream. There are certainly attitudes behind the language that people don't always pick up on. They not only say words that seem somewhat empty to them, but they go through motions that are also empty. I am always telling people to watch 'merchants of cool' on yt because it demonstrates various ways in which our culture influences many to become more shallow, and perpetuate a divide between genders.


----------



## Cover3 (Feb 2, 2011)

Promethea said:


> The problem is that it is mainstream. There are certainly attitudes behind the language that people don't always pick up on. They not only say words that seem somewhat empty to them, but they go through motions that are also empty. I am always telling people to watch 'merchants of cool' on yt because it demonstrates various ways in which our culture influences many to become more shallow, and perpetuate a divide between genders.


Yeah, what's sad is these 'merchants of cool'(conjecturing here) are actually playing both sexes to gang up on each other, constructing standards which young people adopt in an attempt to fit in, and this all works to divide sexes, I'm sure most of us here are aware of what I call the hatred-loop: Men are told to act bold, and obnoxious, women are told this is to be interpreted as confidence, both these people try to get along, it doesn't work(with that mindset), the guy ends up being a callous manipulator(confident), and the girl ends up being suspicious of men/romance in general, obviously this is just one example of how it works, but the result often is further division of genders, and that's the real tragedy.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

I'll admit that I've been watching this thread all evening, and I really only now have had the inclination to comment. "Feminism" is one of those words that although it has a specific meaning, after being filtered through society, has been degraded from the original meaning when used in average, everyday parlance. I'm not trying to come across as an academic snob, but I do find it unfortunate that people more educated on a subject or a theory may have to tiptoe around the knee jerk reactions of people who have little clue what they're speaking of and only understand something in a colloquial sense. 

Trying to explain the theory behind feminism to a person who has their fingers in their ears equating feminism or feminist theory with misandry ... for the most part, these people are no better than people with no understanding of the scientific processes screaming that "evolution is only a theory". Feminism or feminist theory is, at the basic root level, the study of the struggles between the genders. Just as Marxist theory is, at the basic root level, a way of examining the world in terms of class struggle.

Why should I have to call myself a "humanist" if I identify as a "feminist"? Why should I have to call myself a "progressive" instead of a "liberal"? Why should I have to dumb down or tone down myself because of rhetorical baloney/hooey?

I suppose this is somewhat classist of me to think this way (the above bits), but perhaps we can study this via Marxist theory? :kitteh:


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

I don't think feminism is just about equal rights for women. For me, feminism is about celebrating femininity in all of its forms, regardless of anyone's physical sex. One mistake that has been made by past feminists has been their attempt at empowering women through the rejection of femininity. This rejection of femininity has occurred because abandoning that part of themselves has been the only means that allowed women to attain the benefits of male-privilege. The idea behind it was that in order to be respected like a man, a person should be held to the same standards, but the problem, as I see it, is that those standards are inherently biased to favor masculinity. In order to be respected as equal, whether male or female, a person is still expected to behave in an unbalanced way, with emphasis on his or her masculine qualities. Very little has been done to create social acceptance for femininity, which is the only thing that could ever make the standards more inclusive and fair. When feminism finally succeeds, men will benefit from it just as much as women, because they will have greater freedom to be authentic. Homophobia will likely become less prevalent, and violence against people of all sexes will decrease. 

I am a feminist. I am the kind of feminist a lot of people dislike, because I am very extreme about it. I don't hate men, but I do hate how little respect femininity is given. I hate inequality, but even more than that, I hate how the concept of equality can be corrupted to work against itself, so that instead of making masculinity and femininity equally valuable, we have made masculinity the standard that everyone has an equal chance at achieving. 

I believe there are many different branches of feminism, so I cannot say that I support them all completely. I wholeheartedly support the form of feminism I practice.


----------



## Cover3 (Feb 2, 2011)

@koalaroo

Your post would have validity if the OP was formulated in a way that puts things in clear perspective, something like: Discuss what you think of feminism defined as X, as opposed to asking for what people perceive it to be and then come out of the corner screaming 'HA HAAAAAAA! you sexist pig!', sounds like a lousy bait-and-switch to me, besides, this clarification was made many pages back, clearly you took at least a small nap during that evening.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Cover3 said:


> @koalaroo
> 
> Your post would have validity if the OP was formulated in a way that puts things in clear perspective, something like: Discuss what you think of feminism defined as X, as opposed to asking for what people perceive it to be and then come out of the corner screaming 'HA HAAAAAAA! you sexist pig!', sounds like a lousy bait-and-switch to me, besides, this clarification was made many pages back, clearly you took at least a small nap during that evening.


Uhm. I think shes replying to the whole thread up to this point.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Promethea said:


> Uhm. I think shes replying to the whole thread up to this point.


Basically.

@Cover3 - @Promethea pretty much summed it up. That was basically my summary of thought on the WHOLE thread, and it's pretty much my summary of thought on the topic of colloquial understandings of words and phrases not being the same as what they actually mean.

To everyone, I also apologize if anyone saw it in the stages where for some reason I had typed out like 3 sentences in Yoda-speak. Next time, I'll 1up myself and go for Swedish Chef when I'm this tired.


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

Hokahey said:


> I'm curious why this is in the sex and relationship subforum.


Because it was things that I saw on this forum that made me pose the question. Anyways, women's rights, women's roles, and feminism or equality color sex and relationships and I don't see anywhere else that would really benefit from the discussion.... it could be philosophy but this this is more so a working into our daily lives. It's cool with me if a mod chooses to move it though.


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

Cover3 said:


> @koalaroo
> 
> Your post would have validity if the OP was formulated in a way that puts things in clear perspective, something like: Discuss what you think of feminism defined as X, as opposed to asking for what people perceive it to be and then come out of the corner screaming 'HA HAAAAAAA! you sexist pig!', sounds like a lousy bait-and-switch to me, besides, this clarification was made many pages back, clearly you took at least a small nap during that evening.


This again.... 
to be honest, it's kind of pissing me off. No where have I or anyone, I believe at least from scrolling through, called anyone a sexist pig or even implied it. I've only been interested in other's viewpoint and tried to be concise with my own. I've already stated that feminism was interchangeable with misandry for some and meaning a totally different thing to others, and I saw everyone attacking eachother without anyone getting anywhere because they weren't even talking about the same things. It was an attempt to clarify working terms, not to pidgeon hole anyone, and since you so wish to resist clarification and keep wanting to play the blame game, you can leave or get over it.


----------



## Stephen (Jan 17, 2011)

adverseaffects said:


> *Define what you think feminism is.*


It's the perspective that all sexes have the same inherent value. My inherent value is the same as it would be if I were a woman, and it is the right thing to do to not only make an effort to treat women as my equal, but to call others' attention to it when they do otherwise, context permitting and sometimes when it's not.



> *Do you consider yourself a feminist?*


Of course.



> *Why or why not?*


Because it's in my interest to promote a world where human value is based on merit, not chromosomes or anything else one doesn't have control over. I also think most people are completely unaware of their actual views on this subject because the imbalance is so deeply integrated into culture that we don't know we're doing it. Language does matter, because it reflects and shapes our thinking. It's like so many other things, where critical thinking is not being applied. In my case, it was a single event in the early 1990s that drew my attention to how serious the issue was, and since then I've worked to at least make it clear to those close to me that I'm not OK with them making sexist commentary.

I don't take this to mean that men are evil, and I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. I'm also aware of the negative connotation of "feminism," and the backlash against some aspects of the philosophy or movement, but I won't abandon the term because of it. I also don't take it to mean all sexes and genders are the same, because I don't think they are. I find it wiser to evaluate people on an individual basis.

I enjoy a dynamic in a relationship where I'm "taking care of," providing for, or nurturing my partner, and to some extent that may seem counter to the stereotypes of feminism, but it's something we both enjoy and it's based on mutual respect and admiration. I don't see her as beneath me or less than me, instead she's someone to whom I express my affection through certain behaviors.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

And, of course, @Stephen explained things in a way I couldn't.


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

but @koalaroo
I actually liked your post quite a bit.

but yes, I try not to compare myself to such articulate people haha -.-;

Also, I'd like to thank @Stephen for give a male feminist point of view I tihnk it balances things out a lot and was very direct.


----------



## Snow (Oct 19, 2010)

To me, feminism is more simple than people believe it to be (or make it out to be). It is the simple movement to increase equality in a world full of societies and cultures which have historically maintained that men are superior to women. Just as any group of people, there are "outlying crazies" who give the group a bad name.

A "true feminist" is simply someone who identifies the inequality between males and females and personally overcomes those stereotypes. I consider myself an "equalist," as I believe all humans are equal to one another. Because I am an equalist, I am also a feminist.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> 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.


----------



## QuirkyCouple (Oct 5, 2011)

*Shut The 'F' Up | More 'T' Please | 'Upvote' Egalitarianism (Mod's: note 1st sent.)*

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...


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

MissingLinc said:


> 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.


----------



## Paradox1987 (Oct 9, 2010)

@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.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

Paradox1987 said:


> @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.


----------



## Siren (Jun 25, 2011)

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



Erbse said:


> 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.



Erbse said:


> 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.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

Siren said:


> 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.


----------



## Master Mind (Aug 15, 2011)

I saw this thread and was curious...

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


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Duck_of_Death said:


> 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.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Arclight said:


> @_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?


----------



## adizzy (Aug 6, 2011)

koalaroo said:


> @adizzy -
> 
> How exactly am I making the waters murky by giving examples of gender constructions that do not follow the traditional Western construction of a gender dichotomy based on biological sex? Gender construction is, essentially, what feminism picks apart.
> 
> I ask this before I address the rest of your post.


A. What percentage of the population is transgendered? 0.05%, maybe and that's being generous (Not that there is anything wrong with being different...Seinfeld circa 90's). Isn't fair to say if you are reaching for 0.05% of the population to make a point on the remaining 99.95 percent then maybe your point is based more on emotion then facts?

B. The idea that one Native American tribe sees sexuality and gender differently from the traditional Western view (really everyone, but I'll give you this one too) does not give credence to the idea that men and women are not fundamentally different. Furthermore, at the end of the day, I don't think Native American's do view the role of man and woman that differently from the western world, or any of the world....


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

@adizzy - 

You make unsound points, so I'll question your line of reasoning.

What makes you think I'm basing my academically sound and researched assumptions on emotion rather than thought, when I have (for instance) linked three viable resources in one of my previous posts? I personally find that to be illogical and fanciful conjecture, as well as a personal attack.

What makes you think that in cultures that have more than two genders (and there are more than a handful of cultures that do), defining the people as "transgendered" (a WESTERN term and one people of a third, fourth or fifth gender of another culture might completely disagree with) is appropriate? If they are of a third (or fourth, or fifth, or sixth) gender recognized by their culture, how can they possibly be considered "trans"? They cannot be by their own standards.

For examples of cultures that have genders outside of "man" and "woman", take a look at this map:
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/two-spirits/map.html


----------



## DlusionAl (Apr 9, 2011)

adverseaffects said:


> I like this post, it makes a lot of sense.
> 
> I mean, from my standpoint, the reason you are able to be indifferent to the issue is other people weren't so change was made in your benefit. I actually don't feel like I suffer from gender discrimiantion besdies people getting on my back for making too many sex jokes or being too mean, I just want to fight for others so a stupid inefficient system doesn't start over and then we're back at square one and have to make the same changes all over again, which seems ridiculous to me. The only way to do that in my mind is to find out the Whys and Hows and keep aware of the past and of the present problems we face so we don't get accusotmed to things being cushy and get comfortable. The only way to not repeat the past is to learn from it and all that jazz.
> 
> ...


Well I try and make some sort of benefit out of everything that I get, so on most issues I am indifferent for the time being.
I like to joke about everything. Its not that im making light out of some situations, It just really drains you when everything is so serious all the time

There are ups and downs from making things aware. You can educate people on the problem at hand and help prevent more issues from happening. On the down side you will still be categorizing people which is what we are trying to move away from to begin with. 

Yes the term is misleading, just encompass all the rights together and call it humanism. But I guess that excludes plants and animals...earthism. But then that excludes anything extra terrestrial... So we should encompass the whole universe. Lets just go with unism. 

Unite for Unism it is then. Make a damn good bumper sticker.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

@adizzy - Furthermore, if you have the time to at least rent Two Spirits, you will see that there is more than one Native American group acknowledged and discussed in the documentary. In fact, there is actually a Native American Two Spirit alliance or conference -- it's discussed in the film.


----------



## Duck_of_Death (Jan 21, 2011)

Question for @DlusionAl:

In your career, do you feel that you face sexual discrimination on a common basis?
Statistically speaking, engineering is a male-dominated field.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Duck_of_Death said:


> For females: A coping mechanism used by outcasts who will then predictably resort to slinging mindless rhetoric in order to fruitlessly bring down well-adjusted, genuinely self-confident individuals.
> 
> For males: The only viable option to getting nookie for themselves.


I congratulate you for getting out of that cave you lived in rural South Carolina to attend Bob Jones University to make yourself feel like someone who really "belongs." I hear that joining the Klan also provides a safe feeling of "belonging."

How do you explain away intelligent, physically attractive heterosexual feminists who have careers, or husbands and children. They aren't "outcasts" by any definition of the word.

I mean where, WHERE, in god's name do you _live _to think feminists are outcasts? It must be down the second holler and over the mud pit.


----------



## adizzy (Aug 6, 2011)

koalaroo said:


> @adizzy -
> 
> You make unsound points, so I'll question your line of reasoning.
> 
> ...


Koalaroo, you seem like a good person, but you have been led astray(I'm sorry if that comes out as condescending). I am going to assume that you are a white america woman. This nonsense that you are speaking has come into full force over the last 20 years. It hasn't been brought about by feminism or anything like that. Something much more sinister....politics and politicians. I plan on researching this and doing a paper on it. I hope you will take a look. I genuinely feel that you are a good person who has been led astray.

As for your map, I have lived in India. If possible I would like to move back. I clicked on all three of the Indian links. They all revolve around the same thing-the Hijras. India is a beautiful culture but also dark and mysterious. Hijras steal "untouchable" babies and castrate them. These men are considered neither men nor woman, but that isn't because India as a whole doesn't believe in male and female roles. They are like this because they have been castrated at a young age. Trust me India has very defined male and female roles.

I also looked at the Native American posts. Take a look at this quote, _"Winkte is the Lakota word for two-spirit people. Like the Navajo nadleehi and dilbaa, the winkte are born male but assume many traditional women's roles, such as cooking and caring for children, as well as assuming key roles in rituals and serving as the keeper of the tribe's oral traditions"._ This is a sub-culture. The quote itself says they are *born male but assume many traditional women's roles.* That means the Navajo in general have traditional male and female roles....like cooking (tsk..tsk..on the Navajo)!!!

But you already know this, just like you know that men and women are fundamentally different. But you don't want to admit it because you have bought into this and now you are in so deep. It's hard to change. I have to change myself....I have a suggestion if you want to hear it, but this post is going to come across as condescending, and I *HATE *it when someone is condescending to me....so I bid you sweet sweet dreams. Let me know about the suggestion. 

Wish me well at work tomorrow because I am going to be dead tired.


----------



## DlusionAl (Apr 9, 2011)

Duck_of_Death said:


> Question for @DlusionAl:
> 
> In your career, do you feel that you face sexual discrimination on a common basis?
> Statistically speaking, engineering is a male-dominated field.


Not really no, Ive never once had that thought go through my mind. I mean Im still treated like a girl so to say, but its nothing negative. The guys that Im around still identify me as a female so clearly they wont talk about some things when Im around or some just dont really know how to communicate with me normally. I hear sexist jokes all the time but I laugh, I mean its funny.

I may just not feel any discrimination because nothing they say really gets to me or bothers me. Im just not that sensitive of a person. Sure they joke or talk to me differently but they still admire my work with it deserves credit or destroy it when its shit. Which to me is all that really matters anyway.

They never make me feel like I have to change myself to fit in with them and thats what I think discrimination would come down to in my case.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

@adizzy - 

Congratulations on bringing a plethora of logical fallacies into your arguments. Yes, I am a white American woman. No, I am not speaking nonsense: gender differs from culture to culture, and from person to person of the same biological sex. Gender roles differ from culture to culture. Some cultures have an either/or dichotomy in their sense of how gender is expressed. Others do not. Feminism hasn't brought any of this into place. It has been in place since culture has developed (as have politics). Feminist theory is one tool with which to examine gender from culture to culture (or simply within one culture). Furthermore, research on sexuality and gender has been ongoing for more than 20 years. That it has reached popular culture and popular media in the West is something different (hmm, perhaps the ways in which the world has started communicating in the past 20 years). 

I find your assertion on hijras to be interesting, because not all people in India who identify as hijra have been castrated. Hijra equals eunuch is an extremely poor translation from the Indian linguistic concept to the English linguistic concept. And again, that one society has static male or female gender roles does not occlude the idea that another culture has more dynamic gender roles.

Now, I'm going to comment on a previous and continued assertion of yours. I have made no comments denying fundamental differences between the biological sexes: you assumed I said this when I have never said this. I have merely said that gender is a social construct, and explained how it is a social construct. Denying that there are basic biological differences between people born of XX or XY karyotype would be illogical, just as claiming that gender is biological sex (that there are "only" two roles - the masculine and the feminine) is illogical. For instance, the example on the map of the Blackfoot third gender. 

If you read further about Fred Martinez as a nadleehi, you would realize that Navajos identifying as nadleehi and dilbaa will frequently switch between the "masculine" and "feminine" roles. They live in an area that is in between the two genders. Also, Navajos who identify with these traditions (nadleehi and dilbaa) do not necessarily conform to the standards of "gay" or "lesbian" culture. Furthermore, this is NOT simply a subculture; this gender identity was ingrained in Navajo culture probably from its inception although its practice is much less prevalent in modern society due to U.S. policy towards Native Americans. 

That said, I'm very curious what I have bought into, since I have never denied that men and women have physical differences. Are you confusing me with someone else, or are you transposing your prejudices onto me? And, really, what conspiracy have I drunk the Kool-Aid from?


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

adizzy said:


> Hijras steal "untouchable" babies and castrate them.


Wow, that sounds amazingly like blood-libel... Best have a shit-ton of citations to back that up with.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

mae.stro said:


> I feel like as a society, our downfall is labeling things to such a degree that we forgot what is important. As for feminism, I think it creates more tension between the sexes. Yes, through out history, or most of it, men have failed to give what is just and fair to the opposite sex. It actually kind of makes me puke in my mouth when i recall a time when females were not even considered to have souls....But if there's one thing I've learned in history, it's that societies, learning from the atrocities of the past, move from one end of an extreme to the opposite side. But where is the middle path? I think men and women are equal, just in different ways, and we really do need each other to be/feel complete(heterosexual).
> So with your infj mind set, I'd like to know, how do you feel about it?


That seems odd though, you don't like labels yet generalize the label of feminism as creating more tension between the sexes. I do agree about labels for many things. I understand that men and women are equal, (just in different ways) as you do. However the world doesn't. Just like I know killing is wrong but people still do it. So there HAS to be institutions in place to uphold and constantly redefine the correct manor of etiquette. 

When all people care is when you will have your middle path. 

I think the major problem is patience, the world lacks this because we can accomplish so much more in such a short time. However things like gradual change in a way society thinks/acts appears to be ineffective and appear to not work, and people will continue to hate change. Also faith in a system will diminish if results are not achieved fast enough (current U.S. political arena) this tension of results is what creates the most between any groups.

Plus people don't individualize. They generalize.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

crazyeddie said:


> Wow, that sounds amazingly like blood-libel... Best have a shit-ton of citations to back that up with.


Once upon a time, Jews were thought to steal babies. So were gypsies. Hey, so are/were many marginalized groups!


----------



## Dope Amine (Feb 16, 2012)

I am pro universal gender equality.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

DlusionAl said:


> I hear sexist jokes all the time but I laugh, I mean its funny.


You must be the feminist's Satan.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Erbse said:


> You must be the feminist's Satan.


I don't necessarily find sexist jokes funny, but I don't necessary find then unfunny, either. It depends on the joke, the jab and the presentation. Some humor has merit in it and other does not.


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

knittigan said:


> Yes, that's all very well, but most of those studies neglect to account for the fact that men and women are socialised in drastically different ways (we encourage girls more than boys to be empathetic because we have this idea that they're naturally _supposed_ to be empathetic) and it's natural that this would be reflected at the biological level as a result of different paths of development in early childhood. And don't even get me started on the fact that 'objective' science isn't produced in a vacuum. The identity of the researcher has a lot to do with the way in which knowledge gets produced, how data are interpreted, and what conclusions are drawn from them.


You are forgetting that sexual organs are also responsible for production of hormones like testosterone and estrogen in varying degrees. They become active at the onset of puberty, and changes in behavior, thinking, and bodily functions, that are found throughout social classes, cultures, and geographical locations. So no, I don't believe every difference between males and females is the result of social influences. If anything absolutely separates us, at the very least it's our genitals, and they're not just for pissing with. 

Also, I'm aware of biases in experiments and studies, but many of these findings are accepted by the community at large and even taught in most universities. It is going to take a lot more to have people just throw them all out the window since there is a chance someone's identity might have tinkered with results, or they go against someone's ideology.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

laney said:


> Do you consider yourself a feminist? [/B]Sort of. I'm too traditional to be accepted as one usually, but I believe we should have equal rights in term of property, education, employment etc. The only issue I disagree with when it comes to mainstream feminism is abortion. Being a born again, stay at home mom with a tendency towards submission doesn't help me fit in either.​


You can be traditional and feminist, because feminism is a movement for equality and therefore choice - that is what is important, that women are given a choice.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

alphacat said:


> That's quite untrue....
> 
> Imagine a woman trying to rape you, she puts a knife to your neck and says "get hard... NOW!", do you think you'll be hard? Even if she starts rubbing your penis while holding a knife to you, do you really think your body will overcome fear and get hard?


Unless you have erectile dysfunction, you will not be able to stop yourself getting an erection if your genitals are rubbed or otherwise stimulated. Not to mention the various drugs that can cause erections.



> One of the reasons why there aren't that many female -> male rape is because it's very difficult to get a man arouse when he is afraid, and even if you manage to get it up, the erection will probably not stay up.


Female-on-male rape is just as underreported as male-on-female rape. The reasons why male rape victims do not report rape often is because society thinks they should have enjoyed it, that a woman can't rape a man, that he should consider himself lucky.


----------



## Pete The Lich (May 16, 2011)

super feminist quotes bomb


* *





"The nuclear family must be destroyed... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process." -- Linda Gordon

"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." -- Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor.

"I haven't the faintest notion what possible revolutionary role white hetero- sexual men could fulfill, since they are the very embodiment of reactionary- vested-interest-power. But then, I have great difficulty examining what men in general could possibly do about all this. In addition to doing the shitwork that women have been doing for generations, possibly not exist? No, I really don't mean that. Yes, I really do." -- Robin Morgan

"We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." -- Robin Morgan

"I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire." -- Robin Morgan

From her "The Demon Lover" (NY: Norton & Co., 1989 Morgan doesn't hide her bigotry):

p. 138-9: The phallic malady is epidemic and systemic... each individual male in the patriarchy is aware of his relative power in the scheme of things.... He knows that his actions are supported by the twin pillars of the State of man - the brotherhood ritual of political exigency and the brotherhood ritual of a sexual thrill in dominance. As a devotee of Thanatos, he is one with the practitioner of sado-masochistic "play" between "consenting adults," as he is one with the rapist*

p. 224: My white skin disgusts me. My passport disgusts me. They are the marks of an insufferable privilege bought at the price of others' agony.

p. 229: Sex to this point in my life has been trivial, at best a gesture of tenderness, at worst a chore. I couldn't understand the furor about it.

p. 316: Did she die of the disease called "family" or the disease called "rehabilitation", of poverty or drugs or pornography, of economics or sexual slavery or a broken body?

"And let's put one lie to rest for all time: the lie that men are oppressed, too, by sexism--the lie that there can be such a thing as 'men's liberation groups.' Oppression is something that one group of people commits against another group, specifically because of a 'threatening' characteristic shared by the latter group--skin, color, sex or age, etc. The oppressors are indeed ****ED UP by being masters, but those masters are not OPPRESSED. Any master has the alternative of divesting himself of sexism or racism--the oppressed have no alternative--for they have no power but to fight. In the long run, Women's Liberation will of course free men--but in the short run it's going to cost men a lot of privilege, which no one gives up willingly or easily. Sexism is NOT the fault of women--kill your fathers, not your mothers". -- Robin Morgan

"To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he's a machine, a walking dildo." -- Valerie Solanas, Authoress of the SCUM Manifesto

"Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation, and destroy the male sex." -- Valerie Solana, SCUM founder (Society for Cutting Up Men.)

"The male is a domestic animal which, if treated with firmness...can be trained to do most things." -- Jilly Cooper, SCUM (Society For Cutting Up Men, started by Valerie Solanas)

"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage." -- Sheila Cronin, the leader of the feminist organization NOW

"I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig." -- Andrea Dworkin

"Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice." -- Andrea Dworkin

"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies." -- Andrea Dworkin

"In my own life, I don't have intercourse. That is my choice." -- Andrea Dworkin

Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman." -- Andrea Dworkin

"To be rapeable, a position that is social, not biological, defines what a woman is." -- Andrea Dworkin

"Q: People think you are very hostile to men. A: I am." -- Andrea Dworkin

"Men use the night to erase us." -- Andrea Dworkin

"The annihilation of a woman's personality, individuality, will, character, is prerequisite to male sexuality." -- Andrea Dworkin

"Men love death. In everything they make, they hollow out a central place for death, let its rancid smell contaminate every dimension of whatever still survives. Men especially love murder. In art they celebrate it, and in life they commit it. They embrace murder as if life without it would be devoid of passion, meaning, and action, as if murder were solace, stilling their sobs as they mourn the emptiness and alienation of their lives." -- Andrea Dworkin

"Men are rapists, batterers, plunderers, killers; these same men are religious prophets, poets, heroes, figures of romance, adventure, accomplishment, figures ennobled by tragedy and defeat. Men have claimed the earth, called it 'Her'. Men ruin Her. Men have airplanes, guns, bombs, poisonous gases, weapons so perverse and deadly that they defy any authentically human imagination." -- Andrea Dworkin, Pornography: Men Possessing Women

"On the Left, on the Right, in the Middle; Authors, statesmen, thieves; so-called humanists and self-declared fascists; the adventurous and the contemplative, in every realm of male expression and action, violence is experienced and articulated as love and freedom." -- Andrea Dworkin, Pornography: Men Possessing Women.

"The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist" -- Ti-Grace Atkinson

"Feminism is the theory, lesbianism is the practice." -- Ti-Grace Atkinson

"Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear" -- Susan Brownmiller; Authoress of Against Our Will p.6

"When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression." -- Sheila Jeffrys

"Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated." -- Catherine MacKinnon

"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman." -- Catherine MacKinnon

"You grow up with your father holding you down and covering your mouth so another man can make a horrible searing pain between your legs." -- Catherine MacKinnon (Prominent legal feminist scholar; University of Michigan, & Yale.)

"In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent." -- Catharine MacKinnon, quoted in Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies.

"The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men." -- Sharon Stone; Actress

"Ninety-five percent of women's experiences are about being a victim. Or about being an underdog, or having to survive... women didn't go to Vietnam and blow things up. They are not Rambo." -- Jodie Foster; Actress - as quoted in The New York Times Magazine.

"The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race." -- Sally Miller Gearhart, in The Future - If There Is One - Is Female.

"And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual (male), it may be mainly a quantitative difference." -- Susan Griffin, Rape: The All-American Crime.

"If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males." --Mary Daly, former Professor at Boston College, 2001.

"If anyone is prosecuted for filing a false report, then victims of real attacks will be less likely to report them." - David Angier

"Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience." - Catherine Comins

"As long as some men use physical force to subjugate females, all men need not. The knowledge that some men do suffices to threaten all women. He can beat or kill the woman he claims to love; he can rape women...he can sexually molest his daughters... THE VAST MAJORITY OF MEN IN THE WORLD DO ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE." -- Marilyn French (her emphasis)

My feelings about men are the result of my experience. I have little sympathy for them. Like a Jew just released from Dachau, I watch the handsome young Nazi soldier fall writhing to the ground with a bullet in his stomach and I look briefly and walk on. I don't even need to shrug. I simply don't care. What he was, as a person, I mean, what his shames and yearnings were, simply don't matter." -- Marilyn French; The Woman's Room.

"All patriarchists exalt the home and family as sacred, demanding it remain inviolate from prying eyes. Men want privacy for their violations of women... All women learn in childhood that women as a sex are men's prey." -- Marilyn French

"All men are rapists and that's all they are" -- Marilyn French, Authoress; (later, advisoress to Al Gore's Presidential Campaign.)

"The media treat male assaults on women like rape, beating, and murder of wives and female lovers, or male incest with children, as individual aberrations...obscuring the fact that all male violence toward women is part of a concerted campaign." -- Marilyn French

"I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He's just incapable of it." -- Barbara Jordan; Former Congresswoman.

"Probably the only place where a man can feel really secure is in a maximum security prison, except for the imminent threat of release." -- Germaine Greer.

"Man-hating is everywhere, but everywhere it is twisted and transformed, disguised, tranquilized, and qualified. It coexists, never peacefully, with the love, desire, respect, and need women also feel for men. Always man-hating is shadowed by its milder, more diplomatic and doubtful twin, ambivalence." -- Judith Levine; Authoress

"Men's sexuality is mean and violent, and men so powerful that they can 'reach WITHIN women to ****/construct us from the inside out.' Satan-like, men possess women, making their wicked fantasies and desires women's own. A woman who has sex with a man, therefore, does so against her will, 'even if she does not feel forced.' -- Judith Levine, (explicating comment profiling prevailing misandry.)

"I feel what they feel: man-hating, that volatile admixture of pity, contempt, disgust, envy, alienation, fear, and rage at men. It is hatred not only for the anonymous man who makes sucking noises on the street, not only for the rapist or the judge who acquits him, but for what the Greeks called philo-aphilos, 'hate in love,' for the men women share their lives with--husbands, lovers, friends, fathers, brothers, sons, coworkers." -- Judith Levine, Authoress of My Enemy, My love

"There are no boundaries between affectionate sex and slavery in (the male) world. Distinctions between pleasure and danger are academic; the dirty-laundrylist of 'sex acts'...includes rape, foot binding, fellatio, intercourse, auto eroticism, incest, anal intercourse, use and production of pornography, cunnilingus, sexual harassment, and murder." -- Judith Levine; summarizing comment on the WAS document, (A southern Women's Writing Collective: Women Against Sex.)

"All men are good for is ****ing, and running over with a truck". Statement made by A University of Maine Feminist Administrator, quoted by Richard Dinsmore, who brought a successful civil suit against the University in the amount of $600,000. Richard had protested the quote; was dismissed thereafter on the grounds of harassment; and responded by bringing suit against the University. 1995 settlement.

((Delaney Nickerson, of the American Coalition for ABUSE AWARENESS, refers to the False Memory Syndrome Foundation as "The ****ing Molesters Society". (Miami Herald, April 3, 1995) The ACAA is a lobbying group, which includes Ellen Bass (co-author of THE COURAGE TO HEAL), and Rene Frederickson, leading feminist psychotherapist and strong proponent of repressed memory theory.))

((At the STONE ANGELS satanic ritual abuse conference in Thunder Bay in February, 1995, the following was contained in the handouts at a conference supported financially by the Ontario Government: FMS stands for: FULL OF MOSTLY SHIT; FOR MORE SADISM; FELONS, MURDERERS, SCUMBALLS; FREQUENT MOLESTERS SOCIETY.))

"Women have their faults / men have only two: / everything they say / everything they do." -- Popular Feminist Graffiti

"I was, in reality, bred by my parents as my father's concubine... What we take for granted as the stability of family life may well depend on the sexual slavery of our children. What's more, this is a cynical arrangement our institutions have colluded to conceal.". -- Sylvia Fraser; Journalist

"We are taught, encouraged, moulded by and lulled into accepting a range of false notions about the family. As a source of some of our most profound experiences, it continues to be such an integral part of our emotional lives that it appears beyond criticism. Yet hiding from the truth of family life leaves women and children vulnerable." -- Canadian Panel on Violence Against Women.

Catharine MacKinnon ( ) maintains that "the private is a sphere of battery, marital rape and women's exploited labor." In this way, privacy and family are reduced to nothing more than aspects of the master plan, which is male domination. Democratic freedoms and the need to keep the state's nose out of our personal affairs are rendered meaningless. The real reason our society cherishes privacy is because men have invented it as an excuse to conceal their criminality. If people still insist that the traditional family is about love and mutual aid--ideals which, admittedly, are sometimes betrayed--they're "hiding from the truth." The family isn't a place where battery and marital rape sometimes happen but where little else apparently does. Sick men don't simply molest their daughters, they operate in league with their wives to "breed" them for that purpose. -- Donna Laframboise; The Princess at the Window; (in a critical explication of the Catharine MacKinnon, Gloria Steinhem et al tenets of misandric belief.)

"If the classroom situation is very heteropatriarchal--a large beginning class of 50 to 60 students, say, with few feminist students--I am likely to define my task as largely one of recruitment...of persuading students that women are oppressed" -- Professor Joyce Trebilcot of Washington University, as quoted in Who Stole Feminism: How Women Have Betrayed Women.

"Men, as a group, tend to be abusive, either verbally, sexually or emotionally. There are always the exceptions, but they are few and far between (I am married to one of them). There are different levels of violence and abuse and individual men buy into this system by varying degrees. But the male power structure always remains intact." Message on FEMISA, responding to a request for arguments that men are unnecessary for a child to grow into mature adulthood.

Another posting on FEMISA: "Considering the nature and pervasiveness of men's violence, I would say that without question, children are better off being raised without the presence of men. Assaults on women and children are mostly perpetrated by men whom they are supposed to love and trust: fathers, brothers, uncles, grandfathers, step-fathers." Both quotes taken from Daphne Patai's excellent critical work, Heterophobia

"At Brandies I discovered Feminism. And I instantly became a convert... writing brilliant papers in my Myths of Patriarchy class, in which I likened my fate as a woman to other victims throughout the ages." -- Heather Hart 7

Here are 10 reasons why we are concerned about feminism and the National Organization for Women.

1. "The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist" (National NOW Times, January, 1988).

2. "Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage" (feminist leader Sheila Cronan).

3. In response to a question concerning China's policy of compulsory abortion after the first child, Molly Yard responded, "I consider the Chinese government's policy among the most intelligent in the world" (Gary Bauer, "Abetting Coercion in China," The Washington Times, Oct. 10, 1989).

4. "Overthrowing capitalism is too small for us. We must overthrow the whole...patriarch!" (Gloria Steinem, radical feminist leader, editor of MS magazine).

5. "Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women.... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men.... All of history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women. We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft" (from "The Declaration of Feminism," November, 1971).

6. "By the year 2000 we will, I hope, raise our children to believe in human potential, not God." (Gloria Steinem, editor of MS magazine).

7. "Let's forget about the mythical Jesus and look for encouragement, solace, and inspiration from real women.... Two thousand years of patriarchal rule under the shadow of the cross ought to be enough to turn women toward the feminist 'salvation' of this world." (Annie Laurie Gaylor, "Feminist Salvation," The Humanist, p. 37, July/August 1988.

8. "In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them" (Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College, and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman).

9. "Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession... The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family- maker is a choice that shouldn't be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that." (Vivian Gornick, feminist author, University of Illinois, The Daily Illini, April 25, 1981.

10. "The most merciful thing a large family can to do one of its infant members is to kill it." (Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, in "Women and the New Race," p. 67).

"We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men." -- Elizabeth Cady Stanton

From 'A feminist Dictionary; ed. Kramarae and Triechler, Pandora Press, 1985:

MALE:...represents a variant of or deviation from the category of female. The first males were mutants...the male sex represents a degeneration and deformity of the female.

MAN:...an obsolete life form... an ordinary creature who needs to be watched...a contradictory baby-man...

TESTOSTERONE POISONING: ... 'Until now it has been though that the level of testosterone in men is normal simply because they have it. But if you consider how abnormal their behavior is, then you are led to the hypothesis that almost all men are suffering from "testosterone poisoning."

Letter to editor: "Women's Turn to Dominate". "......Clearly you are not yet a free-thinking feminist but rather one of those women who bounce off the male-dominated, male-controlled social structures. Who cares how men feel or what they do or whether they suffer? They have had over 2000 years to dominate and made a complete hash of it. Now it is our turn. My only comment to men is: if you don't like it, bad luck--and if you get in my way I'll run you down." Signed: Liberated Women, Boronia Herald-Sun, Melbourne, Australia. 9 Feb., 1996.

“Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism.” - Catharine A. MacKinnon

Bill Clinton's fixation on oral sex -- non-reciprocal oral sex -- consistently puts women in states of submission to him. It's the most fetishistic, heartless, cold sexual exchange that one could imagine. - (Andrea Dworkin)

"I do want to be able to explain to a 9-year-old boy in terms he will understand why I think it's OK for girls to wear shirts that revel in their superiority over boys." -- Treena Shapiro

"In general, I support a girl's right to offend any member of the opposite sex who happens to cross her path. In fact, I'd much rather see a little girl wearing a shirt that mocks boys than one that turns them on." -- Treena Shapiro

"We identify the agents of our oppression as men.......ALL MEN HAVE OPPRESSED WOMEN.....We do not need to change ourselves, but to change men......The most slanderous evasion of all is that women can oppress men." --The Redstockings Manifesto

"We regard our personal experience, and our FEELINGS about that experience, as the basis for an analysis of our common situation. We cannot rely on existing ideologies as they are all the products of male supremicist culture." -- The Redstockings Manifesto

"I propose that the phenomenon of love is the psychological pivot in the persecution of women." -- Ti-Grace Atkinson in 'Radical Feminism and Love'

"Men are animals. Don't you think so?" -- Ireen von Wachenfeldt, radical feminist leader in Sweden

"Heterosexuality is a die-hard custom through which male-supremacist institutions insure their own perpetuity and control over us. Women are kept, maintained and contained through terror, violence, and the spray of semen...[Lesbianism is] an ideological, political and philosophical means of liberation of all women from heterosexual tyranny... " -- Cheryl Clarke, "Lesbianism, An Act of Resistance," in This Bridge Called My Back: Writing by Radical Women of Color

"The care of children ..is infinitely better left to the best trained practitioners of both sexes who have chosen it as a vocation...[This] would further undermine family structure while contributing to the freedom of women." --Kate Millet, Sexual Politics 178-179


----------



## knittigan (Sep 2, 2011)

PeteTheZombie:2191421 said:


> super feminist quotes bomb
> 
> 
> * *
> ...


You're absolutely right, feminists are evil because cherrypicking things out of context without bothering to read the original source material is a valid argument. I mean, just look at the awful things those women said!! Never mind the fact that there's already been a fairly documented history just within the context of this thread of feminists disagreeing with each other, feminists are all manhating lesbians against children, femininity, and all traditional female practices... but _most importantly,_ men! The presence of attractive, feminine, heterosexual feminists with male partners, marriages, and children is clearly beside the point. As is the existence of any feminist such as myself who writes a lot about men and masculinity. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I'm not sure how I ever would have gotten to this conclusion without your valuable contribution

The fact that you clearly don't understand what was meant by any of those quotes aside, for every feminist who said them, there is a feminist who disagrees with her.

Stop trolling.


----------

