# Are you a feminist? Why?



## BrianAdamsID (Jan 17, 2010)

["Deleted" Message]


----------



## cmr (Apr 8, 2010)

I don't consider myself one, but I of course believe in equal rights for women. I just think it goes too far sometimes...


----------



## caflme (Jun 7, 2009)

cmr said:


> I don't consider myself one, but I of course believe in equal rights for women. I just think it goes too far sometimes...


^.... and it goes WAY too far sometimes... to our detriment and that of men.


----------



## SusanStorm (Oct 27, 2006)

I don't like the label feminist because it has a lot of negative connotations associated with it which I do not agree on.

I think my view is pretty individualistic and I don't agree on the whole ban this and that.
But what I diagree with the most is how feminism tends to label women as victims even when they're not or someone stupid who doesn't know her own good.
While men are always the perpetrator who takes advantage of women.


----------



## JEmerson (Mar 25, 2010)

Nope, those chicks need to get back in the kitchen.  

In all seriousness, obviously I support women in every way, but no I wouldn't call myself a feminist.


----------



## Noca (Jun 24, 2005)

I believe in equal rights for all human beings. No one being treated any better than anyone else, no man above woman and NO woman above man either. Discrimination sickens me.


----------



## KumagoroBeam (Sep 15, 2008)

caflme said:


> ^.... and it goes WAY too far sometimes... to our detriment and that of men.


I'm just interested... In what ways do you think it goes "too far"?


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

No.
I do my own laundry.
I do my own housecleaning.
I do my yard work.
I do my own gardening.
I do my own shopping.
I bring home the bacon and fry it up in a pan.


----------



## AlwaysOnTheOutside (Jan 11, 2010)

No, I'm not a feminist. You wanna be feminist? Ok, fine, could you get that pickle jar off the top shelf and open it for me?


----------



## PickaxeMellie (Jan 22, 2010)

I have a lot of fear about stupid little things, but there is one thing I'm not afraid of, and that's the "f" word. Yes, I called "feminism" the "f" word. 

It seems like a lot of people are afraid of the stereotype of feminism that has been propagated in the media. Blame it on the second wave. While I support equal rights across the board, I also embrace my sexuality and my freedom to choose what I do with my body. I don't completely reject second wave feminism, but I agree more with the third wave, which loosely defines feminism. 

So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that feminism isn't one thing. It's not always a bunch of man-hating lumberjack-looking lesbians who burn bras. (Bra burning is a myth anyway.) It's not always the militant women that Rush Limbaugh called "feminazis." Feminism is different according to perspective. The idea that feminism goes to far suggests that all feminists agree on their method, and to me that's very unfeminist idea.


----------



## Atticus (Nov 10, 2003)

By your definition I am a feminist, and I'm not afraid of the connotations of the word. Accepting a political label doesn't mean that I agree with everyone who might apply that label to himself or herself.

The only consistent issues I have with feminism, and really with all modern political/social movements on all points along the liberal<<<<< >>>>>conservative spectrum, is the abuse of language and the resulting irrational insistence on shutting out any other viewpoint.

An idea either has merit or it doesn't. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

And while a basic tenet like equal pay for equal work has for me no logical counterpoint, I'm secure in that knowledge and I see no advantage in labelling, or diagnosing, someone who sees it differently.


----------



## Amocholes (Nov 5, 2003)

> "a person who supports the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men."


By this definition yes.


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

^But, you know there has been deviation from that. :no


----------



## STKinTHEmud (Jun 21, 2009)

^ Good post. I consider myself a feminist because I define feminism the same way the op did: supporting gender equality. I think that a lot of people, both men and women, have come to define feminism as bringing the status of women above that of men as a means of equalizing the sexes, but of course, that's ridiculous. Often, it seems that self-proclaimed feminists attempt to increase the political and social power of women in those areas in which they are weaker than men without attempting to promote the social and political power of men in those areas that they are weaker than women. 

When she was arrested in the feminist marches in the 20's, Susan B. Anthony was released by the judge at her trial because she was a woman. But she demanded that she go to prison, just as any man would. This is true feminism: total equality, for better or worse.


----------



## caflme (Jun 7, 2009)

anymouse said:


> where is the reply for "hell no!"
> we can thank gloria steinem etc for killing chivalry.
> to be feminist is to defy physics and natural instincts in general. of course there can be exceptions! + if you're cool with that, go for it! there are plenty of alpha females in media to back you up, and men will drool + fall heads over heel for you as you emulate angelina's tomb raiding etcetera, as it is becoming the general norm in hollywood! :no
> 
> ...


^Great Post... my thoughts exactly...


----------



## veron (Apr 29, 2009)

_I don't use the label "feminist," but support gender equality_. I had a college professor who was a feminist. Her class was media studies, and some of the things she pointed out to us were quite interesting and eye-opening. I remember in particular discussing how in crime shows, in most of the cases, the victim of a brutal murder is a young, beautiful woman. They love to show us images of said naked female body that's been beaten, bruised, cut, etc. She had some explanation for that but I forget what it was :con


----------



## estse (Nov 18, 2003)

gender equality


----------



## jane (Jan 30, 2006)

anymouse said:


> men feel useless as their role is removed. women feel undervalued in their place as well. people mock traditional roles, and are left floating in the debris of what the seventies did to us. not that i advocate the 50's roles either, but can't there be a middle ground??????????


This is one of the issues feminism is trying to address- what are the roles of men and women?
Right now, I think we still have fairly strict gender roles that dictate to men and women how we should behave. But I think feminism tries to free us from those constraints.

For example, I think current roles for men in our society can be very restrictive and limiting (the John Wayne type is representative: tough as nails, strong and stoic, doesn't cry, is the breadwinner in his home). It can be damaging to your self-esteem if you don't fill this arbitrary stereotype, and it can be very unfulfilling if you do (would John Wayne be a stay-at-home-dad, or dance in a ballet, or teach kindergarten, even if he really, really wanted to?).

I think feminism is trying to rid society of "This is what women should do" and "This is what men should do"- and is replacing it with "Do whatever makes you happy."


----------



## LeDiskoLove99 (Jun 7, 2010)

I wouldn't generally consider myself a femminist, to me that seems a little too old school. Ok not so old school as just....I don't know I guess outdated. To me at least. And it seems a little.....one sided. (I mean absolutely no offense to those who consider themselves femminists this is just my own opinion) What I consider myself is a humanist (a term I made for myself although it could have a totally different definition than wht I give it that's my definition for me haha) every human no matter their race, gender, orientation, religion or lack thereof ect....should be totally equal. That's how I feel about it.


----------



## bowlingpins (Oct 18, 2008)

There should be equal opportunities for men and women. Gender should not be used as a reason to restrict choice or behavior. I am waiting for the day when gender becomes a non-issue, feminism becomes a thing of the past. Then that would mean we have achieved true equality. 

There still are differences between men and women that make them better suited to one task or other, but not everyone fall neatly into groups. There are outliers. Besides, people should not have to limit themselves to something they are suitable for. As long as it is something they want to do, they should be able to do it.

I voted for the 2nd option. "I don't use the label "feminist," but support gender equality."


----------



## papaSmurf (Jun 16, 2008)

Unapologetic feminist here.


----------



## sarafinanickelbocker (May 16, 2010)

Yes, I am a feminist. I don't see why women can't have equal rights. The term "feminist" is not to be confused with "women's (or perhaps more accurately wom*y*n's) liberationist". I think men should have equal rights too.


----------



## NotRealName (Feb 28, 2010)

I'm all in for equal rights.

Anyone remember this?





I'm pretty sure if it was the other way around, well, its obvious.


----------



## _AJ_ (Jan 23, 2008)

yeah, im a feminist, i think women should be put in charge of everything


----------



## TRENNER (Sep 21, 2009)

I support feminists on specific issues, but will not give feminism generic support because the movement goes off the deep end sometimes.


----------



## Monroee (Aug 26, 2009)

I don't understand the second option. It's like saying, I'm not a Christian but I believe in Christ as our Lord and Saviour. It makes no sense. If you support gender equality then technically, your a feminist.


----------



## pollster (Oct 4, 2009)

I like Drella's answer.

I just want to be able to have the opportunity to do what I want in life, without being told that I can't merely because I'm a woman and it's not my "place". And I wish the same for men! I don't agree with prescribed roles for men and women, based on gender, race, or whatever.

If a woman out there longs to be a stay-at-home mom with a breadwinning husband, and the husband is completely down with that - hey, more power to you! I would only wish such a couple the best in life. But if there's a woman out there who longs to have a career (regardless of whether or not she also wants or has children), then people should support her. I am a woman with a career. And I'm a woman who chooses not to have children for personal reasons. And I only ask that people respect my right to make those choices for myself and not "bring me down" because of it.

Maybe I'm rambling. I agree in equal opportunity for all.

Also, I hesitate at times to call myself a feminist exactly because of the negative connotations, and because there are so many variations to feminist beliefs (from mild, to the extreme "man hater" end of the spectrum) that someone will never be able to know what my own personal feminist beliefs are merely by me labeling myself as "feminist". 

But in the traditional sense, yes, I am a feminist.

Why can't we all just get along? :b


----------



## NotRealName (Feb 28, 2010)

Homersxchild said:


> I don't understand the second option. It's like saying, I'm not a Christian but I believe in Christ as our Lord and Saviour. It makes no sense. If you support gender equality then technically, your a feminist.


There are many people who share the same god as you but don't follow the religion and such. They might also believe in a higher power and not any religion as well.


----------



## pollster (Oct 4, 2009)

This seems like as good a place as any... 8)
(This doesn't mean I'm a Marxist Feminist. I just find the t-shirt amusing.)


----------



## SusanStorm (Oct 27, 2006)

Drella said:


> I guess I consider myself to be a feminist. I'm not a man-hater, or someone who wants to remove the rights of men. I just think people should be able to do whatever makes them happiest without worrying about what other people might say about it. The notion that women "feel undervalued in their place" is a pretty bold statement. Plenty of women are fully satisfied with where they are in life. Some women choose to enter fields in which women are stigmatized, but it's their choice to attempt to make it in a "man's world," so to speak. If they have the brass to go for what they want despite the stigma, they can take feeling undervalued, and perhaps even come out stronger because of it. To me, men who feel threatened or insulted by women's presence in those areas are most likely insecure. I can think of no other reason to even care. Men who want women who are submissive go for that type of woman; men who prefer independent women go for the opposite end of the spectrum. So, I don't see why men should ever feel "useless" in their roles; the responsibility is on the individuals to choose the relationship dynamic that suits them. And if a man chooses to abandon his children, his own issues (whatever they may be) are the cause, not the woman. To me, blaming feminism for the decisions some men make is a cop-out from personal responsibility. My opinion is that if a man decides to be in a relationship with a woman who desires complete social equality, he has absolutely no grounds to complain about it. If that's not what he wants, he can find someone who better suits him. Or, you know, figure out that there are more troubling things in life than your wife/girlfriend wanting a career for herself. But maybe it's just me. Maybe it's Maybelline.


Agreed :yes Great post.


----------



## jim_morrison (Aug 17, 2008)

I feel simply that all human beings should be afforded equally the opportunity to live as they choose and pursue whatever makes them happy (so long as it does not harm others in the process.) I don't really know what 'label' that would make me, so I chose the second option :stu.


----------



## General Specific (Mar 4, 2008)

I support gender equality but not feminists in general because they are often hypocritical and go too far.


----------



## fingertips (Jan 11, 2009)

totes.


----------



## Paul (Sep 26, 2005)

I consider myself an individualist. Gender roles on the whole annoy me, whether they're for men or women... of course people have a right to choose those roles, but there's excessive pressure.

In practice I usually agree with feminists on issues, but I feel it's very important I don't use that label because my position isn't about helping women only -- it's about ensuring that every individual, male and female, can deviate from normal roles to pursue what they want to pursue. Gender roles cause _more_ problems for women, but they also cause plenty for a lot of men, and there's no reason why we should selectively only fix the female side of the problem -- and in fact, it's probably much more effective to fix the root problem to the benefit of all instead of just patching the symptoms that affect women.


----------



## mcmuffinme (Mar 12, 2010)

I would call myself a feminist because I have read on the issue and easily see its relevance. I would be in favor of a new name for feminists only because of the bad rap the word 'feminist' recieves, but until a new movement emerges that is what I will refer to myself as. 

Feminism to me is the equal/fair treatment of BOTH genders.


----------



## papaSmurf (Jun 16, 2008)

Hoth said:


> In practice I usually agree with feminists on issues, but I feel it's very important I don't use that label because my position isn't about helping women only -- it's about ensuring that every individual, male and female, can deviate from normal roles to pursue what they want to pursue.


^Being a feminist in no way prevents you from supporting the rights of non-female members of the population.

Additionally, the second option on this poll is absurd and misleading. If you support equal rights for all genders, you are a feminist. All the various negative connotations which have been piled onto the term over the years are, without exception, straw men entirely unrelated to the stated goals and ideals of the feminist movement.


----------



## izzy (Dec 18, 2009)

papaSmurf said:


> ^Being a feminist in no way prevents you from supporting the rights of non-female members of the population.
> 
> Additionally, the second option on this poll is absurd and misleading. If you support equal rights for all genders, you are a feminist. All the various negative connotations which have been piled onto the term over the years are, without exception, straw men entirely unrelated to the stated goals and ideals of the feminist movement.


:high5

Yes, I'm a feminist. That's probably pretty obvious. :b
I just can't stand the idea that feminists are all man-haters. I know very few feminists in real life to begin with and none hate men or wish for women to be superior. I stand up for men often, but because I use the f-word to describe myself, I'm dismissed as a man hater. And, in fact, I've noticed that the people that put men down usually don't consider themselves a "feminist." I don't understand why the people that want women to be treated equally to men constantly have to prove themselves. Did/do civil rights activists get accused of hating whites?


----------



## Sous la Mer (Apr 9, 2010)

Yes you can call me that, but I don't care about specific names and labels. Although I have very strong beliefs about a myriad of topics, many of which would probably be taken as "feminist".


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

millenniumman75 said:


> I bring home the bacon and fry it up in a pan.


Wimp. Sara Palin would kill a wild pig, butcher it, and then fry porky up in a pan!:lol


----------



## Resonance (Feb 11, 2010)

No, I despise feminism.

To me it appears to be an ideology which steroetypes all males as part of some malevolent patriarchal conspiracy aimed at surpressing women's rights, and sterotypes all females as the weak, submissive victims of men.

Femnists also tend to do this thing whereby when a woman does something they don't like they accuse her of "betraying the sisterhood" as if all women are somehow part of the same ideological perspective.

The last complaint I will write here is that it is a somewhat self-contradictory ideology which calls for equality for women on the one hand, and yet recognition of women's differences from men on the other - one cannot have both.

Egalitarianism is one thing, feminism is another entirely.


----------



## ktbare (Sep 13, 2009)

I'd go as far as saying YES I am. Can't be bothered with the rest of it.


----------



## Paul (Sep 26, 2005)

papaSmurf said:


> ^Being a feminist in no way prevents you from supporting the rights of non-female members of the population.


I'm aware of that. You could say I'm a feminist, and I wouldn't outright disagree if pressed on it, but I prefer to emphasize the wider picture instead of that particular part of it. I support the rights of women, men, transsexuals, hermaphrodites, eunuchs, "third gender" people, various non-conformists, et all equally... so while calling myself a feminist might be technically accurate it'd be misleading in terms of emphasis. I think it makes more sense (at least for me) to treat it as a wider issue.

Saying "I'm a feminist" is kind of like saying "I don't hate Mexicans." In other words, it's nice to know but doesn't actually clarify whether you're racist against all sorts of other groups. Better to say "I'm not racist."



izzy said:


> I just can't stand the idea that feminists are all man-haters.


Just to clarify (since you were quoting a response to me), I certainly haven't encountered many man-hating feminists and was in no way implying that I dislike feminists.


----------



## Kathe (May 17, 2010)

I am a true feminist, in that I understand and try to utilize the powers of femininity to the best of my abilities.

I shouldn't have to explain what this means.


----------



## caflme (Jun 7, 2009)

My rambling - though not all that structured or coherent:

I judge feminists by the ones I have known and the ones I have read about... and they cross a wide spectrum of socio-economic levels. 

First my sister-in-law: She first refused to take our family name when she married my brother, then she insisted that he never open a door for her and that she drive and pump the gas while he rode in the passenger seat, he cooked and handled the chores and most of the child-rearing while she worked (oh, he was supposed to work too), when in conversation she dominated. The reason my brother tolerated this was out of fear of being LABELED anti-feminist and not supporting women's right to choose. My brother sunk into drug and alcohol abuse, and experienced depression - who the hell wouldn't. She's mellowed now after their 35 something years of marriage but she made sure that he never interacted with us much and their children were not allowed to know us because we were not 'enlightened'.

Second is the pastor at a local church... won't say which one. I tried to go to a few of her services as she is related to a friend of mine. Every word she preached was about women this and women that and how God relates to women and what women should do.... effectively disregarding every man who went to church there and/or making them feel forgotten and unnecessary.

Many women want a partner... they don't want to be higher or lower... they don't feel superior or less than. She brings her strengths to a relationship and so does the man .... but many women now seek a man who will allow her the power in a relationship... to be in charge. They undercut the man at every stage of trying to provide for his family, to raise his kids, to tackle household chores, to save for the future and to share his feelings.

Many women send mixed signals every day to men and then wonder why they are angry and confused... if a man opens the door for us 'how dare he - we can open our own dam door' yet if he doesn't he is a jerk who has no respect for women. Women are secretly flattered as a man hold a chair for her in a restaurant as she rolls her eyes to the other women in the room (I've watched it happen)... when is the last time you saw a woman verbally say thank you to any man who showed her these courtesies.

A woman wants a man who works, who provides, who has a car and a house and savings... yet she wants all the say in how the income and assets are spent/used. In 45 years I've seen this more times than not and every time it is evidenced to be true it is a feminist that is involved.

Anger is what most feminists have in common... anger and fear. I'm not saying there are no peace loving and calm feminists out there... but every one I've met or read about get riled up and angry and accusatory at the drop of a pen. They take up every issue as if it is so personal as to be life or death and turn every discussion ugly.

Not once in my entire 45 years have I felt discriminated against... not once and I've worked MANY types of jobs and lived in many places in the U.S. I've been married and single, in the professional workforce and worked as a laborer. 

I'll tell you what I was judged by... my skill, my experience, my dedication and honesty and my attitude. I will guarantee that many feminists that get a bad wrap that get attitude and that get discriminated against... I doubt highly it is because they are a woman but far more often it would be self-fulfilling prophecy... you get what you give in life... and if you put out anger, fear, frustration and attitude... you're gonna get it back. If you don't give someone respect... they aren't going to respect you back. 

If I were to open a door for 20 women and one 1 or 2 said thank you I would think I was doing something wrong ... if even one of those women gave me a hard time (like I've watched rude feminists do to men) - I would never do it again.

If I was a man and was emasculated by behaviors that make it clear that I am unnecessary then why would I stay. And yes, men do leave because they feel unnecessary, unneeded, unloved, unwanted and irrelevant. That is a very big reason why there are so many divorces and children growing up without a dad.

Today we make sure men know we can have babies without their sperm, can raise them alone (but god help them if they don't give us their money), we can replace them when someone better comes along and expect 'their' kids to just adapt to someone new, we can make as much money as them and will sue if we don't - honestly - whether we are actually equally qualified or not.... because we are women and all we have to do is play the race card (ooops... I mean the woman/sex/harrassment card).

Talk about quotas... I was once told I could not hire a person for a job at a construction company because they weren't a woman... because they needed a woman to 'make things look good' - they wanted an all woman crew... I told them where they could shove their job and I quit. I do not agree with that. People should be hired by qualifications... not by their gender or the color of their skin. 

Here is the impact of feminism that I see.... all women were guilt tripped into 'having to' enter the work force whether they wanted to or not because to NOT work was seen as traitorous to their kind... they were too feminine and not feminists. So all these women went to work... taking jobs away from the men that were doing them.

Then we had men out of work unable to support their families so what did they do... they drank or did drugs to drown their feelings of worthlessness... or they slept around to prove their manliness. In an era where the man worked a woman may have tried to make her marriage work, fix the problems, and strengthen the marriage and come through the crisis... now however, since she could make enough money to pay the bills (why bother)... she kicked his but out (to heck with the kids - they'll adjust - right)... and now he's got no family to support, usually limited visitation which helps him to detach further from his kids (and them from him) and he feels less inclination to try to pay child support because the bond is destroyed. Men have an innate genetic predisposition to mate, to create offspring, to provide food and shelter for his family and through sex to remain bonded to them and emotionally and physically connected. Take away being needed to create offspring, to provide food and shelter and being unnecessary for sexual satisfaction ... it destroys the entire way things are supposed to be.


----------



## cmr (Apr 8, 2010)

KumagoroBeam said:


> I'm just interested... In what ways do you think it goes "too far"?


Well, in a lot of ways.. At least in my opinion. For instance:

1. The pro-choice movement... Women saying they have the right to have abortions, just because the person inside the mother cannot speak.

2. Women who complain they're being discriminated against if a man gets hired for a job they want.

3. Nowadays it's hard for a family with one income to make it... I think that's due in part to women wanting to have families AND a job, so the economy kind of adjusted to families having two incomes.

4. The biggest for me is the fact that now home makers and stay at home moms are not appreciated and are sometimes even looked down upon. I think home makers/stay at home moms are some of the hardest workers, and it makes me mad that people put them down.

5. Also I heard something once about how the military had to make boot camp "easier" so that women could do it along with the men... That's stupid.


----------



## caflme (Jun 7, 2009)

cmr said:


> Well, in a lot of ways.. At least in my opinion. For instance:
> 
> 1. The pro-choice movement... Women saying they have the right to have abortions, just because the person inside the mother cannot speak.
> 
> ...


All very good points and very true... as soon as children become inconvenient they are able to be murdered in the name of choice... what an advancement that part of feminism has brought us.

Think about this... in many states if a woman is shot and dies and the fetus/baby dies then the person can be charged with double-murder.... yet that same woman can murder her own child and be patted on the back and told it was just her choice and go about her life.

If any man has on opinion... it's irrelevant because he does not have a womb and does not give birth... no... you see... he's only 'THE Father" and it is only 'HIS child'.


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

Kathe said:


> I am a true feminist, in that I understand and try to utilize the powers of femininity to the best of my abilities.
> 
> I shouldn't have to explain what this means.


You might want to explain what that means because it doesn't sound very good.

It could be taken to mean that you use female sexuality to get as much cash & prizes from men as possible. I'm not sure if that was what you intended to mean or not.


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

caflme said:


> Think about this... in many states if a woman is shot and dies and the fetus/baby dies then the person can be charged with double-murder.... yet that same woman can murder her own child and be patted on the back and told it was just her choice and go about her life.


You're correct that such views are obvious contradictions, yet I suspect very few people are like me and feel the need to be logically consistent.

I 100% oppose any law that would give personhood status to a fetus. If a fetus is killed in a crime, it's not a person and should be treated as criminal destruction of property.


----------



## caflme (Jun 7, 2009)

UltraShy said:


> You're correct that such views are obvious contradictions.
> 
> I 100% oppose any law that would give personhood status to a fetus. If a fetus is killed in a crime, it's not a person and should be treated as criminal destruction of property.


We will have to agree to disagree (about the second paragraph).


----------



## pollster (Oct 4, 2009)

caflme said:


> First my sister-in-law:


This is really none of my business, but since you used it as an example... why on earth did they get married? They don't sound compatible in the first place.



> Many women want a partner... they don't want to be higher or lower... they don't feel superior or less than. She brings her strengths to a relationship and so does the man .... but many women now seek a man who will allow her the power in a relationship... to be in charge. They undercut the man at every stage of trying to provide for his family, to raise his kids, to tackle household chores, to save for the future and to share his feelings.


Many men want to be in charge and dominant in a relationship, and many men want an equal partnership. Many this and many that. The differences in behaviour swing both ways. I don't see how judging "feminists" on one side of things helps any. You appear be basing your feelings on the latter half of your statement above, and not the former. Does that seem fair? There are a lot of so-called "feminists" who fall into the former half of your statement above. I agree that there are all kinds.

This goes to my hatred of generalizations as well. They're all over the place, and they just **** everybody up in the end.



> ... when is the last time you saw a woman verbally say thank you to any man who showed her these courtesies.


I say thank you in these circumstances ALL of the time, thank you very much.  Again, not all women are *****es. To me, it's about being kind as HUMAN BEINGS, and not about whether a male (or female) is showing dominance over me. I open doors for people all the time - male or female - and people do it for me. And I think nothing more of it than kindness.



> Anger is what most feminists have in common... anger and fear. I'm not saying there are no peace loving and calm feminists out there... but every one I've met or read about get riled up and angry and accusatory at the drop of a pen. They take up every issue as if it is so personal as to be life or death and turn every discussion ugly.


There are definitely women out there like that. And it's unfortunate that you've chosen to dislike "feminism" based on those sad examples. I respect your decision though. I'm not really expecting to convince you to change your mindset. I just hate how all feminism has gotten a bad rap because of stupid human behaviour of a sub-set of people. In the same way that all men can get a bad rap and be generalized into one category when that's not at all true.



> _*I'll tell you what I was judged by... my skill, my experience, my dedication and honesty and my attitude.*_ I will guarantee that many feminists that get a bad wrap that get attitude and that get discriminated against... I doubt highly it is because they are a woman but far more often it would be self-fulfilling prophecy... you get what you give in life... and if you put out anger, fear, frustration and attitude... you're gonna get it back. If you don't give someone respect... they aren't going to respect you back.


The first part of your statement is wonderful -- that's exactly the point. But try looking at the experiences of women in other parts of the world and not just your own. Many women have not been so lucky as you.


----------



## jane (Jan 30, 2006)

caflme said:


> Many women send mixed signals every day to men and then wonder why they are angry and confused... if a man opens the door for us 'how dare he - we can open our own dam door' yet if he doesn't he is a jerk who has no respect for women.


I worked in mostly male offices. The men didn't always hold the door open for each other, but they'd hold it open for me. It was a nice gesture and I always said "thank you," but it make me feel awkward and different. I'd have to say thanks about 4 times on the way to the cafeteria (and 4 times on the way back) and I kind of wished they wouldn't have treated me different. 


> A woman wants a man who works, who provides, who has a car and a house and savings... yet she wants all the say in how the income and assets are spent/used. In 45 years I've seen this more times than not and every time it is evidenced to be true it is a feminist that is involved.


My father worked and my mother stayed at home, and they had equal say about how the money was spent. Why should it be different? They both worked equally hard- just because he had a paycheck and she didn't, doesn't mean he should have more power. 


> Not once in my entire 45 years have I felt discriminated against... not once and I've worked MANY types of jobs and lived in many places in the U.S. I've been married and single, in the professional workforce and worked as a laborer.
> I'll tell you what I was judged by... my skill, my experience, my dedication and honesty and my attitude.


In a male dominated office, I sometimes wondered if I was hired to fill some sort of lady quota. That idea sometimes undermined my self-confidence, and made me wonder if anyone else though I was just a quota.
Personally, I've never felt discriminated against, but when I'm the only woman attending a big meeting, it kind of makes me feel out of place. I guess it's my own fault, but it might be more comfortable to have a female boss just once.



> If I was a man and was emasculated by behaviors that make it clear that I am unnecessary then why would I stay. And yes, men do leave because they feel unnecessary, unneeded, unloved, unwanted and irrelevant. That is a very big reason why there are so many divorces and children growing up without a dad.


My dad was the breadwinner, but if he had not been able to fulfill that role, he still would have been essential to my life. It saddens me when husbands just think of themselves as the provider, because my dad was so much more. 
He was the parent most comfortable showing affection (saying I love you, hugging you). He pushed me to succeed in school. He provided valuable advice. He was responsible. He taught me to respect myself, to respect men, and to demand respect from other people. If my mother had worked because he was unable, it wouldn't change my appreciation of him.

I think feminists are blamed for a lot of things they shouldn't be blamed for. They don't hate men, and they don't hate families- they just want respect, like everybody else.


----------



## Atticus (Nov 10, 2003)

I open/hold doors for people. I'm a bit more inclined to hold a door an extra second for a woman. In my, what, 40 years of holding doors, I've never had a women appear upset or angry. I believe that it happens, but my experience would indicate that it's not super common.

I think most anti-feminism arguments are straw men. In your brother's case, caflme, his wife sounds like an ******* who happens to be a feminist. If you had a sister who put up with a domineering male because she thought it was her proper role, couldn't you just as easily say thet the man was living out the patriarch's dream, when in fact maybe he's just an *******.

When feminists trash or dismiss men, and that certainly happens, I think feminism is the vehicle a damaged person uses to vent her sickened spleen. I don't think feminism, the idea that nothing should happen too, or for, a person simply because she is female, is to blame for individual pathology.

Look at some of the bitter, frightening hatred that gets spewed in the name of men's rights. I think men have some real issues around family law, for example, but when someone like the gym killer gets significant "understanding" for his murders, as happened on many internet sites that are ostensibly about men's rights, then something besides frustration over visitation rights or child support is going on.

There are sick, angry women, and there are sick angry men.

I understand the search for a role that many men struggle with, because I experience it too. But what does it say about men if we can't relate to women who have the same options we have? In saying that, there are choices that men don't get, at least not with the same support women enjoy, like being a caring parent, especially if it means sacrificing some career goals. Men who are so inclined should claim that territory and other "softer" pleasures (**** instincts, culture tells us who we should be) just like women should claim what they've been denied if they're so inclined.


----------



## caflme (Jun 7, 2009)

pollster said:


> This is really none of my business, but since you used it as an example... why on earth did they get married? They don't sound compatible in the first place.
> 
> *Perhaps it's because he was naive and very young... fortunately they have come to a more equal place as they both aged.*
> 
> ...





atticus said:


> In your brother's case, caflme, his wife sounds like an ******* who happens to be a feminist. If you had a sister who put up with a domineering male because she thought it was her proper role, couldn't you just as easily say thet the man was living out the patriarch's dream, when in fact maybe he's just an *******.
> 
> *It would depend on whether my sister was happy - some women are happy in these situations because it feels safe and is predictable and perhaps they prefer to take a submissive role. Who is to say she would be 'putting up with it'.* *Are you implying that all of these situations are abusive?*
> 
> ...


*Communication is key but it's hard when emotions run high.
*


----------



## SilentLoner (Jan 30, 2006)

Resonance said:


> No, I despise feminism.
> 
> To me it appears to be an ideology which steroetypes all males as part of some malevolent patriarchal conspiracy aimed at surpressing women's rights, and sterotypes all females as the weak, submissive victims of men.
> 
> Femnists also tend to do this thing whereby when a woman does something they don't like they accuse her of "betraying the sisterhood" as if all women are somehow part of the same ideological perspective.


What you have is a very warped and stereotypical idea of feminism, one that has been largely propagated by the media. Feminism in its true form means equality.

Not denying there aren't radical feminists out there, but most groups tend to have branch groups that take their own spin on ideology.

Use environmentalism for example. Somehow most people don't automatically associate the fringe groups that burn SUV's and put spikes in trees with mainstream environmentalists.


----------



## izzy (Dec 18, 2009)

cmr said:


> 4. The biggest for me is the fact that now home makers and stay at home moms are not appreciated and are sometimes even looked down upon. I think home makers/stay at home moms are some of the hardest workers, and it makes me mad that people put them down.


That's not true at all. Stay at home moms were never appreciated to begin with. "Women's work" was never appreciated to begin with. Their work was never thought of as important as a man's job.


----------



## SilentLoner (Jan 30, 2006)

And just since I didn't say it above, yes, I am a feminist. I've always gone with the "social, economic and political equality" definition.

I'm also very much an individualist, I judge people on an individual basis, probably due to my own character, as I conform to very few female stereotypes. I would also never dicriminate against men, that would violate the basic idea of equality feminism is based on.


----------



## SilentLoner (Jan 30, 2006)

izzy said:


> That's not true at all. Stay at home moms were never appreciated to begin with. "Women's work" was never appreciated to begin with. Their work was never thought of as important as a man's job.


This.

I've also always thought the encouraging attitudes toward it only started when people were freaking out that women could work outside the home. Suddenly it became important.


----------



## lyssado707 (Oct 29, 2004)

Yes!  It is about equality, not about putting men or any other group in an inferior position.


----------



## BeNice (Jan 2, 2004)

SilentLoner said:


> Use environmentalism for example. Somehow most people don't automatically associate the fringe groups that burn SUV's and put spikes in trees with mainstream environmentalists.


Eh, those are the only "groups" I really like.

I associate with feminism, but I'm a guy. I'm not trying to get laid, though.


----------



## Ambivert (Jan 16, 2010)

Well, there are two things I don't like about feminists:

1. Many support (whether Drella admits it or not) affirmative action style quotas for women that are inherently discriminatory in nature. Applicants should be chosen purely on merit not background just because of some federal law in my opinion

2. I haven't heard many Western feminists talk about Middle Eastern women's rights, because of fear of Islamic terrorists threats or of being labelled Western imperialists imposing neo-colonialist like standards So they can "socially engineer" Western society but won't touch non-Western societies with a ten foot pole. 

If those 2 issues were fixed I guess I'd have more respect for 'em. But as it is now they seem kinda hypocritical to me.


----------



## Dane (Jul 27, 2009)

Although I support many ideas that could be considered feminist I voted "not really" for several reasons.

First I don't like being labled. I like to use my own judgement on specific individual issues instead of joining a "camp" that has an official or unofficial set of positions that it's members are expected to support.

Second the dictionary definition of feminism given in the original post (supporting the economic, political, and social equality of women) is so vague that it could be used to mean almost anything. There is a feminist school of thought that equates any social differences between the sexes with inequality; according to which high heels, skirts, makeup, perfume, lingere, feminine hairstyles etc, are all trappings of oppressive inequality and should be abolished. I am a "vive la diference" kind of guy and certainly don't agree with that.

Thirdly, I just don't like the term "feminist". Whatever the dictionary definition may be, the implications of the word are that it's about the promotion of women, rather then equality between the sexes.


----------



## Resonance (Feb 11, 2010)

In response to those who told me I held a warped view of feminism based on extremist fringe groups and that 'real' feminism is about political/economic/social equality, let me restate: There is a difference between egalitarianism and feminism.


----------



## LeDiskoLove99 (Jun 7, 2010)

caflme said:


> All very good points and very true... as soon as children become inconvenient they are able to be murdered in the name of choice... what an advancement that part of feminism has brought us.
> 
> Think about this... in many states if a woman is shot and dies and the fetus/baby dies then the person can be charged with double-murder.... yet that same woman can murder her own child and be patted on the back and told it was just her choice and go about her life.
> 
> If any man has on opinion... it's irrelevant because he does not have a womb and does not give birth... no... you see... he's only 'THE Father" and it is only 'HIS child'.


The both of you just took all of the words right out of my mouth. = )


----------



## kosherpiggy (Apr 7, 2010)

Feminism has always interested me. I do consider myself one, even though I do not like to label myself really. I get annoyed by the feminists who make feminism look bad. I cannot stand radical feminists. I do have great respect for Gloria Steinem, but I also have a great admiration for Playboy mogul, Hugh Hefner. Hugh Hefner actually considers himself one because feminism is a part of humanism and he himself is a humanist. I think men deserve as many rights as women do. Sexist jokes rarely get me upset. Dude, I'd make you a sandwich but I don't know how to cook. I guess you can call me a sex-positive feminist even though I'm still a virgin. As for abortion, i'm pro-life, but I do believe a woman should have the right to do what she wants with her body but I don't really like the idea.


----------



## fingertips (Jan 11, 2009)

Dane said:


> There is a feminist school of thought that equates any social differences between the sexes with inequality; according to which high heels, skirts, makeup, perfume, lingere, feminine hairstyles etc, are all trappings of oppressive inequality and should be abolished. I am a "vive la diference" kind of guy and certainly don't agree with that.





the holy feminist bible said:


> V. Thou shalt not wear makeup.
> 
> VI. Thou shalt not wear lingerie.
> 
> VII. Thou shalt not get thy hair cut in a style deemed feminine.


,


----------



## rumjungle (Feb 13, 2009)

Although I consider myself more a humanist, I will say that I'm a feminist since a lot of people seem scared to call themselves that. 

Personally I feel most that are critical of feminism don't understand it, there are many different types of feminism other than the radical misandrist types (and those have always been a minority). I believe feminism is beneficial for both genders, gender roles can be just as limiting to men as they are to women. The whole 'women can have it all' idea that set women up for failure was actually created by women's tabloid/gossip magazines in the 1980s. I don't have a problem with those being critical of feminism but please be specific about what movement and what ideologies you have a problem with. Anyone that thinks feminism isn't still relevant is living in a bubble.


----------



## SpunUndone (Jun 9, 2010)

I think I have a tendency toward supporting women more then men because I've seen so many guys treat women (and other men) like crap in my life, and I believe that is a very messed up way of keeping them down so they don't leave the guy or become more successful. I know there are women who are just as bad, but I don't think it is as widespread.

I chose "_I don't use the label "feminist," but support gender equality."_


----------



## SilentLoner (Jan 30, 2006)

counterfeit self said:


> Well, there are two things I don't like about feminists:
> 
> 2. I haven't heard many Western feminists talk about Middle Eastern women's rights, because of fear of Islamic terrorists threats or of being labelled Western imperialists imposing neo-colonialist like standards So they can "socially engineer" Western society but won't touch non-Western societies with a ten foot pole.


Really? That's a common topic for most declared feminists I know.


----------



## pollster (Oct 4, 2009)

Perhaps I'm derailing the thread a little bit, but I just thought I'd post some examples of older advertisements that offend me as a woman - and thankfully wouldn't be allowed anymore (I think thanks, at least in part (!), to feminist movement). They are somewhat "humourous" (if you can call it that) in how stupid they are from today's point of view.

However, the Pitney-Bowes ad I just find disturbing - even for the time period in which it was relevant. (WTF?? :sus) Well, I guess also the sexy child ad too - but we still see that sort of thing nowadays, it's just hidden better (more or less).

BTW, the text on the Mr.Leggs advertisement reads:


> _"Though she was a tiger lady, our hero didn'__t have to fire __a shot to floor her. After one look at his Mr. Leggs slacks, she was ready to have him walk all over her. That noble styling sure soothes the savage heart! If you'd like your own doll-to-doll carpeting, hunt up a pair of these he-man __Mr. Leggs slacks. Such as our new automatic wash wear blend of 65%__Dacron __and 35% rayon, incomparably wrinkle-resistant. About $12.95 at plush-carpeted stores."_


----------



## rumjungle (Feb 13, 2009)

Watched this video again and think it sums up my view on gender roles (and why feminism is still relevant) in a very articulate way. She counters most of the common arguments that try to justify gender roles as innately bioligical and 'harmless':

The intro is a little long but somewhat relevant:


----------



## drealm (Jul 7, 2009)

No Maam!

In all honestly I'm probably the biggest anti-feminist on this forum.


----------



## AlwaysOnTheOutside (Jan 11, 2010)

drealm said:


> No Maam!
> 
> In all honestly I'm probably the biggest anti-feminist on this forum.


Not sure about that one haha


----------



## AlwaysOnTheOutside (Jan 11, 2010)

pollster said:


> Perhaps I'm derailing the thread a little bit, but I just thought I'd post some examples of older advertisements that offend me as a woman - and thankfully wouldn't be allowed anymore (I think thanks, at least in part (!), to feminist movement). They are somewhat "humourous" (if you can call it that) in how stupid they are from today's point of view.
> 
> However, the Pitney-Bowes ad I just find disturbing - even for the time period in which it was relevant. (WTF?? :sus) Well, I guess also the sexy child ad too - but we still see that sort of thing nowadays, it's just hidden better (more or less).
> 
> BTW, the text on the Mr.Leggs advertisement reads:


Ah, the good ol' days. Maybe a little over the top, but I think we need that a lot more than the pussified ads we see today.


----------



## SilentLoner (Jan 30, 2006)

AlwaysOnTheOutside said:


> Ah, the good ol' days. Maybe a little over the top, but I think we need that a lot more than the pussified ads we see today.


Those are "a little over the top" for you but you whine and call for a boycott over the Corona commercials runing society by doing vice versa? :lol Hypocrisy at its finest right there.


----------



## Cleary (Nov 10, 2007)

SilentLoner said:


> Those are "a little over the top" for you but you whine and call for a boycott over the Corona commercials runing society by doing vice versa? :lol Hypocrisy at its finest right there.


+1 Point: SilentLoner :clap


----------



## papaSmurf (Jun 16, 2008)

rumjungle said:


> Although I consider myself more a humanist, I will say that I'm a feminist since a lot of people seem scared to call themselves that.
> 
> Personally I feel most that are critical of feminism don't understand it, there are many different types of feminism other than the radical misandrist types (and those have always been a minority). I believe feminism is beneficial for both genders, gender roles can be just as limiting to men as they are to women. The whole 'women can have it all' idea that set women up for failure was actually created by women's tabloid/gossip magazines in the 1980s. I don't have a problem with those being critical of feminism but please be specific about what movement and what ideologies you have a problem with. Anyone that thinks feminism isn't still relevant is living in a bubble.


It's like your reading my mind, except more eloquent.

Edit: Additionally, this video woman is my new secret love. Don't tell anyone.



rumjungle said:


> Watched this video again and think it sums up my view on gender roles (and why feminism is still relevant) in a very articulate way. She counters most of the common arguments that try to justify gender roles as innately bioligical and 'harmless':
> 
> The intro is a little long but somewhat relevant:


----------



## AidanPryde (Nov 11, 2009)

No, I'm an anti-feminist, I consider feminism to be just another form of bigotry which promotes misandrist views and discrimination against men.



Resonance said:


> The last complaint I will write here is that it is a somewhat self-contradictory ideology which calls for equality for women on the one hand, and yet recognition of women's differences from men on the other - one cannot have both.


That's the thing, feminists want women to be treated differently when it benefits them and equality when it doesn't. Feminism is about getting as much for women as possible, or at least women who share feminist views.


----------



## fingertips (Jan 11, 2009)

AidanPryde said:


> No, I'm an anti-feminist, I consider feminism to be just another form of bigotry which promotes misandrist views and discrimination against men.


um, yeah, poor downtrodden men.


----------



## odd_one_out (Aug 22, 2006)

From the definition provided and understanding what is meant by equality in the social context (which involves lack of unjustified discrimination and is not like the mathematical one), then I think I am.


----------



## 88 Fingers (Jun 12, 2010)

It depends on the time and situation. I could understand the motives of feminists, say, 70/80 years ago, but definitely not today. In earlier times when females were not allowed to vote, participate in wars, go to school (in some extreme cases), and were generally rendered unable to do anything outside of the house - feminists had stepped in to alleviate this problem. With some minor exceptions (such as salary/paychecks), it can be stated that women and men have equal rights now. 

In my opinion, feminists have already played their role and are no longer needed in today's day and age. If females already have the same rights as males, what can be left to accomplish or achieve? 

"I don't use the label "feminist," but support gender equality." would probably be the choice that best describes my personal point of view.


----------



## tennislover84 (May 14, 2010)

I wouldn't consider myself a "feminist", but I tend to agree with the average feminist on most things, so perhaps that makes me a de facto feminist?

I just don't like the word. Although I understand the historical context of the naming of the movement, continuing to use the word in current times seems quite outdated. It's sounds very exclusively female, doesn't it? As a man, it's kind of hard to completely get behind something, no matter how good the ideas are, if you feel like those good ideas are being claimed by women as being intrinsically female. It's kind of missing the point, but I'm sure a lot of men hear the word "feminism" and think that it doesn't sound like it has much to do with them.

That plus fighting only for gender equality is a narrow focus. To me, all forms of discrimination are just as bad, whether based on gender, race, sexuality or something else.

I agree with the person who said that gender roles can be just as harmful to men as women. I'd prefer it if we could get rid of these traditional ideas of masculinity and femininity, and just let each individual human being decide how they want to fit into society.


----------



## pollster (Oct 4, 2009)

88 Fingers said:


> It depends on the time and situation*.* I could understand the motives of feminists, say, 70/80 years ago, but definitely not today. In earlier times when females were not allowed to vote, participate in wars, go to school (in some extreme cases), and were generally rendered unable to do anything outside of the house - feminists had stepped in to alleviate this problem. With some minor exceptions (such as salary/paychecks), it can be stated that women and men have equal rights now.
> 
> In my opinion, feminists have already played their role and are no longer needed in today's day and age. If females already have the same rights as males, what can be left to accomplish or achieve?


You are obviously speaking only for the part of the world you live in.


----------



## Haydsmom2007 (Oct 16, 2009)

Sure. I wouldn't call myself a feminist though because a lot of the time when I root for gender equality, it's in a case where the man gets the short end of the stick. When it comes to divorce and custody of children, for example. Men get f*cked a lot of the time.


----------



## strawberryjulius (Jun 28, 2009)

In all honesty, I am probably the most unapologetic, radical feminist on this forum.

For the record, feminism is about liberation from patriarchal oppression, not equality. Thank you.


----------



## SilentWitness (Dec 27, 2009)

Mercurochrome said:


> gender equality


ditto.


----------



## SilentLoner (Jan 30, 2006)

anymouse said:


> here's to mr. shyamalan for the village's pure chivalry, which i refuse to believe is dead completely:


Another Shymalan movie I got suckered into watching when it came out.

What chivalry, BTW? I don't recall any grand examples in the film.


----------



## low (Sep 27, 2009)

No! They got rid of the Yorkie advert!


----------



## EagerMinnow84 (Sep 1, 2007)

strawberryjulius said:


> In all honesty, I am probably the most unapologetic, radical feminist on this forum.
> 
> For the record, *feminism is about liberation from patriarchal oppression, not equality. Thank you.*


Yes. 

I am unapologetically pro choice/birth control. The opinions of the church or politicians have no place on what should be a woman's choice. I know there will be people here that will disagree with me.

Personally, I despise the stereotypical role for women. I could never be a stay at home mother (if I ever become a mother) who cooks and cleans and makes sure her husband is fed well and taken care of. It might be perfectly fine for many women but for me, absolutely not.


----------



## introvert33 (Jun 23, 2010)

Just the fact that there are so many versions and disagreements within the feminist community should calm those fears of people who don't want to be associated with it because they fear one aspect of something they've heard about it. If you support some sort of change in gender roles that lifts oppression than join the movement and make it your own.

I can see how it does make the term somewhat irrelevant at that point, but I relate it to other political positions. For someone to say they are conservative doesn't really tell you any information about their views on any one issue (there are endless variations and opinions) but it still does some work in describing them (no not in a reflection of their character kind of way).

Some people just wish to avoid labels in general, which is understandable because people make assumptions about labels, but I guess I just see it as unavoidable. It would be nice to get past labels in politics though, as they are not all that helpful.
Edit: or just in life I guess


----------



## danberado (Apr 22, 2010)

tennislover84 said:


> That plus fighting only for gender equality is a narrow focus. To me, all forms of discrimination are just as bad, whether based on gender, race, sexuality or something else.
> 
> I agree with the person who said that gender roles can be just as harmful to men as women. I'd prefer it if we could get rid of these traditional ideas of masculinity and femininity, and just let each individual human being decide how they want to fit into society.


:yes:yes:yes



pollster said:


> You are obviously speaking only for the part of the world you live in.


Does anyone not speak from the experiences they've lived in? It should be taken for granted she was talking about gender equality in her experience, you're deliberately missing the point to be inflammatory.:clap



EagerMinnow84 said:


> Yes.
> 
> I am unapologetically pro choice/birth control. The opinions of the church or politicians have no place on what should be a woman's choice. I know there will be people here that will disagree with me.
> 
> Personally, I despise the stereotypical role for women. I could never be a stay at home mother (if I ever become a mother) who cooks and cleans and makes sure her husband is fed well and taken care of. It might be perfectly fine for many women but for me, absolutely not.


I don't know where you're from, put that has not been the stereotypical role of women in the United States for decades now. We are well -_well_- into the era of two income families.


----------



## strawberryjulius (Jun 28, 2009)

tennislover84 said:


> That plus fighting only for gender equality is a narrow focus. To me, all forms of discrimination are just as bad, whether based on gender, race, sexuality or something else.


Well, I must admit that every feminist blog I've read so far has focused on all those issues.


----------



## LostinReverie (Mar 18, 2007)

danberado said:


> I don't know where you're from, put that has not been the stereotypical role of women in the United States for decades now. We are well -_well_- into the era of two income families.


In real life, mostly no, it's not our role. In the media, it still most definitely is. Pay attention to household cleaning, laundry, child rearing product commercials. I have yet to see one that shows a man in his house during the day using the product. Most even will address women specifically! It is still most definitely a stereotype.


----------



## danberado (Apr 22, 2010)

@strawberryjulius

When I saw you responded to this thread I had a panic attack that you might have decimated my post!

Luckily, you decimated the post I agreed with instead! Haha. Close call!

@LostInReverie

Men in general tend to be disgusting slobs. Note the difference between bachelor apartments and bachelorette apartments. Not always the case, but men are more interested in advertisements for beer, trucks, and hamburgers. (I say this against us guys, not in favor). Maybe these dispositions are based on nurtured gender stereotypes, but why complain about possessing a _virtue_ of cleanliness? Instead of feeling discriminated against over cleaning products, advocate cleanliness and don't just allow men to be lazy out of habit. It's like the doormat concept of those creepy "nice guys" who allegedly do everything for their girlfriends, but are really just bending over backwards to maintain a relationship. A relationship is reciprocal, and the terms, frankly, are up to the two people in it, not anyone else.

As for the child rearing thing: that is actually an example of anti-male sentiment, that fatherhood is second-rate to motherhood.


----------



## LostinReverie (Mar 18, 2007)

EagerMinnow84 said:


> I am unapologetically pro choice/birth control. The opinions of the church or politicians have no place on what should be a woman's choice. I know there will be people here that will disagree with me.


I hate that this is always paired with "feminisim". Murder of another human being, no matter it's current environment, level of development, or dependability on others is never okay be you male, female, or undecided. In most cases, the person chose to engage in the only process that creates human life. Even if it were rape, while the situtation is horrible, it is still not okay to kill the innocent, defenseless bystander who had no choice in being created but EVERY RIGHT to be alive and every right that EVERYONE else has to stay alive.

It's not a woman's choice anymore than it is to drown her two year old in the bathtub.


----------



## LostinReverie (Mar 18, 2007)

danberado said:


> @LostInReverie
> 
> Men in general tend to be disgusting slobs. Note the difference between bachelor apartments and bachelorette apartments. Not always the case, but men are more interested in advertisements for beer, trucks, and hamburgers.
> 
> As for the child rearing thing: that is actually an example of anti-male sentiment, that fatherhood is second-rate to motherhood.


Regardless of reason or success in selling the product it still reinforces the stereotype that is still quite strong in America, at least.


----------



## danberado (Apr 22, 2010)

Darn you reacted to my post before I edited it 3 dozen times


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

millenniumman75 said:


> *I bring home the bacon and fry it up in a pan*.


Taking the easy way out I see. Sara Palin would shoot a wild boar, butcher it, and then fry some bacon for her family.:lol


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

EagerMinnow84 said:


> I am unapologetically pro choice/birth control. The opinions of the church or politicians have no place on what should be a woman's choice. I know there will be people here that will disagree with me.


I've never been accused of being a feminist (and doubt I ever will be), but it would be hard to find anyone more strongly pro-choice that me.

I find politicians on the right quite odd. They want to ban abortion, yet would be stumped as to why that would produce more of those welfare mothers they hate to support. They claim to want smaller government, yet want to expand government into every uterus in the nation. (I'd note the left is equally illogical and just plain crazy on various issues.)

I'm perfectly fine with abortion. I view it as an issue of property rights where an unwanted fetus can be removed by deadly force.


----------



## Neptunus (Oct 29, 2007)

millenniumman75 said:


> No.
> I do my own laundry.
> I do my own housecleaning.
> I do my yard work.
> ...


Me too. I'm also pretty good when it comes to auto repair and maintenance.

Generally speaking, we may differ anatomically, but our aspirations and dreams are the same. We are but two halves of "the whole." :b


----------



## strawberryjulius (Jun 28, 2009)

danberado said:


> @strawberryjulius
> 
> When I saw you responded to this thread I had a panic attack that you might have decimated my post!
> 
> Luckily, you decimated the post I agreed with instead! Haha. Close call!


Oh I wouldn't do that to you, honey.


----------



## strawberryjulius (Jun 28, 2009)

LostInReverie said:


> I hate that this is always paired with "feminisim". Murder of another human being, no matter it's current environment, level of development, or dependability on others is never okay be you male, female, or undecided. In most cases, the person chose to engage in the only process that creates human life. Even if it were rape, while the situtation is horrible, it is still not okay to kill the innocent, defenseless bystander who had no choice in being created but EVERY RIGHT to be alive and every right that EVERYONE else has to stay alive.
> 
> It's not a woman's choice anymore than it is to drown her two year old in the bathtub.


What? :teeth


----------



## danberado (Apr 22, 2010)

Thanks for watching out for my delicate feelings strawberryjuilius!

I tend to overreact and feel emasculated when confronted by people who actually know what they're talking about.:b


----------



## SilentLoner (Jan 30, 2006)

> LostInReverie said:
> 
> 
> > I hate that this is always paired with "feminisim". Murder of another human being, no matter it's current environment, level of development, or dependability on others is never okay be you male, female, or undecided. In most cases, the person chose to engage in the only process that creates human life. Even if it were rape, while the situtation is horrible, it is still not okay to kill the innocent, defenseless bystander who had no choice in being created but EVERY RIGHT to be alive and every right that EVERYONE else has to stay alive.
> ...


Yeah, seriously, wtf? Gotta love the anti choice drama.


----------



## pita (Jan 17, 2004)

Yup, I am. I'm not going to get into my reasons because I'm not in the mood for an e-fight right now.


----------



## LostinReverie (Mar 18, 2007)

strawberryjulius said:


> What? :teeth


Choice in the same way people mean it when they say it is a woman's choice whether or not to kill her unborn baby. Meaning, it should be free of consequence. Obviously, I didn't mean she couldn't mentally or physically make the decision. I assume that's what you meant by "what". Otherwise, you'll have to be a bit more specific.

Speaking strongly in regard to human life is not drama, it's expression of meaning (importance). Belittle life all you want, but I sure as hell won't.


----------



## LostinReverie (Mar 18, 2007)

UltraShy said:


> I'm perfectly fine with abortion. I view it as an issue of property rights where an unwanted fetus can be removed by deadly force.


This is different from "property rights", because the person did not choose to be there. Let's say someone knocked you out, beat you until you were weak and defenseless, and put you on someone else's property. You do not have the strength to leave the property, but do have the ability to keep yourself alive using nearby provisions. Should the property owner have the right to kill you? Morally or legally?

If so, what if the property owner put you there himself? Would he still have that right?


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

LostInReverie said:


> This is different from "property rights", because the person did not choose to be there. Let's say someone knocked you out, beat you until you were weak and defenseless, and put you on someone else's property. *You do not have the strength to leave the property, but do have the ability to keep yourself alive using nearby provisions. Should the property owner have the right to kill you?* Morally or legally?
> 
> If so, what if the property owner put you there himself? Would he still have that right?


That analogy simply doesn't work. One can call the cops and have such a person removed from their land without killing them. Killing them isn't going to make dragging their body off your land any easier.

Removing an unwanted "human" from a uterus requires killing that "human." The only time libertarians support the use of force is in the defense of rights. Assuming there is a parasitic trespasser in a uterus, I think it could certainly be argued that the owner of that uterus has a right to remove it, which demands the use of force.

There is no universal agreement among libertarians on the abortion issue as it rests on how each person decides to define "human," since if you decide it qualifies as human then you get to make the argument that it has rights. I don't deem a fetus human, thus I don't view it as having rights.

I'd add that if that landowner beat one senseless and dumped their body upon his land, he's already guilty of battery at a minimum, and given the degree of injury you suggest, it would seem to reach the level of attempted murder already.


----------



## Cerz (Jan 18, 2010)

Not really....


----------



## Arkturus (Dec 10, 2006)

adams898 said:


> "a person who supports the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men."


By this definition, yes.


----------



## LostinReverie (Mar 18, 2007)

UltraShy said:


> There is no universal agreement among libertarians on the abortion issue as it rests on how each person decides to define "human," since if you decide it qualifies as human then you get to make the argument that it has rights. I don't deem a fetus human, thus I don't view it as having rights.


That is what it comes down to.


----------



## Jellybean2010 (Jan 3, 2010)

"Yes!"

I think a lot of people misunderstand what a feminist actually is, because the word has become demonized to an extent. It is simply someone who believes women are worthy of the same rights, respect and opportunities that men are. It is someone that is comfortable with the idea and reality of sexually, economically, socially, educationally and emotionally empowered women.

It is NOT someone who hates men and masculinity. Or a female who is un-supportive of another women simply because she has made a different lifestyle choice to their own. Someone who has chosen to be a stay at home mother shouldn't be looked down upon, neither should a women who's chosen to remain single and pursue a career.


----------



## KittyGirl (May 14, 2010)

I often feel like I was born at the wrong period in time; and wish I had lived in the 20's or 50's... but then I think about all of the segregation and such-- and being me; I would've been SO outraged by all of the inequality; that I probably would've been 'silenced' and killed or something. XD


My Highschool was the first in Ontario to offer 'Women's History' as a full semester course.
Shannon Mills was always my hero for fighting so hard to make it available to us. Women's History should've been available a LONG time ago! Very fun, eye opening course.


----------



## tennislover84 (May 14, 2010)

strawberryjulius said:


> In all honesty, I am probably the most unapologetic, radical feminist on this forum.
> 
> For the record, feminism is about liberation from patriarchal oppression, not equality. Thank you.


Hiya, I was just reading through this thread again and I think you might have been replying to something I said, but I'm not sure. However, do you mind if I ask what you mean by the second statement? 

I can understand the concept of liberation from patriarchal oppression, but I'm a bit confused about the part where you say that feminism isn't about equality. Does that mean that for you, gender equality isn't one of the desired outcomes of feminism? Wouldn't creating a society where men and women are equals in social status, and equal in the eyes of the law, be the best way to free women from any patriarchal oppression that exists?

Or perhaps you have a different idea of what equality means? For example, some people might argue that we should embrace biological differences between the sexes, rather than ignore them, in order to create a society that is "fair" to the unique situations of both (rather that strictly equal along every line.) I don't know whether that's what you meant though. I have to say that I consider total legal and social equality to be the most "fair", although I don't think that everyone should be forced to be the same. I think that we should all have the same opportunities to be as similar, or as a different from each other as we want to be.

Anyway, I'm just curious what you meant. :b Waffled on a bit there.


----------



## strawberryjulius (Jun 28, 2009)

Oh god. No you totally missed the point, I want a matriarchal army. /rolls eyes.


----------



## tennislover84 (May 14, 2010)

Oh, well could you explain the point to me then? I still don't understand. :get From what you just said, it sounds a bit like you'd want to flip a male dominated society on it's head, putting women in all the positions of power? But I'm not sure if you're just being sarcastic or not, with your roll eyes thingy. :b

It's not really that important or anything. I'd just be interested in understanding your position better.


----------



## Dub16 (Feb 28, 2010)

Aye. I'm a feminist.

strawberryjulius has been givin me lessons and coachin me and I'm startin to get the meaning of it all now! I've even bought the T-Shirt and all.


----------



## Riles (Jun 28, 2010)

Yeah I guess you could say I'm a feminist. For once I would like to see a woman CEO of a company.


----------



## strawberryjulius (Jun 28, 2009)

I just want to see if men would make a nice BBQ.


----------



## gonewiththewind (Aug 18, 2010)

AlwaysOnTheOutside said:


> No, I'm not a feminist. You wanna be feminist? Ok, fine, could you get that pickle jar off the top shelf and open it for me?


I facepalmed at this.

For all intents and purposes, I voted yes. I generally lean toward the second option, though, since I'm not really big on identifying myself as anything.


----------



## nothing to fear (Mar 23, 2005)

I thought I'd bump this thread with what I feel is a pretty great definition of _feminism_ (if it's too long scroll down to the bolded part, sums it up a bit). When the topic of feminism is brought up (just about anywhere) people will go on about the label, what it is/isn't/should be/shouldn't be, why they dislike it, etc. and usually those are pretty common misconceptions.

http://tomatonation.com/culture-and-criticism/yes-you-are/


> feminism _n_ (1895) *1 :* the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes *2 :* organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests - *feminist* _n or adj_ - *feministic* _adj_​Above, the dictionary definition of feminism - the _entire_ dictionary definition of feminism. It is quite straightforward and concise. If you believe in, support, look fondly on, hope for, and/or work towards equality of the sexes, you are a feminist.
> 
> Yes, you are.
> 
> ...


----------



## rainbowOne (Sep 26, 2010)

In a way I am a feminist in that I think men and women should be equal, but sone 'feminists' take it too far. Women should not be considered above men anymore than the opposite.


----------



## Misanthropic (Jun 25, 2010)

No, I believe in equality. What people call 'feminism' is usually not consistent with the idea that men and women are equal, at least not 'radical feminism'.


----------



## northstar1991 (Oct 4, 2011)

Yes because I believe in equal rights for all! We've got a long way to go before we're truly equal.


----------



## BobtheBest (Aug 27, 2011)

Though I hardly use the term, yes I am a feminist. Feminists believe in equality, which has nothing to do with women being better than men or the other way around.


----------



## BobtheBest (Aug 27, 2011)

Dub16 said:


> Aye. I'm a feminist.
> 
> strawberryjulius has been givin me lessons and coachin me and I'm startin to get the meaning of it all now! I've even bought the T-Shirt and all.


I want me one of these T-shirts!


----------



## Ulysses (Feb 3, 2012)

Don't believe in equality at all, because its a stupid concept bounded in a idea that people are equal in truth, when in reality nobody is equal.

That said I'm all for equality of rights, but not for the woolly hooded notion of equality of power.


----------



## arnie (Jan 24, 2012)

northstar1991 said:


> Yes because I believe in equal rights for all! We've got a long way to go before we're truly equal.


Men and women will never be equal. They are different in so many ways. What we need is for both sexes to have the same rights, privileges and opportunities so they are free to enjoy life as they want to.


----------



## bezoomny (Feb 10, 2007)

Feminism is humanism.


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

bezoomny said:


> Feminism is humanism.


It's one part, but it's not all of it.
Equality and respect for all people naturally also includes equality and respect between the sexes.
I know some take feminism to mean equality for all, but I would rather use another word for that, and that's why I wouldn't call myself feminist.
To me, that word implies a much more clean division than what is actually the case and it leaves out groups which are mistreated in their own right.


----------



## Revenwyn (Apr 11, 2011)

I don't consider myself a feminist. I do believe in gender equality but I also believe that there are some jobs that women are just not suited to, such as firefighting, police work (except as a dispatcher), and yes, the military (except as medic.) Being different from men doesn't necessarily mean not equal to men. My concern with women in these positions is often to do them properly the job requires more strength than most women are capable of. I realize that some women break that mold (I happen to be one of them) but even if they have the strength they might not have the endurance to perform it continually.


----------



## northstar1991 (Oct 4, 2011)

arnie said:


> Men and women will never be equal. They are different in so many ways. What we need is for both sexes to have the same rights, privileges and opportunities so they are free to enjoy life as they want to.


Yes men and women are different, but not radically different. I agree that men and women should have the same rights, privileges, and opportunities. Ultimately, that's what feminism comes down to.


----------



## northstar1991 (Oct 4, 2011)

Dub16 said:


> Aye. I'm a feminist.
> 
> strawberryjulius has been givin me lessons and coachin me and I'm startin to get the meaning of it all now! I've even bought the T-Shirt and all.


Men of quality aren't threatened by women's equality!


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

northstar1991 said:


> Men of quality aren't threatened by women's equality!


Hopefully men of poor quality wouldn't either. That ought to be the ideal in society, at least.
If we just replace one worse treated group with another, it's all been rather pointless.


----------



## offbyone (May 5, 2010)

Absolutely.


----------



## BobtheBest (Aug 27, 2011)

northstar1991 said:


> Men of quality aren't threatened by women's equality!


I love that motto. :clap


----------



## shynesshellasucks (May 10, 2008)

I'm not really a feminist, although I know feminism is good for society. I can't stand when some feminists go overboard though.


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

Yes, I'm a feminist. I don't know why but when I hear guys complaining about feminism, I just can't help but get the urge to fart in their general direction.


----------



## Ulysses (Feb 3, 2012)

komorikun said:


> Yes, I'm a feminist. I don't know why but when I hear guys complaining about feminism, I just can't help but get the urge to fart in their general direction.


And I bet it would smell like perfume and buttercups.


----------



## offbyone (May 5, 2010)

komorikun said:


> Yes, I'm a feminist. I don't know why but when I hear guys complaining about feminism, I just can't help but get the urge to fart in their general direction.


Hahaha, please do, they all deserve it.


----------



## AllToAll (Jul 6, 2011)

komorikun said:


> Yes, I'm a feminist. I don't know why but when I hear guys complaining about feminism, I just can't help but get the urge to fart in their general direction.


This made me laugh out loud so hard, that I spat on my computer.

And of course I'm a feminist.


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

komorikun said:


> Yes, I'm a feminist. I don't know why but when I hear guys complaining about feminism, I just can't help but get the urge to fart in their general direction.


Even if the complaints are just about how feminism is sometimes interpreted and used?
I don't think everybody who call themselves feminist fit into one definitive group, but rather they have many of different views and sometimes those view are more about "girl power" than equality.

I think it's only fair to criticise that kind of "feminism", but then that's because I wouldn't call that feminism at all :b


----------



## DeeperUnderstanding (May 19, 2007)

Yes, I am.


----------



## ohgodits2014 (Mar 18, 2011)

Milco said:


> Even if the complaints are just about how feminism is sometimes interpreted and used?
> I don't think everybody who call themselves feminist fit into one definitive group, but rather they have many of different views and sometimes those view are more about "girl power" than equality.


Well in the past women lacked the opportunities than men had and girls lacked decent female role models, so "girl power" is a form of feminism whose goal is to encourage girls to realize that anything boys can do they can do it too. Sometimes this leads to things that are just plain dumb and pointless, but the idea is that women shouldn't get more crap than men for doing the exact same thing. If a man guy isn't severely criticized for his seeming lack of morals and self-control, then a woman girl shouldn't been severely criticized for her seeming lack of morals and self-control.

I agree that a lot of people who consider themselves feminists seem to have only barely grasped the main concept of feminism and turn it into something that neatly fits their pre-existing views or lifestyles, but most people would do the same thing with any idea/movement that's become just as popular (Zen Buddhism, anyone?). If you must criticize something, it should be the conforming tendencies that most people have rather than the fake feminism that results from those tendencies.


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

rednosereindeer said:


> If you must criticize something, it should be the conforming tendencies that most people have rather than the fake feminism that results from those tendencies.


I admit wasn't entirely clear what I meant when I used the term "girl power", so let me give an example from Danish TV 2-3 years ago.

It was on one of the "Good morning" style talk shows, and a woman was on to tell about a new book she had written. She had felt stuck in her old life with her husband and 2 kids - a mid-life crisis, I guess - and the book was about her finding confidence to break the norms and leave her husband for her boyfriend while pregnant with her husbands child.
I know they rarely argue with the guests on these shows, but I still found it appalling that this was being labelled as female empowerment.
If you try to imagine the situation with reversed genders, it's hard to imagine that it would get a man praised for his bravery. Rather, I'd think he would get called out as insensitive and bit of a pig, which I would agree he most certainly is.

I completely agree that men and women should be allowed equally stupid behaviour, but I don't think stupid behaviour should be praised in the name of equality.
And I have to say that if the point what feminism is taken to be isn't to remove the injustices that men have subjected women to, but simply to allow women to now also subject others to injustices as well, then it does seem rather pointless.
That's not what I would have feminism be about.


----------



## Shrinking Violet (Oct 11, 2010)

I feel like an awful outsider about this most of the time, but I really see a lot of problems with feminism. Of course, it absolutely depends on how you define it because there are many different forms. In my opinion, men and women are very different on average, and it's not helpful to try to make them "equal." There is a reason that they are different, and have different roles in a healthy society - it is the basis for marriage and family (civilization), in my heretical views.

The big problem that I have with feminism is that it seems to degrade "femininity" as weak and stupid. They encourage women to break out of the stereotypical roles and be strong and powerful. While there is nothing wrong with strength, I don't think the average women should attempt to mimic "masculine" strength. In my family and where I live, it is less than acceptable to put having a family ahead of having a career. It seems like everyone defines success by how worldly and powerful you can become.

I believe that everyone, man and woman, should have equal rights and freedoms. However, that does not mean that government should discriminate against men to help women achieve equality with them in pay and prestige. I also have a problem with the excessive amount of welfare that is handed out to women who have children carelessly, and raise them without the financial and emotional support of a spouse.

I don't see traditional gender roles as oppressive to women. I think that it's ideal when a woman is able to remain at home with her children and care for them lovingly. I think it's excellent when her husband wants to provide money for the family by pursuing a career. Feminists complain about the power imbalance inherent in this situation. I agree that there is one, and men can and do abuse their positions of power. However, I don't believe that pushing women to be more like men is going to solve anything.


----------



## alte (Sep 4, 2010)

Shrinking Violet said:


> I feel like an awful outsider about this most of the time, but I really see a lot of problems with feminism. Of course, it absolutely depends on how you define it because there are many different forms. In my opinion, men and women are very different on average, and it's not helpful to try to make them "equal." There is a reason that they are different, and have different roles in a healthy society - it is the basis for marriage and family (civilization), in my heretical views.
> 
> The big problem that I have with feminism is that it seems to degrade "femininity" as weak and stupid. They encourage women to break out of the stereotypical roles and be strong and powerful. While there is nothing wrong with strength, I don't think the average women should attempt to mimic "masculine" strength. In my family and where I live, it is less than acceptable to put having a family ahead of having a career. It seems like everyone defines success by how worldly and powerful you can become.
> 
> ...


If women were to place more importance on career and become power-hungry like some men, I think they will do quite well... and become more successful on average than men. This is because they are naturally better communicators, conflict resolvers .. some of the top traits required to succeed in today's modern society.
I am not a feminist though. I have come across some feminists who like to put down men, and I resent that.


----------



## Donnie in the Dark (Mar 15, 2011)

yep- believing a person should be put down because of their gender is IMO immoral. 
Sexist kitchen jokes by guys trying to be big pisses me off, and I always see sexism around in society.


----------



## cafune (Jan 11, 2011)

Sure am. Most of my values and beliefs just happen to coincide with that of liberal feminists.


----------



## ohgodits2014 (Mar 18, 2011)

alte said:


> If women were to place more importance on career and become power-hungry like some men, I think they will do quite well... and become more successful on average than men. This is because *they are naturally better communicators, conflict resolvers* .. some of the top traits required to succeed in today's modern society.


But I thought women were impossibly catty and jealous even with other women. That's what I keep hearing anyway. Women. They _just _can't get along with anyone. No wonder a lot of men are having a hard time getting a little sum'n sum'n from them.



> I am not a feminist though. I have come across some feminists who like to put down men, and I resent that.


See, this is what I don't get. You probably have also come across some anti-feminists who like to put down men (you know, those people who condescendingly say things like "man up" and "real men don't ______" and make you feel like a failure as a man). Based on your line of reasoning, why do you specifically resent feminists but not anti-feminists?


----------



## alte (Sep 4, 2010)

rednosereindeer said:


> But I thought women were impossibly catty and jealous even with other women. That's what I keep hearing anyway. Women. They _just _can't get along with anyone. No wonder a lot of men are having a hard time getting a little sum'n sum'n from them.


Women are good communicators and are more easily able to empathize with and understand others. This is a useful skill to have, when for example, managing a group of people. It makes better leaders.

I do not mean to say that women as a group are nicer people than men. Hitler was charismatic and persuasive too. Women just have the tools that can help them be successful in today's world.



rednosereindeer said:


> See, this is what I don't get. You probably have also come across some anti-feminists who like to put down men (you know, those people who condescendingly say things like "man up" and "real men don't ______" and make you feel like a failure as a man). Based on your line of reasoning, why do you specifically resent feminists but not anti-feminists?


I have not come across any anti-feminists. Honestly, I have not researched this topic in any great detail.


----------



## Alexa10 (Sep 17, 2011)

I'm a feminist, supporting womens' rights to have/not have an abortion. What I don't support is a government trying to tell us that we don't have choices for birth control yet they can have viagra, simply because women have utureses. I support BGLT also. In my opinon, I support the traditional feminist view which is that men and women should have equal rights. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong here please. ops


----------



## BobtheBest (Aug 27, 2011)

Alexa10 said:


> I'm a feminist, supporting womens' rights to have/not have an abortion. What I don't support is a government trying to tell us that we don't have choices for birth control yet they can have viagra, simply because women have utureses. I support BGLT also. In my opinon, I support the traditional feminist view which is that men and women should have equal rights. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong here please. ops


You're on the right track. :yes


----------



## arnie (Jan 24, 2012)

Alexa10 said:


> I'm a feminist, supporting womens' rights to have/not have an abortion. What I don't support is a government trying to tell us that we don't have choices for birth control yet they can have viagra, simply because women have utureses. I support BGLT also. In my opinon, I support the traditional feminist view which is that men and women should have equal rights. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong here please. ops


Just to be clear: No one is saying that women shouldn't have birth control. The current debate is whether on not the goverment can force church run insurance to pay for that birth control.

edit: (except santorum)


----------



## Nekomata (Feb 3, 2012)

I... don't really care xDDD. I mean, sometimes when my boyfriend goes on about 'equality' and he does and says something that something that's rather sexist, it's pretty hypocritical and it bugs me. But I'm not especially a feminist for the most part *shrugs* depends on the situation I guess.


----------



## StayingMotivated (Sep 5, 2011)

I don't know what I am(sexist? lolz) but I believe women are better than men sorry!


----------



## missingno (Sep 29, 2011)

StayingMotivated said:


> I don't know what I am(sexist? lolz) but I believe women are better than men sorry!


Then I guess you shouldn't go to this site www.menarebetterthanwomen.com:)


----------



## PickleNose (Jul 11, 2009)

No.

I don't have anything against women but the more I know about feminists and the more often I encounter the hardcore ones, the more I dislike them. 

Their activities may be helping women but I think the same things could have been achieved without being nearly as obnoxious. The really hardcore ones have done far more harm to their cause than good because now people like me automatically tune them out. 

I still run into them sometimes on forums and they immediately become intolerable if you disagree with them at all.


----------



## Dissonance (Dec 27, 2011)

No I think gender equality is pretty much...a lie. See I figure women would like to reverse the roles or be on equal grounds but then I remember house husbands they can be at risk of a divorce since the woman does not see him as masculine any more. sure I'd love to be a house husband but the idea that yeah, if I'm caught in a position like that and without a job I'm surely going to be in some deep trouble. The fact is men and women have roles, but I don't approve of this, I am my own person, but the majority of women still have the idea of what a "man" should be. Since I live in this sort of situation, both men and women have roles to fill, men do the hard labor and get paid for their job and women stay at home and clean the house, cook, buy groceries, and do laundry. Remember these are not my own bias but this simply how society has FORCED it's ideas into my lifestyle, because women still want "masculine" men.


----------



## Paper Samurai (Oct 1, 2009)

I'm an Egalitarian; which is pretty much 'universal feminism'. It also doesn't have the negative baggage associated with it (like irrational man hatred)


----------



## whatevzers (Jan 26, 2012)

I don't think I can be considered a feminist because I'm a guy, but I support the idea of gender equality. Not in everything of course, but in general. Sure, hardcore feminists are brutal, but for some reason, I just hate dudes who treat women like dirt. You know the type: make me a sandwich, get back in the kitchen, etc. douches.


----------



## luceo (Jan 29, 2011)

Yes I am. I have this crazy idea that women are people and should be treated as such.


----------



## Knowbody (Jul 5, 2011)

I used to be a male feminist who thought all men were lying cheating manipulating dogs with sex on the brain. It wasn't until I got older that I realized women were exactly the same


----------



## sociallyretarded (Aug 3, 2010)

I consider myself a feminist simply because I want gender equality. But I don't hate men (which is what people always assume whenever you mention feminism). I'm not going to stop referring myself as a feminist just because people have negative assumptions about the word.


----------



## PickleNose (Jul 11, 2009)

luceo said:


> Yes I am. I have this crazy idea that women are people and should be treated as such.


 The only way women are ever going to be treated any better than they already are by the vast majority of people on Western culture is if we declare them gods and worship them (And many of us already do that).


----------



## BobtheBest (Aug 27, 2011)

PickleNose said:


> The only way women are ever going to be treated any better than they already are by the vast majority of people on Western culture is if we declare them gods and worship them (And many of us already do that).


Then that wouldn't be equality at all.


----------



## Hopeful25 (Aug 8, 2011)

PickleNose said:


> No.
> 
> I don't have anything against women but the more I know about feminists and the more often I encounter the hardcore ones, the more I dislike them.
> 
> ...


Agreed :yes.

I put not really because I don't dislike feminists or what they stand for, but some of the hardcore ones just completely ruin the effort and make a feminist problem out of everything in society where a woman appears to not have as much as a man :blank.

Feminism is fine and I support gender equality, but no, I wouldn't call myself a feminist at all really.

I mean at first I was surprised by the feminist hate I'd see on the internet, until I had a few encounters with them myself and they were simply for ridiculous reasons and they'd ridicule and disregard your opinion and call you a misogynistic pig if you suggest anything different to what they say.


----------



## au Lait (Sep 8, 2010)

PickleNose said:


> The only way women are ever going to be treated any better than they already are by the vast majority of people on Western culture is if we declare them gods and worship them (And many of us already do that).


When was the last time we had a woman president in the US?

We're not asking to be treated like gods or worshiped. We just want to be treated equally, and we're still not. We don't even make as much money as men in the workplace and it's 2012.

Not to mention, there are parts of the world where women are still treated as property, and worse. They don't have the same political voice that women in the western world do. Raising awareness here for those who suffer elsewhere is still important. Feminism most certainly has a place in the modern world.

Personally I think it's ridiculous to completely discount an entire movement based on the few radicals. There are extremists associated with every belief system and section of politics.

To those who don't support feminism b/c of the extremists: Are you going to stop voting completely b/c there are right wing and left wing radicals? Probably not. So why is feminism so different?


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

au Lait said:


> When was the last time we had a woman president in the US?


Hillary was pretty close to getting elected.
I don't think women are seen as inferior or worth less than men for the most part today, but we do still have gender roles and stereotypes that mean people are held to different standards and that certainly is something we should try to influence and change.
And we definitely also have an obligation to helping improve living conditions and equality in the parts of the world where inequality and poverty thrive.


----------



## PickleNose (Jul 11, 2009)

PickleNose said:


> The only way women are ever going to be treated any better than they already are by the vast majority of people on Western culture is if we declare them gods and worship them (And many of us already do that).





au Lait said:


> When was the last time we had a woman president in the US?


 As someone else pointed out, Hillary came pretty close. And frankly, I don't think her failure really had anything to do with her gender. I think it was policy and the baggage she had from the Clinton era. I know that personally, she lost me because she wanted the healthcare mandate and Obama said he was opposed to it. I now believe she was just a foil for Obama and that she never had any desire to be president.

I hope we do have a female president in the near future but I won't support one who turns everything into a gender war.

TBH, I was very happy when Obama won the election because I thought that it was well past due for us to have a black president and that it would at long last ease some of the racial tension and the hard feelings that have built up over centuries. I have since lost my enthusiasm (to say the least) for the guy and the Democratic party as a whole. But it has nothing to do with his race (Other than the fact that I don't at all appreciate being called a racist when I disagree with his policies).

When we finally do have a female president, I hope they don't play the gender card every other day. The whole point is to get past that.



> We're not asking to be treated like gods or worshiped. We just want to be treated equally,


 Like I said. In many cases, women are treated much better than men. I won't go into it but I know I can't be the only man around here who thinks so. I'm sure some of them have examples?

I realize that you probably believe this movement is an innocent one and that their arguments are convincing. I once had the same impression of them. And I held onto it for many years.

My point is that I don't think it's a small minority of feminists who have bizarre beliefs and a lot of anger and hostility and they are not helping a movement that is already associated with Marxism and various other forms of extremism.



> and we're still not. We don't even make as much money as men in the workplace and it's 2012.


 Again, I recognize that the cause has some merit. But there's such a thing as being a bad advocate for a good cause. But this particular issue is more complicated than it seems because it's not as simple as forcing people to adopt equality. This is a free country and frankly, I believe individuals and businesses have a right to discriminate. Not because I agree with them (as an epileptic, do you think I would want to be discriminated against?). But because I think it's a fundamental right. This is America. I don't have to like the people I live next door to or the people I work with or anyone else. I don't have to shop at a given store. If I run a business, I shouldn't have to employ people I don't want to employ. And I shouldn't need a reason.

Same goes for the pay. If people don't like it, they can work someplace else. If my hiring practices or pay rates are unfair, I lose good employees for no reason and someone who doesn't have the same practices gains them. I also would tend to lose money if I discriminate.



> Not to mention, there are parts of the world where women are still treated as property


 In that case, it makes sense for women to have advocates in those areas. Illinois isn't India. We don't really need rabid feminists in Illinois. There is still some sexism in America but it's not nearly what it is in these other places.



> Personally I think it's ridiculous to completely discount an entire movement based on the few radicals. There are extremists associated with every belief system and section of politics.


 I understand but I don't think it's a few radicals. I think feminism is a radical movement that has only incidentally had some positive impact. And I think it always has been. Like many other leftist radicals, they have concealed their true nature well enough by hiding behind what seems to be a worthy cause.

I just don't like radicals. I used to. I would have been completely on the other side of this 10 years ago. I've just seen too many things that gave me pause.



> To those who don't support feminism b/c of the extremists: Are you going to stop voting completely b/c there are right wing and left wing radicals? Probably not. So why is feminism so different?


 Because, frankly, I don't need them and I don't think most women in this society do either. I think the only thing they do really well is stir up trouble. Whether or not they could do more good is largely irrelevant to the fact that they now have too much baggage. I don't like their vibe. I love my mother, my sister and I love women (Well, some of them). I know there is more drama in their arguments than anything.

This isn't anything personal against you. You're one of my favorite posters. These people just turn me off.


----------



## The Silent 1 (Aug 21, 2011)

I think a lot of the original goals of feminism (right to vote, right to work, etc) have largely been achieved. Todays feminism seems to be about two things. Fighting against cultural sexism and gender stereotypes. And making up for past injustice (i.e affirmative action). There are other things too, like abortion, but not all feminists agree on that. I think the most honest definition of feminism that I've seen was something like "advocating for the equality of the sexes while specifically focusing on the needs of women". But those two things aren't always in harmony with each other imo, and when that happens the latter of the two seems to win out. I don't have a problem with all feminists, though I do tend to judge a movement by the actions and words of its leaders and most vocal members. I also often find myself in general disagreement with most feminists regarding how to approach certain issues and certain aspects of feminist theory. I think I would rather just call myself an egalitarian or a secular humanist. I've heard some feminists object to this because they want a word that speaks to the past injustices faced by women and think abandoning the word feminist would imply that things are equal today. Is the true goal of feminism then to make itself obsolete? With the constant use of misleading or outright false statistics and some of the other actions I've seen taken by some of these feminists groups that doesn't seem to be the case. They are far too in love with hearing themselves and "fighting the good fight". This isn't just feminism though, you see the same things with other single issue causes like race groups and organizations like peta. Suppose in 100 years from now, women dominate politics and corporations and men are the ones being discriminated against, will those who fight on behalf of men still call themselves feminists? Does that even make sense? With something like humanism or eglitarian, I don't imply any sort of focus towards one group and the word will never be irrelevant. At the end of the day though, I think all the debating about the label used isn't all that important.



PickleNose said:


> The only way women are ever going to be treated any better than they already are by the vast majority of people on Western culture is if we declare them gods and worship them (And many of us already do that).


I understand where your coming from. I saw one article call this the WAW (women are wonderful) syndrome. Its definitely a reality in our media and culture.


----------



## MetalRacer (Oct 11, 2011)

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=feminazi


----------



## scriabin221 (Nov 16, 2008)

While I wouldn't say I'm an activist, I do support feminism, so... Absolutely. I'm definitely a feminist. I don't care what negative connotation that word holds because the people who view feminism in a negative light are generally ignorant to the diversity of ideas feminism holds. Along with my girlfriend, I'd consider myself a sex positive feminist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-positive_feminism

I don't think that most feminists are these supposed "feminazis". The ones with a more extreme point of view. Obviously, those people are only a little deluded.

Also, there are men out there who would say to women "Well since you call yourself a feminist, pay for my dinner." My girlfriend has paid for my dinner before, a bunch of times, as I have paid for hers, we've gone dutch. It's equal. It depends on the situation. It's about equalizing the roles, not reversing. It's an absurd argument. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-positive_feminism


----------



## fredbloggs02 (Dec 14, 2009)

Men and women are not equal. We live in a society where what the individual does is of little consequence, therefore generalizations arise. People speaking in general are bound to make mistakes for there will always be exceptions, but in general people are put down in this society for various reasons.. If you ask me why women have been oppressed, I would suggest men found something too icy in them to manage, something too threatening to handle, above societal morality, above conscience in some respects, "prone to dissimulation because they feel entitled for the good of the species to dissimulate", too meticulous, cold, not against God but of the devil. Societal morality as is commonly said, is every bit as much what people practice in private when noone is watching. When consciences impervious to surreptitious threat remain impervious, I imagine they as a species find themselves oppressed overtly or thrown out of their country. I'm sure there is a difference between people's thoughts as to why these groups were thrown out or never granted rights in a society where the state of nature no longer dictates inadequacy to meet certain tasks, I imagine it as a result of the propoganda, not to say that in propaganda all said is untrue, in the same way old historians who wrote in myth and allegory never miss the point entirely, but perhaps even reach more personal truths rather than impersonal facts of their time; I'm well aware this isn't anything new I'm saying.

I think people are right who think women capable of just as much as men in this society, however, that by no means decides them equal. Many Christians as well as many intellectuals disliked Jews, not because(from what I understand) they found them particularly incapable, but that they denied(were found capable of denying) what Christians believed crucial to an understanding of God, that Jesus' example demonstrated him the son of God and any who judged by intensity rather than the meticulousness of the evidence, who inveighed against the claim found that lack of...something untrustworthy.. that, judging by pictures from various sources they were found to lack in general their share of original sin. But what does that mean? Doesn't coolness imply intenser fires to ignite? In a time where people in general knew relatively little in contrast to today, in a time when people in that region had no essence of modern science to discern a liar, what did they use? This, from what I understand so far was why Dostoievsky disliked the Jews, I think he believed they ignored the history of Jesus readily as a result of a certain inhumanity. I don't say this as though I agree with him, I don't believe women or Jews inhuman or even exceptionally gifted lol, although the only Jewish friend I had was an inhumanly gifted pianist, so. lol. Naah., but there is I think some general truth to be deduced when many people share similar experiences of anything not explicitly correct. Premise by premise, through ideas that occur to people you build the ineradicable first principles by which they operate so far as men are by necessity forced to judge their fellow man by intensity rather than sufficient, necessarily sound first principles. Who would be the first to say the first principles were what attracted them about truth if they were still miserably dejected with them? Even if truth were pure, would people readily disregard every step taken on separate paths? The first steps along the first path were without doubt intensity, and that is what we look for in history, we look for the fall of man through his first steps through the state of nature, and this is where I'd look to judge women in relation to men, not modern standards alone.


----------



## Dark Alchemist (Jul 10, 2011)

fredbloggs02 said:


> Men and women are not equal. We live in a society where what the individual does is of little consequence, therefore generalizations arise. People speaking in general are bound to make mistakes for there will always be exceptions, but in general people are put down in this society for various reasons.. If you ask me why women have been oppressed, I would suggest men found something too icy in them to manage, above societal morality, above conscience in some respect, "prone to dissimulation because they feel entitled for the good of the species to dissimulate", too meticulous, cold, not against God but of the devil. Societal morality is every bit as much what people practice when noone is watching as is said, when consciences impervious to surreptitious threat remains impervious, I imagine they, as a species find themselves oppressed overtly or thrown out. Now, it seems there is a difference between people's thoughts as to why they were thrown out as a result of the propoganda and the truth.
> 
> I think people are right who think women capable of just as much as men in this society, however, that by no means decides them equal with men. Many Christians as well as many intellectuals disliked Jews, not because(from what I understand) they found them particularly incapable, but that they deny what Christians believed crucial to an understanding of God, that Jesus' example demonstrated him the son of God and any who judge by intensity rather than the meticulousness of the evidence who inveighed against the claim were though of as untrustworthy... Christians touched by that story would also accuse people incapable of comprehending that grandeur in general of a certain inhumanity, that seems to me the general understanding judging by pictures from various sources I've heard painted, they lacked their share of original sin. But what does that mean? Doesn't coolness imply intenser fires to ignite? This, from what I understand so far is why Dostoievsky disliked the Jews, I think he believed they ignored the history of Jesus readily as a result of a certain inhumanity and a lack of original sin.


Did you have an actual argument against men and women being equal somewhere in there?


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

I think women are still screwed over, especially if they decide to reproduce. I mean maybe in life or death situations women are more likely to be spared (the draft, the Titanic) but women do more day to day grunt work than men.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_burden

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leisure



> Men generally have more leisure time than women. In Europe and the United States, adult men usually have between one and nine hours more leisure time than women do each week.


http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/10/women_poverty.html

Poverty rates are higher for women than men. In 2007,13.8 percent of females were poor compared to 11.1 percent of men.



> Women are poorer than men in all racial and ethnic groups. Recent data shows that 26.5 percent of African American women are poor compared to 22.3 percent of African American men; 23.6 percent of Hispanic women are poor compared to 19.6 percent of Hispanic men; 10.7 percent of Asian women are poor compared to 9.7 percent of Asian men; and 11.6 percent of white women are poor compared to 9.4 percent of white men.
> 
> Poverty rates for males and females are the same throughout childhood, but increase for women during their childbearing years and again in old age. The poverty gap between women and men widens significantly between ages 18 and 24-20.6 percent of women are poor at that age, compared to 14.0 percent of men. The gap narrows, but never closes, throughout adult life, and it more than doubles during the elderly years.
> 
> ...


----------



## fredbloggs02 (Dec 14, 2009)

Dark Alchemist said:


> Did you have an actual argument against men and women being equal somewhere in there?


I've no intent of taking it before a tribunal. Define equality. Women in general are no more equal to men in general than one man is equal to one woman or a single man is equal to another. Equality often retards justice. Who could possibly draw an outright conslusion through so many distinctions? Should we consider a man having a missing leg operated on wihout anaesthetic be considered in as much pain as another man experiencing the same who still possesses his? Some people are born missing legs or other parts, every category of people will differ, women and men are distinct categories so their rights should differ, I know that even without demanding the differences be accounted for. Of course the man who still possesses his leg should be treated with anaesthetic before the man who no longer does. Equality is corrupt to whosoever of those still possess the part it operates on without anaesthetic.


----------



## The Silent 1 (Aug 21, 2011)

komorikun said:


> I think women are still screwed over, especially if they decide to reproduce. I mean maybe in life or death situations women are more likely to be spared (the draft, the Titanic) but women do more day to day grunt work than men.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_burden
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leisure


Women have less leisure time largely because they spend more time with children. Anytime spent watching children counts against leisure time and since kids in unmarried families usually live with mom this is not surprising. Women are also more likely to spend more time on grooming and doing things around the house and keeping their homes in better shapes than a man who might be happy with a somewhat unkept home. I wouldn't necessarily say that women do more "grunt work" because many of the most unwanted or dangerous jobs are still held by men. The fact that men are more willing to work certain jobs and certain hours is part of the reason they continue to make more. I also think that our societies tendency to put women first extends past life and death situations.



komorikun said:


> http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/10/women_poverty.html
> 
> Poverty rates are higher for women than men. In 2007,13.8 percent of females were poor compared to 11.1 percent of men.


And 67% of homeless people are men.

http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/who.html

Other studies have shown that men are more likely to get longer prison sentences for the same crime.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=999358


----------



## heroin (Dec 10, 2010)

I am a man with some shred of self-respect still within. I think that should answer your question.


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

The Silent 1 said:


> Women have less leisure time largely because they spend more time with children. Anytime spent watching children counts against leisure time and since kids in unmarried families usually live with mom this is not surprising. Women are also more likely to spend more time on grooming and doing things around the house and keeping their homes in better shapes than a man who might be happy with a somewhat unkept home. I wouldn't necessarily say that women do more "grunt work" because many of the most unwanted or dangerous jobs are still held by men. The fact that men are more willing to work certain jobs and certain hours is part of the reason they continue to make more. I also think that our societies tendency to put women first extends past life and death situations.


At least men get paid more for doing these horrible jobs. Women don't get paid for childcare, housework, caring for older/disabled family members. Even women that are still married have less leisure time than their husbands. This is part of the reason why I do not want kids. As long as there are no kids, I think the household chores will be 50/50 since I'm somewhat of a slob and can't cook very well.



> And 67% of homeless people are men.
> 
> http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/who.html
> 
> ...


For the extremes yeah, men might have it worse. Women under age 40 can always resort to prostitution or a relationship with an older man to avoid becoming homeless. I also have a theory that older women do not end up homeless because they can live with their adult kids much of the time. Many of the older men that become homeless probably ditched their kids years ago, so can't exactly ask for help from them years later.


----------



## The Silent 1 (Aug 21, 2011)

komorikun said:


> At least men get paid more for doing these horrible jobs. Women don't get paid for childcare, housework, caring for older/disabled family members. Even women that are still married have less leisure time than their husbands. This is part of the reason why I do not want kids. As long as there are no kids, I think the household chores will be 50/50 since I'm somewhat of a slob and can't cook very well.


Women usually elect to have their children live with them and I don't see this changing. And in a way some of those women do get paid for that through child support which is often a lot more than those women actually need to take care of those children. I've seen first hand women spend that money on everything, but their kids. Alimony is a pay day for them as well. It is true that women do more chores, but I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that men don't care about these things as much and even when living alone they spend less time on housework and grooming. Men and women just have different priorities and some of that household work isn't necessarily things that are essential. And men don't always necessarily get paid more to do those jobs. Janitors don't make all that much. At the end of the day though, no one forces anyone to have kids and its really on you as to how much house work and grooming you deem necessary after the essentials.



komorikun said:


> For the extremes yeah, men might have it worse. Women under age 40 can always resort to prostitution or a relationship with an older man to avoid becoming homeless. I also have a theory that older women do not end up homeless because they can live with their adult kids much of the time. Many of the older men that become homeless probably ditched their kids years ago, so can't exactly ask for help from them years later.


The average age for the homeless is 35-45 from what I've read. Its true that women have the option to be prostitutes, but more men turn to sex for money and drugs than people think. I think in general though, its easier for a woman to find someone to take care of her through marriage, child support, or other methods.


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

The Silent 1 said:


> Women usually elect to have their children live with them and I don't see this changing. And in a way some of those women do get paid for that through child support which is often a lot more than those women actually need to take care of those children. I've seen first hand women spend that money on everything, but their kids. Alimony is a pay day for them as well. It is true that women do more chores, but I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that men don't care about these things as much and even when living alone they spend less time on housework and grooming. Men and women just have different priorities and some of that household work isn't necessarily things that are essential. And men don't always necessarily get paid more to do those jobs. Janitors don't make all that much. At the end of the day though, no one forces anyone to have kids and its really on you as to how much house work and grooming you deem necessary after the essentials.


I'm sure there are some women profiting off of child support/alimony but the reverse is much more common. Something like 25% of all single mothers receive zero child support and another 30% only get part of it. That's pretty screwed up.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-237.pdf

Also after divorce on average the woman ends up poorer than before and the man wealthier.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/jan/25/divorce-women-research



> Jenkins combined data from 14 different British Household Panel Surveys over 1991 to 2004 with the findings from five European surveys. Recalculating the results using the formula by which the government measures poverty, he established new per capita incomes. Jenkins found that the positive effect on men's finances is so significant that divorce can even lift them out of poverty, while women are far more likely to be plunged into destitution. Separated women have a poverty rate of 27% - almost three times that of their former husbands.


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

komorikun said:


> > Because combining unpaid caregiving with paid work can be challenging, women are more likely to work part time or take time out of the workforce to care for family. Twenty-three percent of mothers are out of the workforce compared to just 1 percent of fathers.
> >
> > Women are more likely to bear the costs of raising children. When parents are not living together, women are more likely to take on the economic costs of raising children. Eight in ten custodial parents are women, and custodial mothers are twice as likely to be poor as custodial fathers.
> >
> > Pregnancy affects women's work and educational opportunities more than men's. The economic costs associated with pregnancy are more significant for women than for men. Unplanned and mistimed pregnancies in particular can result in the termination of education and keep women from getting and sustaining solid employment.


There are many factors involved that cause this image.
An important part of why it's often the woman/mother that takes part time jobs or time off work to care for the children is that it's often the man that makes the most money - so the couple, even with the best of intentions, have a very clear economic advantage of arranging themselves that way. This of course only strengthens the stereotypes and the differences in pay as the woman will have a weaker affiliation with the labour market.

That women have been awarded custody more often than men is not against the mothers' will, I think.
Again, because women generally spend more time with the kids, take the majority (if not all) of the maternity leave and other similar factors, women often have a stronger bond with the children than men do. This in turn means they get awarded custody more often.
But there are attempts to get men to take more maternity leave now of course and more get shared custody.

It's women that go through the physical changes of pregnancy, so you would expect things to impact them more. The years from 18 to 30 are especially important for education and getting solid foothold in the workforce, and since that's when pregnancies most often occur (planned or unplanned) they can have a huge impact on the rest of that woman's life.

It's important that we build a society where sickness, childbirth and other events during your 20s do not seriously hamper you for the rest of your life, but what the appropriate steps to take are is hard to say.
Having children is of course a choice (most of the time) and the way couples organise themselves and the duties women take upon themselves are also largely choices they make. It's only natural if there is some discrepancy that follows from that. The discrepancy between men and women without children is a more clear sign of problems, in my opinion.
But I'm also of the clear opinion that regardless of choices and mistakes, regardless of biological factors, even regardless of education and qualifications, we must do everything we can to bring people out of poverty and ensure that they live lives they are happy for.


----------



## The Silent 1 (Aug 21, 2011)

komorikun said:


> I'm sure there are some women profiting off of child support/alimony but the reverse is much more common. Something like 25% of all single mothers receive zero child support and another 30% only get part of it. That's pretty screwed up.
> 
> http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-237.pdf
> 
> ...


When looking at just mothers, and not single parents in general, 57% still receive child support. And for those who receive some, it isn't clear how much "some" is. 25% do receive none, but that looks at all single parents and considering things like, not knowing who the father is, or having a father in prison, that is to be expected. Of course there are some men who simply escape and try to get out of paying, but thats not a large percentage.

That divorce study is interesting, though I notice its for the UK and Europe, I wonder what the states by themselves look like. It also makes sense that men would make more because as they article points out, women usually take the kids. Another article published by that very site suggests those statistics are misleading:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/feb/01/relationships-women-divorce?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487


----------



## DeeperUnderstanding (May 19, 2007)

I think anybody who has a sister, niece, mother, aunt, or female friend can answer this question rationally.

In essence, I am a feminist, not because I put women up on pedestals, but because they deserve the same rights that every person of my gender does.


----------



## au Lait (Sep 8, 2010)

When I see men arguing against feminism, and trying to prove to women that we actually have it "better" than we realize, I have to wonder, what is it about women being treated as equals do you find so intimidating? Are you afraid of admitting that you have privilege because once you acknowledge that women are not treated the same as you, you'll lose your power?

Pointing out the few instances where women might be "ahead" of men does not negate the fact that we are still treated as less than in many other areas. That's like saying, "I know you want to make as much money as us, have the same political power as us, and be respected as human beings rather than sex objects, but you can't so shut up and be happy for the few advances we've given you." That's incredibly insulting tbh. If we want equality, then doesn't it stand to reason that we want it for everyone, men included? Do you honestly think we would take comfort in the few instances where we might get preferential treatment over men? And do you really think those instances somehow magically erase every situation where we get the short end of the stick? 

Hilary "almost" getting elected doesn't make the fact that we've never had a woman president any less bothersome. And it doesn't change the fact that women are still grossly underrepresented in politics. It's a good sign, of course. I never said it wasn't. But if women sit back and say, "Welp, it's good enough. No need to talk about feminism or equality anymore" then that would be like stopping short of the finish line when the race isn't over.


----------



## DeeperUnderstanding (May 19, 2007)

au Lait, I think the question of whether or not men, or women, have it better really lies in gender divides, rather than any rational argument.

Women _do_ have it better, in the dating game. That's just how it works. However, in every aspect besides relationships (like, say, work), men have privileges that women don't have.

I think the key is to knocking down the gender inequalities. Make it easier for men who are shy or awkward around girls, to get girls, and make it easier for women, in general, to get better jobs and better pay. You can't swing the door one way, and call it equality. There is still a lot of injustice in this world.


----------



## The Silent 1 (Aug 21, 2011)

au Lait said:


> When I see men arguing against feminism, and trying to prove to women that we actually have it "better" than we realize, I have to wonder, what is it about women being treated as equals do you find so intimidating? Are you afraid of admitting that you have privilege because once you acknowledge that women are not treated the same as you, you'll lose your power?
> 
> Pointing out the few instances where women might be "ahead" of men does not negate the fact that we are still treated as less than in many other areas. That's like saying, "I know you want to make as much money as us, have the same political power as us, and be respected as human beings rather than sex objects, but you can't so shut up and be happy for the few advances we've given you." That's incredibly insulting tbh. If we want equality, then doesn't it stand to reason that we want it for everyone, men included? Do you honestly think we would take comfort in the few instances where we might get preferential treatment over men? And do you really think those instances somehow magically erase every situation where we get the short end of the stick?
> 
> Hilary "almost" getting elected doesn't make the fact that we've never had a woman president any less bothersome. And it doesn't change the fact that women are still grossly underrepresented in politics. It's a good sign, of course. I never said it wasn't. But if women sit back and say, "Welp, it's good enough. No need to talk about feminism or equality anymore" then that would be like stopping short of the finish line when the race isn't over.


I don't know if this was aimed at me, but I'm certainly not trying to argue that men have it overall better, nor am I arguing against all feminists. I'm not suggesting that the inequalities of men suddenly erase those of women either. I explained in an earlier post why I would rather label myself as an egalitarian or a secular humanist, but I have no problem with someone labeling themselves a feminists especially if they specifically spend their time fighting for women.

I don't think theres anything wrong though with pointing out areas where women are ahead and indeed it may be important to do this every once in a while in order to not paint a false picture that men are ahead in every area (something I've seen some feminists unintentionally do). It seems like theres a feminist law that states "Anytime an advantage women have is mentioned it must immediately be followed up by mentioning at least three areas where women are behind". It seems like your putting words in my mouth (if your post is aimed at me). I never suggested anything of what your saying. I've argued with some feminists who will simply roll their eyes and dismiss any problems men may face or deem them not as important. Theres nothing wrong with ocasionally pointing out the inequality on the other side. Its also important to look at some of those statistics that feminists commonly use and determine their accurate they are, which is what I was doing in my other posts. I've seen far too many of those feminist organizations continue to use misleading or outright false statistics which causes them to lose credibility in my eyes. The problems they talk about are real, but I have no interest in blowing up stats to help your cause


----------



## offbyone (May 5, 2010)

WintersTale said:


> au Lait, I think the question of whether or not men, or women, have it better really lies in gender divides, rather than any rational argument.
> 
> Women _do_ have it better, in the dating game. That's just how it works. However, in every aspect besides relationships (like, say, work), men have privileges that women don't have.
> 
> I think the key is to knocking down the gender inequalities. Make it easier for men who are shy or awkward around girls, to get girls, and make it easier for women, in general, to get better jobs and better pay. You can't swing the door one way, and call it equality. There is still a lot of injustice in this world.


Erm, how does the difficulty shy guys have in finding a mate have anything to do with gender equality? That's pretty low on the totem pole in regards to the amout of harm done to society. Feminism isn't just about better jobs and pay, that's just part of it. There are tons of other things that need to be addressed, especially in other parts of the world like Au Lait said earlier in the thread.

I know you aren't saying this with any maliciousness but the equivelancy just isn't there. Dating on a whole being "easier" for women doesn't really mean much when basically every other aspect of the possible relationship, besides child custody and divorce, is biased towards the man in most relationships.

It's not nearly as bad as it used to be, of course, it isn't the 50s anymore. But that doesn't mean there isn't plenty of inequality that remains. You only need to look at the recent political debates over abortion and planned parenthood to see how poorly represented women are in politics and how there is still political machinery in place attempting to control their lives.


----------



## au Lait (Sep 8, 2010)

WintersTale said:


> au Lait, I think the question of whether or not men, or women, have it better really lies in gender divides, rather than any rational argument.
> 
> Women _do_ have it better, in the dating game. That's just how it works. However, in every aspect besides relationships (like, say, work), men have privileges that women don't have.
> 
> I think the key is to knocking down the gender inequalities. Make it easier for men who are shy or awkward around girls, to get girls, and make it easier for women, in general, to get better jobs and better pay. You can't swing the door one way, and call it equality. There is still a lot of injustice in this world.


I disagree. Women do not have it easier than men when it comes to dating. That's a myth. And gender divides are based in sexism, which can most definitely be debated with rational arguments.

Those who think women have some kind of "upper hand" in relationships tend to idealize women and view us as trophies. That's not the kind of upper hand that many women want, or even asked for.

Women are taught that the most important thing we can do with our lives is get a man. Not a career, or an education, or a sense of purpose. Every woman's magazine focuses on how to please men, how to attract them, etc. We're taught that we're nothing unless we are attractive to men. If that's supposed to be some kind of advantage for women, then I don't see it.

You can't compare shy men having trouble dating to women being oppressed in the workplace. It's apples and oranges. You're not getting dates b/c you're too shy to approach women. You can change that by talking to women. We're not getting equal pay because of sexism. Not to mention, shy women have trouble meeting men just as shy men have trouble meeting women. Shy people are not being oppressed the way sexism oppresses women.


----------



## BobtheBest (Aug 27, 2011)

au Lait said:


> I disagree. Women do not have it easier than men when it comes to dating. That's a myth. And gender divides are based in sexism, which can most definitely be debated with rational arguments.
> 
> Those who think women have some kind of "upper hand" in relationships tend to idealize women and view us as trophies. That's not the kind of upper hand that many women want, or even asked for.
> 
> ...


I agree, au Lait, no gender has it easy. It doesn't matter how attractive you are, regardless of gender, you're not going to get anywhere sitting on your hands and not meeting new people. Even if someone gets approached, SA can get in the way, causing a person to be mistaken as rude because they were too shy to respond. That can make a person feel bad because they botched every opportunity since SA prevents them from responding properly from being approached. SA pretty much sucks for everyone.


----------



## missingno (Sep 29, 2011)

WintersTale said:


> I think anybody who has a sister, niece, mother, aunt, or female friend can answer this question rationally.
> 
> In essence, I am a feminist, not because I put women up on pedestals, but because they deserve the same rights that every person of my gender does.


Lol I have all of the above and I'm not a feminist. Now I have no problems with women having equal rights but living in a first world country they do. Therefore the feminist agenda is a waste of time and annoying unless it is used to advance the rights of women in third world countries which I couldn't care less about.

Now before people start whinging about pay differences I will say I believe businesses should be able to hire who they want for whatever they want and if the pay sucks go elsewhere. In my workplace and many others women get exact same pay as me.

Also the salary difference is a myth. Most of the differences can be put down to women working in lower paid jobs not that they are getting paid less then men to do the same job. Also with having babies which halts career progression and more part time work. I dislike quotas in everything it sucks that someone could be better or at the same qualifaction for a job but lose out on the basis that they don't have a vagina or have a different skin colour.

I can guarantee the majority of people who call themselves feminists couldn't care less or will not campaign with the same attitude for areas that males are disadvantaged examples are lower university rates, family and divorce courts.

tl;dr feminism is a joke


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

au Lait said:


> Women are taught that the most important thing we can do with our lives is get a man. Not a career, or an education, or a sense of purpose. Every woman's magazine focuses on how to please men, how to attract them, etc. We're taught that we're nothing unless we are attractive to men. If that's supposed to be some kind of advantage for women, then I don't see it.


Which women are taught this exactly? Maybe in very conservative areas, but nobody here is telling women that. They are very much encouraged to educate themselves and in fact do so much more than men do. So much so that is actually now becoming a problem (not that women are educating themselves, but that men aren't as much).
I definitely agree that magazines' portrayal of women tends to be quite sexist and not a step forward for equality, but those magazines aren't male propaganda. They're often written by women and they sell because, for reasons I can't explain, many women want to read it.



au Lait said:


> You can't compare shy men having trouble dating to women being oppressed in the workplace. It's apples and oranges. You're not getting dates b/c you're too shy to approach women. You can change that by talking to women. We're not getting equal pay because of sexism. Not to mention, shy women have trouble meeting men just as shy men have trouble meeting women. Shy people are not being oppressed the way sexism oppresses women.


People tend to hire others that are much like themselves, have the same background as they do and have the same interests and priorities as them - someone they feel they understand and feel safe with; another copy of themselves basically.
This is the case regardless of whether that person is a man or a woman and so I wouldn't call it sexism exactly. But we do of course have to familiarise these employers, board members and executives with a more diverse set of people in order to break these patterns.

Sexism to me, like racism, is about a hatred towards a certain group or an active belief that they are worth less or predestined for a certain lot in life.
Some people are sexist - just like some are racists - but I think it's only a tiny fraction of people, and that the much more relevant problem is with gender roles and patterns in our culture which also becomes part of our own identity and forms our choices.
These things need to be addressed all the same. And we need to find patterns and values that give people equal respect and includes people equally in society; both in professional and personal lives.


----------



## DeeperUnderstanding (May 19, 2007)

My post, which I deleted, stated that there is just as much pressure on men to find a good looking woman and have sex with her. Maybe not marry, but definitely have sex.

Stating that more women than men are faced with that pressure is barbaric. The number of male-to-female suicides is 3 to 1, and a lot of those are brought on by relationship, or lack of relationship, issues.

I am not arguing against feminism. In fact, I said I was for it. What I am against is this shaming tactic that a lot of women have against men, and they use feminism as a way to do it. I am all for equal rights, but just that: _*Equal. Not women over men.*_


----------



## squidlette (Jan 9, 2012)

I am absolutely a feminist, among many other things. I believe in self-determinism for all people, regardless of whatever genitalia, skin, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity they may possess. Or anything else I've forgotten in that list. I think "roles" based on these things need to go the way of the dodo with all speed.

I am VERY sorry that so many of you associate the idea of feminism with vitriolic misandry. I am a feminist because I love everybody, and personal liberty, independence and self-determination are things that rate at the top of my values list. Those are things that I think are worth fighting for and defending. 

Just because I'm a feminist doesn't mean that I don't appreciate kindness - I hold doors open for everybody, and I say thank you every time one is held open for me. Courtesy does not equal oppression. I'm also a vocal supporter of father's rights groups and have helped more than one father get support from one of those groups when the mother got full custody by default. Being pro-women doesn't have to mean being anti-men anymore than being supportive of gay marriage means being against straight marriage. 

I'm a feminist because I don't think it's right for ANYONE to be dependent on anybody unless they choose to be. I'm a feminist because I don't think it's right to legislate what ANYBODY can do to their own bodies, and medical decisions should be between an individual and their medical provider. I'm a feminist because I support the right of ANY PERSON to live their own lives under their own power without culture or tradition getting in the way.


----------



## lucyinthesky (Mar 29, 2009)

Yes, in that I believe women deserve the same rights as men. Men also need to be treated more equally in many respects. Bra burning etc gives feminism a bad name, and often makes it seem exclusive to activists. As Caitlin Moran rants about, we should all be feminists :b


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

squidlette said:


> I am VERY sorry that so many of you associate the idea of feminism with vitriolic misandry. I am a feminist because I love everybody, and personal liberty, independence and self-determination are things that rate at the top of my values list. Those are things that I think are worth fighting for and defending.


We may disagree on the label, but what's ultimately important is the respect and dignity with which we treat others, both as individuals and as a society.
I agree with your entire post really, so I'll assign you a top post when the revolution comes :b

The only small thing..
I completely agree that the gender roles need to be at least greatly reduces as they create a lot of problems, but since our view of ourselves and our identity are based partially on them, I find it hard to know how to efficiently change them, as I don't think much good could ever come from a forced change of culture. These values need to be adapted by people so they come to believe them themselves.
I have no doubt there will be gender equality in time, but it would be nice if it could be sped up a bit.


----------



## squidlette (Jan 9, 2012)

I agree that it has to be an organic change..... and I think that's what I see happening. 

Or rather I DID see it happening before all of the crazy anti-women crap going on in politics this year. It sort of blindsided me.... it feels so out of place with what I THOUGHT modern culture was finally blossoming into.


----------



## DeeperUnderstanding (May 19, 2007)

squidlette said:


> Or rather I DID see it happening before all of the crazy anti-women crap going on in politics this year. It sort of blindsided me.... it feels so out of place with what I THOUGHT modern culture was finally blossoming into.


Yeah, I agree. The whole political climate this year is insane. I don't understand how we have regressed back 50 years.


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

squidlette said:


> I agree that it has to be an organic change..... and I think that's what I see happening.
> 
> Or rather I DID see it happening before all of the crazy anti-women crap going on in politics this year. It sort of blindsided me.... it feels so out of place with what I THOUGHT modern culture was finally blossoming into.


So no revolution? 

I think it's just a temporary setback. I think people have been dissatisfied with something or other and the political right are using religion and "traditional values" as some nostalgic refuge. I don't think you would have seen the trans... the wand.. being proposed under a Republican president. It seems to be to spite the Democrats and to do everything they can to show off their power against Obama.
The laws are just hideous, but at least I can't see them lasting very long.


----------



## CoolSauce (Mar 6, 2012)

why not just get rid of gender roles completely and just let people, no matter what genitals they were born with, do whatever the hell they are interested in? To me it always seemed that feminism is trying to make women fit in the ideal male gender image, which doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## BobtheBest (Aug 27, 2011)

CoolSauce said:


> *why not just get rid of gender roles completely and just let people, no matter what genitals they were born with, do whatever the hell they are interested in?* To me it always seemed that feminism is trying to make women fit in the ideal male gender image, which doesn't make sense to me.


That is the goal of feminism, actually...


----------



## Dark Alchemist (Jul 10, 2011)

fredbloggs02 said:


> I've no intent of taking it before a tribunal. Define equality. Women in general are no more equal to men in general than one man is equal to one woman or a single man is equal to another. Equality often retards justice. Who could possibly draw an outright conslusion through so many distinctions? Should we consider a man having a missing leg operated on wihout anaesthetic be considered in as much pain as another man experiencing the same who still possesses his? Some people are born missing legs or other parts, every category of people will differ, women and men are distinct categories so their rights should differ, I know that even without demanding the differences be accounted for. Of course the man who still possesses his leg should be treated with anaesthetic before the man who no longer does. Equality is corrupt to whosoever of those still possess the part it operates on without anaesthetic.


Feminism = the social, political and economic equality of men and women.

Its not a hard concept to grasp.


----------



## CoolSauce (Mar 6, 2012)

BobtheSaint said:


> That is the goal of feminism, actually...


no what I mean is that feminists often expect to be treated the exact same as men which looks weird to me since men and women aren't supposed to be 100% identical. If that were true everyone in this world would be bisexual.

hormones also influence how someone thinks. Why do you think generally more women work in schools/healthcare/animal well-being things and why do so much more men feel the urge to join the army and take competitive sports so serious and start wars?


----------



## squidlette (Jan 9, 2012)

Milco said:


> So no revolution?
> 
> I think it's just a temporary setback. I think people have been dissatisfied with something or other and the political right are using religion and "traditional values" as some nostalgic refuge. I don't think you would have seen the trans... the wand.. being proposed under a Republican president. It seems to be to spite the Democrats and to do everything they can to show off their power against Obama.
> The laws are just hideous, but at least I can't see them lasting very long.


Milco, we can still have a revolution, as long as I can dance. Like the Emma Goldman reference there? :-D

If this stuff gets too much more crazy, can I come crash on your couch to get out of the country? Denmark's always rated as having the happiest citizens, isn't it?


----------



## Dark Alchemist (Jul 10, 2011)

CoolSauce said:


> no what I mean is that feminists often expect to be treated the exact same as men which looks weird to me since men and women aren't supposed to be 100% identical. If that were true everyone in this world would be bisexual.


Um, what? That doesn't make any sense. Feminism doesn't argue men and women have one body type. And how did you associate that with bisexuality?



> hormones also influence how someone thinks. Why do you think generally more women work in schools/healthcare/animal well-being things and why do so much more men feel the urge to join the army and take competitive sports so serious and start wars?


Actually, until recent years the healthcare field was mostly dominated by men. Last time I checked there were plenty of male vets too. Teaching is one of the few career options women have traditionally had open to them - its largely related to the stereotype of women being automatically the best to be around kids.

If you think hormones are all there is to it, why aren't all women drawn to schools/healthcare/animal-well being yet a large number of men are? And why don't all men have the urge to join the army when plenty of women are?

Many women play competetive sports. Women have traditionally been kept out of high ranking military positions, but female rulers in the past have engaged their nations in war. Plenty of female soldiers througout history too.

Men and women both have estrogen and testosterone. You can't generalize gender roles to hormones alone.


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

squidlette said:


> Milco, we can still have a revolution, as long as I can dance. Like the Emma Goldman reference there? :-D
> 
> If this stuff gets too much more crazy, can I come crash on your couch to get out of the country? Denmark's always rated as having the happiest citizens, isn't it?


Wikipedia to the rescue! I blame 3 a.m. :b
But sure. It's a deal!

Yeah, we are, but I'm not sure why exactly. I'll keep the couch ready though should you need and maybe you can help me figure it out.
Just have to figure out who'll be making dinner :um :lol


----------



## squidlette (Jan 9, 2012)

I am an excellent cook, and I love to do it. As long as you don't mind vegetarian food, we're set.


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

I guess we'd be having that regardless, so.. yours would probably taste better than mine!
I'll go chop wood or wrestle a bear or something then.


----------



## DeeperUnderstanding (May 19, 2007)

Speaking of cooking and feminism...

Women are generally supposed to be better cooks than men, but I'm a pretty decent cook, and so are some of my male family members. 

In other words, stereotypes don't matter at all.


----------



## jg43i9jghy0t4555 (Jul 31, 2011)

Science doesn't agree with gender discrimination. The human mind can model anything; male or female doesn't really come into things when you are talking about long-term personal/skills development.

Did you know that humans (we) can outrun tigers and other animals like that over long distances? Assuming a lot of time of training goes into it. Athletes' DNA only accounts for a little more suitability on top of how generic modern humans are designed for long distance running (evolution). Even old people aren't much slower (we are talking about fitness potential with about a decade or somewhere near, of practice)

But I do like the witty humour, that's something I identify with even if other people might actually be taking it seriously:


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

WintersTale said:


> Speaking of cooking and feminism...
> 
> Women are generally supposed to be better cooks than men, but I'm a pretty decent cook, and so are some of my male family members.
> 
> In other words, stereotypes don't matter at all.


My household wasn't traditional either. Although my mom did not work for 9 years, she never was into cleaning much at all. Being a sort of hippyish artist, she was more into painting with her daughters while drinking a bit of wine (maybe pot on occasion but I don't remember that). My dad was the one who did the laundry and vacuumed. So I tend to think of laundry and vacuuming as men's work.


----------



## DeeperUnderstanding (May 19, 2007)

There is some truth to how girls are supposed to be the attractors. Even in peacocks, the female peacocks get brighter feathers to attract mates. It's science. 

That being stated, there is no scientific explanation for men mistreating and abusing women, or denying them birth control. It's just religious ignorance.


----------



## offbyone (May 5, 2010)

WintersTale said:


> There is some truth to how girls are supposed to be the attractors. Even in peacocks, the female peacocks get brighter feathers to attract mates. It's science.
> 
> That being stated, there is no scientific explanation for men mistreating and abusing women, or denying them birth control. It's just religious ignorance.


Erm, the female peacock is mostly brown and unassuming compared to the male.

In species with color differences between the genders most females are colored for camouflage potential while the males are brighter and colored for mating displays.


----------



## squidlette (Jan 9, 2012)

Thought that might need a picture. The female (peahen) is in front there, while the pretty idiot in the back is the peacock. 

Peacocks are pretty birds, but boy are they stupid. lol


----------



## CoolSauce (Mar 6, 2012)

male peacocks remind me of Jershey Shore men

btw:


----------



## The Silent 1 (Aug 21, 2011)

jg43i9jghy0t4555 said:


> Science doesn't agree with gender discrimination. The human mind can model anything; male or female doesn't really come into things when you are talking about long-term personal/skills development.


I don't agree completely. If you look at the physical and mental abilities of men and women you will notice general trends between the sexes. Women are generally better multitaskers, men are generally physically stronger, the sexes have different levels of hormones that do affect behavior, the way men and women's brains work is different which leads to some general trends as well. I agree that gender roles are due in large part to social conditioning, but I don't think we should go overboard and deny biology completely in the name of equality. Theres nothing wrong with recognizing general trends within the genders and that doesn't mean we have to turn those trends into prescribed gender roles.


----------



## squidlette (Jan 9, 2012)

The Silent 1 said:


> I don't agree completely. If you look at the physical and mental abilities of men and women you will notice general trends between the sexes. Women are generally better multitaskers, men are generally physically stronger, the sexes have different levels of hormones that do affect behavior, the way men and women's brains work is different which leads to some general trends as well. I agree that gender roles are due in large part to social conditioning, but I don't think we should go overboard and deny biology completely in the name of equality. Theres nothing wrong with recognizing general trends within the genders and that doesn't mean we have to turn those trends into prescribed gender roles.


I think that sounds like a plan. People are different from each other, and everybody has their own strengths..... I don't think that needs to be translated into expectations or social mores based on gender. I think the individual should have every opportunity to pursue what they like, no matter what biology they possess..... but that doesn't mean that I think all people are equal to all opportunities. I'm probably never going to WIN a mixed sexes bodybuilding tournament, but I should have the same opportunity to TRY if I please without it being seen as wrong, in other words.


----------



## jg43i9jghy0t4555 (Jul 31, 2011)

The Silent 1 said:


> but I don't think we should go overboard and deny biology completely in the name of equality.


By even using the word equality there it sounds to me like you are presupposing there is none. Why can't women do men's jobs?

It's to do with how our society has created the complementary male and female roles and we each grow up to be one of them.

In the case of the individual, though, no I don't think it's realistic to say any given woman can't do what we today call a man's job. Or anything else that men do.

But I think I get where your argument is coming from.. I mean, if we abolished gender distinction completely that's going against part of what is human. Nobody will agree to that. The different gender stereotypes is part of what makes our life meaningful and interesting, like how we have different cultures.


----------



## jg43i9jghy0t4555 (Jul 31, 2011)

squidlette said:


> I'm probably never going to WIN a mixed sexes bodybuilding tournament, but I should have the same opportunity to TRY if I please without it being seen as wrong, in other words.


But it rarely has anything to do with what our society says is part of the gender stereotype :/ it's completely misleading.

Example: if a man is emotional, apparently that's getting in touch with his feminine side. Some great number of people, in 2012, may actually think "femininity" is synonymous with "emotional".

I think while are talking about skills, and doing things like bungee jumping or something dangerous, survival skills... male/female roles are not the same thing as defining what is suitable. More like, the roles define and enrich the meaning of applying people to those situations *in modern life*.. that doesn't indicate how well you'd do though. Not at all.


----------



## The Silent 1 (Aug 21, 2011)

jg43i9jghy0t4555 said:


> By even using the word equality there it sounds to me like you are presupposing there is none. Why can't women do men's jobs?
> 
> It's to do with how our society has created the complementary male and female roles and we each grow up to be one of them.
> 
> ...


Women and Men are different, they can't be "equal" in that sense, though that doesn't necessarily mean one is better than the other. What I do believe is that everyone should be given equal opportunity. The average woman probably couldn't make it in certain fields that require a great deal of physical strength, but those that can should be given the chance to do so. What I'm saying is that biology does create some real differences between the sexes and we shouldn't ignore that. I don't think theres any such thing as a "mans job", but I don't think its wrong to say certain jobs are generally performed better by men or visa versa. Thats just being realistic. The problem is when people take biological trends and turn them into rigid gender roles that people can't escape from.


----------



## jg43i9jghy0t4555 (Jul 31, 2011)

The Silent 1 said:


> Women and Men are different


Why?



The Silent 1 said:


> The average woman probably couldn't make it in certain fields that require a great deal of physical strength, but those that can should be given the chance to do so. What I'm saying is that biology does create some real differences between the sexes and we shouldn't ignore that.


Physically, I see no problem with this. You don't need to be genetically suited for being a bodybuilder to gradually get much stronger to do a very physically demanding job. The problems start when you bring in other people and what they are going to do based on the stereotypes of male/female that they know. So, not biology so much as "social conditioning". And yeah that does still cause a problem for that woman in that scenario..

But there are many different jobs!

..big business owners in Japan think, for some reason, they need male heirs. So they will even adopt, even if they have their own biological son, because of education/intellect. But yeah male = strong in their eyes, for some reason. I'd love to know a good reason for this, but I think it's probably public image.

Why can't we ignore biological differences? We ignore plenty of things like how everyone cooking in their own homes is way less energy efficient than a huge restaurant/canteen type thing. Driving a car to the shop but eating well because we still get hungry.. and then not exercising.. plenty of things.


----------



## Lasair (Jan 25, 2010)

I'm not one for sure


----------



## The Silent 1 (Aug 21, 2011)

jg43i9jghy0t4555 said:


> Why?


A mix of biology and social conditioning.



jg43i9jghy0t4555 said:


> Physically, I see no problem with this. You don't need to be genetically suited for being a bodybuilder to gradually get much stronger to do a very physically demanding job. The problems start when you bring in other people and what they are going to do based on the stereotypes of male/female that they know. So, not biology so much as "social conditioning". And yeah that does still cause a problem for that woman in that scenario..


If I'm an employer trying to fill a job that requires high levels of physical strength, then I'm going to want the strongest candidates I can find and typically they are going to be men. Perhaps a weaker person could also fill the job, but probably not as efficiently so physically it does matter. In this case it has far more to do with biology then social conditioning.



jg43i9jghy0t4555 said:


> ..big business owners in Japan think, for some reason, they need male heirs. So they will even adopt, even if they have their own biological son, because of education/intellect. But yeah male = strong in their eyes, for some reason. I'd love to know a good reason for this, but I think it's probably public image.


Well, yeah in this case wanting a male heir just because you think it looks better is a pretty arbitrary and silly reason. I'm talking about practicality.


jg43i9jghy0t4555 said:


> *Why can't we ignore biological differences?* We ignore plenty of things like how everyone cooking in their own homes is way less energy efficient than a huge restaurant/canteen type thing. Driving a car to the shop but eating well because we still get hungry.. and then not exercising.. plenty of things.


Because you shouldn't ignore reality to make yourself feel better. I think your earlier statement about there being no long term difference in the skills and developments between the sexes could only be made by ignoring reality and that doesn't suddenly make it true. But like I said recognizing those differences doesn't mean we need to be slaves to them. I don't see how your other examples relate to this. We place things like convenience over being efficient and we recognize this and it is acceptable to us in certain cases.


----------



## Catnap (Dec 5, 2011)

I like to support equality and respect for both genders, without regards for one encroaching on the other. Eh, honestly.. I also just live in my own head most of the time.


----------



## jg43i9jghy0t4555 (Jul 31, 2011)

The Silent 1 said:


> If I'm an employer trying to fill a job that requires high levels of physical strength


Okay. How about use another example then?



The Silent 1 said:


> Well, yeah in this case wanting a male heir just because you think it looks better is a pretty arbitrary and silly reason. I'm talking about practicality.


It's not arbitrary if it's what society thinks is better. But that doesn't make it anything to do with a claim like "women will always be inferior in such a case so if you disagree you're just ignoring reality"

Because reality is far deeper rooted than social standards, expectations, modern life's rules that we live by.

You can't make an observation that women are seen as weaker therefore they must be weaker in reality. That's just an assumption. That's what I'm getting at. Nothing wrong with getting a clearer view!


----------



## offbyone (May 5, 2010)

The Silent 1 said:


> A mix of biology and social conditioning.
> If I'm an employer trying to fill a job that requires high levels of physical strength, then I'm going to want the strongest candidates I can find and typically they are going to be men. Perhaps a weaker person could also fill the job, but probably not as efficiently so physically it does matter. In this case it has far more to do with biology then social conditioning.


Are you saying the social conditioning is acceptable or not here? I can't tell if you meant to imply either.

If a woman is strong enough to do the job, you would hire her though right? No one is arguing that people should be hired to do jobs they aren't qualified for. In this case, it's being able to sustain a certain level of physical performance during their shift. It's not if they have a penis and testicles or ovaries, a vagina, and a womb.

Saying men are genetically predisposed to be stronger than women doesn't disprove feminism or negate there being inequality in the work place, this is kind of a silly example and I'm not entirely sure what it's supposed to illustrate.

The weaker person in your example could be a man or a woman so why does it matter what sex your applicants are? You simple need to provide a reliable test that any applicant goes through, and then evaluate them on their performance after that.



> Well, yeah in this case wanting a male heir just because you think it looks better is a pretty arbitrary and silly reason. I'm talking about practicality.


Well, people really need to examine where their sense of practicality comes from. A lot of the times saying something is "practical" is just an excuse to try and justify bias. For a long long time people thought it was (and still do, really) practical and necessary to produce male heirs as well as being a completely justifiable way to pass on a lineage. Practical is too ambiguous a term to use in these circumstances and you really need concrete data and examples to back up any such claim that a woman would be better suited for task X while a man is better suited for Y.



> Because you shouldn't ignore reality to make yourself feel better. I think your earlier statement about there being no long term difference in the skills and developments between the sexes could only be made by ignoring reality and that doesn't suddenly make it true. But like I said recognizing those differences doesn't mean we need to be slaves to them. I don't see how your other examples relate to this. We place things like convenience over being efficient and we recognize this and it is acceptable to us in certain cases.


Feminists don't argue that there are some biological differences between men and women, that's a pretty silly claim to make and it's one I often see. Obviously there are differences between men and women. However those differences are historically and presently used to perpetuate a system of inequality between the sexes.

For example, people like to say that men have more testosterone and are thus more suited for aggressive and competitive environments. What they are really saying is men are better suited to positions of power and women shouldn't be able to occupy them because historically it's been only men in those roles. It has almost nothing to do with the differences between the genders and is just an excuse. It's essentially the same argument made by racists that black people are genetically inferior but it simply remains more socially acceptable than that one.


----------



## DeeperUnderstanding (May 19, 2007)

I forget who told me the thing about the birds. I feel stupid now! 

But irregardless of who's supposed to be the more attractive sex, I think everyone should have equal rights. I don't even know why I brought that up?


----------



## The Silent 1 (Aug 21, 2011)

jg43i9jghy0t4555 said:


> Okay. How about use another example then?


Another example of what? All I was pointing out is that men and women may be generally better suited for certain jobs. That doesn't mean a woman can't excel at a job men are generally better at. All my original point was that you the genders are generally better at or have more interest in certain jobs. That shouldn't affect the hiring process in the slightest, but it will affect the final result of who gets hired in a general sense.


jg43i9jghy0t4555 said:


> It's not arbitrary if it's what society thinks is better. But that doesn't make it anything to do with a claim like "women will always be inferior in such a case so if you disagree you're just ignoring reality"


Yes its still arbitrary unless you can demonstrate practical, observable reasons. If you can't prove that a woman couldn't be a suitable heir than your wrong. Facts are facts regardless of what people think. I don't know where I ever stated women will always be inferior in such case, but I would say that *generally* men or women may be inferior in certain areas.



jg43i9jghy0t4555 said:


> You can't make an observation that women are seen as weaker therefore they must be weaker in reality. That's just an assumption. That's what I'm getting at. Nothing wrong with getting a clearer view!


This doesn't have anything to do with what I'm saying. I'm not talking about perception, I'm talking about truth.


----------



## The Silent 1 (Aug 21, 2011)

offbyone said:


> Are you saying the social conditioning is acceptable or not here? I can't tell if you meant to imply either.


I'm not implying anything beyond whats there. The difference between the sexes lies in biology and social conditioning. The latter can be lessened greatly though the former is more of an absolute.


offbyone said:


> If a woman is strong enough to do the job, you would hire her though right? No one is arguing that people should be hired to do jobs they aren't qualified for. In this case, it's being able to sustain a certain level of physical performance during their shift. It's not if they have a penis and testicles or ovaries, a vagina, and a womb.


To answer your first question yes, in fact I said this earlier:


The Silent 1 said:


> What I do believe is that everyone should be given equal opportunity. The average woman probably couldn't make it in certain fields that require a great deal of physical strength, but those that can should be given the chance to do so. What I'm saying is that biology does create some real differences between the sexes and we shouldn't ignore that. I don't think theres any such thing as a "mans job", but I don't think its wrong to say certain jobs are generally performed better by men or visa versa. Thats just being realistic. The problem is when people take biological trends and turn them into rigid gender roles that people can't escape from.





offbyone said:


> Saying men are genetically predisposed to be stronger than women doesn't disprove feminism or negate there being inequality in the work place, this is kind of a silly example and I'm not entirely sure what it's supposed to illustrate.
> 
> The weaker person in your example could be a man or a woman so why does it matter what sex your applicants are? You simple need to provide a reliable test that any applicant goes through, and then evaluate them on their performance after that.


I'm not trying to disprove feminism or negate anything, what are talking about? This all started because another poster said they didn't believe there were long term differences in the skills and abilities of men and women. I agreed that gender roles are in large part due to social conditioning, but that biology does create some real differences and general trends in the abilities of the sexes.



offbyone said:


> Well, people really need to examine where their sense of practicality comes from. A lot of the times saying something is "practical" is just an excuse to try and justify bias. For a long long time people thought it was (and still do, really) practical and necessary to produce male heirs as well as being a completely justifiable way to pass on a lineage. Practical is too ambiguous a term to use in these circumstances and you really need concrete data and examples to back up any such claim that a woman would be better suited for task X while a man is better suited for Y.


I look at practically in terms of being efficient and real demonstrable differences. I don't think thats very ambiguous. All I'm really saying is that in certain areas you will notice trends where one sex or the other is superior.



offbyone said:


> Feminists don't argue that there are some biological differences between men and women, that's a pretty silly claim to make and it's one I often see. Obviously there are differences between men and women. However those differences are historically and presently used to perpetuate a system of inequality between the sexes.


My arguments have nothing to do with feminism. I will say though that just as society will try and overstate the differences between the sexes others may try and understate them.



offbyone said:


> For example, people like to say that men have more testosterone and are thus more suited for aggressive and competitive environments. What they are really saying is men are better suited to positions of power and women shouldn't be able to occupy them because historically it's been only men in those roles. It has almost nothing to do with the differences between the genders and is just an excuse. It's essentially the same argument made by racists that black people are genetically inferior but it simply remains more socially acceptable than that one.


Well that depends on whether or not you think aggression is ideal for a comeptitive environment. Perhaps in some competitive environments working in groups and negotiating is better, something women are said to be generally better at. In all this goes contrary to what I was saying earlier. General differences do exist between the sexes, but that doesn't mean we need to turn those differences into strict gender roles.


----------



## jg43i9jghy0t4555 (Jul 31, 2011)

The Silent 1 said:


> Another example of what? All I was pointing out is that men and women may be generally better suited for certain jobs


Another example of where a given gender makes you biologically better suited for a job.



The Silent 1 said:


> All my original point was that you the genders are generally better at or have more interest in certain jobs. That shouldn't affect the hiring process in the slightest, but it will affect the final result of who gets hired in a general sense.


I'm sure if people think they can't do a job because of gender they are not going to apply. yeah. But we weren't talking about job applications and hiring, I don't think



The Silent 1 said:


> Yes its still arbitrary unless you can demonstrate practical, observable reasons. If you can't prove that a woman couldn't be a suitable heir than your wrong. Facts are facts regardless of what people think. I don't know where I ever stated women will always be inferior in such case, but I would say that *generally* men or women may be inferior in certain areas.


The non-arbitrary cause can be public or private (competitor companies') view of your company. Anything that would make a difference. Not sure what you can conclude from saying 'facts are facts'.

General men and women out there may be unprepared for certain jobs due to social conditioning.. now you're talking. But what makes that relevant at all, for the next generation?  You can change teaching and training and work culture.


----------



## jg43i9jghy0t4555 (Jul 31, 2011)

yeah anyway.. I had the impression most of the world doesn't discriminate gender when looking at job applications, being in England

I think there's a lot more of an issue insofar as 'rape culture' than anything else regarding gender equality, IMO


----------



## The Silent 1 (Aug 21, 2011)

jg43i9jghy0t4555 said:


> Another example of where a given gender makes you biologically better suited for a job.


I think your misunderstanding me. For example I've read studies that men generally are better at math and science due to how their brain functions when compared to women. Now that doesn't automatically mean that as a man, I am automatically suited for say an engineering or programming job (indeed one of the best programmers I've met was a woman from India), but it could mean that generally speaking men are going to excel in those jobs more. This doesn't just have to apply to gender. I've seen studies that suggest blacks may as a whole be faster than whites. I don't know if thats true, but lets say it is. I'm not saying that me being black automatcially makes me better suited to be a track runner, but I am saying that more elite track runners are going to be black after all is said and done. I'm speaking in generalizations that tend to be true.
[/QUOTE]


jg43i9jghy0t4555 said:


> I'm sure if people think they can't do a job because of gender they are not going to apply. yeah. But we weren't talking about job applications and hiring, I don't think


If you know, you can do something I don't know why someone telling you you can't would matter. But I covered this already when I said some try to take generlizations that are true and turn them into strict gender roles.



jg43i9jghy0t4555 said:


> The non-arbitrary cause can be public or private (competitor companies') view of your company. Anything that would make a difference. Not sure what you can conclude from saying 'facts are facts'.


I'm saying, one can say that a woman can't run a company, but unless you can demonstrate why this is then you have no leg to stand on. Facts are facts because someone's opinion on whether women can run companies means nothing if they can't show why. Obviously we have seen women be successful so we know they are wrong.



jg43i9jghy0t4555 said:


> General men and women out there may be unprepared for certain jobs due to social conditioning.. now you're talking. But what makes that relevant at all, for the next generation?  You can change teaching and training and work culture.


I'm not sure if its particularly relevant, I'm just saying these differences exist and they aren't just due to social conditioning. I've heard people say gender roles are purely the result of social conditioning and I don't think thats completely true.


----------



## Shrinking Violet (Oct 11, 2010)

A few things...

*Political correctness*: What I dislike most about feminism is all of the political correctness that surrounds the debates. It makes it impossible to have a rational discussion. What "The Silent 1" is saying is based on scientific research. Many feminists want to discount rational truth because it interferes with the ideal of equality for genders.

*Business*: As for discrimination in hiring, there is a reason for this besides "men are trying to push women down." Most women will have children. From the standpoint of a business, this is a major liability. A woman's work performance will likely be affected during part of the pregnancy, and then there is maternity leave after that (up to a year in Canada). The average women might go through this process two or three times in a single decade. If men have children, their work performance isn't generally affected. In fact, they might work longer and harder because they now have a new person to support. I know it's not politically correct, but isn't it true?

*Female choice*: For those that say that feminism promotes choice for women, I say that that isn't the case - at least the form of feminism I have been exposed to. Feminism has told me to "be independent because you can't trust anyone to help you." In practical terms, that means that I have spent a large amount of time preparing for a career that doesn't offer much flexibility when it comes to having children and caring for them myself. I have now realized that I made the wrong choice. In reality, it wasn't my choice. I was influenced to make decisions about my future without having enough information to know what would truly make me happy. Constantly being told that I have to live up to my "potential" is an extreme source of social pressure to ignore the traditional female role. I think a lot of women would decrease the amount of time they are away from their children if they felt it was socially acceptable.

*Attachment in children*: I am genuinely concerned for all of the children that grow up today without a consistent source of support from an intimate caregiver, usually a parent. A daycare worker can't take care of an infant in the same way as a mother, no matter how much you wish it could be so. The missing ingredient is love, and I'm not just being sentimental. I have given this a great deal of thought, and there is a lot of evidence to suggest that babies need to bond/attach to a primary caregiver in order to be emotionally healthy. I think a lot of mental disorders that we see now are a result of insecure attachment (I attribute my SA to this).

*Gender roles*: These roles are obviously socially constructed to a large degree, and most people would say they are bad and confining. From my point of view, I think they define a practical system of living which involves families. The structure is there to help children - defenseless human beings that need a lot of support, education, and guidance. Someone has to take care of them, and I believe institutional care is less than ideal. Women are biologically and psychologically the ideal caregivers, so it usually makes sense to assign them the role of caregiver. However, caring for dependent children makes women dependent themselves. This is the core of what feminists hate - the power imbalance. But disrupting this system sacrifices children's well-being.


----------



## CoolSauce (Mar 6, 2012)

^ that made a lot of sense. Thanks for writing down your point of view


----------



## au Lait (Sep 8, 2010)

Shrinking Violet said:


> It makes it impossible to have a rational discussion. What "The Silent 1" is saying is based on scientific research. Many feminists want to discount rational truth because it interferes with the ideal of equality for genders.


I have not seen any "truth" in anything Silent 1 has posted in this thread. Sorry. Pretty much everything he's said has been argued with equal rationality by offbyone and others.



Shrinking Violet said:


> Most women will have children.


And many will not.



Shrinking Violet said:


> From the standpoint of a business, this is a major liability.


So we should be paid less and discriminated against in the workplace because of our biology, regardless of how well we are able to do our jobs. Gotcha.



Shrinking Violet said:


> If men have children, their work performance isn't generally affected. In fact, they might work longer and harder because they now have a new person to support.


And what about single dads? How do they fit into your theory?



Shrinking Violet said:


> I know it's not politically correct, but isn't it true?


No.



Shrinking Violet said:


> For those that say that feminism promotes choice for women, I say that that isn't the case - at least the form of feminism I have been exposed to.


Then you haven't been "exposed" to real feminism. Feminists aren't anti-mother. They are not anti-homemaker.

Feminism supports a woman's right to choose what role she wants to take on, rather than be forced into it due to antiquated gender roles. If you want to be a stay at home mom, then you have every right to do so, and no one who truly believes in feminism would judge you.

All feminists want is the right to choose, whatever that choice may be.



Shrinking Violet said:


> I am genuinely concerned for all of the children that grow up today without a consistent source of support from an intimate caregiver, usually a parent.


And evidently you believe only a woman can be that source? Men can be just as nurturing.



Shrinking Violet said:


> But disrupting this system sacrifices children's well-being.


There is no evidence for this. As stated, men can make excellent care givers. What about families where the mother has died? Do you honestly believe those children are doomed to a life of inadequate parenting because they only have a father? Many children grow up without their biological mother, father, or both, and turn out just fine.

And not every couple wants children. Again, it comes down to a woman's choice. She should be able to choose whether she wants to be a high powered business woman, or a stay at home mom. It should not be the right of anyone else to force that role on her because they believe "that's the way it's always been, and therefore always should be."

Anyway, I'll just leave these here:

10 ways feminism benefits men

Couples that identify as feminist have better sex than those that don't


----------



## The Silent 1 (Aug 21, 2011)

au Lait said:


> I have not seen any "rational truth" in anything Silent 1 has posted in this thread. Sorry. Pretty much everything he's said has been argued with equal rationality by offbyone and others.


Thats strange because I saw no major disagreement between myself and offbyone, just a misunderstanding in my views. He accused me of trying to "disprove feminism" or "negating discrimination" and I clearly said that wasn't what I was doing. Are you people even reading my posts or are you just skimming over them and putting words in my mouth? Exactly what in my posts wasn't rational? Sounds like your strawman attacking me.

To note, I'm not trying to "disprove feminism", I don't have much problem with most feminist in general, and I'm not trying to negate anything as I've been accused of doing. I've said all of this a couple of times now.


----------



## au Lait (Sep 8, 2010)

^ I've read your posts and they do sound as if you were trying to discount feminism in many ways. I find it unlikely that we are all misinterpreting your posts that dramatically. If that's not what your intention was, then maybe it was your wording that was a bit misleading in certain posts?


----------



## The Silent 1 (Aug 21, 2011)

au Lait said:


> ^ I've read your posts and they do sound as if you were trying to discount feminism in many ways. I find it unlikely that we are all misinterpreting your posts that dramatically. If that's not what your intention was, then maybe it was your wording that was a bit misleading in certain posts?


My conversation with *jg43i9jghy0t4555* was about whether biology created real, general differences between the genders. My position was that while gender roles are in big part a result of social conditioning, biology also plays a big role and that general trends and differences between the sexes will always exist. The problem is when people take those general differences and turn them into strict gender roles that people can't escape from. That was always my argument and I don't see how that equates to "disproving feminism". My argument had nothing to do with feminism.

I spent a lot of time talking with komorikun, about some of the claims she was making which I felt were somewhat misleading or inaccurate. Looking at those in retrospect I can see why someone might think I was trying to dismiss certain problems that women have, but that certainly was not my argument nor did I mean to imply that. I almost wish I had just kept quiet about that, but misleading statements and stats bother me and I regularly see single issue organizations use them to further their cause.

I said before why I would rather label myself as a secular humanist or an egalitarian, but I don't mind someone using the label "feminist" and indeed if you spend most of your time specifically advocating for women maybe you should. I do think that eventually we need to do away with the word though, and I said why. Feminism should be about making itself obsolete, but I don't always get that feeling from a lot of those groups.


----------



## offbyone (May 5, 2010)

The Silent 1 said:


> My conversation with *jg43i9jghy0t4555* was about whether biology created real, general differences between the genders. My position was that while gender roles are in big part a result of social conditioning, biology also plays a big role and that general trends and differences between the sexes will always exist. The problem is when people take those general differences and turn them into strict gender roles that people can't escape from. That was always my argument and I don't see how that equates to "disproving feminism". My argument had nothing to do with feminism.
> 
> I spent a lot of time talking with komorikun, about some of the claims she was making which I felt were somewhat misleading or inaccurate. Looking at those in retrospect I can see why someone might think I was trying to dismiss certain problems that women have, but that certainly was not my argument nor did I mean to imply that. I almost wish I had just kept quiet about that, but misleading statements and stats bother me and I regularly see single issue organizations use them to further their cause.
> 
> I said before why I would rather label myself as a secular humanist or an egalitarian, but I don't mind someone using the label "feminist" and indeed if you spend most of your time specifically advocating for women maybe you should.


My main issue is that you seem to feel whatever gender differences exist can be separated from all the social constructs and conditioning in place that amplify those differences so massively. I don't think that is possible now if it will ever be (if it is even truely significant, which I do not believe it to be).

Until then we should work from an position that is neutral, unbiased, and decided on each individual case. That was the point of me picking at your example of women being unsuitable candidates in a physical labor job.

If we don't work from a position of neutrality in all aspects of life where its possible and minimize the artificial differences in experience between the genders any evidence supporting such natural differences are suspect and impossible to separate from the ones introduced and reinforced by how we nurture our children.


----------



## The Silent 1 (Aug 21, 2011)

offbyone said:


> My main issue is that you seem to feel whatever gender differences exist can be separated from all the social constructs and conditioning in place that amplify those differences so massively. I don't think that is possible now if it will ever be (if it is even truely significant, which I do not believe it to be).


I think my main issue is that while society may try and overstate the differences between the sexes, others try and greatly understate them. I think the truth lies in the middle somewhere. I agree that at this point it would be impossible to completely determine which are totally biology and which are totally conditioning. But I also feel that while social conditioning can be greatly lessened it can't be completely done away with either, it will naturally happen. In a way biology is what leads to some social conditioning. Someone will notice a general trend in males and say "All males should be this way and the ones who aren't are not real men". But while I disagree with that sort of thinking, it may be inevitable in some level.


----------



## offbyone (May 5, 2010)

The Silent 1 said:


> I think my main issue is that while society may try and overstate the differences between the sexes, others try and greatly understate them. I think the truth lies in the middle somewhere. I agree that at this point it would be impossible to completely determine which are totally biology and which are totally conditioning. But I also feel that while social conditioning can be greatly lessened it can't be completely done away with either, it will naturally happen. *In a way biology is what leads to some social conditioning. Someone will notice a general trend in males and say "All males should be this way and the ones who aren't are not real men". But while I disagree with that sort of thinking, it may be inevitable in some level.*


Which is why I said you were negating discrimation. This is an excuse people use all the time to prove bigoted beliefs and because it may have a tiny grain of truth at the center doesn't mean we should accept it as inevitable. It should only be acceptable in the circumstances it truly applies without any added qualification, like men and women have different sex organs, women produce milk and give birth, men grow facial hair more often and thicker, etc. The social differences are simply not able to be examined neutrally because of our social constructs and conditioning.

It's far less harmful to tell a boy he can play with barbies and fire trucks than it is to say he must only play with trucks and GI Joes because society and his penis demands it of him.

Note: I am not saying you are making this claim. It's simply an example to illustrate my point.


----------



## The Silent 1 (Aug 21, 2011)

offbyone said:


> Which is why I said you were negating discrimation. This is an excuse people use all the time to prove bigoted beliefs and because it may have a tiny grain of truth at the center doesn't mean we should accept it as inevitable. It should only be acceptable in the circumstances it truly applies without any added qualification, like men and women have different sex organs, women produce milk and give birth, men grow facial hair more often and thicker, etc. The social differences are simply not able to be examined neutrally because of our social constructs and conditioning.
> 
> It's far less harmful to tell a boy he can play with barbies and fire trucks than it is to say he must only play with trucks and GI Joes because society and his penis demands it of him.
> 
> Note: I am not saying you are making this claim. It's simply an example to illustrate my point.


And how is that negating discrimination? Lets say I'm a white man who hates blacks and I make the statement "Black men are more likely to be in prison, see they are no good!" Now that statement actually has truth in it, but that doesn't make the second part any less racist. Admitting that certain statements have truth in them doesn't mean that you are negating discrimination. Like I said, that way of thinking may be somewhat inevitable on some level, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't fight against it.

In the case of gender, biology does indeed lead to some of this social conditioning. I can't tell whether you agree with that point or not.


----------



## Shrinking Violet (Oct 11, 2010)

au Lait said:


> I have not seen any "truth" in anything Silent 1 has posted in this thread. Sorry.


One of Silent 1's main arguments is that masculinity and femininity are probably determined by biology in some part. It's not an opinion. I call it "truth" because there is science to back it up:
http://autismresearchcentre.com/docs/papers/2005_BC_PhiKappaPhiForum.pdf



au Lait said:


> So we should be paid less and discriminated against in the workplace because of our biology, regardless of how well we are able to do our jobs. Gotcha.


I think if a woman and man do an equally good job then they should be paid the same amount of money. This only makes sense, as the company will want to retain good employees. I am trying to look at it from the point of view of the employer. Business is ultimately about profit, not equality for all. Women that have children will likely decrease profit compared to a man, all else equal. There are necessary interruptions in a woman's career due to pregnancy and maternity leave. My point is that it's not fair to force a business to hire a woman when they don't know anything about her family plans.



au Lait said:


> And what about single dads? How do they fit into your theory?


That is a special case. Obviously, if there is only one parent available (father or mother) and no other friends or family to help, that single parent must be the sole financial and emotional support for the child. I think that's a difficult position, whether you're a father or mother, and they deserve sympathy and support.



au Lait said:


> Then you haven't been "exposed" to real feminism. Feminists aren't anti-mother. They are not anti-homemaker... All feminists want is the right to choose, whatever that choice may be.


I'm pleased to hear that. It seems that there are feminists that both encourage and discourage homemaking, so I won't argue with your point.



au Lait said:


> And evidently you believe only a woman can be that source? Men can be just as nurturing.


I certainly believe that men can be nurturing. The reason I think it makes sense for the woman to be the "official nurturer" (in the majority of cases) is essentially convenience. It is difficult to maintain a successful career at the best of times, and if you are only working at it part of the time (because the rest of the time you are taking care of your children), you won't be competitive enough to get the "good" jobs. If all you can get is boring, low-wage jobs, what's the point?



au Lait said:


> What about families where the mother has died? Do you honestly believe those children are doomed to a life of inadequate parenting because they only have a father? Many children grow up without their biological mother, father, or both, and turn out just fine.


I think it is ideal for a child to have more than one loving adult in their lives, i.e. someone that is there for them throughout their childhood and adolescence, financially and emotionally. There is plenty of evidence that children of single-parent households have more problems. Some might turn out fine, but the odds are that the child will have more trouble than average. I'm not saying it's fair - I'm saying it's reality.



au Lait said:


> And not every couple wants children. Again, it comes down to a woman's choice. She should be able to choose whether she wants to be a high powered business woman, or a stay at home mom. It should not be the right of anyone else to force that role on her because they believe "that's the way it's always been, and therefore always should be."


For those that don't have children, there is obviously more flexibility. As for being a high-powered business woman with children... I struggle with that one. If it means leaving a child in a daycare setting for the majority of the day for years on end, I feel very bad about that. I don't believe in forcing anyone to do anything, but I would want to be a voice for the child in that case.

And I'm not saying it's right because "that's the way it's always been." I'm giving reasons why I think it's right.


----------



## DeeperUnderstanding (May 19, 2007)

offbyone said:


> Which is why I said you were negating discrimation. This is an excuse people use all the time to prove bigoted beliefs and because it may have a tiny grain of truth at the center doesn't mean we should accept it as inevitable. It should only be acceptable in the circumstances it truly applies without any added qualification, like men and women have different sex organs, women produce milk and give birth, men grow facial hair more often and thicker, etc. The social differences are simply not able to be examined neutrally because of our social constructs and conditioning.
> 
> It's far less harmful to tell a boy he can play with barbies and fire trucks than it is to say he must only play with trucks and GI Joes because society and his penis demands it of him.
> 
> Note: I am not saying you are making this claim. It's simply an example to illustrate my point.


What is funny is that I have been on the receiving end of this my whole life.

I love all kinds of music, movies, and tv shows. These include those that would be considered gay, or girly (like, say, Christina Aguilera or Beyonce for music, Lifetime movies, and Desperate Housewives and Twilight books and films.)

I am not gay, and am very attracted to women. However, I describe it as I have a feminine side, and I fulfill that. Many other guys have a problem with that. In fact, some have gone so far to ascertain that I'm weak, and have bullied me, simply because I don't listen to Slipknot and watch Saw, like the rest of them.

I do like some interests that are typically male. But some others, like sports, cars, and getting drunk, are simply lost on me. I can't say "Brah" with a straight face, and if anybody ever called me "Brah", I'd probably crack up laughing. I prefer to spend my time writing stories, playing around on my musical instruments, and messing around with computers and computer programs than worrying about if Jessica Simpson is going to take off her top or post a sex video (I wouldn't mind if she did, but my entire life isn't spent worrying about such things.)

Anyway, my point is, it's really stupid of people to treat boys who are into "girly things", or girls that are into "boyish things", as inferior and bullyworthy. Nobody deserves to be bullied for who they are.

This plays into Feminism, because Feminism is all about evening the genders, so you don't have to worry about that kind of stereotyping.


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

Shrinking Violet said:


> I think if a woman and man do an equally good job then they should be paid the same amount of money. This only makes sense, as the company will want to retain good employees. I am trying to look at it from the point of view of the employer. Business is ultimately about profit, not equality for all. Women that have children will likely decrease profit compared to a man, all else equal. There are necessary interruptions in a woman's career due to pregnancy and maternity leave. My point is that it's not fair to force a business to hire a woman when they don't know anything about her family plans.
> 
> That is a special case. Obviously, if there is only one parent available (father or mother) and no other friends or family to help, that single parent must be the sole financial and emotional support for the child. I think that's a difficult position, whether you're a father or mother, and they deserve sympathy and support.


You are thinking that it will be okay because the woman can just rely on her husband's income. What will happen to women that do not have a husband to rely on? Something like 40% of all marriages end in divorce, many women have kids but don't get married in the first place, and some never have kids. If businesses are allowed to discriminate against women because of potential losses due to pregnancy/maternity leave then all these women are officially screwed. They will be destined to struggle financially for the rest of their lives.



> I certainly believe that men can be nurturing. The reason I think it makes sense for the woman to be the "official nurturer" (in the majority of cases) is essentially convenience. It is difficult to maintain a successful career at the best of times, and if you are only working at it part of the time (because the rest of the time you are taking care of your children), you won't be competitive enough to get the "good" jobs. If all you can get is boring, low-wage jobs, what's the point?
> 
> I think it is ideal for a child to have more than one loving adult in their lives, i.e. someone that is there for them throughout their childhood and adolescence, financially and emotionally. There is plenty of evidence that children of single-parent households have more problems. Some might turn out fine, but the odds are that the child will have more trouble than average. I'm not saying it's fair - I'm saying it's reality.


I actually think that it is better if the father has to or is strongly encouraged to take paternal leave and take care of their kid for a few weeks/months. Since men do not have the nearly automatic bond that women have with their kids because of pregnancy and breast feeding, men (more than women) NEED to spend more time with their kid in order to form such a bond. That is why there are so many dead-beat dads that abandon their children or just really don't care about them much at all after divorcing the mother. Sweden is experimenting with trying to get more fathers to take paternal leave:

http://www.socialanxietysupport.com/forum/f32/in-sweden-men-can-have-it-all-167681/

"Understanding what it is to be home with a child may help explain why divorce and separation rates in Sweden have dropped since 1995 - at a time when divorce rates elsewhere have risen, according to the national statistics office. When couples do divorce or separate, shared custody has increased."

Look at these polls. Most everyone says they prefer their mom or are closer to their mom. I do not think that is healthy. It shows that men are not forming a close enough bond with their children.

http://www.socialanxietysupport.com/forum/f36/mom-dad-2180/
http://www.socialanxietysupport.com/forum/f36/who-do-you-like-better-your-mom-or-your-dad-118009/


----------



## Neptunus (Oct 29, 2007)

I'm only a feminist in that I want to be judged by my abilities, not my gender. If I can't lift the 150 lbs required to be a firefighter then so be it - the real world doesn't make exceptions!


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

komorikun said:


> You are thinking that it will be okay because the woman can just rely on her husband's income.  What will happen to women that do not have a husband to rely on? Something like 40% of all marriages end in divorce, many women have kids but don't get married in the first place, and some never have kids. If businesses are allowed to discriminate against women because of potential losses due to pregnancy/maternity leave then all these women are officially screwed. They will be destined to struggle financially for the rest of their lives.


But doesn't it follow that if many women are single parents, they might not go for career as much as men? And that could be part of why men as a group earn more and why there are more men 'at the top'?

That's not to say there isn't discrimination - there most definitely is.
For example, men generally have a higher perceived salary entitlement than women do and tend to judge own abilities more generously, which means men are much more likely to initiate salary negotiations and pursue promotions.
But since the companies are run by people (but aren't people in themselves (sorry, Mitt!)) and these people are influenced by these same cultural stereotypes, they tend to see the demands as more reasonable and appropriate when coming from a man.

But..
Studies have also shown that young, unmarried women without kids and who live in a larger city (147 out of the 150 largest cities in the US) actually earn more than their male counterparts; a median income that is 8% higher - in some it's 20% higher.
But take away any of those 4 factors and the median income drops significantly.

There are a couple of important things though.
Firstly, nobody should be "screwed" or destined to struggle financially regardless of their situation. We need to fight poverty regardless and give people good living conditions regardless of gender equality.
Secondly, it's important to abolish these gender-wage stereotypes. If nobody had children it would seem to be a lot easier, but 'sadly' that's not the case.
Businesses of course can't discriminate against women for potentially having children, but even if a woman does become pregnant and has to take time off work, it's still important to maintain good conditions so a group perception of being worth less doesn't establish itself, as this would only lead to discrimination.
This is where it gets somewhat paradoxical though. At the offset, gender equality is about treating people as individuals rather than as belonging to some group, but it's only by recognising the group that the individual is protected.

That has more to do with role-models, dreams and goals in life than with what is right/fair for the individual in the situation though.
If we establish that we should have actual freedom from want and that there should be high minimum standard for the living conditions we'll allow, then flexibility isn't such a bad thing.
If I choose to have a child, I would expect it to impact both my potential career and of course how much money I have to spend on a monthly basis.
The figures show it hits women harder than men and that can be a problem, but if that difference is down to how couples and individuals choose to arrange themselves, it's hard to do too much about other than try to eliminate any unintended incentives there may be and educate people on the consequences of gender roles and stereotypes.
If I had to take leave from work to bond with the child, or for any other reason really, I would very much like to return to work afterwards, at the same pay and the same conditions as before. But if those minimum standards and general, good working conditions haven't been established, I would be pushing out whoever had been doing my job while I was away and put them in the very situation I was trying to avoid.

Sorry for the wall of text :b

*Edit:*
Just to add a practical angle..
The way parental leave works here is that all employers pay into a fund from which the money to pay the salaries while on leave are taken. This means each individual employer doesn't have a financial disadvantage of hiring people who'll go on leave.


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

Milco said:


> But doesn't it follow that if many women are single parents, they might not go for career as much as men? And that could be part of why men as a group earn more and why there are more men 'at the top'?
> 
> That's not to say there isn't discrimination - there most definitely is.
> For example, men generally have a higher perceived salary entitlement than women do and tend to judge own abilities more generously, which means men are much more likely to initiate salary negotiations and pursue promotions.
> ...


I wasn't talking about the current wage gap between men and women. I think that Shrinking Violet was saying that it would be best if we returned to 1950s where women stayed at home and took care of the kids. Of course they were forced to do that pretty much because the wages for the jobs available to women back then were so low. Also because housework and cooking took much longer than it does now.

I do agree with her that when both people work 40 hours a week they are probably too tired to really interact with their kids after work. But I see it more as a problem of people working too much and being taken advantage by our corporate overlords. Rather than have the husband work 40-60 hours a week and the wife stay at home, I think it would be best if both parents worked less than 35 hours a week. And if anything I think men should take more parental leave than women because so many of them do not properly bond with their kids.


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

komorikun said:


> I wasn't talking about the current wage gap between men and women. I think that Shrinking Violet was saying that it would be best if we returned to 1950s where women stayed at home and took care of the kids. Of course they were forced to do that pretty much because the wages for the jobs available to women back then were so low. Also because housework and cooking took much longer than it does now.
> 
> I do agree with her that when both people work 40 hours a week they are probably too tired to really interact with their kids after work. But I see it more as a problem of people working too much and being taken advantage by our corporate overlords. Rather than have the husband work 40-60 hours a week and the wife stay at home, I think it would be best if both parents worked less than 35 hours a week. And if anything I think men should take more parental leave than women because so many of them do not properly bond with their kids.


Ahh, I see.

And yeah, I completely agree. Both parents should take an equal or close to equal number of hours at work. And fathers should generally take much more time than they do to bond with the child, though I think it ultimately has to be voluntary.
I think even to the best of people it's important that the marriage/relationship is fairly even. If one earns all the money and the other does all the bonding with the kids, not only will it create tension living together, but if there's a breakup, will leave both parents in a very vulnerable situation regarding the thing they did not do.


----------



## Shrinking Violet (Oct 11, 2010)

komorikun said:


> You are thinking that it will be okay because the woman can just rely on her husband's income. What will happen to women that do not have a husband to rely on?


Mothers that want to raise their children must be financially dependent on someone. In most cases, it's either going to be the husband or it's going to be society (via businesses/tax money). In my opinion, it is unfair to force other people to support your child (I wonder if people realize that by increasing taxes, it makes it harder for a family to live on a small income). I realize that it is much easier to sympathize with a mother that just wants to take care of her child than it is to sympathize with a person that wants to keep their business profitable.

There will always be cases where the mother is unwed and the father leaves, or where he leaves after marriage, or where he dies and she is left to fend for herself. There have to be systems in place to help women in that situation, but I don't think the current one is correct. I know that I am coming from a fundamentally different place than you, so I don't expect you to agree with me.



komorikun said:


> I do agree with her that when both people work 40 hours a week they are probably too tired to really interact with their kids after work. But I see it more as a problem of people working too much and being taken advantage by our corporate overlords. Rather than have the husband work 40-60 hours a week and the wife stay at home, I think it would be best if both parents worked less than 35 hours a week.


I like this, in theory. If it can work out, I'm not against it at all. However, as I stated before, I don't think it fits with reality much of the time. Flexible, profitable work is hard to find. I'm not saying that women that want to be mothers shouldn't pursue education and employment. I'm more concerned with careerism in women that want to be mothers. To get into a good career, it takes a lot of money, education, work experience, networking, and time. By the time you have a child, it may seem impossible to drop out and take care of them (due to social pressure and debt - I am experiencing this now).

In a perfect world, everyone would be able to choose to work less and spend more time with their families, but the world does not work like that. Workplaces often require their employees to be flexible to work overtime, travel, be on call, etc. It is the nature of business. This career lifestyle (from my point of view) cannot fit with mothering. Young children need a parent that is on call for them.

If a mother drops out of a career, it has obvious financial ramifications. Many people would call it irresponsible or at least say that she will be worse off overall and come to regret it. What I find that people don't understand is that abandoning children to be raised by strangers that don't have a loving bond with them has consequences too. They're just harder to understand, and the results are only truly seen a generation later when it's too late.


----------



## falling down (Oct 17, 2011)




----------



## arnie (Jan 24, 2012)

falling down said:


>


You felt the need to revive this thread just for that picture?


----------

