# Thoughts on Feminism



## ohm (May 2, 2012)

ANDDDD go.

(Please don't get this thread locked...)

I changed my mind... I'm adding my own point of view.

To me, feminism is a movement for the equality of sexes through the means of bringing the social standing of women to that of the social standing of men. This movement does not aim to make men less than women, or to take away privileges from men except where necessary to make women and men equals. 

Some examples:
-I believe that men should be paid less than they are now as a whole for women to have equal pay (that extra money has to come from somewhere!)
-I don't believe that a man being injured is less important than a woman being injured solely because she is the "fairer sex", according to society (because having a woohaa doesn't make women more important... we are all made of skin and being injured hurts, yo!)


----------



## TrcyMcgrdy1 (Oct 21, 2011)

I don't midn feminism at all. i do believe there is plenty of room for women to improve their social rights and whatnot to even out with men. The one kind of feminism I hate, and I see it quite often, is where women tend to believe they deserve MORE than men, while also preaching equality between sexes. How the **** does thta make sense? I see that often where women think the deserve special or better treatment than men, that is not feminism, that is being a female pig! But anyway, for the levelheaded feminists out there who truly want equal status with men, I agree, and even support you guys. Although I do think you should not fight front line inw ars and do dangerous jobs, not because you are unable to, but because I don't want our sexy ladies dying and getting hurt! You are too beautiful to waste like that!


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

When you normally start a thread you are supposed to give your opinion/thoughts first.


----------



## Ironpain (Aug 8, 2010)

This thread will get locked, it's the way of the universe, The Mods eyes are watching you, this thread has a shelf life of less than 5 minutes lol jk but yeah you are aware of what happens with these threads, whether you want them to or not, they have a way of getting to that point but hey maybe you'll be the first to set a record.


----------



## ohm (May 2, 2012)

komorikun said:


> When you normally start a thread you are supposed to give your opinion/thoughts first.


I don't really want to give my thoughts and opinions, because I feel like the OP always sets the mood for the convo, and I really want to be objective.


----------



## Twelve Keyz (Aug 28, 2011)

For the most part, it's no longer relevant in North America and high income nations


----------



## Jollygoggles (Mar 3, 2011)

My thoughts?

LOL


That is all.


----------



## Eski (Aug 6, 2011)




----------



## BobtheBest (Aug 27, 2011)

I'm a strong supporter of Feminism and all other human rights.

Now in b4 Gender War and Lock! opcorn


----------



## Peter Attis (Aug 31, 2009)

*Pulls up chair*

*Grabs popcorn opcorn*


----------



## ohm (May 2, 2012)

Twelve Keyz said:


> For the most part, it's no longer relevant in North America and high income nations


Why do you have this opinion?


----------



## roseblood (Mar 1, 2010)

TrcyMcgrdy1 said:


> The one kind of feminism I hate, and I see it quite often, is where women tend to believe they deserve MORE than men, while also preaching equality between sexes.


That is not feminism. People keep using that word as if they don't know what it means (Not talking about you).


----------



## lyric (Aug 21, 2011)

I support feminism.

In before the inevitable lock.


----------



## FireIsTheCleanser (Aug 16, 2011)

I'm all for women being equal to men. I'm not for women being better than men.


----------



## ohm (May 2, 2012)

Well, so far, so good... maybe everyone isn't home from work yet


----------



## gusstaf (Jan 1, 2012)

BobtheSaint said:


> I'm a strong supporter of Feminism and all other human rights.
> 
> Now in b4 Gender War and Lock! opcorn


:high5 And that's just one of many reasons why you are awesome!

I think I'll join this party too opcorn


----------



## Amorphousanomaly (Jun 20, 2012)

It's whatever, I feel removed from the entire outside world so not much is relevant to me. The motivation toward feminism is understandable though, having been treated like total garbage by about a million dudes.


----------



## lisbeth (May 18, 2012)

I'm very grateful for feminism. Both on a general level in that life is much better for everybody than it would have been if it never existed (all I have to do is talk to my mother and grandmother about their experiences in life and the workplace in previous decades to stop taking certain freedoms for granted), and on a more personal level.

Before I started learning about feminism, I had really, really absorbed a lot of the worst misogynistic attitudes that exist in our society. I honestly believed that, because I was a girl, I was worth less than if I had been born a boy; I honestly believed that I should not only accept but be _grateful _for whatever treatment I got from men and boys both in and outside my family, because negative attention was better than none. I didn't understand the concept of consent, or my body belonging only to me, or the idea that female worth is not only dictated by attractiveness. I can remember being thirteen or fourteen and spending enormous chunks of my free time researching plastic surgery online.

Since I've discovered feminism, I still struggle with food, body image and my self-esteem. I still struggle a lot with respecting myself in relation to other people and how they treat me. But I'm able to analyse these insecurities and identify where they come from, and that is an enormous step towards living a life without them. It's also enormously improved how I feel towards other women. We're really raised to view each other as competition, and to police each other with the sexual double standard as much as (some) men use it to police us -- but I really don't do that any more, and when I see another girl doing it, I understand that she's probably doing it subconsciously. I don't see any girl as a rival, just as a compatriot who I may value. I'm really trying hard to eliminate words like '****' and '*****' from my vocabulary, because feminism has helped me understand how harmful they can be.

Honestly, learning about feminism has helped me feel so much more at peace with myself than I used to. I don't feel the pressures to the same extent now. And it's really helped me to just see everybody as human beings and enjoy their company without complication. _Before_ I became a feminist I used to regard men with fear and suspicion, not the other way around, as people might mistakenly believe.


----------



## MaxPower (May 1, 2012)

FireIsTheCleanser said:


> I'm all for women being equal to men. I'm not for women being better than men.


feminism |ˈfeməˌnizəm|
noun
the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic *equality to men*.

Feminism was never about "women being better than men".



ohm said:


> ANDDDD go.


I strongly support all human rights and any movement that seeks to end discrimination, including feminism, which by the way isn't over yet. Both Australia and USA Legislature houses is about 10-20% women, far less than the 50% that can be found in the population. There was also a study done a year ago (in AU) that found women get paid on-average 10% less than men, and that about 10% of people on company boards are women.


----------



## FireIsTheCleanser (Aug 16, 2011)

MaxPower said:


> feminism |ˈfeməˌnizəm|
> noun
> the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic *equality to men*.
> 
> Feminism was never about "women being better than men".


Yes... I know that... that's why I said I'm for women being equal to men.... I included that last part because some feminists take it to the extreme and make it so that women should rule the world.


----------



## TrcyMcgrdy1 (Oct 21, 2011)

roseblood said:


> That is not feminism. People keep using that word as if they don't know what it means (Not talking about you).


Totally agree with you. My point was is that there are groups of women who call themselves feminists but I'm pretty sure they are about female domination.


----------



## VIncymon (Apr 16, 2009)

*Clever girl*



ohm said:


> *ANDDDD go.*
> 
> *(Please don't get this thread locked...*)


The smile of the OP and this description above; brought a smile to my face. She looks as mischeivous as the thread title itself.

My thoughts :tiptoe


----------



## MaxPower (May 1, 2012)

FireIsTheCleanser said:


> Yes... I know that... that's why I said I'm for women being equal to men.... I included that last part because some feminists take it to the extreme and make it so that women should rule the world.


My point was feminism is not female domination, and if there is women who used it for that purpose, then they are using the word incorrectly, so therefore you don't need to include that last part.


----------



## FireIsTheCleanser (Aug 16, 2011)

MaxPower said:


> My point was feminism is not female domination, and if there is women who used it for that purpose, then they are using the word incorrectly, so therefore you don't need to include that last part.


Sez you


----------



## Paper Samurai (Oct 1, 2009)

Man, I got into heated discussion with a couple of feminists on this board recently - so I'm not going to start discussing the finer points that I attempted to back then (they just started throwing insults about when I started debating their viewpoint lol)

What I will say is that the movement has a lot of band wagon jumpers, girls in their teens or early twenties who just seem to want to argue with people and have a sense of moral superiority. There's a big group of them on Tumblr for instance. These people haven't read up on Feminist literature, don't know the history of it or anything happening currently in the world regarding women barring the odd tidbit. The same is true for alot of different movements/ideologies at the moment to be honest. Atheism and religion (fundamental) spring to mind. I think they do the movement a lot of damage, because people on the outside looking in just see very angry young women over reacting about certain issues.

I agree in essence with what feminism is suppose to stand for (equality, or at least close to it), but I consider myself egalitarian because I don't draw the line based on gender (or race, religion, politics, etc. for that matter)

I think true equality though is always going to be hard to achieve because of the differences between the genders, but we can at least try our best as a society to address the imbalances as best we can.


----------



## Aribeth (Jan 14, 2012)

Totally useless


----------



## T-Bone (Oct 1, 2010)

Feminism huh? Well i just ignore it. It's the most logical thing to do. Just shut it out entirely.


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

Would be more interesting to hear what people think of all these men's rights groups. Are those for real?


----------



## BobtheBest (Aug 27, 2011)

komorikun said:


> Would be more interesting to hear what people think of all these men's rights groups. Are those for real?


Men Rights Activists make no sense at all. They seem hateful.


----------



## Paper Samurai (Oct 1, 2009)

komorikun said:


> Would be more interesting to hear what people think of all these men's rights groups. Are those for real?


I'm pretty sure a few 'men's rights' groups are just set up to troll angry feminists - a reaction to their over-reaction 

But I see no problem in Men's rights groups in principle; there are social issues affecting men after all.


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

BobtheSaint said:


> Men Rights Activists make no sense at all. They seem hateful.


Yeah, their main thing seems to be that they're pissed off about having to pay child support. I agree that both parties should get equal custody but not paying child support is not cool.


----------



## AllToAll (Jul 6, 2011)

Bunch o' ****** who want to put men in cages and use them for their semen. Duh.


----------



## Dissonance (Dec 27, 2011)

AllToAll said:


> Bunch o' ****** who want to put men in cages and use them for their semen. Duh.


I know this is sarcasm, but wow.


----------



## Fawnhearted (Jul 24, 2012)

I think feminism is great and I think it's great to watch people stumble all over themselves trying to explain why they don't like it. :roll There are reasons to dislike the mainstream movement (mostly lack of inclusion for disabled women, trans* women, and women of color), but most of the men and edgy teenage girls who speak against it are just serving vaguely offensive word salad, lol.



AllToAll said:


> Bunch o' ****** who want to put men in cages and use them for their semen. Duh.


The infertile ones will be set to stirring vast pots of chocolate ganache to appease their fat, bloated, buzzcut-wearing, PMSing overlords.


----------



## BrianMook (Dec 14, 2009)

AllToAll said:


> Bunch o' ****** who want to put men in cages and use them for their semen. Duh.


So that's what it is!!!!!!

That completely changes everything.

I now don't know if I'm for it or against it.:drunk


----------



## northstar1991 (Oct 4, 2011)

Feminism means equal rights and opportunities for men and women. Women have come a long way, but still have a ways to go. I consider myself a feminist!


----------



## northstar1991 (Oct 4, 2011)

BobtheSaint said:


> Men Rights Activists make no sense at all. They seem hateful.


The whole Men Right's Movement basically blames all their problems, wrongfully in most cases, on women and feminism. Or, it seems that way to me.


----------



## northstar1991 (Oct 4, 2011)

lisbeth said:


> I'm very grateful for feminism. Both on a general level in that life is much better for everybody than it would have been if it never existed (all I have to do is talk to my mother and grandmother about their experiences in life and the workplace in previous decades to stop taking certain freedoms for granted), and on a more personal level.
> 
> Before I started learning about feminism, I had really, really absorbed a lot of the worst misogynistic attitudes that exist in our society. I honestly believed that, because I was a girl, I was worth less than if I had been born a boy; I honestly believed that I should not only accept but be _grateful _for whatever treatment I got from men and boys both in and outside my family, because negative attention was better than none. I didn't understand the concept of consent, or my body belonging only to me, or the idea that female worth is not only dictated by attractiveness. I can remember being thirteen or fourteen and spending enormous chunks of my free time researching plastic surgery online.
> 
> ...


Awesome post! :clap


----------



## fetisha (Jan 13, 2012)

northstar1991 said:


> The whole Men Right's Movement basically blames all their problems, wrongfully in most cases, on women and feminism. Or, it seems that way to me.


this


----------



## DeniseAfterAll (Jul 28, 2012)

It's sexy


----------



## BobtheBest (Aug 27, 2011)

northstar1991 said:


> The whole Men Right's Movement basically blames all their problems, wrongfully in most cases, on women and feminism. Or, it seems that way to me.


I agree. As Paper Samurai said, the Men's Rights Movement groups are just troll reactions to feminism. I get turned off by the Mens Rights groups trivializing rape and domestic violence.


----------



## MaxPower (May 1, 2012)

BobtheSaint said:


> Men Rights Activists make no sense at all. They seem hateful.





komorikun said:


> Would be more interesting to hear what people think of all these men's rights groups. Are those for real?





northstar1991 said:


> The whole Men Right's Movement basically blames all their problems, wrongfully in most cases, on women and feminism. Or, it seems that way to me.





BobtheSaint said:


> I agree. As Paper Samurai said, the Men's Rights Movement groups are just troll reactions to feminism. I get turned off by the Mens Rights groups trivializing rape and domestic violence.


To be fair here, not all of the men's rights movements is about blaming women and feminism, there are issues to do with men's rights which are very serious, for example:

-Child custody, allowing men the opportunity to share or to have custody;
-Reproductive rights, allowing men the opportunity to decline all paternity rights and responsibilities in the event of an unplanned pregnancy, similar to women's right to abortion;
-Paternity fraud; and
-Access to parental leave.

The way you see all men's rights movements is similar to seeing feminism as a female attempt for domination, don't judge all based on a few bad eggs.


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

child custody
-sure

allowing men the opportunity to share or to have custody
-okay

reproductive rights
-what is this?

allowing men the opportunity to decline all paternity rights and responsibilities in the event of an unplanned pregnancy
-what the hell is this?? You are only punishing the child by doing this.


----------



## MaxPower (May 1, 2012)

komorikun said:


> reproductive rights
> -what is this?


Reproductive rights is allowing men the opportunity to decline all paternity rights and responsibilities in the event of an unplanned pregnancy. I edited my post, it was a bit messy.



komorikun said:


> allowing men the opportunity to decline all paternity rights and responsibilities in the event of an unplanned pregnancy
> -what the hell is this?? *You are only punishing the child by doing this.*


Isn't that the same argument the pro-life movements uses? Equality swings both ways, you can't be pro-choice for women and pro-life for men, and still be equal.


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

MaxPower said:


> Reproductive rights is allowing men the opportunity to decline all paternity rights and responsibilities in the event of an unplanned pregnancy.
> 
> Isn't that the same argument the pro-life movements uses? Equality swings both ways, you can't be pro-choice for women and pro-life for men, and still be equal.


I don't particularly care about embryos but somebody has to support the kid. If you don't want to end up an inadvertent dad you need to use condoms and ask your partner what she would do in case of pregnancy. Or get a vasectomy. Cause of this men's rights seems like a joke.


----------



## lyric (Aug 21, 2011)

This thread will not end well. Let me just sit back and enjoy the show.


----------



## BobtheBest (Aug 27, 2011)

lyric555 said:


> This thread will not end well. Let me just sit back and enjoy the show.


Popcorn? opcorn


----------



## Fawnhearted (Jul 24, 2012)

MaxPower said:


> To be fair here, not all of the men's rights movements is about blaming women and feminism, there are issues to do with men's rights which are very serious, for example:
> 
> -Child custody, allowing men the opportunity to share or to have custody;
> -Reproductive rights, allowing men the opportunity to decline all paternity rights and responsibilities in the event of an unplanned pregnancy, similar to women's right to abortion;
> ...


You're right and wrong. There are a lot of valid issues that MRA could be tackling (child custody, parental leave), but the men's rights movement has been mostly hijacked by jerks who are reacting badly to feminism. Most of the people who were in it to benefit men (rather than to spite women) have bowed out and done their own thing or latched onto feminism.


----------



## MaxPower (May 1, 2012)

komorikun said:


> I don't particularly care about embryos but somebody has to support the kid.


This right isn't there to protect deadbeat dads, it is there just to give the man a chance to say no to fatherhood, if he consents and the baby is born, then he shouldn't be allowed to change his mind and not support the kid. You are also doing a disservice to women who wants to and can raise the child alone, even without the father's support.



komorikun said:


> If you don't want to end up an inadvertent dad you need to use condoms and ask your partner what she would do in case of pregnancy. Or get a vasectomy.


Even with both condoms and vasectomy, there is still a chance of pregnancy. I'm assuming you are pro-choice, so why do women get a chance to say no without input from the father, yet men are not allowed to say no and just have to hope their partner agrees with them?

What if I asked it like this:

I'm assuming you are pro-choice, so why do men get a chance to say no without input from the mother, yet women are not allowed to say no and just have to hope their partner agrees with them?

Is your answer the same? If not, then that's not equality.


----------



## lyric (Aug 21, 2011)

BobtheSaint said:


> Popcorn? opcorn


Ohh thank you, squirrelfriend.


----------



## Fawnhearted (Jul 24, 2012)

MaxPower said:


> Even with both condoms and vasectomy, there is still a chance of pregnancy. I'm assuming you are pro-choice, so why do women get a chance to say no without input from the father, yet men are not allowed to say no and just have to hope their partner agrees with them?
> 
> What if I asked it like this:
> 
> ...


The man's contribution to pregnancy ends when he ejaculates. What happens to the woman's uterus is none of his business.

If the people are in a relationship and the man is "oopsed" (which happens far less than some people would have you believe), then that's more complex and I can't say definitively what rights either partner has.

But in the case of an accidental pregnancy... the woman's body just doesn't belong to him.


----------



## Fawnhearted (Jul 24, 2012)

Who's arguing?


----------



## MaxPower (May 1, 2012)

Fawnhearted said:


> The man's contribution to pregnancy ends when he ejaculates. What happens to the woman's uterus is none of his business.
> 
> If the people are in a relationship and the man is "oopsed" (which happens far less than some people would have you believe), then that's more complex and I can't say definitively what rights either partner has.
> 
> But in the case of an accidental pregnancy... the woman's body just doesn't belong to him.


You are saying men have no say over a women's body and is not allowed to force them into motherhood, right? I agree. So, why is women allowed to force men into fatherhood? Why do women have an out (abortion) when it comes to paternity rights and responsibilities, while men don't and is forced to bare those responsibilities even though they never agreed to fatherhood? I'm not saying men should be allowed to force women to have an abortion, I'm saying they shouldn't be forced to bare the responsibilities of fatherhood (money, custody, etc).


----------



## Fawnhearted (Jul 24, 2012)

MaxPower said:


> You are saying men have no say over a women's body and is not allowed to force them into motherhood, right? I agree. So, why is women allowed to force men into fatherhood? Why do women have an out (abortion) when it comes to paternity rights and responsibilities, while men don't and is forced to bare those responsibilities even though he never agreed to fatherhood? I'm not saying men should be allowed to force women to have an abortion, I'm saying they shouldn't be forced to bare the responsibilities of fatherhood (money, custody, etc).


Honestly, it's kind of complex? I'm not going to sit here and say that ALL MEN ARE PIGS WHO SHOULD HAVE TO GIVE ALL THEIR MONEY TO WOMAN RAWR, but I'm not going to say that they should be able to just drop everything whenever they want. There are some cases where a man definitely shouldn't have to pay child support (like if he was raped), but there are probably men out there who really ought to take a couple of responsibilities. Most of the cases are gray areas. I'd also argue that paying child support doesn't really count as fatherhood, lol.

I've never heard of a court forcing custody onto parents who don't want custody... usually dads have a hard time getting custody of their kids, which is another issue entirely.

The reason why all men don't have a constant out is just because of the nature of human reproduction and the complexity of human relationships. Like I said, their contribution to a pregnancy ends at ejaculation, so if they don't want a child that's where they have to make their ~last stand~ lol. It sucks but right now there aren't any ways around it... until we come up with like, uterii you can share. Uter-us! All guys can do is wrap it up and hope for the best, or get a vasectomy. D: At least condoms aren't as harsh on the body as birth control pills. :hug


----------



## DeeperUnderstanding (May 19, 2007)

I am for liberal feminism. I am not for radical feminism. 

There are at least 7 different sub-genres of feminism out there. I'd suggest looking them up, before you put your foot in your mouth, conventionally speaking. I suggest Wikipedia.


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

MaxPower said:


> This right isn't there to protect deadbeat dads, it is there just to give the man a chance to say no to fatherhood, if he consents and the baby is born, then he shouldn't be allowed to change his mind and not support the kid. You are also doing a disservice to women who wants to and can raise the child alone, even without the father's support.
> 
> Even with both condoms and vasectomy, there is still a chance of pregnancy. I'm assuming you are pro-choice, so why do women get a chance to say no without input from the father, yet men are not allowed to say no and just have to hope their partner agrees with them?
> 
> ...


I don't know man. It's just biology. If I had to choose I'd say it would be better to force women to have abortions than have kids growing up in poverty and guys knocking up women willy-nilly.

Personally I think people should have to apply for a license before having kids. Perhaps all men could get this:

http://techcitement.com/culture/the-best-birth-control-in-the-world-is-for-men/#.T3HilGFSQ0t


----------



## foe (Oct 10, 2010)

I'm against it, women have enough power already. They have the powerful body part in the human anatomy. Not only do babies come out of there but it can also control men's minds. Men have killed themselves and others over it. 

What more do they want?


----------



## 87wayz (Jul 5, 2012)

Jollygoggles said:


> My thoughts?
> 
> LOL
> 
> That is all.


This.


----------



## ohm (May 2, 2012)

foe said:


> I'm against it, women have enough power already. They have the powerful body part in the human anatomy. Not only do babies come out of there but it can also control men's minds. Men have killed themselves and others over it.
> 
> What more do they want?


The same could be said about men and their manly bits, yeah?


----------



## fingertips (Jan 11, 2009)

Fawnhearted said:


> ALL MEN ARE PIGS WHO SHOULD HAVE TO GIVE ALL THEIR MONEY TO WOMAN RAWR


----------



## ohm (May 2, 2012)

fingertips said:


>


What does feminism have to do with marrying for money? Lol. Nice graphics, though.


----------



## PickleNose (Jul 11, 2009)

I love women. I love opinionated women. I love strong women. In fact, in many ways, I believe women are superior to men. 

But politicized feminism really rubs me the wrong way. Most prominent feminists are not just strong, opinionated women. They go out of their way to be obnoxious just because they think they have to. I don't know. It's just annoying.


----------



## Fawnhearted (Jul 24, 2012)

fingertips said:


>


yasssssssss

that is literally my life story


----------



## fingertips (Jan 11, 2009)

ohm said:


> What does feminism have to do with marrying for money?


because the evil gynocratic femocracy seeks only to make life for us menz worse. i know it to be fact because i read about it on the internet.


----------



## ohm (May 2, 2012)

AllToAll said:


> Bunch o' ****** who want to put men in cages and use them for their semen. Duh.


This got a good belly laugh, btw


----------



## MaxPower (May 1, 2012)

Fawnhearted said:


> I'd also argue that paying child support doesn't really count as fatherhood, lol.


And I would agree with you, fatherhood is a lot more then just providing a pay check. But I used it because that what the law says.



Fawnhearted said:


> Honestly, it's kind of complex? I'm not going to sit here and say that ALL MEN ARE PIGS WHO SHOULD HAVE TO GIVE ALL THEIR MONEY TO WOMAN RAWR, but I'm not going to say that they should be able to just drop everything whenever they want. There are some cases where a man definitely shouldn't have to pay child support (like if he was raped), but there are probably men out there who really ought to take a couple of responsibilities. Most of the cases are gray areas.


Yep, very complex and a lot of grey areas. But legally men shouldn't be forced into "fatherhood", when they didn't consent to fatherhood (use condoms, have a vasectomy and told their partner they don't). I'm just talking about simple legal positions in extreme cases. In most cases, men will accept the responsibilities, well I would anyway.:um



Fawnhearted said:


> I've never heard of a court forcing custody onto parents who don't want custody... usually dads have a hard time getting custody of their kids, which is another issue entirely.


Yeah, I used the wrong word there, I didn't mean custody as in the legally defined one, but more in them giving their time and energy to raising the child.



Fawnhearted said:


> The reason why all men don't have a constant out is just because of the nature of human reproduction and the complexity of human relationships. Like I said, their contribution to a pregnancy ends at ejaculation, so if they don't want a child that's where they have to make their ~last stand~ lol. It sucks but right now there aren't any ways around it... until we come up with like, uterii you can share. Uter-us! All guys can do is wrap it up and hope for the best, or get a vasectomy. D: At least condoms aren't as harsh on the body as birth control pills. :hug


Yes, in terms of biology, men say ends at ejaculation. But just because that is the case in biology, doesn't mean it have to be the case legally.



Fawnhearted said:


> You're right and wrong. There are a lot of valid issues that MRA could be tackling (child custody, parental leave), but the men's rights movement has been mostly hijacked by jerks who are reacting badly to feminism. Most of the people who were in it to benefit men (rather than to spite women) have bowed out and done their own thing or latched onto feminism.


I'm wrong? You repeated everything I said. The movement was started with good reasons, and yes thanks to a few bad eggs (pro-lifers, anti-feminists and religious extremists) the whole men's rights movement has got a very bad name, which is why I jumped ship.


----------



## ohm (May 2, 2012)

fingertips said:


> because the evil gynocratic femocracy seeks only to make life for us menz worse. i know it to be fact because i read about it on the internet.


I am going to be adding the term "gynocratic femocracy" to my everyday vocabulary, btw


----------



## Fawnhearted (Jul 24, 2012)

MaxPower said:


> Yep, very complex and a lot of grey areas. But legally men shouldn't be forced into "fatherhood", when they didn't consent to fatherhood (use condoms, have a vasectomy and told their partner they don't). I'm just talking about simple legal positions in extreme cases. In most cases, men will accept the responsibilities, well I would anyway.:um


lol then you're better than many people



> Yes, in terms of biology, men say ends at ejaculation. But just because that is the case in biology, doesn't mean it have to be the case legally.


IA but at this point in time it's hard to give men an out without screwing over someone else, so that the situation is no more equal than it was before.



> I'm wrong? You repeated everything I said. The movement was started with good reasons, and yes thanks to a few bad eggs (pro-lifers, anti-feminists and religious extremists) the whole men's rights movement has got a very bad name, which is why I jumped ship.


maybe we're having some miscommunication a bit here or maybe it's my sleep meds kicking in because that is not what i got from your post at all
lmao :? :flush


----------



## MaxPower (May 1, 2012)

Fawnhearted said:


> IA but at this point in time it's hard to give men an out without screwing over someone else, so that the situation is no more equal than it was before.


I agree, I don't know how the situation could be corrected, but it's not equal at the moment, so at one point it has to be sorted out. I did see the male birth control, still in-testing stage though, but that might help the situation.


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

Feminism is too broad a term to really say something about.
I'll completely agree with some "feminists" while disagreeing on many issues with others.
The part about equality I completely agree with, though how you measure equality isn't an exact science either and people have different ideas of when equality is reached (law requiring 40% women on boards of businesses for example).
Equality is for individuals though and not for groups and for everyone (which most feminists also agree on), so I personally prefer other terms than "feminist", but that's not a huge issue.


----------



## joulupukki (Aug 2, 2012)

komorikun said:


> When you normally start a thread you are supposed to give your opinion/thoughts first.


There's nothing wrong with breaking the rules.


----------



## unknown123 (Dec 21, 2011)

I remember criticizing a feminist principal who said I was capable of being a rapist because I asked a girl what the hell her problem was.

That post was deleted, yet a thread containing comments making fun of a male having his scrotum torn off was never locked let alone deleted.

http://www.socialanxietysupport.com/forum/f32/woman-rips-off-mans-scrotum-175119/ Yup still not locked or deleted.


----------



## Schizoidas (May 11, 2012)

The thought of one makes me feel ill. They want to be treated equally only when it suits them.

For example; YOU CAN'T HIT ME, IM A GIRL TEHEHE


----------



## fingertips (Jan 11, 2009)

Schizoidas said:


> The thought of one makes me feel ill. They want to be treated equally only when it suits them.
> 
> For example; YOU CAN'T HIT ME, IM A GIRL TEHEHE


what

do you have a problem with the idea that YOU SHOULDN'T HIT WOMEN (or... dun dun dun... men)?


----------



## Frunktubulus (Jan 8, 2012)

Schizoidas said:


> The thought of one makes me feel ill. They want to be treated equally only when it suits them.
> 
> For example; YOU CAN'T HIT ME, IM A GIRL TEHEHE


I know right, can't even hit a woman without people getting upset, it's political correctness gone mad.


----------



## Paper Samurai (Oct 1, 2009)

MaxPower said:


> I agree, I don't know how the situation could be corrected, but it's not equal at the moment, so at one point it has to be sorted out. I did see the male birth control, still in-testing stage though, but that might help the situation.


And that's a good example of why true equality is hard to accomplish, there are fundamental differences between the genders - we can strive to make it as fair as possible but perfection (true equality) is always going to be out of reach.


----------



## lisbeth (May 18, 2012)

fingertips said:


>


I love Hark A Vagrant. This is so funny.


----------



## Frunktubulus (Jan 8, 2012)

fetisha said:


> Ok! no one should be hitting anyone, happy now?


Well now that's just plain silly.


----------



## ohm (May 2, 2012)

Frunktubulus said:


> I know right, can't even hit a woman without people getting upset, it's political correctness gone mad.


I don't think I'd be mad because I'm a feminist, I'd be mad because OUCH?!


----------



## Schizoidas (May 11, 2012)

fingertips said:


> what
> 
> do you have a problem with the idea that YOU SHOULDN'T HIT WOMEN (or... dun dun dun... men)?


Think you missed the point there. If feminist want equality then they should disagree this "never hit women" rule. Also, hitting a woman should be considered just as bad as hitting a man - that's equality.

But the problem with feminist and also the reason why everyone sees them as a joke is because they only want equality when it suits them

Maybe not the best example but I think you get the point


----------



## Fawnhearted (Jul 24, 2012)

ohm said:


> I don't think I'd be mad because I'm a feminist, I'd be mad because OUCH?!


this, lol. you shouldn't be hitting anyone, man or woman.

if someone says "teehee you can't hit me i'm a girl!" they aren't speaking from a political place, they're just being obnoxious, and it's telling that certain individuals are so willing to equate the antics of little girls with the feminist movement as a (perceived) whole.


----------



## Schizoidas (May 11, 2012)

TrcyMcgrdy1 said:


> The one kind of feminism I hate, and I see it quite often, is where women tend to believe they deserve MORE than men, while also preaching equality between sexes.


This. Majority of them are sexist females. Nothing worse


----------



## ohm (May 2, 2012)

Schizoidas said:


> This. Majority of them are sexist females. Nothing worse


I'd argue that sexist males are worse... since they tend to win (in life). They get to have their cake and eat it, too!

I just don't understand the viewpoint of "I hate Group X and all that it stands for because Y% of the people that identify with Group X do things that 1) deviate from the general ideals of Group X and 2) p*** me off"... I feel this way about politics, religion, etc. It's so reductive and superficial and it just says to me that you (not you, in particular, just people in general) would rather write something off as being worthless than to actually THINK about it.


----------



## Schizoidas (May 11, 2012)

*smacks ohm in the face*


----------



## Fawnhearted (Jul 24, 2012)

Schizoidas said:


> *smacks ohm in the face*


Classy. Hilarious. :|


----------



## ohm (May 2, 2012)

Schizoidas said:


> *smacks ohm in the face*


Um, ouch?!


----------



## ohm (May 2, 2012)

lisbeth said:


> I'm very grateful for feminism. Both on a general level in that life is much better for everybody than it would have been if it never existed (all I have to do is talk to my mother and grandmother about their experiences in life and the workplace in previous decades to stop taking certain freedoms for granted), and on a more personal level.
> 
> Before I started learning about feminism, I had really, really absorbed a lot of the worst misogynistic attitudes that exist in our society. I honestly believed that, because I was a girl, I was worth less than if I had been born a boy; I honestly believed that I should not only accept but be _grateful _for whatever treatment I got from men and boys both in and outside my family, because negative attention was better than none. I didn't understand the concept of consent, or my body belonging only to me, or the idea that female worth is not only dictated by attractiveness. I can remember being thirteen or fourteen and spending enormous chunks of my free time researching plastic surgery online.
> 
> ...


I approve this post. Btw, whenever I see you around the site, I refer to you in my head as Effie lol


----------



## Fawnhearted (Jul 24, 2012)

Mimic said:


> I think that the original idea behind feminism is good. It's hard to argue with equality, but nowadays feminism as a whole has become much worse. Here's an extreme example:
> 
> http://thefemitheist.blogspot.com/2012/05/doctrines-of-femitheism.html
> 
> ...


Did you read the sidebar of that femitheist blog?

"I do not represent, nor am I affiliated with in any way, Mainstream Feminism or RadFem HUB. Ergo, my actions, ideologies, and activities here and everywhere else should not reflect negatively on Mainstream Feminists in any way, shape or form."

Don't associate her with a movement that doesn't want her and that she doesn't want to be a part of, lol.


----------



## ohm (May 2, 2012)

Mimic said:


> I think that the original idea behind feminism is good. It's hard to argue with equality, but nowadays feminism as a whole has become much worse. Here's an extreme example:
> 
> http://thefemitheist.blogspot.com/2012/05/doctrines-of-femitheism.html
> 
> ...


Omfg femitheist is a crazy person! She is not a feminist as she stes in that post. The YouTube video really upset me...


----------



## Fawnhearted (Jul 24, 2012)

Mimic said:


> I didn't read the sidebar, so that was my mistake. But still, her views are not that much more extreme than those of other radical feminists. Andrea Dworkin, Robin Morgan, etc.


Not really. Dworkin and Morgan got start during second wave feminism, which is notorious for being more extreme than the current incarnation of the movement. Modern feminism (not radfems) is a lot more moderate, and cares more about people who aren't cisgender women.

Dworkin is dead and Morgan is in her 70s, by the way. Not really shining examples of the current political climate.

EDIT: Forgot to add: your original post referred to 'feminism as a whole,' not radical feminism.


----------



## DeeperUnderstanding (May 19, 2007)

I don't agree that mens' rights movements are generally an acceptable practice. I was behind them, until I learned how sexist, homophobic, and racist they generally are.

The typical male can be upset over not having the same rights as a woman, in this society. But that doesn't mean that feminism is unnecessary, because women don't have a lot of rights, still, despite progression.

It's really a matter of both genders are unequal, in different ways, and we need both sides to equal each other. However, that hasn't happened yet, although you can't blame feminism or mens' rights movements for it, because they are both battling the same issues, although on different sides.


----------



## TrcyMcgrdy1 (Oct 21, 2011)

ohm said:


> Um, ouch?!


Lol, never in my LIFE have i seen an actual E-SLAP! You ok? Idk how I would react to one! :um


----------



## Fawnhearted (Jul 24, 2012)

Mimic said:


> I realize that they are both either old or dead, but that doesn't mean that they don't still hold influence among some feminists, mostly radfems as you put it. The problem that I have with feminism is that there is really no reason for it to exist anymore. Most if not all of the gender inequality issues that feminists originally fought against have been solved. That alone isn't a big deal, but as long as it exists it gives credit to more radical versions of feminism which can be quite harmful. This video puts it much better words than I could.


Honestly, IME radical feminism detracts from mainstream feminism more than mainstream feminism lends credence to radical feminism--this thread is a good example of how rotten apples have spoiled the bunch for some people. But it's definitely a complex issue and I see where you're coming from and I'll get myself in trouble if I start talking about whether or not feminism is still relevant, lol. :teeth :flush



> On a side note, I didn't realize that people actually used the word "cis" unless they were making a joke or being ironic.


Ummm, what's wrong with the word cis?


----------



## ohm (May 2, 2012)

Mimic said:


> I realize that they are both either old or dead, but that doesn't mean that they don't still hold influence among some feminists, mostly radfems as you put it. The problem that I have with feminism is that there is really no reason for it to exist anymore. Most if not all of the gender inequality issues that feminists originally fought against have been solved. That alone isn't a big deal, but as long as it exists it gives credit to more radical versions of feminism which can be quite harmful. This video puts it much better words than I could.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As I female, I respectfully disagree. Birth control? Still a big deal (although, yay Obamacare for making it a bit easier.) Abortion? Well, there are bills popping up left and right to regulate this recently. Glass ceiling? Obviously still exists. Lack of equality especially for women of color? Yes! Sure, things are better, but why settle for better when we can get the best?


----------



## Dr Hobo Scratch MD (Jun 24, 2011)

Eski said:


>


XD classic dude! i love that man. one episode he had our ( new jersey )1st female governor christine todd whitman busting out freestyle raps! that man is a comedic genius. thank you!!



andreiuca said:


> Totally useless


agreed.

i heard so many views of this word feminism from so many and to me it just sounds like what folks do with religion. a group of people under one title with each member holding on to their own completely self customized perspective as the absolute truth. why is it even still around? gathering a movement to get equal rights..great..good...iam all for that. once you got them and it is now a law to follow them what need is any of it now? its like when i hear blacks still talking about the black panther parties need to gain strength again or reparations from slavery its like why? what aspect of your life was affected by a violent southern speaking man with a whip? be grateful for those who opened doors before you. pay homage and move on with your life. yes things were horrible for blacks & women and others but hey that was the past. this is a different day. nobody is holding you down now. the limits you place on yourself is the only exception.

i got into it with a feminist on here before who stated shes for womens rights against injustice or something. and iam like where are you typing this from ...an iranian village? lady your in america in 2012. who is stopping you from going to college furthering educating yourself? who is stopping you from voting? or getting any career you desire? who is chaining you to the kitchen sink to wash dishes or change pampers for the rest of your life? if you really are from an iranian village then i can understand. let a bunch of women even begin to start a feminist movement over there. it better be done whispering in the corner of the basement with the lights out. that movement would be literally and figuratively lifeless before the day was through with not a person being concerned because that is the law over their and it dosent look like it going to be changing anytime soon or at least until the arrival of the holy prophet from the skies. its like some folks in their quest to understand themselves just want to scream and holler being all revolutionary about something.....anything without much thought into what it is that their screaming and hollering about. breakfast cereal ....aaaaaghhh! time to stand up people. lets get em!


----------



## lisbeth (May 18, 2012)

ohm said:


> I approve this post. Btw, whenever I see you around the site, I refer to you in my head as Effie lol


That's no bad thing by me - maybe I should have picked a different username!

...Sorry for that off-topic, superficial reply. But I think I'll save any proper thoughts until it isn't 2am.

In the mean-time, I just want to echo what Ohm said so well:



ohm said:


> I'd argue that sexist males are worse... since they tend to win (in life). They get to have their cake and eat it, too!
> 
> I just don't understand the viewpoint of "I hate Group X and all that it  stands for because Y% of the people that identify with Group X do things that 1) deviate from the general ideals of Group X and 2) p*** me off"... I feel this way about politics, religion, etc. It's so reductive and superficial and it just says to me that you (not you, in particular, just people in general) would rather write something off as being worthless than to actually THINK about it.


I agree. Unfortunately, I think the most extreme minorities can sometimes be the part of the group that draws most controversy, and thus is the part that people think of, even though it's completely different from the average member. I worded that appallingly, sorry.

It's occured to me more than once... probably more people we know than we realise are feminists. I know the number of women who call themselves that isn't as big as it should be, but even those who _are_ comfortable with calling themselves feminists are often reluctant to admit it in their daily lives. It's odd to me that I could share similar opinions with all these other women I'm familiar with and we would never even realise it, because it just doesn't get talked about.


----------



## ImWeird (Apr 26, 2010)

I'm kidding.

I think that equal rights are a good thing, but some feminists take it too far. Mind you, there are people that take things too far in every movement. So meahhhh...


----------



## ohm (May 2, 2012)

lisbeth said:


> That's no bad thing by me - maybe I should have picked a different username!
> 
> ...Sorry for that off-topic, superficial reply. But I think I'll save any proper thoughts until it isn't 2am.
> 
> ...


Yeah, honestly the thing that set me off on starting the thread is because I came across a female on this site... I shan't say who... that said, verbatim, "... I believe in female empowerment... not like feminism, though" and it irked me to no end. What's the point of believing in FEMALE empowerment, specifically, if you're going to distance yourself from the one movement that is seeking to earn that empowerment for women?!?! Sigh.


----------



## ohm (May 2, 2012)

ImWeird said:


> I'm kidding.
> 
> I think that equal rights are a good thing, but some feminists take it too far. Mind you, there are people that take things too far in every movement. So meahhhh...


Ah, Sasha Baron Cohen... I can't imagine a man being married to a strong woman like Isla Fisher honestly being against female rights. He is quite funny, though.


----------



## Jollygoggles (Mar 3, 2011)

[insert idle ad hoc reckon here]


----------



## pisceskyuu (Jul 29, 2012)

maybe some people have a problem with the term "feminist" and would react better to the word "equalist" ...probably doesnt have the same ring to it though. 

while the idea of bringing equal opportunity and equal treatment for all is truely awesome, does anyone see anything negative that came out of feminist movement? maybe hurting the the family dynamic in some way or playing a role in divorce becoming more common? both parents working will amount to less time with eachother and less influence on the children.


----------



## Fawnhearted (Jul 24, 2012)

> [insert idle ad hoc reckon here]


go back to your philosophy 101 class, dude. it's the internet. no one cares.



pisceskyuu said:


> while the idea of bringing equal opportunity and equal treatment for all is truely awesome, does anyone see anything negative that came out of feminist movement? maybe hurting the the family dynamic in some way or playing a role in divorce becoming more common? both parents working will amount to less time with eachother and less influence on the children.


eh, they can just buy the kids more toys with all the extra money they're making.


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

ohm said:


> As I female, I respectfully disagree. Birth control? Still a big deal (although, yay Obamacare for making it a bit easier.) Abortion? Well, there are bills popping up left and right to regulate this recently. Glass ceiling? Obviously still exists. Lack of equality especially for women of color? Yes! Sure, things are better, but why settle for better when we can get the best?


Things are never settled, but will only ever change incrementally as we don't know the final result or indeed where we ultimately want to go (assuming there even is an "ultimate" end).
While many agree that birth control, abortion and glass ceilings are issues, it's a lot harder to agree on what to do about them. Should birth control be free regardless? When and how should abortion be allowed? What is causing the glass ceiling and what can be done to change that without going too far?
And it's important to define what kind of equality we mean. Do we mean equal and free choice (with the costs those choices may have) or do we want to eliminate the costs from some choices because we consider them fundamental to human life?

I may have one view and call that equality while you have another and call that equality. I think we both agree, though, that things aren't where they ought to be yet, but also that not everything that can be put under the label of feminism is something we support.
It'd be interesting to discuss some of the issues in more detail though.


----------



## BobtheBest (Aug 27, 2011)

pisceskyuu said:


> while the idea of bringing equal opportunity and equal treatment for all is truely awesome, does anyone see anything negative that came out of feminist movement? maybe hurting the the family dynamic in some way or playing a role in divorce becoming more common? both parents working will amount to less time with eachother and less influence on the children.


I disagree. If anything, feminism actually helps the family dynamic. You mentioned both parents working, which means there's no sole "breadwinner" in the household.

Since gender equity allows both parents to be equally responsible, both parents can equally play a role in the growth and development of their children. That'll make it more likely to have men to spend time as fathers and less likely to have broken families.


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

BobtheSaint said:


> I disagree. If anything, feminism actually helps the family dynamic. You mentioned both parents working, which means there's no sole "breadwinner" in the household.
> 
> Since gender equity allows both parents to be equally responsible, both parents can equally play a role in the growth and development of their children. That'll make it more likely to have men to spend time as fathers and less likely to have broken families.


I'm sorry, but that's not actually true.
From a political and an equality point of view, it's great to not have a sole provider/sole caretaker, but it's not irrelevant who takes care of the child and it does not prevent broken families (it only helps women have better foothold in the job market if the family breaks).
Children need their mothers in the first months of their lives as they rely on them for food and comfort. Having too many caretakers - or indeed forcing the child to be with it's dad even if it's crying for their mum - is a very bad idea.


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

Milco said:


> I'm sorry, but that's not actually true.
> From a political and an equality point of view, it's great to not have a sole provider/sole caretaker, but it's not irrelevant who takes care of the child and it does not prevent broken families (it only helps women have better foothold in the job market if the family breaks).
> Children need their mothers in the first months of their lives as they rely on them for food and comfort. Having too many caretakers - or indeed forcing the child to be with it's dad even if it's crying for their mum - is a very bad idea.


Why couldn't the dad take care of the baby? Just because the mom breast feeds she needs to be the main caretaker?


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

komorikun said:


> Why couldn't the dad take care of the baby? Just because the mom breast feeds she needs to be the main caretaker?


Pretty much, yeah.
Research suggests a baby needs one primary caretaker for the first couple of months of its life and since the mum has to breast feed, it can't really be others than her.
It doesn't mean dad can't play any role, but it does mean total equality and indistinguishable roles are unachievable.


----------



## pisceskyuu (Jul 29, 2012)

BobtheSaint said:


> I disagree. If anything, feminism actually helps the family dynamic. You mentioned both parents working, which means there's no sole "breadwinner" in the household.
> 
> Since gender equity allows both parents to be equally responsible, both parents can equally play a role in the growth and development of their children. That'll make it more likely to have men to spend time as fathers and less likely to have broken families.


it seems nice and fair when it comes to both parents having equal share of all responsibilities but in some cases a mother might be better at one thing than the father. For example:breast feeding, i think mothers have the advantage in this deparment Breast feeding is very important in many ways for healthy development. formula, soy milk, or any other man made substitutes dont even compare. in some countries it is common for mothers to breast feed for 3+ years. So, If a couple wants to raise a healthy family with 2-3 or more children it will be tough with the mother working a lot. growing children also need nutritious meals that take time to prepare and not all this processed, instant food that makes people sick. doesnt it seem like a higher percentage of people are dying these days of illness, many of which that could be avoided if they had a healthy diet?


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

Milco said:


> Pretty much, yeah.
> Research suggests a baby needs one primary caretaker for the first couple of months of its life and since the mum has to breast feed, it can't really be others than her.
> It doesn't mean dad can't play any role, but it does mean total equality and indistinguishable roles are unachievable.


Fair enough. Most women only breast feed for 6 months though. That's a pretty short period. After that I think it's best if the dad takes parental leave and takes care of the kid. Cause as I said before in the Sweden thread, men need even more time with their kids to bond than women since they don't lactate or gestate. A huge proportion of men in the US are dead beat dads since they didn't sufficiently bond with their kids.

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


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

komorikun said:


> Fair enough. Most women only breast feed for 6 months though. That's a pretty short period. After that I think it's best if the dad takes parental leave and takes care of the kid. Cause as I said before in the Sweden thread, men need even more time with their kids to bond than women since they don't lactate or gestate. A huge proportion of men in the US are dead beat dads since they didn't sufficiently bond with their kids.
> 
> http://www.socialanxietysupport.com/forum/f32/in-sweden-men-can-have-it-all-167681/


Force is not the way to go though.
And families aren't going to stay together for the kids - that would arguably be even worse on the child than 'just' a divorce/split.
I'm not a fan of the Swedish or Norwegian models on certain equality issues.
But this shows well that "equality" isn't a clear cut case and that there are some really difficult questions to be answered, so it's more a question of "what equality?" than "yes/no to equality?"
Anybody who says outright no to equality is a wee bit silly at best.


----------



## lisbeth (May 18, 2012)

I think that too much emphasis is placed on the importance of breastfeeding. A lot of women physically _can't_ breastfeed for one reason or another, and still raise healthy and well-adjusted kids. I really don't think that it matters whether the child's primary guardian is their mother, their father or a grandparent as long as they are well-cared for, secure and loved.


----------



## ohm (May 2, 2012)

lisbeth said:


> I think that too much emphasis is placed on the importance of breastfeeding. A lot of women physically _can't_ breastfeed for one reason or another, and still raise healthy and well-adjusted kids. I really don't think that it matters whether the child's primary guardian is their mother, their father or a grandparent as long as they are well-cared for, secure and loved.


I agree. It's really de-womanizing to say that a mother can't be the best mother for a child because she doesn't breast feed. No one would ever say that a man is going to be a bad dad because he's infertile so he therefore needs in some form to raise another man's child (from adoption, artificial insemination, etc.)

Not to mention, the moment that kid finds a bag of cheese puffs, all that good that breast milk did is reversed


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

ohm said:


> It's really de-womanizing to say that a mother can't be a the best mother for a child because she doesn't breast feed. No one would ever say that a man is going to be a bad dad because he's infertile so he therefore needs in some form to raise another man's child (from adoption, artificial insemination, etc.)


It would be rude to say that, yes, so let's wait until somebody actually says that and we can oppose them 

All I said is research suggests the child is best off with one primary care giver for the first months and not 2 or more, and since the woman will be breast feeding in most cases, it will naturally be her.

I think most dads want to bond with their kids, but maybe just not in the same way as mums do.
There's a very strong bond between mother and child; partly because she's been carrying it for 9 months, partly a biologically programmed response and partly because she's more likely caring for it for the first while after birth.
The last one can probably be gotten by the dad as well by spending time with the child, but the first two just aren't possible for men and it seems a bit silly to me to want to 'correct' that by force.
We need to take into account the differences before and not trivialise them before starting to evaluate what equality is.
Ultimately though, it's up to the parents how they want to raise their child.


----------



## Dark Alchemist (Jul 10, 2011)

Milco said:


> It would be rude to say that, yes, so let's wait until somebody actually says that and we can oppose them
> 
> All I said is research suggests the child is best off with one primary care giver for the first months and not 2 or more, and since the woman will be breast feeding in most cases, it will naturally be her.
> 
> ...


You realize adoptive moms won't be breastfeeding or carrying it for 9 months, right? Somehow bonding still happens.


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

Dark Alchemist said:


> You realize adoptive moms won't be breastfeeding or carrying it for 9 months, right? Somehow bonding still happens.


I don't believe I said it didn't.


----------



## Fawnhearted (Jul 24, 2012)

Milco said:


> I don't believe I said it didn't.


So what was the point of your post, then?


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

Fawnhearted said:


> So what was the point of your post, then?


There have been many posts and each have had a different point.
The point of that post wasn't to give an all-encompassing guide for how parents bond with children, but simply to say that it's not realistic to expect both parents to bond equally in most if not all cases.

I could ask what the point of your post is, but it's just rude to make comments like that.
Stop treating me like I'm some evil person - I think a lot of you are completely misreading what I'm actually saying.
If you want to argue just for the sake of it, go ahead, but I don't really care to be a part of that.


----------



## Jollygoggles (Mar 3, 2011)

Fawnhearted said:


> go back to your philosophy 101 class, dude. it's the internet. no one cares.


Your English is as good as your Swahili.

I agree, however, that it is the internet and no one cares.


----------



## Fawnhearted (Jul 24, 2012)

Milco said:


> There have been many posts and each have had a different point.
> The point of that post wasn't to give an all-encompassing guide for how parents bond with children, but simply to say that it's not realistic to expect both parents to bond equally in most if not all cases.
> 
> I could ask what the point of your post is, but it's just rude to make comments like that.
> ...


I'm not trying to argue, I was trying to get clarification. If I'm attacking you, you will know.


----------



## Jollygoggles (Mar 3, 2011)

Fawnhearted said:


> If I'm attacking you, you will know.


Did anyone else laugh?


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

Milco said:


> Force is not the way to go though.
> And families aren't going to stay together for the kids - that would arguably be even worse on the child than 'just' a divorce/split.
> I'm not a fan of the Swedish or Norwegian models on certain equality issues.
> But this shows well that "equality" isn't a clear cut case and that there are some really difficult questions to be answered, so it's more a question of "what equality?" than "yes/no to equality?"
> Anybody who says outright no to equality is a wee bit silly at best.


I'm not saying that people would stay together for the kids. I was saying that men would probably be much more devoted after a divorce if they had actually taken care of their kid for a few months or years. We really need to find a way of preventing dads from becoming dead beat dads.


----------



## Fawnhearted (Jul 24, 2012)

Jollygoggles said:


> Your English is as good as your Swahili.
> 
> I agree, however, that it is the internet and no one cares.





Jollygoggles said:


> Did anyone else laugh?












Cute effort.


----------



## Jollygoggles (Mar 3, 2011)

Fawnhearted said:


>


"So then he asked me to substantiate my position and I was like, "Hello! My feelings come before facts. AMIRITE ladies?"


----------



## Jollygoggles (Mar 3, 2011)

Wait I can do better.









"I know I'm pregnant but I shouldn't be oppressed by gender roles. Let's order shots! Woo!"


----------



## ManOfFewWords (Mar 20, 2012)




----------



## Jollygoggles (Mar 3, 2011)

But, all joking aside, those are attractive women.

Attractive women aren't feminist.


----------



## Jollygoggles (Mar 3, 2011)

Step 1: One desires something. (men or the attention of men)
Step 2: Finds it unattainable (The 'dissonance')
Step 3: Reduce one's dissonance by criticizing it. (Become a feminist as opposed to an egalitarian)

If that isn't modern feminism I don't know what is. Classic cognitive dissonance.


----------



## fingertips (Jan 11, 2009)

i think you just admitted you don't know what modern feminism is. :stu


----------



## Jollygoggles (Mar 3, 2011)

fingertips said:


> i think you just admitted you don't know what modern feminism is. :stu


Just love me.


----------



## pisceskyuu (Jul 29, 2012)

lisbeth said:


> I think that too much emphasis is placed on the importance of breastfeeding. A lot of women physically _can't_ breastfeed for one reason or another, and still raise healthy and well-adjusted kids. I really don't think that it matters whether the child's primary guardian is their mother, their father or a grandparent as long as they are well-cared for, secure and loved.


for me, i dont think one could put too much importance on such a crucial part of a baby's development. i'd want to give my child the best possible start for health and happiness. I guess how long to breast feed is up for debate but i simply dont think 1 year or less is even close to enough. from when a child is born to around age 5 is a time that is very important, and decisions made here affect them for life. im not saying one must breast feed for 5 years, though it is definately not unheard of, its just that i have read up until age five is a key stage in a our development.

does anyone here look down upon a Mother who chooses to say home and care for her family? My mom worked hard and provided us with what we needed materially which i appreciate, but there are other things missing emotionally... anyway im sure its different for everyone, but i strongly feel too much emphasis is put on making money. though, i guess with both men and women working our government has more people to tax yay!?


----------



## ohm (May 2, 2012)

Jollygoggles said:


> Step 1: One desires something. (men or the attention of men)
> Step 2: Finds it unattainable (The 'dissonance')
> Step 3: Reduce one's dissonance by criticizing it. (Become a feminist as opposed to an egalitarian)
> 
> If that isn't modern feminism I don't know what is. Classic cognitive dissonance.


I'm not a feminist because I desire men... I have a man... and I don't really want the attention of men... which is kind of the point of me being a feminist. I want to just do whatever the hell I want to without some white dude deciding that I'm not good enough or that I'm just not flat out allowed to.

Either way, your memes made me giggle. Cute.


----------



## ohm (May 2, 2012)

pisceskyuu said:


> for me, i dont think one could put too much importance on such a crucial part of a baby's development. i'd want to give my child the best possible start for health and happiness. I guess how long to breast feed is up for debate but i simply dont think 1 year or less is even close to enough. from when a child is born to around age 5 is a time that is very important, and decisions made here affect them for life. im not saying one must breast feed for 5 years, though it is definately not unheard of, its just that i have read up until age five is a key stage in a our development.
> 
> does anyone here look down upon a Mother who chooses to say home and care for her family? My mom worked hard and provided us with what we needed materially which i appreciate, but there are other things missing emotionally... anyway im sure its different for everyone, but i strongly feel too much emphasis is put on making money. though, i guess with both men and women working our government has more people to tax yay!?


No, I respect stay at home moms... although I don't have children, I've worked at a daycare, and that **** is hard!

I think the point was that obviously not every woman can or even wants to breastfeed... and I don't think we should judge them on their mothering skills. Will I breastfeed? If I can, yes, absolutely, but that's just me.

Honestly, I guess I don't ven know how this pertains to feminism... at this point, I feel like the convo has delved into how women do stupid stuff territory lol.


----------



## Jollygoggles (Mar 3, 2011)

ohm said:


> Either way, your memes made me giggle. Cute.


The truth mirths.


----------



## Paper Samurai (Oct 1, 2009)

ohm said:


> No, I respect stay at home moms... although I don't have children, I've worked at a daycare, and that **** is hard!
> 
> I think the point was that obviously not every woman can or even wants to breastfeed... and I don't think we should judge them on their mothering skills. Will I breastfeed? If I can, yes, absolutely, but that's just me.


Aren't guys attracted to women's breasts on a subconscious level because they show child rearing capability (bigger the better?)

So I guess in a sense, women who don't breast feed could be guilty of false advertising - one for trading standards I think !


----------



## lisbeth (May 18, 2012)

pisceskyuu said:


> for me, i dont think one could put too much importance on such a crucial part of a baby's development. i'd want to give my child the best possible start for health and happiness. I guess how long to breast feed is up for debate but i simply dont think 1 year or less is even close to enough. from when a child is born to around age 5 is a time that is very important, and decisions made here affect them for life. im not saying one must breast feed for 5 years, though it is definately not unheard of, its just that i have read up until age five is a key stage in a our development.


Like I said: some women are unable to breastfeed at all, and their children still manage to grow up normal.



pisceskyuu said:


> does anyone here look down upon a Mother who chooses to say home and care for her family? My mom worked hard and provided us with what we needed materially which i appreciate, but there are other things missing emotionally... anyway im sure its different for everyone, but i strongly feel too much emphasis is put on making money. though, i guess with both men and women working our government has more people to tax yay!?


Not at all. Some mothers are better off working, some mothers are better off as homemakers. Being able to choose is the whole point. Unfortunately, for financial reasons, a lot of women don't get the option.


----------



## lisbeth (May 18, 2012)

Jollygoggles said:


> But, all joking aside, those are attractive women.
> 
> Attractive women aren't feminist.


I don't know how to respond to anything you post in a way that won't get me banned for violating the rule about 'personal attacks'.


----------



## ohm (May 2, 2012)

Paper Samurai said:


> Aren't guys attracted to women's breasts on a subconscious level because they show child rearing capability (bigger the better?)
> 
> So I guess in a sense, women who don't breast feed could be guilty of false advertising - one for trading standards I think !


Well, as convoluted as **** as this reasoning is, it's null because if this was the case, all us ittie bittie tittie havers wouldn't be getting ANY action, and fat girls would be the standard of sexy.


----------



## lisbeth (May 18, 2012)

I just saw this article and figured it was worth posting.


----------



## Fawnhearted (Jul 24, 2012)

lisbeth said:


> I don't know how to respond to anything you post in a way that won't get me banned for violating the rule about 'personal attacks'.


The worst part is that he thinks he's some genius master troll.


----------



## Paper Samurai (Oct 1, 2009)

ohm said:


> Well, as convoluted as **** as this reasoning is, it's null because if this was the case, all us ittie bittie tittie havers wouldn't be getting ANY action, and fat girls would be the standard of sexy.


Was only a joke  (I thought this thread could use something to reduce the tension)


----------



## ohgodits2014 (Mar 18, 2011)

lisbeth said:


> I don't know how to respond to anything you post in a way that won't get me banned for violating the rule about 'personal attacks'.


I got a warning earlier for passive-aggressively calling a male poster a virgin and implying that he's therefore a loser, and my post was quickly removed.

Passive-aggressively calling a whole bunch of female posters ugly and implying that their opinion therefore doesn't count apparently is much more acceptable, though. And women are supposed to be the sensitive ones.


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

rednosereindeer said:


> I got a warning earlier for passive-aggressively calling a male poster a virgin and implying that he's therefore a loser, and my post was quickly removed.
> 
> Passive-aggressively calling a whole bunch of female posters ugly and implying that their opinion therefore doesn't count apparently is much more acceptable, though. And women are supposed to be the sensitive ones.


which thread was this?


----------



## lisbeth (May 18, 2012)

Fawnhearted said:


> The worst part is that he thinks he's some genius master troll.


IKR. This is a real _badass _that we're dealing with here, ladies.


----------



## Dark Alchemist (Jul 10, 2011)

fingertips said:


> i think you just admitted you don't know what modern feminism is. :stu


ZING!


----------



## Jollygoggles (Mar 3, 2011)

lisbeth said:


> I don't know how to respond to anything you post in a way that won't get me banned for violating the rule about 'personal attacks'.


PM it, sweetheart. I won't rat you to the mods no matter how bad it is.


----------



## Jollygoggles (Mar 3, 2011)

rednosereindeer said:


> I got a warning earlier for passive-aggressively calling a male poster a virgin and implying that he's therefore a loser, and my post was quickly removed.
> 
> Passive-aggressively calling a whole bunch of female posters ugly and implying that their opinion therefore doesn't count apparently is much more acceptable, though. And women are supposed to be the sensitive ones.


Wo! I didn't say ugly. I said 'unattractive' and I qualified my statement by showing that this leads to a dissonance that many women find is nullified by becoming femosupremists (my new catchphrase for modern feminists) and ignoring male issues/demonizing male behaviour.

I didn't just call someone a virgin like you did. You can't argue that virginity equates to loser so it was rightly removed in my opinion.

You can't get it all you own way ladies. You have to argue against my points or admit defeat.


----------



## Jollygoggles (Mar 3, 2011)




----------



## Fawnhearted (Jul 24, 2012)

Jollygoggles said:


> Wo! I didn't say ugly. I said 'unattractive' and I qualified my statement by showing that this leads to a dissonance that many women find is nullified by becoming femosupremists (my new catchphrase for modern feminists) and ignoring male issues/demonizing male behaviour.
> 
> I didn't just call someone a virgin like you did. You can't argue that virginity equates to loser so it was rightly removed in my opinion.
> 
> You can't get it all you own way ladies. You have to argue against my points or admit defeat.


I'll take another helping of that word salad, please.


----------



## Just Lurking (Feb 8, 2007)

Jollygoggles said:


> But, all joking aside, those are attractive women.
> 
> Attractive women aren't feminist.





Jollygoggles said:


> Step 1: One desires something. (men or the attention of men)
> Step 2: Finds it unattainable (The 'dissonance')
> Step 3: Reduce one's dissonance by criticizing it. (Become a feminist as opposed to an egalitarian)
> 
> If that isn't modern feminism I don't know what is. Classic cognitive dissonance.


This isn't right.

At its core, feminism is about equality of the sexes. That's it. Whether you are a man or a woman, if you believe the two should have equal rights, then you are a feminist.

There may be some extracurricular stuff going on in the extremist groups, but I wouldn't let them twist my views of feminism in general.


----------



## Jollygoggles (Mar 3, 2011)

Fawnhearted said:


> I'll take another helping of that word salad, please.


I can't get my point across to you if you don't understand big words like 'all', 'by' an 'I'.


----------



## Fawnhearted (Jul 24, 2012)

Jollygoggles said:


> I can't get my point across to you if you don't understand big words like 'all', 'by' an 'I'.


----------



## Jollygoggles (Mar 3, 2011)

Just Lurking said:


> This isn't right.
> 
> At its core, feminism is about equality of the sexes. That's it. Whether you are a man or a woman, if you believe the two should have equal rights, then you are a feminist.
> 
> There may be some extracurricular stuff going on in the extremist groups, but I wouldn't let them twist my views of feminism in general.


There comes a point when the distinction between the sexes is no longer required, when certain objectives have been met, and I think that time has come for feminism. A time when a more egalitarian approach becomes the right path.

I believe I could argue that point does exist.
I believe I could argue that continuation beyond that point leads to favouritism, over-sensitivity and disharmony and in fact damages both sexes in the long run.


----------



## Jollygoggles (Mar 3, 2011)

Fawnhearted I get what you're trying to do with those pics. I know the type of man that would hurt but it isn't this one. (Side note: That girl on the left looks like the nurse from Belfast I slept with. Good times.)

If you could pick apart my logic then you might get under my skin. The gauntlet has been laid at your all knowing feet.


----------



## ohm (May 2, 2012)

I'm honestly saddened that this thread is going this route. I'd be nice if we could either stay on topic or just stop posting. FEMINISM.... that's the topic, btw.


----------



## Fawnhearted (Jul 24, 2012)

ohm said:


> I'm honestly saddened that this thread is going this route. I'd be nice if we could either stay on topic or just stop posting. FEMINISM.... that's the topic, btw.


Lol, we are pages too late for that. Threads about feminism never go well on any forum unless you specifically post them in a place full of likeminded people. What were you expecting, lol?


----------



## Jollygoggles (Mar 3, 2011)

I think feminism is a sex-based women’s empowerment movement. It is not an equality movement. 

That would be egalitarianism.


----------



## DeeperUnderstanding (May 19, 2007)

Speaking of men's rights..

My sister had her two daughters taken away, and placed in the custody of an abusive father. Her judge was someone who was all for men's rights, and was against the children being with the mother, where they belonged.

I understand in some instances, the tables are reversed. But I can't honestly look at my sister's tears (and there have been a LOT of them), and not feel some hatred for those that oppose feminism, or cry about men's rights being violated.


----------



## Jollygoggles (Mar 3, 2011)

WintersTale said:


> But I can't honestly look at my sister's tears (and there have been a LOT of them), and not feel some hatred for those that oppose feminism, or cry about men's rights being violated.


I can understand why that would have annoyed you, WT, but that's anecdotal and not evidential. Plus, being so emotive it's likely to cloud judgement.

I'm in favour of women's rights and I oppose feminism as I see it as an empowerment movement not a rights movement.

You have to be willing to allow honest people who care about women's rights to make that distinction without being hated.


----------



## DeeperUnderstanding (May 19, 2007)

Like I said, there are various degrees of feminism.

I support liberal feminism. Liberal feminism is the idea that men and women deserve the same rights, equal pay, and support for the same issues, despite being different genders.

That is it. And I honestly don't feel that is too much to ask.

Now, radical feminism, which is when the men haters get up and start preaching, that is the kind of bad feminism that I don't support. However, that is only one type of seven types of feminism that are out there.


----------



## Jollygoggles (Mar 3, 2011)

WintersTale said:


> Like I said, there are various degrees of feminism.
> 
> I support liberal feminism. Liberal feminism is the idea that men and women deserve the same rights, equal pay, and support for the same issues, despite being different genders.
> 
> ...


I'll concede that.
Unfortunately, as in all spheres of human interaction, it's always the loudest ones that get heard.


----------



## ohm (May 2, 2012)

Jollygoggles said:


> I think feminism is a sex-based women's empowerment movement. It is not an equality movement.
> 
> That would be egalitarianism.


I just want to point out that the only reason that feminists or male rights-ists (masculinists?) have to fight for their rights separately is because society has made them separate, not equal to begin with. Pretending that we are equal in society's eyes is seriously not gonna change a damn thing... just like pretending that racism doesn't exist doesn't make racism non-existent (I'm speaking from experience, both as a woman and a person of color.) You have to start at one side and eventually come to the middle.

When everyone decides to start acting egalitarian-like, I'll stop being a feminist. It's not that I am not for with men's issues... there are plenty of things that piss me off about they way that society treats men, like in cases of custody, male sexual harassment/rape, discrimination in certain "feminine" job fields like nursing and secretarial work, being required to register for the military recruitment at age 18 (at least, in the US... as far as this is concerned, I believe everyone should have to! Not necessarily because I think I really wanna go fight a war... but I'm a part of this country and therefore I'd like to take just as much responsibility for it!)

I'd admit that those aren't my main points to fix because they don't so personally affect me, but I do support the efforts to change them, in the same way that I support LGBTQ rights. I am not marching in gay parades because I am not gay... but I am more than happy to watch on the sidelines and cheer on those who are marching! That doesn't automatically make me AGAINST men's rights or gay rights... that's a different thing entirely. If I campaigned for everything that I believed in, I'd never eat, sleep or have a life again.

You have to pick your battles, and women's rights is the battle I choose to pick because it is what mostly affects me in my everyday life. You might find that problematic, or reductive of the issues that humans in general have, and that's fine. I guess I just don't understand why you are so against the fact that I am for women's rights (primarily, but not solely!) when it doesn't seem like you care about women's rights at all. That's not very egalitarian of you, is it?


----------



## diamondheart89 (Mar 21, 2011)

I imagine those saying that feminism is outdated are speaking from a perspective of insulated security such as being middle class males brought up in environments where they were not exposed to sexism on a daily basis so they really have no idea what they're talking about. The vast majority of the world is not that tolerant or fair. That's why I do think the majority if women in the world need to be exposed to the idea that they are equal to men and deserve to be treated fairly. Even in the US, there are large portions of society where women are treated unfairly from the beginning, including most conservative and ultra orthodox religious communities. Just because you dont notice it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen everyday. I feel like this argument is pointless because of course half the guys don't think it's necessary since it doesn't affect them or have any benefit for them, in fact, many see feminism as an insult to their gender. That's because the extremists in any movement are heard the loudest.


----------



## MG96 (Jul 31, 2012)

Economic: I don't think women are just being paid less for the same job, it has to do with what the person is doing in that job (men take risks, source: science article)
Political: Women are less focused on politics, the opportunity is there (Australia's PM is female)
Social: We are very behind here, because there is pressure on women to become attractive rather than intelligent we do not see many politicians or leaders. 1st world countries still consist of mostly bread-winner and housewife families.

The opportunities are there, it is just not that socially accepted.
By the way, men have their struggles too.
I for one believe a lot of the problems we are dealing with stem from archaic ideas of masculinity and femininity.


----------



## Jollygoggles (Mar 3, 2011)

ohm said:


> when it doesn't seem like you care about women's rights at all. That's not very egalitarian of you, is it?


I've written to the MP (member of parliament) for Antrim to complain about the fact that women don't have access to the morning-after-pill on Sundays in some communities in Northern Ireland. (after my girlfriend couldn't get it one Sunday morning)

I also wrote to him to voice my contempt at the opinions he made, which sounded highly religiously motivated, when denouncing women's right to choice in Northern Ireland when it came to pregnancy (they have that choice in England, Scotland and Wales but not in Northern Ireland).

And over my mothers life that isn't bull****.


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

Fawnhearted said:


> I'm not trying to argue, I was trying to get clarification. If I'm attacking you, you will know.


Fair enough. Just didn't exactly come across as that to me, but I guess it's easier to misjudge when having to defend my statements.



komorikun said:


> I'm not saying that people would stay together for the kids. I was saying that men would probably be much more devoted after a divorce if they had actually taken care of their kid for a few months or years. We really need to find a way of preventing dads from becoming dead beat dads.


Nah, that wasn't so much at you, but at BobTheSaint who said men spending more time as fathers would result in fewer broken homes.
But what we need to do is figure out what is in the best interest of the child.
The interest my dad took in my up bringing (I was there every other weekend) definitely wasn't to my advantage and if I had had to be there even more it would have only been worse - not that he was disinterested though.
I don't think completely shared custody is in the best interest of the child and many of the people who work with these issues have been saying the same things lately.

I don't know though.. on one hand I think it would be great if the parents were there if the child wanted it, but on the other hand I don't think you can force people to be there with good results.
I do think the vast majority of parents want the best for their children and do feel a bond regardless of circumstances.



WintersTale said:


> I support liberal feminism. Liberal feminism is the idea that men and women deserve the same rights, equal pay, and support for the same issues, despite being different genders.


Firstly, thanks for getting it back on track.
But secondly.. even this is really not that easy.
Who should receive equal pay and equal for what? Equal pay for equal work? I think most people agree on that one without any issue. But when you look at it, men and women tend to choose different fields, tend to value careers differently in life and having children affects women more at a quite delicate age during education or early employment.
There are issues with sexism for sure, but since that's not 100% of the explanation it can't be assumed 100% of the solution either.
Women (as well as anybody else) should receive equal rights, fair pay, plentiful support and be entitled to good lives regardless of anything else.
Women are entitled to these things for being human beings and not for being women, but looking at the statistical group "women" can be useful for finding areas where there are still problems.


----------



## ohm (May 2, 2012)

Jollygoggles said:


> I've written to the MP (member of parliament) for Antrim to complain about the fact that women don't have access to the morning-after-pill on Sundays in some communities in Northern Ireland. (after my girlfriend couldn't get it one Sunday morning)
> 
> I also wrote to him to voice my contempt at the opinions he made, which sounded highly religiously motivated, when denouncing women's right to choice in Northern Ireland when it came to pregnancy (they have that choice in England, Scotland and Wales but not in Northern Ireland).
> 
> And over my mothers life that isn't bull****.


Well, that sucks. I applaud you for taking the effort. I still can't comprehend making fun of a movement that aims to make situations like this non-existent



diamondheart89 said:


> I imagine those saying that feminism is outdated are speaking from a perspective of insulated security such as being middle class males brought up in environments where they were not exposed to sexism on a daily basis so they really have no idea what they're talking about. The vast majority of the world is not that tolerant or fair. That's why I do think the majority if women in the world need to be exposed to the idea that they are equal to men and deserve to be treated fairly. Even in the US, there are large portions of society where women are treated unfairly from the beginning, including most conservative and ultra orthodox religious communities. Just because you dont notice it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen everyday. I feel like this argument is pointless because of course half the guys don't think it's necessary since it doesn't affect them or have any benefit for them, in fact, many see feminism as an insult to their gender. That's because the extremists in any movement are heard the loudest.


This is what it feels like to me... but I try not to be too accusatory, in terms of it being because they are a man, because there are plenty of WASP-y well-off men who support feminism. Ugh I just don't get it.


----------



## MaxPower (May 1, 2012)

WintersTale said:


> Speaking of men's rights..
> 
> My sister had her two daughters taken away, and placed in the custody of an abusive father. Her judge was someone who was all for men's rights, and was against the children being with the mother, where they belonged.
> 
> I understand in some instances, the tables are reversed. But I can't honestly look at my sister's tears (and there have been a LOT of them), and not feel some hatred for those that oppose feminism, or cry about men's rights being violated.


You don't have to pick sides in men's rights vs feminism. I'm a supporter of both men's rights and feminism. In your sister's case, the judge falls into the pro-lifer, anti-feminist or religious extremist category, and took something good and turn it into something that fit his views, instead the judge should have done his job and find what is in the _best interest_ of the children, whatever that is.

I have read about a lot of cases where this has happen, in fact my sister and I was the kids in one, and I'm sorry to hear this has happen to your sister.


----------



## ohm (May 2, 2012)

lisbeth said:


> I just saw this article and figured it was worth posting.


I read this the other day... I agree with everything the author is saying, but she does say it in such a *****y, snarky way that, as many of he commenters say, would definitely persuade a lot of readers against feminism.


----------



## BobtheBest (Aug 27, 2011)

Milco said:


> I'm sorry, but that's not actually true.
> *From a political and an equality point of view, it's great to not have a sole provider/sole caretaker*, but it's not irrelevant who takes care of the child and it does not prevent broken families (it only helps women have better foothold in the job market if the family breaks).


The part in boldface was what I was getting at. Glad we agree.



> Children need their mothers in the first months of their lives as they rely on them for food and comfort. Having too many caretakers - or indeed forcing the child to be with it's dad even if it's crying for their mum - is a very bad idea.


I'm lost by this statement. The mom doesn't have to be the sole or only caregiver. This can apply to situations such as foster families or the mother being deceased.


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

BobtheSaint said:


> I'm lost by this statement. The mom doesn't have to be the sole or only caregiver. This can apply to situations such as foster families or the mother being deceased.


Foster families or mothers being deceased isn't the norm though.
It's not that it *needs* to be the mother, but it just most often is more practical for it to be - for biological reasons as well. I'm not against male adoption though or saying that there has to be a mother.

I know couples where I'd say they've both taken active part in their child's life, but the child still wants to be comforted by mum most of the time, dad some of the time and other times by grandparents.
But I don't look at the strong bond between mother and child and think there's a problem with equality there necessarily. It can lead to problems of course, but I don't think that bond has to be equalled by the bond to the father - a view I've gotten after talking to my mum about what it did to her to have children.


----------



## Aribeth (Jan 14, 2012)

I'd really like to know what feminists around here actually do for "women's rights"


----------



## ohm (May 2, 2012)

andreiuca said:


> I'd really like to know what feminists around here actually do for "women's rights"


"Here" being SAS... Earth... the universe...?


----------



## Aribeth (Jan 14, 2012)

ohm said:


> "Here" being SAS... Earth... the universe...?


SAS. I said I'd like to know what feminists on SAS do for feminism. Cause I saw a lot of feminists and I'm wondering.


----------



## lisbeth (May 18, 2012)

andreiuca said:


> SAS. I said I'd like to know what feminists on SAS do for feminism. Cause I saw a lot of feminists and I'm wondering.


I don't want this statement to sound pejorative, but a lot of people on a social anxiety forum probably don't do very much of anything. The answers you get here in response to that question are unlikely to be representative of feminists as a whole.


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

lisbeth said:


> I don't want this statement to sound pejorative, but a lot of people on a social anxiety forum probably don't do very much of anything. The answers you get here in response to that question are unlikely to be representative of feminists as a whole.


Just voting should be fine imo 
Or of course taking the discussion when it comes up with friends and such.


----------



## DeeperUnderstanding (May 19, 2007)

Do you really need to be out there pounding the streets to be an activist? Can't you just send emails, protest behind your walls, etc?

And yes, I agree, those that have anxiety disorders most likely aren't out there in street protests. Wish I could be, though.


----------



## ohm (May 2, 2012)

andreiuca said:


> SAS. I said I'd like to know what feminists on SAS do for feminism. Cause I saw a lot of feminists and I'm wondering.


I spread the word... I try to educate those that I come across, both online and in my every day life. No one is raised in a vacuum... we've all been fed this societal normative crap, and one day we all had that "AHA!" moment where it all really started to make sense. I like to help people have their "AHA!" moment.

I am actually getting my minor in women's studies in school so I hope that I can use that in conjunction with my profession to educate even better.


----------



## ohgodits2014 (Mar 18, 2011)

andreiuca said:


> I'd really like to know what feminists around here actually do for "women's rights"


I don't really consider myself an activist (and honestly I have other issues interests I care more about), but I try not to contribute to problems that are against the basic principles of feminism. For example, I don't lead girls to believe her looks are the most important thing about her, I don't say things like "be a man," I roll my eyes when someone makes a prostitute joke, and I'm definitely not among the people giggling when they hear a man has been raped or is a victim of domestic abuse.


----------



## Fawnhearted (Jul 24, 2012)

andreiuca said:


> I'd really like to know what feminists around here actually do for "women's rights"


You caught me. The jig is up. I don't actually do anything to help anyone. I just like to sit online and accuse innocent men of being chauvinist pigs.


----------



## Aribeth (Jan 14, 2012)

Fawnhearted said:


> You caught me. The jig is up. I don't actually do anything to help anyone. I just like to sit online and accuse innocent men of being chauvinist pigs.


What kind of answer is that? An admission in a sarcastic tone to make it sound like you're not doing what you just said? Cause it was a really simple question.


----------



## BKrakow (Jul 8, 2010)

I like it. (feminism, that is.)


----------



## lisbeth (May 18, 2012)

andreiuca said:


> What kind of answer is that? An admission in a sarcastic tone to make it sound like you're not doing what you just said? Cause it was a really simple question.


I don't really understand what's wrong with not engaging in stuff on a greater level than applying it to your own life and occasionally evangelising. Feminism doesn't _have_ to be something you actively do things for, although obviously in an ideal world it would be. For most people, it's a personal stance. Like, the definition of 'feminist' is "an advocate or supporter of the rights and equality of women". You can be a feminist without actively being a part of the greater movement, per se.

I mean, I'm an atheist - and I don't engage in that on a greater societal level. In fact, I'm far less likely to argue about the existence of God with somebody than I am to argue about women's rights or the portrayal of women in the media. Yet nobody would suggest my atheism is less valid just because I haven't gone on any anti-Pope marches lately.


----------



## ohm (May 2, 2012)

lisbeth said:


> I don't really understand what's wrong with not engaging in stuff on a greater level than applying it to your own life and occasionally evangelising. Feminism doesn't _have_ to be something you actively do things for, although obviously in an ideal world it would be. For most people, it's a personal stance. Like, the definition of 'feminist' is "an advocate or supporter of the rights and equality of women". You can be a feminist without actively being a part of the greater movement, per se.


Yes, this.


----------



## Jollygoggles (Mar 3, 2011)

ohm said:


> I still can't comprehend making fun of a movement that aims to make situations like this non-existent


Because feminism ostensibly is about making those issues non-existent but that message of fair progress is lost when the culmination of a considerable number of its members (feminism is the last refuge of misandry/androphobia, in my opinion) and their opinions of men mean they start sounding dogmatic (if you're not with us you're against us) and bitter.

I will always be diametrical opposed to it on these grounds and so should every other man if he has an ounce of sense.

You can't attract those bitter women to the message of egalitarianism, or 'gender-egalitarianism' if you want to be more precise. Because it requires members to compromise with, or at the very least recognise, male interests. This will always be the avenue of the open minded.


----------



## Jollygoggles (Mar 3, 2011)

lisbeth said:


> the definition of 'feminist' is "an advocate or supporter of the rights and equality of women".


Definitions rarely take into account human nature.

Feminism may ostensibly strive for these rights and equality (all noble causes) but in practice it attracts people and attitudes that go beyond the pale.


----------



## lisbeth (May 18, 2012)

Jollygoggles said:


> Because feminism ostensibly is about making those issues non-existent but that message of fair progress is lost when the culmination of a considerable number of its members (feminism is the last refuge of misandry/androphobia, in my opinion) and their opinions of men mean they start sounding dogmatic (if you're not with us you're against us) and bitter.
> 
> I will always be diametrical opposed to it on these grounds and so should every other man if he has an ounce of sense.
> 
> You can't attract those bitter women to the message of egalitarianism, or 'gender-egalitarianism' if you want to be more precise. Because it requires members to compromise with, or at the very least recognise, male interests. This will always be the avenue of the open minded.


Could you give a few examples of what you mean by 'male interests'?


----------



## lisbeth (May 18, 2012)

Jollygoggles said:


> Definitions rarely take into account human nature.
> 
> Feminism may ostensibly strive for these rights and equality (all noble causes) but in practice it attracts people and attitudes that go beyond the pale.


Doesn't everything?


----------



## BobbyByThePound (Apr 4, 2012)

Jollygoggles said:


> (feminism is the last refuge of misandry/androphobia, in my opinion) and their opinions of men mean they start sounding dogmatic (if you're not with us you're against us) and bitter.
> 
> I will always be diametrical opposed to it on these grounds and so should every other man if he has an ounce of sense.


"the last refuge of misandry..." you make it sound like us men have been fighting a long ancient war against female oppression. men as a whole are and always have been more powerful than women as a whole. and even the ways in which we think and the messages you see in the media are influenced by us living in a male-dominated society.

since men dominate how our culture thinks, our culture is a lot more mysogynistic than it is misandrist. and even if people's attitudes were equally biased towards both genders, mysognistic men would still cause more harm than misandrist women simply because men have more power in our society.


----------



## Crystalline (Dec 1, 2008)

BobbyByThePound said:


> "the last refuge of misandry..." you make it sound like us men have been fighting a long ancient war against female oppression. men as a whole are and always have been more powerful than women as a whole. and even the ways in which we think and the messages you see in the media are influenced by us living in a male-dominated society.
> 
> since men dominate how our culture thinks, our culture is a lot more mysogynistic than it is misandrist.


Have to love this. Sums up everything IMO. Thanks.


----------



## Crystalline (Dec 1, 2008)

Jollygoggles said:


> Definitions rarely take into account human nature.
> 
> Feminism may ostensibly strive for these rights and equality (all noble causes) but in practice it attracts people and attitudes that go beyond the pale.


So does any revolution or paradigm shift in society's status quo. In the past women who strove for the right to vote were seen as radicals. So were those who supported scientific advancement or discovered it and found the Church taught the opposite.


----------



## lisbeth (May 18, 2012)

BobbyByThePound said:


> "the last refuge of misandry..." you make it sound like us men have been fighting a long ancient war against female oppression. men as a whole are and always have been more powerful than women as a whole. and even the ways in which we think and the messages you see in the media are influenced by us living in a male-dominated society.
> 
> since men dominate how our culture thinks, our culture is a lot more mysogynistic than it is misandrist. and even if people's attitudes were equally biased towards both genders, mysognistic men would still cause more harm than misandrist women simply because men have more power in our society.


Well put!


----------



## Jollygoggles (Mar 3, 2011)

lisbeth said:


> Could you give a few examples of what you mean by 'male interests'?


Male rates of suicide heavily out numbering females. I think biologically males are less 'risk averse' than females so that could account for a statistical discrepancy. Whether this is enough to account for a 5:1 male to female suicide ratio needs examining.
A startling statistic but because this is a male issue it will not show up on feminist radar.

And the legal genital mutilation of male babies (circumcision) not being outlawed in the US even though it leads to 100 unnecessary deaths a year and countless other numbers of complications from scaring.
This is something feminists have no interest in either.

*The assumption that living in a patriarchy only suppresses women or assumption that it privileges men to live in such a society. Patriarchy is very damaging to male freedom of expression. Men will not tackle this under the banner of feminism but would under gender-egalitarianism.* If we could ditch this one thing it'd be best for both sexes.


----------



## Jollygoggles (Mar 3, 2011)

BobbyByThePound said:


> since men dominate how our culture thinks, our culture is a lot more mysogynistic than it is misandrist. and even if people's attitudes were equally biased towards both genders, mysognistic men would still cause more harm than misandrist women simply because men have more power in our society.


See my post on patriarchy.

I feel I need to make clear that my view is simply that feminist movements are not the ideal way to bring about gender equality.


----------



## Jollygoggles (Mar 3, 2011)

BobbyByThePound said:


> since men dominate how our culture thinks, our culture is a lot more mysogynistic than it is misandrist. and even if people's attitudes were equally biased towards both genders, mysognistic men would still cause more harm than misandrist women simply because men have more power in our society.


"men's weakness is their facade of strength; women's strength is their facade of weakness"


----------



## lisbeth (May 18, 2012)

Jollygoggles said:


> Male rates of suicide heavily out numbering females. I think biologically males are less 'risk averse' than females so that could account for a statistical discrepancy. Whether this is enough to account for a 5:1 male to female suicide ratio needs examining.
> A startling statistic but because this is a male issue it will not show up on feminist radar.
> 
> And the legal genital mutilation of male babies (circumcision) not being outlawed in the US even though it leads to 100 unnecessary deaths a year and countless other numbers of complications from scaring.
> ...


Male rates of _successful_ suicide outnumber females, but female _attempted_ suicide is more frequent. Men are more likely to use violent methods such as guns that have a higher success rate, that's all.

Feminism is primarily about women (hence the name!) so it's not surprising that male issues aren't at the top of the agenda. It's a mistake to think that feminism is _exclusively_ interested in women, though. The idea that the patriarchy hurts men too IS a part of feminism. That's different from male privilege, though - it is possible to have male privilege and be hurt by the patriarchy.

The fact that most men are reluctant to associate themselves with anything that mainly concerns women is a whole other issue.


----------



## Jollygoggles (Mar 3, 2011)

lisbeth said:


> Feminism is primarily about women (hence the name!) so it's not surprising that male issues aren't at the top of the agenda.


I am a man but I refuse to ignore women's issues while I'm on this planet. I just will not ascribe to a movement which ignores men's. I want a more inclusive approach to human quality because I feel, as an intelligent species , we have progressed beyond the point where we need to be tied to our evolutionary roles (which created the patriarchal systems in the first place) both in our daily lives and in our politics.


----------



## lisbeth (May 18, 2012)

Jollygoggles said:


> I am a man but I refuse to ignore women's issues while I'm on this planet. I just will not ascribe to a movement which ignores men's. I want a more inclusive approach to human quality because I feel, as an intelligent species , we have progressed beyond the point where we need to be tied to our evolutionary roles (which created the patriarchal systems in the first place) both in our daily lives and in our politics.


There's nothing stopping a person from supporting more than one movement, as long as those movements aren't incompatible.


----------



## NoIce (Sep 10, 2011)

Redundant.


----------



## Jollygoggles (Mar 3, 2011)

I would say that my views (quoted above) are incompatible with feminism.

But that's for another time. 
I need to take a sabbatical from this site. Addictive to say the least.

Ohm, I apologize for temp hijacking your thread. Back to business!


----------



## Crystalline (Dec 1, 2008)

Jolly, if you want a pro-male perspective that includes a healthy dose of feminism, refer to this blog: The Good Men Project (my favorite gender-oriented blog) http://goodmenproject.com/


----------



## ohm (May 2, 2012)

Jollygoggles said:


> I would say that my views (quoted above) are incompatible with feminism.
> 
> But that's for another time. It
> I need to take a sabbatical from this site. Addictive to say the least.
> ...


Lol it is fine... I respect your opinion, even though it differs from mine. It always helps to hear the ideologies of others to help evaluate your own.


----------



## BobbyByThePound (Apr 4, 2012)

Crystalline said:


> Jolly, if you want a pro-male perspective that includes a healthy dose of feminism, refer to this blog: The Good Men Project (my favorite gender-oriented blog) http://goodmenproject.com/


Speakin of men's issues....... I think this thing is gonna give me nightmares http://goodmenproject.com/good-feed-blog/rape-x-revenge-art-or-a-rapists-nightmare/

one day I might be date a girl who I dont know is crazy and she might use that on me during sex if i piss her off.

they should distribute pictures of that thing during abstinence-only sex ed classes and tell teenage boys that theres an epidemic of crazy girls using that on their lovers and theyll be victims of it if they have sex before marriage. if AIDS doesnt scare them then that will.


----------



## ohm (May 2, 2012)

BobbyByThePound said:


> Speakin of men's issues....... I think this thing is gonna give me nightmares http://goodmenproject.com/good-feed-blog/rape-x-revenge-art-or-a-rapists-nightmare/
> 
> one day I might be date a girl who I dont know is crazy and she might use that on me during sex if i piss her off.
> 
> they should distribute pictures of that thing during abstinence-only sex ed classes and tell teenage boys that theres an epidemic of crazy girls using that on their lovers and theyll be victims of it if they have sex before marriage. if AIDS doesnt scare them then that will.


I don't think these are actually being made for "commercial use"... lol


----------



## Aribeth (Jan 14, 2012)

BobbyByThePound said:


> men as a whole are and always have been more powerful than women as a whole. and even the ways in which we think and the messages you see in the media are influenced by us living in a male-dominated society.
> 
> since men dominate how our culture thinks, our culture is a lot more mysogynistic than it is misandrist.


It's called nature. Other species are like this too, in their own primal ways. You can't change nature. Maybe some individuals here and there but...


----------



## Dark Alchemist (Jul 10, 2011)

andreiuca said:


> SAS. I said I'd like to know what feminists on SAS do for feminism. Cause I saw a lot of feminists and I'm wondering.


I have escorted at abortion clinics and advocate for reproductive rights, donate to women's causes around the world, and shoot down ignorant comments about feminism.


----------



## Jollygoggles (Mar 3, 2011)

Crystalline said:


> Jolly, if you want a pro-male perspective that includes a healthy dose of feminism, refer to this blog: The Good Men Project (my favorite gender-oriented blog) http://goodmenproject.com/


I thought I'd just check back to say I had a right good rummage through that site and wow. Thanks for tuning me in to this.



> Guys today are neither the mindless, sex-obsessed buffoons nor the stoic automatons our culture so often makes them out to be. Our community is smart, compassionate, curious, and open-minded; they strive to be good fathers and husbands, citizens and friends, to lead by example at home and in the workplace, and to understand their role in a changing world. The Good Men Project is a place where that happens. We're glad to have you along for the ride.


My kind of people.

Footnote: I still disagree that feminism is the _ideal _method by which to bring about gender equality.


----------



## AllToAll (Jul 6, 2011)

Jollygoggles said:


> I thought I'd just check back to say I had a right good rummage through that site and wow. Thanks for tuning me in to this.
> 
> My kind of people.
> 
> Footnote: I still disagree that feminism is the _ideal _method by which to bring about gender equality.


But... you seem like a sensible person in some of your other posts... how can you _not_ be a feminist? :get


----------



## Jollygoggles (Mar 3, 2011)

AllToAll said:


> But... you seem like a sensible person in some of your other posts... how can you _not_ be a feminist? :get


The distinction I'd like to make here so hopefully it is clear is that the _aims_ of feminism are noble and I agree with most of them, and I am thankful that feminism initially opened the way for true gender equality

however

I don't believe that the _feminist movement_ is the best way to achieve those aims as we approach a great societal shift further away from patriarchy (I'm talking modern democratic societies here). Our roles are no longer as black and white as they once were and so neither should our politics.

This is why I personally snub the label of feminist in favour of gender-egalitarian.
This is how I identify myself.

Anyway you! I'm trying to take a sabbatical from this site I'm so addicted and you're dragging me back. If anybody wishes to debate further, suggest things or just call me a **** you can email me: [email protected]


----------



## Aribeth (Jan 14, 2012)

Dark Alchemist said:


> I have escorted at abortion clinics and advocate for reproductive rights, donate to women's causes around the world, and shoot down ignorant comments about feminism.


What? You.. donated to... "women's causes"?? :rofl
I bet they're like "woah new money!! let's get some more clothes and magazines" :rofl


----------



## OutOfControlPanel (Jul 14, 2012)

n/a


----------



## Paper Samurai (Oct 1, 2009)

I find it strange though when some people say that if you want equal rights for women you're a feminist. There are a lot of different idealogoies that desire equal rights without the baggage that is often associated with feminism (whether rightly or wrongly) For example Egalitarians desire equality for all no matter what the distinction (gender, politics, religion etc.)

An equivalent line of thinking would be 'voting for the democrat candidate in the last election automatically makes someone a liberal' / 'Recycling your rubbish automatically means you are very concerned with climate change and endangered wild life'.


----------



## ohm (May 2, 2012)

PathologicalSigher said:


> Feminism:
> 
> Desirable equality = :yes
> 
> Undesirable equality = :no


Such as?


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

BobbyByThePound said:


> since men dominate how our culture thinks, our culture is a lot more mysogynistic than it is misandrist.


While there are many cases where this is true, it's not universally so.
Diplomacy is valued over force for example; the police will come pick you up if you try to solve a dispute by showing somebody how "right" you are.
The values we claim to have as a democracy are also very much the values we associate with femininity.
Our relationships is monogamistic which is contrary to what many claim to have been male biological urges throughout history and more in line with female wants.
I wouldn't say that makes society misandrist or indeed that it makes for a bad society, but it's not all male power and testosterone driven.


----------



## Dark Alchemist (Jul 10, 2011)

andreiuca said:


> What? You.. donated to... "women's causes"?? :rofl


That's funny to you for some reason? :|

Man, I keep feeling sorrier for you every time you post.



> I bet they're like "woah new money!! let's get some more clothes and magazines" :rofl


Do you honestly not know of any women's charities around the world? (Or how charities work in general?)That's some serious ignorance.

http://www.womenonwaves.org/

http://www.polarisproject.org/

http://www.womenforwomen.org/


----------



## Dark Alchemist (Jul 10, 2011)

Paper Samurai said:


> I find it strange though when some people say that if you want equal rights for women you're a feminist. There are a lot of different idealogoies that desire equal rights without the baggage that is often associated with feminism (whether rightly or wrongly) For example Egalitarians desire equality for all no matter what the distinction (gender, politics, religion etc.)


Feminism goes hand in hand with egalitarianism dude. And why do you seem to think a person needs to be either one or the other? Major logical fallacy there.


----------



## ManOfFewWords (Mar 20, 2012)

http://www.aclu.org/blog/reproducti...r-get-out-school-forces-pregnancy-tests-girls


----------



## OutOfControlPanel (Jul 14, 2012)

n/a


----------



## Paper Samurai (Oct 1, 2009)

Dark Alchemist said:


> Feminism goes hand in hand with egalitarianism dude. And why do you seem to think a person needs to be either one or the other? Major logical fallacy there.


Well dude (why have we morphed into surfers :um) the original point was that someone doesn't have to be a feminist just because they want gender equality. With Egalitarianism being one such alternative (albeit similar in some respects) You could identify with both, neither or just the one.

I can't remember saying anything about them being mutually exclusive. My Gripe was with this fairly common interchange:

Person 1: Are you a Feminist?
Person 2: Nope.
Person 1: Oh, I didn't realise you were against equal rights for women.
Person 2: ...

There's the real logical fallacy imo.


----------



## BobtheBest (Aug 27, 2011)

BobbyByThePound said:


> "the last refuge of misandry..." you make it sound like us men have been fighting a long ancient war against female oppression. men as a whole are and always have been more powerful than women as a whole. and even the ways in which we think and the messages you see in the media are influenced by us living in a male-dominated society.
> 
> since men dominate how our culture thinks, our culture is a lot more mysogynistic than it is misandrist. and even if people's attitudes were equally biased towards both genders, mysognistic men would still cause more harm than misandrist women simply because men have more power in our society.


Well said. :clap:clap


----------



## Twelve Keyz (Aug 28, 2011)

andreiuca said:


> What? You.. donated to... "women's causes"?? :rofl
> I bet they're like "woah new money!! let's get some more clothes and magazines" :rofl


LOL


----------



## ohm (May 2, 2012)

PathologicalSigher said:


> For example, I don't think too many feminists are clamoring to register with the Selective Service. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but I doubt it.


 Well, I posted this earlier in the thread...



ohm said:


> It's not that I am not for with men's issues... there are plenty of things that piss me off about they way that society treats men, like in cases of custody, male sexual harassment/rape, discrimination in certain "feminine" job fields like nursing and secretarial work, being required to register for the military recruitment at age 18 (at least, in the US... as far as this is concerned, I believe everyone should have to! Not necessarily because I think I really wanna go fight a war... but I'm a part of this country and therefore I'd like to take just as much responsibility for it!)
> 
> I'd admit that those aren't my main points to fix because they don't so personally affect me, but I do support the efforts to change them, in the same way that I support LGBTQ rights. I am not marching in gay parades because I am not gay... but I am more than happy to watch on the sidelines and cheer on those who are marching! That doesn't automatically make me AGAINST men's rights or gay rights... that's a different thing entirely. If I campaigned for everything that I believed in, I'd never eat, sleep or have a life again.
> 
> You have to pick your battles, and women's rights is the battle I choose to pick because it is what mostly affects me in my everyday life. You might find that problematic, or reductive of the issues that humans in general have, and that's fine.


----------



## ohm (May 2, 2012)

Paper Samurai said:


> Well dude (why have we morphed into surfers :um) the original point was that someone doesn't have to be a feminist just because they want gender equality. With Egalitarianism being one such alternative (albeit similar in some respects) You could identify with both, neither or just the one.
> 
> I can't remember saying anything about them being mutually exclusive. My Gripe was with this fairly common interchange:
> 
> ...


How does the rest of the convo go, then?


----------



## ohm (May 2, 2012)

andreiuca said:


> What? You.. donated to... "women's causes"?? :rofl
> I bet they're like "woah new money!! let's get some more clothes and magazines" :rofl


Congrats for being super reductive and stereotypical. :clap


----------



## OutOfControlPanel (Jul 14, 2012)

n/a


----------



## gusstaf (Jan 1, 2012)

12 pages...this has got to be a record! Congrats OP! :clap


----------



## ohm (May 2, 2012)

PathologicalSigher said:


> Bravo. You're being consistent with feminist ideals of equality; therefore, you, madame, have my eternal respect (for what that's worth).
> 
> Unfortunately, the vast majority of feminists (I suspect) don't think as you do. They don't seem to have any interest in achieving equality in this regard, which makes it difficult to see feminism (at least as it is now) as an equality movement. So I agree with Jollygoggles when he says that feminism is about gaining power, not about gaining equality.


I'd beg to differ that the majority of feminists are for power gain as opposed to equality. As has been discussed a few times in this thread, in any movement, the loudest people tend to be seen as the leaders of the movement, and for feminism, unfortunately, the loudest people tend to be a minority of the entire movement, radical "femi-nazis" who have glommed onto the movement and convoluted the entire purpose of feminism!


----------



## ohm (May 2, 2012)

gustafsg said:


> 12 pages...this has got to be a record! Congrats OP! :clap


Why, thank you


----------



## Jollygoggles (Mar 3, 2011)

Come back to quickly see how this thread has progressed.

See this



PathologicalSigher said:


> So I agree with Jollygoggles when he says that feminism is about gaining power, not about gaining equality.


Set phasers to smug.

/thread.


----------



## ohm (May 2, 2012)

Jollygoggles said:


> Come back to quickly see how this thread has progressed.
> 
> See this
> 
> ...


Oh god lol


----------



## Dark Alchemist (Jul 10, 2011)

Paper Samurai said:


> I can't remember saying anything about them being mutually exclusive. My Gripe was with this fairly common interchange:
> 
> Person 1: Are you a Feminist?
> Person 2: Nope.
> ...


Person 2 fails to realize that if you believe in equal rights for both genders that makes you agree with feminism.


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

Dark Alchemist said:


> Person 2 fails to realize that if you believe in equal rights for both genders that makes you agree with feminism.


It doesn't.
There are cultural implications and interpretations of political terms which differ from area to area, country to country.
Asking whether somebody is a feminist can mean a great many things and the person doesn't necessarily agree with all of them.

One example could be that one thinks Feminism just to be about equal rights in society as we have it now while another might see society as male dominated in structure/values and thus it should be changed.. a third might see that line of thought as making women less capable than men and be offended by that due to their understanding of Feminism.
It's just hard to say anything definite.


----------



## mcmuffinme (Mar 12, 2010)

I imagine you're not going to get a lot of positive responses from people on this forum in regards to feminism. Feminism is still considered taboo in a way. Negative stereotypes about feminism are prevalent, and unfortunately the uneducated public often buys into lies and hateful rhetoric regarding feminism without ever checking the facts.

It's a remarkably poorly understood subject.

I once had a guy tell me that he didn't believe in feminism because women have nice bathrooms. Some people are open to new information and ideas, and others want to pretend they understand everything so much that they become petulant and stupid in the face of arguments that conflict with their initial understandings. It's their loss because they'll have to live with being closed-minded dimwits their entire lives.


----------



## Crystalline (Dec 1, 2008)

Yawn at these stupid generalizations about women being good for nothing but clothes. Oh hey look, a woman who models shoes and just happens to serve in the Army too.

I did ROTC and would do compulsory signup if necessary, not that I'd be any good at it. Plus I'm not a US citizen *shrugs*


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

On the word "Feminism" - from a really great youtuber with lots of interviews with professors from university a UK university:


----------



## lisbeth (May 18, 2012)

Milco said:


> While there are many cases where this is true, it's not universally so.
> Diplomacy is valued over force for example; the police will come pick you up if you try to solve a dispute by showing somebody how "right" you are.
> The values we claim to have as a democracy are also very much the values we associate with femininity.
> Our relationships is monogamistic which is contrary to what many claim to have been male biological urges throughout history and more in line with female wants.
> I wouldn't say that makes society misandrist or indeed that it makes for a bad society, but it's not all male power and testosterone driven.


I think it's a mistake to associate any one kind of behaviour with masculinity or femininity, because most of the differences you mention are culturally masculine/feminine rather than biologically innate, if they're to do with masculinity and femininity at all. I think it's kind of offensive to men to suggest that they'll naturally solve disputes by force rather than trying to reason their way out of it (surely it depends on the individual and the situation), or to suggest that men can't control their sexual urges and are naturally inclined towards infidelity. Technically, all humans are naturally inclined towards infidelity. Research into both human and animal behaviour has shown that males and females of pretty much all species are equally non-monogamous. Similarly, women aren't necessarily diplomatic. It's just that many women may not have the physical force to back up their anger/aggression, may be too scared of the consequences (men pose a bigger physical threat to women than vice-versa), or may have been socialised out of it too much to show it. Basically, you really can't generalise. People differ a lot from individual to individual. I really don't believe that there's as much innate difference between male and female brains than the Daily Mail would have everyone believe.


----------



## ohm (May 2, 2012)

mcmuffinme said:


> i imagine you're not going to get a lot of positive responses from people on this forum in regards to feminism. Feminism is still considered taboo in a way. Negative stereotypes about feminism are prevalent, and unfortunately the uneducated public often buys into lies and hateful rhetoric regarding feminism without ever checking the facts.
> 
> It's a remarkably poorly understood subject.
> 
> I once had a guy tell me that he didn't believe in feminism because women have nice bathrooms. Some people are open to new information and ideas, and others want to pretend they understand everything so much that they become petulant and stupid in the face of arguments that conflict with their initial understandings. It's their loss because they'll have to live with being closed-minded dimwits their entire lives.


Talk about inequality, men have a whole other peeing device!


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

lisbeth said:


> I think it's kind of offensive to men to suggest that they'll naturally solve disputes by force rather than trying to reason their way out of it (surely it depends on the individual and the situation), or to suggest that men can't control their sexual urges and are naturally inclined towards infidelity.
> ...
> I really don't believe that there's as much innate difference between male and female brains than the Daily Mail would have everyone believe.


Saying that something is statistically true - or statistically more inclined - is not the same as saying it is true for all people and all individuals.
Nevertheless, I believe men are more inclined to violence and solving problems through force than women are. And I also believe men are more promiscuous than women are statistically.
I myself am not a good example of either, but that doesn't mean it's not true on the whole.

I honestly believe there are innate differences between men and women, though I don't see that as a problem and certainly not as an excuse for discrimination.
My point is actually that if there are innate differences (if our mental biologies are not 100% the same) then these differences ought to be taken into account rather than suppressed. Suppressing them would be discrimination.


----------



## BobtheBest (Aug 27, 2011)

Milco said:


> It doesn't.
> There are cultural implications and interpretations of political terms which differ from area to area, country to country.
> Asking whether somebody is a feminist can mean a great many things and the person doesn't necessarily agree with all of them.
> 
> ...


What's so "definite" about feminism is that it's just equal rights for both genders. That's all. Either you're for it or you're not, it's a pretty easy call.


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

BobtheSaint said:


> What's so "definite" about feminism is that it's just equal rights for both genders. That's all. Either you're for it or you're not, it's a pretty easy call.


That's not all there is to it.. not necessarily.
And what constitues "equal rights" is also debatable. Arguably there are equal rights now, but still not equality.
And regardless, I still prefer not to use the label Feminist.


----------



## rapidfox1 (Sep 13, 2010)

I like this thread. I too believe that men and women should be equal.


----------



## ohm (May 2, 2012)

Mimic said:


> That's your definition of feminism, yes. Some more radical feminists think differently than you do though, as some most definitely do not want equal rights for men and women, instead fighting for more rights for women. It's all about perspective. That's why it is stupid to insult someone for not being "for" feminism, since feminism means many different things to many different people.


"Radical feminists" that don't believe in equality between all genders are NOT feminists and frankly, we don't want them. They can go chill with Femitheist for all I care (fun fact: she removed her blog... I was reading less than a week ago! LAME.)


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

ohm said:


> "Radical feminists" that don't believe in equality between all genders are NOT feminists and frankly, we don't want them. They can go chill with Femitheist for all I care (fun fact: she removed her blog... I was reading less than a week ago! LAME.)


I'm not sure I understand though..
If feminism is essentially the same as egalitarianism, then why call it feminism and not egalitarianism when the latter implies more things included than gender? What is gained by having it be feminism (other than an easier to pronounce name)?
I would assume it's because feminism has cultural implications, connotations and heritage, but if we say that it has that, then we've also said that it's not just about equality, but that it has something more to it.


----------



## ohm (May 2, 2012)

Milco said:


> I'm not sure I understand though..
> If feminism is essentially the same as egalitarianism, then why call it feminism and not egalitarianism when the latter implies more things included than gender? What is gained by having it be feminism (other than an easier to pronounce name)?
> I would assume it's because feminism has cultural implications, connotations and heritage, but if we say that it has that, then we've also said that it's not just about equality, but that it has something more to it.


Ok, let me clear this up. (Mind you, this is just my personal understanding of it all.) Feminists believe in equal rights for all genders. HOWEVER, we recognize that women are less equal than men in our current society, so we strive to bring them to them to level as men. We don't innately ignore or not not care about men's issues, but bettering women's issues is our primary focus (of course, this is a sweeping generalization... plenty of feminists would probably consider themselves to be feminist egalitarians, myself included, I suppose.) You could automatically say that this bias is what makes feminists against men, but what you're not realizing is that while some stuff sucks for men, overall more stuff sucks for women. Once the same amount of stuff sucks for both men and women, then we are free to worry about both men's and women's issues in equal measure. So it's called feminism because it's primarily about women. However, what most people, especially men and MRAs don't realize is that you can be a part of feminism whilst simultaneously fighting for men's rights but that doesn't make you a pure egalitarian, necessarily. I am sorry if that confuses you more... please ask to clarify if need be.


----------



## BobtheBest (Aug 27, 2011)

Mimic said:


> That's your definition of feminism, yes. Some more radical feminists think differently than you do though, as some most definitely do not want equal rights for men and women, instead fighting for more rights for women. It's all about perspective. That's why it is stupid to insult someone for not being "for" feminism, since feminism means many different things to many different people.


"Radical feminists" are the extremists that stray from the bunch. They don't really seem to be feminists at all and they go overboard.

No matter what group you join, there's always a few loonies that get all the attention and create the wrong impression for everyone in it...


----------



## SJMawd (Aug 10, 2012)

Sorry to jump in here when I've not contributed so far, but I've just read through all this, and honestly, if I can put my two cents in, it's that there's so much miscommunication and perception that contributes to what people's opinion about these issues.

There are males who are against feminism because, I think, the way that feminism frequently comes across in the media - if they knew that it was just about equality, and having fair opportunities, then they would be fine with it, but what they PERCEIVE as feminism is what people on this thread agreed to be women riding on the wave of feminism in order to feel more powerful, stroke their ego and to get their way all the time. 
TBH, I think the men's rights groups have been dismissed here too quickly, just like the feminists were, when they started out. And again, it's about perception, but not on an individual level, on a societal one. Women will see how women are mistreated more clearly, and the men in these groups will see how men have been mistreated. These will be men who might have lost the right to see their children in a custody battle and the like. The way the PERCEIVE feminism is as a hypocrisy, because, let's be honest, there are still plenty of women out there who don't want independence. They want their HUSBAND to go downstairs in the middle of the night to check out that noise and put themselves in danger of the wife, they want the MEN to do the physical labour, pay for the meal. I know my grandma is still in the mindset that when she sees a man resting and a woman doing physical work, she will wonder why it's not the other way round. These women exist, and men see them all the time, but then, while the boys were signing for the selective service system, they get told that women have get a raw deal. Women DO get a raw deal, but in order to fix it, you need to get everyone on board, INCLUDING men, and that isn't going to happen when men keep hearing that they're assumed to be the bad guys (someone has already posted here affirming that they would assume a violent crime is committed by a man.)

The message for feminists, whom I support, is that whilst you may be hate being perceived as weaker by some, you forget that the 'weaker' will be protected more - and it makes men feel like nobody cares about them, that they are cannon fodder, and that their lives are not worth as much as a woman's, but are constantly being told that women are not valued near as much as men. This will probably sound bitter, and I'm sorry for that, but I honestly think that this is the crux of the problem - I think that the men who are needed to lift feminism to what it should be, instead hate it, because it makes them feel that nothing they do is appreciated, or even noticed. Once again, not saying women's problem's shouldn't be focused on, and I support feminism lol.


----------



## ohm (May 2, 2012)

SJMawd said:


> Sorry to jump in here when I've not contributed so far, but I've just read through all this, and honestly, if I can put my two cents in, it's that there's so much miscommunication and perception that contributes to what people's opinion about these issues.
> 
> There are males who are against feminism because, I think, the way that feminism frequently comes across in the media - if they knew that it was just about equality, and having fair opportunities, then they would be fine with it, but what they PERCEIVE as feminism is what people on this thread agreed to be women riding on the wave of feminism in order to feel more powerful, stroke their ego and to get their way all the time.
> TBH, I think the men's rights groups have been dismissed here too quickly, just like the feminists were, when they started out. And again, it's about perception, but not on an individual level, on a societal one. Women will see how women are mistreated more clearly, and the men in these groups will see how men have been mistreated. These will be men who might have lost the right to see their children in a custody battle and the like. The way the PERCEIVE feminism is as a hypocrisy, because, let's be honest, there are still plenty of women out there who don't want independence. They want their HUSBAND to go downstairs in the middle of the night to check out that noise and put themselves in danger of the wife, they want the MEN to do the physical labour, pay for the meal. I know my grandma is still in the mindset that when she sees a man resting and a woman doing physical work, she will wonder why it's not the other way round. These women exist, and men see them all the time, but then, while the boys were signing for the selective service system, they get told that women have get a raw deal. Women DO get a raw deal, but in order to fix it, you need to get everyone on board, INCLUDING men, and that isn't going to happen when men keep hearing that they're assumed to be the bad guys (someone has already posted here affirming that they would assume a violent crime is committed by a man.)
> ...


I totally agree. As a woman, one the one hand, too bad... women have been not cared about or important for years, yada yada yada... but on the other hand, where I am an empathetic person that realizes that, from a man's perspective, the changes that need to be brought about for women to be equal to them are going to change their own roles in society and I'd imagine that really sucks on a personal level. I guess there has to be some kind of middle ground... what that is, I haven't figured out yet lol.


----------



## ohm (May 2, 2012)

ohm said:


> "Radical feminists" that don't believe in equality between all genders are NOT feminists and frankly, we don't want them. They can go chill with Femitheist for all I care (fun fact: she removed her blog... I was reading less than a week ago! LAME.)


For anyone who cares...and I am not entirely sure if this is accurate, because I feel like the feminist blogosphere would be all a-buzz... apparently Femitheist committed suicide a few weeks ago. She apparently wrote a farewell blog post on her site (I can't find any mirrors to confirm this, so I can't tell you what it said.) Again I can't find anything official to confirm this but I thought I'd make note of it. Do with this info what you will.

This video is a verbal recitation of her farewell post, APPARENTLY


----------



## SJMawd (Aug 10, 2012)

Glad you agree, I was worried that it was a bit too much of a rant and that I don't care about the ways which women are under-appreciated lol. I think the main culprit is (shockingly - not...) the popular media. 
I did an essay last year about the film Psycho, and the role of feminism in it, and whilst doing research, I heard that a lot of feminist scholars were unhappy with another well-known female protagonist: Ellen Ripley, from alien. I was surprised at this, actually, because I thought Ellen Ripley would be heralded as a great icon by feminists, because (in Aliens at least) she is driven by maternal instincts and yet is a strong and logical character. But the criticism was, apparently, that she was too 'mannish,' and the the academics argued that it seems a woman would have to forgo her femininity in order to be strong and logical, in films. So this got me thinking - what would, as a feminist, be your idea of a solid lead woman that does not scrap her femininity, and do you agree/disagree with what was said about Ellen Ripley? I suppose it would depend on the genre, naturally, so I don't know if you would be thinking of action films or?


----------



## ohm (May 2, 2012)

SJMawd said:


> Glad you agree, I was worried that it was a bit too much of a rant and that I don't care about the ways which women are under-appreciated lol. I think the main culprit is (shockingly - not...) the popular media.
> I did an essay last year about the film Psycho, and the role of feminism in it, and whilst doing research, I heard that a lot of feminist scholars were unhappy with another well-known female protagonist: Ellen Ripley, from alien. I was surprised at this, actually, because I thought Ellen Ripley would be heralded as a great icon by feminists, because (in Aliens at least) she is driven by maternal instincts and yet is a strong and logical character. But the criticism was, apparently, that she was too 'mannish,' and the the academics argued that it seems a woman would have to forgo her femininity in order to be strong and logical, in films. So this got me thinking - what would, as a feminist, be your idea of a solid lead woman that does not scrap her femininity, and do you agree/disagree with what was said about Ellen Ripley? I suppose it would depend on the genre, naturally, so I don't know if you would be thinking of action films or?


I've never actually seen "Alien", which makes me feel lame because I love Sci-Fi (I am kinda not a fan of older movies, but I'll watch it just for you!) But going off entirely what you're saying, about how being "mannish", ie being like a man, is the only way that women are allowed to exist in strong roles: I find it problematic that this is even an issue. What constitutes being "mannish" versus being "feminine"? Having a shaved head, or long flowing blonde locks that one can twirl around their finger and flip over their shoulder? I don't equate vanity with being feminine, or a woman. I am not a particularly "girly" girl but I still definitely consider myself a woman. I'm sure that "butch" lesbians and male-to-female transsexuals do, as well. It's like this stupid article floating around the internet about how the Olympics has obliterated womanhood (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...g-Olympic-Games-destroying-female-figure.html).

Here is a list that I approve that a good female character must adhere to: (http://rachaellefler.hubpages.com/hub/Writing-Good-Female-Characters-From-A-Feminist-Perspective). I'll also add that her character must pass the Bechdel test personally (more about it here: 



)

I think a really good example of a feminist character in recent movies is Katniss Everdeen. Yep.


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

ohm said:


> Ok, let me clear this up.
> <SNIP>
> I am sorry if that confuses you more... please ask to clarify if need be.


It's not that I'm so worried about men's issues per se (though there are some social issues with the educational system and "loser men"), but my main problem with using the word "feminism" is that it suggests gender to be the root of the problem rather than racial divides for example.. or educational problems or other kinds of social problems that create division.

There are two main reasons why I think that's important.
One is that it's naturally important to include every group that is currently receiving less than fair treatment in the solution - or even individuals if some is not on group basis.
The other is my fear that we are replacing one bad system with another.
It's no secret that power tends to corrupt and rather than spreading out the power evenly, most often the debate (at least here) is on how women can assume as much power as men statistically speaking. It doesn't do much for those without power, but only lets them be assured that other groups have it equally bad in a statistically 'fair' distribution. If that makes sense..?


----------



## Crystalline (Dec 1, 2008)

ohm said:


> I've never actually seen "Alien", which makes me feel lame because I love Sci-Fi (I am kinda not a fan of older movies, but I'll watch it just for you!) But going off entirely what you're saying, about how being "mannish", ie being like a man, are the only way that women are allowed to exist in strong roles I find it problematic that this is even an issue. What constitutes being "mannish" versus being "feminine"? Having a shaved head, or long flowing blonde locks that one can twirl around their finger and flip over their shoulder? I don't equate vanity with being feminine, or a woman. I am not a particularly "girly" girl but I still definitely consider myself a woman. I'm sure that "butch" lesbians and male-to-female transsexuals do, as well. It's like this stupid article floating around the internet about how the Olympics has obliterated womanhood (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...g-Olympic-Games-destroying-female-figure.html).


Ripley was an awesome female character. For someone to say she was too mannish indicates a narrowminded POV of actually having a set of limiting standards on how female roles should be.

If you watched Prometheus, the main character was a feminist nightmare and the entire thing of her being played off against the "strong" authoritative villainous female-in-charge (and being depicted as the nurturing partner/wife/mother role who wins out in the end - and refuses to call what happened an 'abortion') was borderline offensive.


----------



## SJMawd (Aug 10, 2012)

I know, this gets me thinking every time there's a discussion about masculine/feminine, and what's funny is: in psychology, there's a surprising amount of assumptions made about what is masculine and feminine, apart from the actual branch of study that deals with the issue (i.e. people that are male and 'feel feminine' and people that are female and 'feel masculine'.) But what is masc/fem is decided by society - there are some societies out there that have completely different ideas about they are (I admit I should find out more about this in order to talk about it).

I could see where the critics got the idea from - testosterone is fundamental in the size and shape of men, who are obviously a lot bigger (on average) - but it's obvious, from things like the olympics, for example, that women are totally capable of building physique, and that means that there's nothing 'unnatural' about it. I'm pretty sure there were greek goddesses depicted as muscular, who were not thought to be any less of a woman...


----------



## lisbeth (May 18, 2012)

SJMawd said:


> But what is masc/fem is decided by society - there are some societies out there that have completely different ideas about they are (I admit I should find out more about this in order to talk about it).


This is true. I remember reading in The Times a few years ago that anthropologists were studying an isolated community somewhere in the world where it was women who showed aggression and risk-taking behaviour more than men, whereas in our society it's stereotypically the other way around. I wish I could remember anything more specific. I'm sure there are more and better examples, but what I mean to say is that I really think that people's behaviour depends more on the environment than anything else. 'Nurture' rather than 'nature'.


----------



## northstar1991 (Oct 4, 2011)

Milco said:


> It's not that I'm so worried about men's issues per se (though there are some social issues with the educational system and "loser men"), but my main problem with using the word "feminism" is that it suggests gender to be the root of the problem rather than racial divides for example.. or educational problems or other kinds of social problems that create division.
> 
> There are two main reasons why I think that's important.
> One is that it's naturally important to include every group that is currently receiving less than fair treatment in the solution - or even individuals if some is not on group basis.
> ...


Feminism nowadays is more intersectional, concerned with ending discrimination based on gender, race, class, sexual orientation, etc. There are different types of feminism that suggest the roots of inequality in different ways. Radical feminists believe that gender is the root of the problems in society. They advocate a radical reorganization of society. Liberal feminists believe laws are the source of the problems in society. They advocate changing and passing laws more than changing society. Socialist feminists believe that class is the source of the problems in society. They believe that capitalism exploits people and should be replaced. Womanists believe that race is the source of the problems in our society. Womanism, also known as "black feminism", was brought about in response to the marginalization of black women in feminism during the second wave of the feminist movement. There's other kinds but these are the best known ones. So you see that the only feminism that suggests gender is the root of the problem.


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

northstar1991 said:


> Feminism nowadays is more intersectional, concerned with ending discrimination based on gender, race, class, sexual orientation, etc. There are different types of feminism that suggest the roots of inequality in different ways.


I really appreciate you taking the time to write that description - I must admit I don't know all the particular subgroups - but I'm still not sure why to call them feminism and not egalitarianism unless gender plays a distinct and special part.
I wonder though.. is there one that thinks human nature is fundamentally the root of the problem and not the social abstractions we make?


----------



## northstar1991 (Oct 4, 2011)

Milco said:


> I really appreciate you taking the time to write that description - I must admit I don't know all the particular subgroups - but I'm still not sure why to call them feminism and not egalitarianism unless gender plays a distinct and special part.
> I wonder though.. is there one that thinks human nature is fundamentally the root of the problem and not the social abstractions we make?


One can believe in the goals of feminism and not use the term if they don't want to. Some choose to use the term egalitarianism. Both names suggest the idea of equal rights. To answer your question, there isn't a type of feminism that thinks human nature is fundamentally the root of the problem.


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

northstar1991 said:


> One can believe in the goals of feminism and not use the term if they don't want to. Some choose to use the term egalitarianism. Both names suggest the idea of equal rights. To answer your question, there isn't a type of feminism that thinks human nature is fundamentally the root of the problem.


That's a shame. Seems to me like dominance, power and using power to benefit yourself and those who are like you while alienating people who are 'different' very much are part of human nature - though the boundary for what is considered different is continuously being pushed; other families -> neighbouring tribe -> other regions -> other countries -> other cultures and so on.
Laws and classes are ultimately human constructions so if there's something wrong with them it suggests something being wrong with the people.

But yeah.. I'll still choose to not use the word feminism.
It just isn't clear to me that that is also fighting for the rights of the poor for example - seems like stretching the label quite a bit.
But I think equality, differences between people and what we do about them are extremely interesting subjects, so thanks for taking the time to reply


----------



## yourfavestoner (Jan 14, 2010)

The problem with many feminists, and the movement in general, is it has gone from equality to women to superiority for women.


----------



## ohm (May 2, 2012)

yourfavestoner said:


> The problem with many feminists, and the movement in general, is it has gone from equality to women to superiority for women.


I am going to assume you ignored like 75% of this forum thread, at the very least, since we have addressed that in minute detail lol


----------



## ohm (May 2, 2012)

Mimic said:


> You're probably right, but maybe he just wasn't satisfied with the explanations given?
> 
> On another note, could I get your opinion on this blog post here? http://evebitfirst.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/a-man-is-a-rape-supporter-if/
> Would you consider this radical or not?
> ...


Eh, I'd definitely consider this radical. I think some points are completely situational for the individual man... I mean, I am even "guilty" of some of these (I can tell you which ones if you WANT but that's another story lol). I think some of these are sexist, and deserve to be on the list, and some of these are just being overly sensitive about our society in general.


----------



## yourfavestoner (Jan 14, 2010)

ohm said:


> I am going to assume you ignored like 75% of this forum thread, at the very least, since we have addressed that in minute detail lol


I didn't read a single post outside of the OP, but now I'm intrigued enough to look through the whole thread.


----------



## ohm (May 2, 2012)

yourfavestoner said:


> I didn't read a single post outside of the OP, but now I'm intrigued enough to look through the whole thread.


Well, good, tell me what you think!


----------



## low (Sep 27, 2009)

Here's a thought on feminism:



ohm said:


> Yes, me wanting to be able to govern my own vagina is clearly equated with me wanting men to have butt sex. How did I miss that in Feminist Theory class?!


Did I state that? When the fudge did I state women shouldn't govern their own vagina?

To misrepresent a contesting argument to a misogynistic attack or demonise people with cheap strawmanning and character sabotage.

How the hell is this alienated generation of men and women supposed to build bridges when you harpies consistently act in such a despicable way and can not break your own egos or entitlement complexes or listen for just a moment?

This does NOT seem to be about fairness or open debate, or discovery, just an agenda to push.


----------



## ohm (May 2, 2012)

I knew you'd find your way over here. :roll You sabotaged that poor guy's thread... IT HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH FEMINISM. Feminists don't make men want to have sexual relationships with other men. No. Not hardly. Never. That's it. It's laughable. The end.

I never said you don't think women shouldn't govern their own vaginas... I was just using a situation which alluded to the fact that that is a part of feminism. As far as I interpreted your comments within the thread, you essentially said that because of feminism, men are becoming more feminine, which is making them want to be with each other sexually. But all you saw was "blah, blah, blah, some *****y "feminazi" opened her mouth" and you convoluted what I said/meant. Talk about strawmanning.

Now, if you wanna start a war with me, fine, pm me, we're not gonna do it here because I'm not gonna let this thread get closed because of something that's not even adding to the current discussion within this thread.

Oh, and you called me a harpy. High five for the misogynistic remark.


----------



## iamwhoiam (May 14, 2012)

Most of what I have seen of feminism is women wanting to be treated like men and wanting men to act like women so everyone can be 'equal'. (yes, I already know that is not the view of _every_ feminist..) 
Guess I am old-fashioned, but I think women should be proud of being a woman and men should be proud of being a man. Also vice-versa: Men should be proud of women, and women should be proud of men.
People seem to forget that men and women are different. (and not just physicaly). I think that all the feminists out there should focus on helping _everyone_ to be treated fairly, not just women..


----------



## ohm (May 2, 2012)

iamwhoiam said:


> Most of what I have seen of feminism is women wanting to be treated like men and wanting men to act like women so everyone can be 'equal'. (yes, I already know that is not the view of _every_ feminist..)
> Guess I am old-fashioned, but I think women should be proud of being a woman and men should be proud of being a man. Also vice-versa: Men should be proud of women, and women should be proud of men.
> People seem to forget that men and women are different. (and not just physicaly). I think that all the feminists out there should focus on helping _everyone_ to be treated fairly, not just women..


By being treated like a man, I just don't want to have to be subjected to being called "sweetheart", or being sexually harassed when I walk down the street, or automatically being a **** because of my clothes/curves/etc. I like being a woman... I like being feminine.I like men being hairy and manly and muscly in the ways that women generally aren't. I just don't want to have to be accosted in the way that men never are, and I don't see what's wrong with that.


----------



## Crystalline (Dec 1, 2008)

iamwhoiam said:


> Most of what I have seen of feminism is women wanting to be treated like men and wanting men to act like women so everyone can be 'equal'. (yes, I already know that is not the view of _every_ feminist..)
> Guess I am old-fashioned, but I think women should be proud of being a woman and men should be proud of being a man. Also vice-versa: Men should be proud of women, and women should be proud of men.
> People seem to forget that men and women are different. (and not just physicaly). I think that all the feminists out there should focus on helping _everyone_ to be treated fairly, not just women..


This "being proud of x gender" however often results in our expecting a certain individual to fit gender roles they may not want to fill.

For example, I keep encountering guys who ask me why I don't want children, or expecting me to be making myself pretty to attract men when the fact is I want to look good for myself. This concept seems difficult to grasp for some men who perceive that all women want to do in terms of fashion is look good to attract the opposite sex rather than say, express their individuality or just satisfy their own sense of aesthetics. (I don't want a big chest for example. I also do not like curves on myself.)

I also tend to like men to be a little traditionally up front and in charge of themselves (but I like women to be like that too) and tend to not respect what I perceive as weakness in my partner since I've associated that strength with masculinity. This is obviously difficult and I try very hard not to impose that too much on another person. Any man who expects me to conform to a passive "feminine" gender role is going to be pretty disappointed though.


----------



## ohm (May 2, 2012)

Mimic said:


> http://www.socialanxietysupport.com...e-there-are-easier-available-and-dont-198237/
> 
> I'm sure this guy wouldn't have had much of a problem if he lived back in the days when women didn't have any real choice in the matter. Then the feminists came along...


Right? Hellllllllooooo! For hundreds of years, homosexual behavior was totally acceptable amongst the men of the upper class in Western society. As far as I'm aware, women were still just baby ovens at that point.


----------



## Fawnhearted (Jul 24, 2012)

low said:


> Here's a thought on feminism:
> 
> Did I state that? When the fudge did I state women shouldn't govern their own vagina?
> 
> ...


Feminism is exactly like committing genocide!


----------



## BobtheBest (Aug 27, 2011)

Mimic said:


> http://www.socialanxietysupport.com...e-there-are-easier-available-and-dont-198237/
> 
> I'm sure this guy wouldn't have had much of a problem if he lived back in the days when women didn't have any real choice in the matter. Then the feminists came along...


Doesn't matter. Restricting other people's choice isn't cool.


----------



## McdonaldMiller (Apr 16, 2012)

Women do take more time off due to homemaking and pregnancy. That does affect their career. This mightve already been mentioned. But I dont think when they come back from that that they should continue ahead.


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

****Thread Lock Watch****
*GENDER WAR SITUATION ALERT*

Some people in this thread need to cool their jets....NOW!


----------



## ohm (May 2, 2012)

Mimic said:


> Men are expected to be tough. They're expected to hide their emotions in almost every situation. And the worst, in my opinion, is that men are expected to work and work and work in order to advance in their career and make bigger and bigger paychecks. Many people consider men who don't do this lesser than men who do.
> 
> I agree with your quote, but you can't pretend that men don't have to deal with similar things, and you're not going to win anybody over to your side by stating that other people's problems are not a big deal or don't exist at all.


I empathize, but men have the power. They can change so much more than woman can, especially within their own gender. Me telling a guy, "Please, cry, I like it! " is just gonna get an eye roll. Men are the only ones that can change what's wrong for men in society, at least until women are equal.

PM if you wanna finish this


----------



## ohm (May 2, 2012)

Mimic said:


> The guy in that thread said, among other things, that women intimidate him. My point was that women are free to make their own decisions and judgments of people now, which is probably part of what intimidates him. If he lived in an earlier time he may have just been able to barter with a woman's father if he wanted a relationship. So, indirectly, feminism is causing him to date other men.
> 
> But it's too late now. The joke is forever lost. Forgive me for thinking that feminists could laugh at themselves.


Lol I GET IT.


----------



## iamwhoiam (May 14, 2012)

ohm said:


> By being treated like a man, I just don't want to have to be subjected to being called "sweetheart", or being sexually harassed when I walk down the street, or automatically being a **** because of my clothes/curves/etc. I like being a woman... I like being feminine.I like men being hairy and manly and muscly in the ways that women generally aren't. I just don't want to have to be accosted in the way that men never are, and I don't see what's wrong with that.


Real men don't harrass women. Insecure boys in mens bodies do.
Men are accosted by women too though. There are even some threads on SAS telling experiences of it. Women harrass women too. Just hang out in any High School and you can see it daily. Everyone deserves respect whether they are male or female.


----------



## Fawnhearted (Jul 24, 2012)

iamwhoiam said:


> Real men don't harrass women. Insecure boys in mens bodies do.
> Men are accosted by women too though. There are even some threads on SAS telling experiences of it. Women harrass women too. Just hang out in any High School and you can see it daily. Everyone deserves respect whether they are male or female.


I'm glad that you don't respect men who harass and assault women, but your point of view isn't universal, unfortunately.


----------



## low (Sep 27, 2009)

ohm said:


> I empathize, but men have the power. They can change so much more than woman can, especially within their own gender. Me telling a guy, "Please, cry, I like it! " is just gonna get an eye roll. Men are the only ones that can change what's wrong for men in society, at least until women are equal.
> 
> PM if you wanna finish this


Women have plenty of power in society. A far greater number of women have access to their children in society than men. I believe there is an 82% custodial bias in favour of women in the US. Clearly they are in a position to change the hearts and minds of young men. Therefore I would argue that women have greater power to change the male gender. It's interesting to note that single mothers produce more criminals than single fathers do too, despite this.

There is also biological basis for this in sexual selection, which is well grounded scientific theory. If we go straight to dating website statistics and studies you will see that there are blatant biases applied to men, these are attributes such as job, wage, social standing, and especially extraversion. From a biological standpoint and not just in humans, clearly there is evidence that women are in a place to drive male behaviour.

Culturally, there are more daytime chatshow hosts than there are men. Especially so in the daytime. Shows like 'Loose Women' in the UK are clearly matriarchal.

If you are talking about politics then there are more women who attain degrees and higher education certificates than males. Arguably because of the female-centric male bias educational system (but that's another issue). Yet despite this, women do not actively pursue careers in politics i.e. there isn't a formal educational bias of the system being applied to women and of those women studying politics and graduating there is only a 3% under-representation, an often far worse exaggerated figure. 55% of managers are female too by the way.

Perhaps men still aren't emotionally prepped to cry in our society and feminism is failing in this issue. Afterall _'big boys don't cry'_ and there are clear studies showing from young infancy - differences in how parents interact with their babies. Again I'll remind you that of single parents, the majority of children are raised by their mother. Ironic considering the amount of 'manbaby' type comments I've come accross in feminist topics.


----------



## ohm (May 2, 2012)

low said:


> Women have plenty of power in society. A far greater number of women have access to their children in society than men. I believe there is an 82% custodial bias in favour of women in the US. Clearly they are in a position to change the hearts and minds of young men. Therefore I would argue that women have greater power to change the male gender. It's interesting to note that single mothers produce more criminals than single fathers do too, despite this.
> 
> There is also biological basis for this in sexual selection, which is well grounded scientific theory. If we go straight to dating website statistics and studies you will see that there are blatant biases applied to men, these are attributes such as job, wage, social standing, and especially extraversion. From a biological standpoint and not just in humans, clearly there is evidence that women are in a place to drive male behaviour.
> 
> ...


Well thanks for the input.


----------



## Kevin001 (Jan 2, 2015)

I still don't know what feminism is. Supporting women's rights? :stu


----------



## funnynihilist (Jul 29, 2014)

Kevin001 said:


> I still don't know what feminism is. Supporting women's rights? :stu


A social device that was implemented to motivate women to leave the house and join the workforce at a time when America needed more workers. 
This was sold as "empowerment" and it was extremely successful.
Now it is about keeping middle class women happy and making sure that they have every option possible because they are the biggest consumers.


----------



## Virgo (Jun 27, 2016)

In (post-)industrialized societies, feminism is not necessary. I don't mind it, though. People are just so turned off by the word but literally, all it is, by definition, is equality; for women's rights to be on par with man. Not "better" than men. So by definition, doesn't that mean if a woman gains too much power over a man, then technically _he_ will need feminism to secure his own rights? I get that people take it as more than a definition, though. This, whatever wave of feminism we're in now - it's a "culture" and with it comes a lot of negativity. I'm not really a fan but I'm grateful what feminism has done throughout history, obviously. I'm grateful it ever existed.

I do seriously question women arguing that we need it these days. Some of the arguments they present are seriously laughable and in fact, I think overusing it could be extremely harmful in teaching young girls that they are victims, and they are just not. Do you women really feel like you're a victim anymore? And I don't mean because the room temperature at work is "favored towards men" or because men "spread their legs too wide on the subway". And don't present the wage gap BS to me, such complete BS. I am honestly waiting for them to present a serious argument.

I really feel for women and girls who feel uncomfortable being catcalled or flirted with on the streets or at work or whatnot. However, this is not a feminism issue, this is just nature. Men being "predatory" and seeking out women. It's normal behavior. Women could level out the playing field and objectify men more, but we don't.... because nature. Although, on SAS we should all understand more than anyone how uncomfortable unwanted attention can make us feel. Not me personally, I'd be flattered and adored being catcalled. But it makes a lot of women feel endangered and we should probably be more sensitive to that. I get harassed at work too and yes, it makes me uncomfortable. Only old men creep on me. Why can't I be harassed by young sexy guys? Anyway I just live with it, it's just life, as sad as that sounds. As long as I'm not in any real danger. Don't get me wrong here - keep the teachings coming about not harassing women, and being more respectful, my point is this is just not a feminist issue to me.

Holy 14 pages of an old thread. I probably repeated a lot of stuff already said but here I am!


----------



## RagnarLothbrok (Dec 16, 2016)

I struggle to define whatever feminism is because the movement or whatever it is is too complex. I wouldn't call a feminist or an anti-feminist, I believe in treating people equally and having an equal playing field in terms of opportunities when in comes to gender. One of my flatmates finds it strange that I don't care much about these issues, as an 'intersectional feminist' some of the stuff they come out with in regards to gender equality doesn't really sound like equality.


----------



## nubly (Nov 2, 2006)

Kevin001 said:


> I still don't know what feminism is. Supporting women's rights? :stu


Its a movement for females to show off their breasts in public.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Herzeleid (Dec 14, 2016)

Feminism is great, I'm a feminist myself.
Not to be confused with "Buzzfeed feminism", that one is ****.


----------



## ljubo (Jul 26, 2015)

Whats interesting is that most females seems to be feminists/left, while most guys are liberals/right.


----------

