View Full Version : My View on Feminism...
Thewanderer
2006-01-15, 04:03
Correct me if I'm wrong guys, but men and women are, and should always be different... But that don't make them unequal.
It'd be like saying that every culture in the world should act the same because our differences make us unequal. I mean over the years, isn't it a culture of sorts that has developed as 'gender roles'? Sure the roles have been created from society, but so have many of our most important values.
So what if some of us are at home raising our family? So what if some of us are out having careers and getting jobs? And so what if on average women are more productive doing the former, while men are better at the latter? There should be seperate roles in our society, BUT we shouldn't be forced to assume a cirtain role. Only one that workes for us INDIVIDUALLY.
Everyone should stop the hate and get along with each other, IMO. Discuss.
SpecterVR
2006-01-15, 04:36
Idealism is just that, you know? You can't make everyone, or anyone get along just because "it makes sense" because it doesn't to everyone. Everyone has a different way of thinking, not to mention by birth, females and males are better or worse at different things.
Its all life. *shrug*
hmm...you say this, but I think you are somewhat ignorant of the plight of women. Its easy to say something like this now because women do have the option of a career. I agree that differences should be celebrated without being considered inequal treatment..but the differences between men and women have long been used as a consideration for inequality.
If history lasted five minutes, you could wipe off feminism as fanaticism and paranoia but feminism comes from a long history. Present feminism is fighting the effects of the past that are still lingering. They are more subtle, but still dangerous to todays women.
example! If you say we should base peoples roles on an individual basis then why do you say earlier that women are better at raising families and men are better at having careers? Oh gosh could this be a...stereotype? Really, this is why feminism persists today
Image Removed by Mod
Who now? :P
Seriously, I don't mind, everyone has their own way of going about things. Though some are a little Ott.
Oops, guess using such a sign wasn't too good.
Thewanderer
2006-01-15, 15:39
example! If you say we should base peoples roles on an individual basis then why do you say earlier that women are better at raising families and men are better at having careers? Oh gosh could this be a...stereotype? Really, this is why feminism persists today
No, it's not a stereotype. If it was, other creatures wouldn't be doing the same thing on instinct... what mother nature decided for them. Mothers are naturally motherly, and men are naturally hunters/gatherers.. It's no stereotype at all, it's just the way we naturally are.
My point was that it's okay to do that, but it don't mean there shouldn't be other options. No one should feel restricted of obligated... or even pressured into how they live. Again, this is IMO.
Aristophanes
2006-01-15, 15:43
hmm...you say this, but I think you are somewhat ignorant of the plight of women. Its easy to say something like this now because women do have the option of a career. I agree that differences should be celebrated without being considered inequal treatment..but the differences between men and women have long been used as a consideration for inequality.
If history lasted five minutes, you could wipe off feminism as fanaticism and paranoia but feminism comes from a long history. Present feminism is fighting the effects of the past that are still lingering. They are more subtle, but still dangerous to todays women.
example! If you say we should base peoples roles on an individual basis then why do you say earlier that women are better at raising families and men are better at having careers? Oh gosh could this be a...stereotype? Really, this is why feminism persists today
Lol I see a flame thread on the horizon:heh:
My father is a writer who works from home and looked after me and my sister while we were younger, my mother was technically the bread winner.
EVEN SO I think that women are better then men at being home makers, I'm not saying that the homes is a womans place but I think there is something that makes women biologically more capabale of the Job and guess what most scientists agree with me!
It is my opinion that feminism has become too strong in some countries as a result: 1.Divorce courts are biased in favour of women. It seems they at least still think children should go with their mothers...
2. Birth rates in all first world countries are down way low (having two bread winners doesn't leave much time for babies). The only countries where the rate is stable is the UK and the USA and a few other third world immigrant laden countries.
That's all I can think of now. Interesting thread.
This is topic bound to open a whopping can of worms alright.
But anyway, there was already a thread discussing gender equality long ago. Even though the focus is a bit different, a lot of stuff has already been said.
What I find particularly distressing and amusing, is that when people (mostly us guys..) hear the words, "feminism" or "feminist," nowadays the first thing we do is equate these words to femi-nazis.
...I think there is something that makes women biologically more capabale of the Job and guess what most scientists agree with me!
It is my opinion that feminism has become too strong in some countries as a result: 1.Divorce courts are biased in favour of women. It seems they at least still think children should go with their mothers...
Isn't that somehow a bit contradicting on your part? If you believe that women are biologically more suitable to be home-makers, then wouldn't it make sense that there would be bias for them when it comes to who raises the child..?
2. Birth rates in all first world countries are down way low (having two bread winners doesn't leave much time for babies). The only countries where the rate is stable is the UK and the USA and a few other third world immigrant laden countries.
You remind me of this interesting article. (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?ek20060110ks.htm)
Nightbat®
2006-01-15, 17:40
What I find particularly distressing and amusing, is that when people (mostly us guys..) hear the words, "feminism" or "feminist," nowadays the first thing we do is equate these words to femi-nazis.
Ah yes, guilty as charged
ofcourse this is a usual stereotype, but personally I look upon Equal rights
movement and feminists as 2 different things
Equal rights: as it says "Equal"
-Hell, they got my support!
Feminists: Equal rights + interest for all those centuries being oppressed by men
-Like hell, get back in that kitchen!! :D
OutPhase
2006-01-15, 17:53
My views:
Feminism's fine, but only to a certain degree. It's okay for both genders to think "Men and women should be treated equally". What I'm about to say will most likely piss you off, but I hate the idea of "men shouldn't hit women". I'm sorry, but doesn't that contridict the whole fucking men and women should be treated equally thing!? I'd say men being unable to hit women to be a massive double-standard, and it separates the two genders from being treated fairly. Back then, women weren't allowed to vote, and then one woman made a huge difference that ended up allowing females to vote. The male gender not being allowed to inflict physical harm and yet girls can hit boys is retarded. That expression spits on the graves of all the women over the centuries who fought for the same rights as men. Guess what ladies? We don't care. We're not going to treat you differently than every other male just because you have two "y" chromosomes.
TL;DR: "Men can't hit women" does not support equality amoung the genders, just more hypocricy that makes the world a sucky place to live.
Another thing that bothers me is feminism extremists. The worst kinds of such people are those who go around saying that women are better than men in every way and they'll kick your ass if you disagree with them. It's more-or-less as one person I know said it as "GIRL POWER OMGWTF!". It's just out-and-out retarded and a really good way to have your face beaten in because in the real world most men aren't afraid to hit girls, or even beat them to a bloody pulp. The female gender does not dominate the male gender, or vice-versa. We both have our share of strenghts and weaknesses.
In case you can't tell yet, I hate the idea of feminism. I'm also not sexist. I'm a person who thinks that everybody shouldn't give a rats-ass about each others gender. If you are going to punch someone in the face, don't let anything hold you back with either gender (that's if you're actually going to smash their head in). We men may not be the nicest or the most non-violent people on earth, but you females aren't so high-and-mighty yourself. Unless one sex shits out diamonds, kitties, steaks, and gold, there is no "better" gender.
I think before people can give any views they should first establish and pehaps familiarise with what feminism they are talking about. Because I guarantee, it's not a simple form of ideology that can be summed up in bullet points, nor has that ever been the case.
But whatever I don't believe many people are actually talking in terms relating to real feminism - only their moulded variation to suit their points. And where the flaming will start is when the generalising begins. Do people really feel they have the substantial wordly experience to sum up every man and woman in all cultures upon this Earth with any basic notions? I must admit the idea of 'home-makers' and 'hunters' made me laugh a bit - culturally determined, which admittedly has nearly always been in patriarchal societies are not particularly good ways to describe the roles mother Earth gave us.
But anyway, as mentioned, I don't believe people can discuss Feminism correctly unless they 'know' the full studies, which have thus changed from a specifically social-orientated form (of the Western, white, middle-class kind) to an continental European based promotions of ethics and cultural boundaries in the last 20 years. The concentration of feminism exists more through the works of structuralism - such as Althusserism and Semiotics, and more into strands of Post Modenism (Queer Theory/Lesbian Feminism is now far more a developing kind of Feminism - not a resurgent of the bra burning Feminist Theory of the 60s etc)
Also Razer, I don't mean to nitpick, but you begin your post with ''Feminism's fine, but only to a certain degree'' and end your final paragraph with ''In case you can't tell yet, I hate the idea of feminism''. And not to seem even more rude, but most of your post seems directed at a girl you once met who told you 'hitting men is fine if you're a woman, but men shouldn't hit women'. Yes that is a double standard but I fail to see where this ties in with 'equal rights'. Most people, including most Feminists, don't believe anyone should excert the 'right' to hit another peron, based on gender. And it does work both ways most certainly. I'd be rather disgruntled if any woman or man felt the need.
I'm not sure where you've got all these thoughts on extremism from - it's easy to criticise any mode of study when people quote the radicals.
OutPhase
2006-01-15, 20:11
Also Razer, I don't mean to nitpick, but you begin your post with ''Feminism's fine, but only to a certain degree'' and end your final paragraph with ''In case you can't tell yet, I hate the idea of feminism''.
I know. I was just to lazy to edit.
And not to seem even more rude, but most of your post seems directed at a girl you once met who told you 'hitting men is fine if you're a woman, but men shouldn't hit women'.
Not told, but that's what I paraphrased it as. I have never heard any saying like "women shouldn't hit men", so I thought of it as a double-standard.
Yes that is a double standard but I fail to see where this ties in with 'equal rights'. Most people, including most Feminists, don't believe anyone should excert the 'right' to hit another peron, based on gender.
"Most" is the key word in that statement.
I'm not sure where you've got all these thoughts on extremism from - it's easy to criticise any mode of study when people quote the radicals.
The origin of me thoughts of extremist feminism:
Let's just leave it to that there are some people on the internet who take this crap to an insanely annoying agree about "why men suck so much". I've read tripe like that over and over and over again, and it's basically the same thing said in twenty different ways, and "girl power" being one of the most blood-boiling. It wouldn't be so bad if they weren't so fixicated on such an idea and if they didn't shove it down your throats like one of those large vitamin pills (whether it be with or without fiber).
In the end, feminism bites. How about some Humanism, and that way we kill two birds with one stone? Not only would everybody respect each gender equally, but there would be no obnoxious extremism that would piss off man-kind they would be showing their support of the human race as a whole.
Males are innately different from females. This means they do have different physical properties -- the most common and obvious being body strength. Men have stronger upper bodies, are more aggressive and are generally larger than females (in the animal kingdom, the gender that has such traits is the dominant gender). Females have better endurance for pain. These are but a few of the differences.. others are heavily contested -- including behavioral characteristics (e.g. social stereotypes) and abilities (math aptitude, for example).
Many people, and many intellectuals in the social sciences do not accept these differences. There is a powerful feminist movement which aligns itself as being politically correct, that is seeking to overthrow traditional male fields. This is fine for some fields which have practiced sexual discrimination. But sometimes this is taken too far. For example, accusations are made against the engineering (comp, electrical, mechanical etc) fields for not having enough females (it seems that they MUST have a 50-50 ratio -- at least).. and when it appears that not many females do want to study engineering, the accusation is laid upon society's stereotype brainwashing. We are brainwashed to act according to our gender stereotypes.
It is funny that feminists fail to acknowledge that there are more females enrolled in universities/colleges than males in North America (this is a common fact -- just google. It should be available). It's also no secret that Psychology majors are comprised of a majority of females. In my university, the ratio is about 7:3 (female:male).. If females want to study the social sciences, it is no wonder that there are so few of them in the "hard" sciences. Perhaps the efforts of feminists will be better directed at trying to attract females wanting to study the social sciences to study the hard sciences instead.
The issue is quite complex, but the fact is, individual differences CAN mutually exist alongside the idea of equality. Just because person A is smarter than person B doesn't mean that A has more "rights" than B has. But despite the fact that most of us can accept that some people are born smarter, taller, and others not so smart and not so tall, we can't accept that males and females are born different.
It's true that everyone should be treated as individuals. Whatever choices people make should be what happens. People should not be constrained to live their life as they wish as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others.
The problem is the world isn't so simple. Before there was feminism (or at least a social awareness of women's rights), women didn't get the same chances to even have the ability to make the same choices that men did. Women didn't get to vote. They were expected to live at home and raise a family (if they choose not to, they were ostercised or couldn't find meaningful employment). Women weren't allowed to do a lot of the things that men were allowed to. In short, even though it would have been nice for women to be allowed to decide for themselves, most women did not have the same freedom and range of choices as men did.
Is this problem completely solved today? I'd say no. Women still make less money on average than men even if they have the same job and the same amount of experience. Women are still underrepresented in things like elected office, top business jobs and so on. Why is this a problem? Well for one, 1/2 our population is female. If most politicians are male, then many problems which are uniquely female will not be fully considered. Just as the poor and minorities always get marginalized in society, women are too.
The next question is, are women simply not going into top jobs and top political positions because of choice or because of constraints? This is a tough question. Undoubtably, many women want to start a family, and don't have the same competitive personality that you need to get into top positions compared to the amount of men who are willing to go all out. But how much of this is because women feel that they SHOULD stay home and take care of the kids and that the man feels like they SHOULD take the traditional male roles, and how much of this is women actually making a conscious decision that they care more about family than outward success?
Hard to say.
Thewanderer
2006-01-15, 21:43
Feminism's fine, but only to a certain degree. It's okay for both genders to think "Men and women should be treated equally". What I'm about to say will most likely piss you off, but I hate the idea of "men shouldn't hit women". I'm sorry, but doesn't that contridict the whole fucking men and women should be treated equally thing!? I'd say men being unable to hit women to be a massive double-standard, and it separates the two genders from being treated fairly. Back then, women weren't allowed to vote, and then one woman made a huge difference that ended up allowing females to vote. The male gender not being allowed to inflict physical harm and yet girls can hit boys is retarded. That expression spits on the graves of all the women over the centuries who fought for the same rights as men. Guess what ladies? We don't care. We're not going to treat you differently than every other male just because you have two "y" chromosomes.
Maybe it's because that on average(and I do mean on average), women are weaker in the upper-body region, which does give them a handicap where physical strength is concerned. Not to mention that aiming for their chests with a punch is definitely wrong(their face, however...)
But there are other factors in fights other than strength. Inelligence(it plays less of a factor in most fights tho) and speed should be considered too.
And note that you really shouldn't hit most girls, because they're pretty much defenseless. But if an annoying angry motherfuqing b!tch comes along, feel free to whale on her:p
Aristophanes
2006-01-16, 00:25
This is topic bound to open a whopping can of worms alright.
But anyway, there was already a thread discussing gender equality long ago. Even though the focus is a bit different, a lot of stuff has already been said.
What I find particularly distressing and amusing, is that when people (mostly us guys..) hear the words, "feminism" or "feminist," nowadays the first thing we do is equate these words to femi-nazis.
Isn't that somehow a bit contradicting on your part? If you believe that women are biologically more suitable to be home-makers, then wouldn't it make sense that there would be bias for them when it comes to who raises the child..?
You remind me of this interesting article. (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?ek20060110ks.htm)
Then aren't feminists technically contradicting themselves?
As for the child rearing bit in divorce cases, the point is a psychological one in my opinion. I'm not to be quoted on that though. You can say the reverse is also true with regard to a fatherless upbringing, which is why children are given a choice when they're at a certain age.
But you see, I can imagine a lot of guys would be more than happy to agree with such biological reasoning such as that, but then if something supposedly supported by that goes against them, why start questioning and saying how unfair it is all?
I'm just trying to understand what you're trying to say.
mantidor
2006-01-16, 09:23
I always thought about all these issues as the human paradox, we are all very diferent, but at the end, we are all basically the same.
I'd say men being unable to hit women to be a massive double-standard, and it separates the two genders from being treated fairly. Back then, women weren't allowed to vote, and then one woman made a huge difference that ended up allowing females to vote. The male gender not being allowed to inflict physical harm and yet girls can hit boys is retarded.
Completely agree. If women want equality, they should throw away that double-standard, learn to take a hit, and DEMAND they be drafted to war when men are drafted.
Men and women are more biologically similar to eachother than to anything else on this planet. Women being "naturually weaker" is propaganda created by our patriarchal beginings. If they want to true equality, they should show some teeth and fight for it. Nothing on this earth was granted to humanity without violence and destruction.
Nightbat®
2006-01-16, 10:51
Many people, and many intellectuals in the social sciences do not accept these differences. There is a powerful feminist movement which aligns itself as being politically correct, that is seeking to overthrow traditional male fields. This is fine for some fields which have practiced sexual discrimination. But sometimes this is taken too far. For example, accusations are made against the engineering (comp, electrical, mechanical etc) fields for not having enough females (it seems that they MUST have a 50-50 ratio -- at least).. and when it appears that not many females do want to study engineering, the accusation is laid upon society's stereotype brainwashing. We are brainwashed to act according to our gender stereotypes.
In the technical school i was in -at it's peak- there were 2, yes people 2 girls out of 350 students
Well maybe we should help them and put them to work in the harbours, steel industry
ofcourse within a few weeks they'll be complaining they're being forced to do slavelabour and
what's being asked of them is too much -while all this time men have been doing it for years-
or filing sexual harrassment lawsuits -I can tell my colleagues every time to
"Suck ** ****" without any problems since we're male-
My sister is one of the few girls I met in my life that actually does a man's job:
she's a welder
she can't handle the physical stress or the speed required to do the job and
because of that is constantly absent from work, yet she keeps claiming she's
better than a man
Ok,... she's good at it, her welds are perfect and she's got the most QC passes,
but in the time her male colleagues do 20 and screw up 5 she does 10 good ones
these guys even do more since they show up for work everyday
Most girls I met don't like getting their hands dirty and expect everything to be
handed to them on a silver platter
If they have to get their hands dirty they suddenly are "just a girl!'
If they don't get what they want career-wise, they're being oppressed by "the Male
dominant society" [where's that barf emoticon when you need it]
A small anecdote my dad once told:
"My female colleague comes up to me and states: 'My salary should be as much as yours'
10 minutes later she asks me to help me lift something, my reply: 'Why would I?
You're the one who wants to make as much as I do, and I don't need any help lifting that'
So maybe I'm generalising and stereotyping
I respect the few women out there "doing a man's job"
but until I see women (and I don't mean the ones you mistakenly address as "Sir")
in all corners of the workforce, not just the "easy" jobs I have no justifiable reason to change my views
....ofcourse by that time all women will look like men, so I'm not sure if I really want
women to do our work:D
It's a condradiction.
Feminists want equality but yet they still want those stupid double standards and to be treated more special just because they are girls.
Like the above stories of girls not being able to fully do certain things and expect men to do such for them just because it's "courtesy" because they are females.
Equality will only happen when those feminists realize that they can't get the special treatment from men because they have boobs and a vagina.
Thewanderer
2006-01-16, 16:58
Completely agree. If women want equality, they should throw away that double-standard, learn to take a hit, and DEMAND they be drafted to war when men are drafted.
Because they're weaker don't mean they shouldn't be drafted to war. It's because idiot men who've been away from their wives(or any female contact at all...) would oogle and flirt with them. I definitely don't want men who defend my country be destracted by random boobies on the battlefield.
Men and women are more biologically similar to eachother than to anything else on this planet. Women being "naturually weaker" is propaganda created by our patriarchal beginings. If they want to true equality, they should show some teeth and fight for it. Nothing on this earth was granted to humanity without violence and destruction.
Biologically similar? Of course they are! They're the same species, after all. The "naturally weaker" thing is scientific fact. Do your research before saying that again, and definitely give solid proof if you wish to continue saying it.
My views:
Feminism's fine, but only to a certain degree. It's okay for both genders to think "Men and women should be treated equally". What I'm about to say will most likely piss you off, but I hate the idea of "men shouldn't hit women". I'm sorry, but doesn't that contridict the whole fucking men and women should be treated equally thing!? I'd say men being unable to hit women to be a massive double-standard, and it separates the two genders from being treated fairly. Back then, women weren't allowed to vote, and then one woman made a huge difference that ended up allowing females to vote. The male gender not being allowed to inflict physical harm and yet girls can hit boys is retarded. That expression spits on the graves of all the women over the centuries who fought for the same rights as men. Guess what ladies? We don't care. We're not going to treat you differently than every other male just because you have two "y" chromosomes.
I don't believe that anyone should hit anyone else, but I did come to that same conclusion during elementary school when I was told that everyone is equal.
Because they're weaker don't mean they shouldn't be drafted to war. It's because idiot men who've been away from their wives(or any female contact at all...) would oogle and flirt with them. I definitely don't want men who defend my country be destracted by random boobies on the battlefield.
That's a stupid comment.
Why not say we don't want women in the workplace because we don't want men to be distracted by random boobies?
Thewanderer
2006-01-16, 17:17
That's a stupid comment.
Why not say we don't want women in the workplace because we don't want men to be distracted by random boobies?
Because they're not fighting for their lives there:p
That's a stupid comment.
Why not say we don't want women in the workplace because we don't want men to be distracted by random boobies?
because they have ample time for female contact elsewhere, and cannot afford to be distracted while in battle. Why do you think Naruto's sexy no jutsu works so well?
Catgirls
2006-01-16, 17:29
If you're going to have an intelligent discussion about Feminism, I suggest everyone drop juvenile expressions like "boobies". This thread isn’t a spot for you to demean, impugn or degrade anyone by reducing them to their sexuality.
I'll just lock this up if it continues.
There actually could be an interesting and thoughtful discussion here. It is a topic that has vast social & economic implications, but it isn't an excuse for you to whip out every sophomoric colloquialism you can think of.
Thewanderer
2006-01-16, 17:54
If you're going to have an intelligent discussion about Feminism, I suggest everyone drop juvenile expressions like "boobies". This thread isn’t a spot for you to demean, impugn or degrade anyone by reducing them to their sexuality.
I'll just lock this up if it continues.
There actually could be an interesting and thoughtful discussion here. It is a topic that has vast social & economic implications, but it isn't an excuse for you to whip out every sophomoric colloquialism you can think of.
Thank you, Catgirls. The last thing I wanted was for my thread to go out like that. And it'd kinda hurt that they'd misinterprate my usage of the word in the first place...
because they have ample time for female contact elsewhere, and cannot afford to be distracted while in battle. Why do you think Naruto's sexy no jutsu works so well?
Exactly my point. Men are like that. That's another thing that makes us different from each other(but DON'T make us unequal, mind you)
Well...I would like to know what is the exact definition of Feminism that the thread starter was using when they made this. As I noted in an earlier post, someone mentioned the Women's Rights Movement. To me, there's a big difference between Feminism and Women's Rights.
To me, currently my view on Feminism, especially after reading through this thread, is quite similar to what Razer was talking about. The whole girl-power, "girls rule and boys drool", female superiority thing. They don't seem to be trying to achieve equality so much as trying to be the "superior" gender due to, and this is debatable, the fact that men have basically been the "superior" gender for all this time. That's where I kind of draw the line.
As for Women's Rights, I'm all for it. I don't appreciate the fact that up until a certain point in our history, women weren't allowed to vote...or to go one step further, they weren't even considered people (women are things, haha! Dumbarses...).
The major problem as previously mentioned is, unfortunately, the social conditioning and propaganda that we have been exposed to. After such a long time of pre-determined roles like [i]men should be the ones who go out and "bring home the bacon" and women should stay at home and take care of the kids, it's difficult to break away from the view of how things "should be". WARNING: BEWARE. LARGE GENERALIZATION AHEAD. Not to mention the fact that humanity, at least the vast majority of it, does not accept change well. Hence why it's unlikely, in my humble opinion, that everyone will, as you said, "stop the hate and get along with each other" any time soon.
If we only understood, that the main problem lies in generalizing the usually biologically different genders. The real idea of equal treating is, to respect the wish of a person to be evaluated not by some generalized view regarding the own gender but true qualification. This means not to lower standards just to make one equal to one other and it also means to stop treating people (of both genders) according to stereotypes.
The therfore required openmindedness is a hard to achieve thing (and that dilemma applies for other 'made by human' problems too).
Y'know I'm only going to post once more in here, but I feel I should at least give my POV rather than bite my tongue...erm fingers.
It's ironic as many of these ‘'women’’ being described in this thread are *not* Feminists - I find it unlikely, truly, that they take an interest in the critical theory involved. I'm saddened to see many women and silly girls manipulate terminology and the 'real' oppression of millions of women into their own trivial girl power slogans. Feminists, of the ones I’ve met in the last ten yeas, are not actually interested in that. They do NOT want double standards. They do NOT promote equality and then are happy with the gendered predetermined ‘roles’ that both men and women are given, in most societies.
One of the core roots of studies in Feminism specifically now, is that of defining ‘female’, ‘feminine’ and ‘feminism’. All of them are DIFFERENT - Feminism itself has about 50 strands to it - some of which greatly disgaree with each other!
I’d rather not bring myself into teaching a philosophy about what it entails but some of you are waaaaaaaaaaaaaay off in what you think Feminism is. Actually it's becoming a bit worrying.
In regards to the empowering of certain women – Feminism is not done through bra burning and all that jazz - these days it tends to be on an examination of aesthetic and artistic levels as well as psyche and representation - it's moved into very European roots. I too immensely dislike the extreme stuff but that isn't ''Feminism'' to me - that's using a very intellectual and varied theory just to bash men. So it really p*sses me off to see 'Feminism' get generalised into misused definitions - and that's not aimed at anyone in particular as many women are equally guilty of doing it - but let me clarify, it's only a select few who promote any of sh*t that people seem to think Feminism is whenever this topic is brought up.
In fact this topic seems less about ‘Feminism’ and more about your own personal opinion on gender politics and socially determinable roles and behaviour. The irony is, such, if you take an interest in the strands Feminism now exists in – these women *do* promote women to go into hard science, politics, and male orientated business.
Mary Wollstonecraft, probably the real pioneer of women’s rights, back in the 1700s declared that it was the responsibility of 'normal' WOMEN, equally, to change the roles and attitudes - regardless of whether that will bring their life into stigma. And that still holds true today.
However it's easier said than done: I went into mathematics and computer science, my father was an electrical engineer, but I got so disgruntled with being viewed as a minority on my course – a token - that I eventually found the whole thing miserable. And the work quite soul-less to be perfectly honest. It's interesting to note that the majority of people in the higher level mathematic and physics classes at my schools were female - yet when given the choice at college and university level they all picked Psychology and what not – I guess because that’s what they think they're supposed to do:
Even if women do choose to go into these ‘male orientated’ paths, I know myself, that certain people will of course view their getting jobs as simply down to them being women. Do you think women like that?? Yes I’m sure it’s true on one level that certain women manipulate it for an easier ride - but not many do. It kinda makes you feel as though you're not able to achieve anything, you never feel acknowledgement or pride in what you do.
It’s verging on being insulting that some of you think many women would find that a worthwhile scenario – the likelihood Feminist women would want that is at about zero %. Like I said before, some of you are thinking some very weird particulars to hold your views – without specifying who these apparent Feminists are that say such views. Ad that might be down to no Feminists ever writing such a thing. Most Feminists I know actually *do* want the standards that so men and women seem to think they avoid:
On one hand it's quite amusing to think that people believe in such 'wrong' ways, that Feminism - but on the other, it kinda upsets me that there is such a lack of understanding and acknowledgement of some of the most intelligent and, imo, important women in western civilisation. (e.g. Simone de Beauvoir, Hélène Cixous, Judith Butler, Mary Wollstonecraft, Virginia Woolf, Julia Kristeva, The Valiant Five, Séverine, Audre Lorde) But anyway, if taking recent people, then women such as Rebecca Walker, Kate Millett, Barbara Smith, Jean Kilbournce, Nadine Strossen etc have the right examples for women to follow in terms of 'applied' Feminism.
Because they're weaker don't mean they shouldn't be drafted to war. It's because idiot men who've been away from their wives(or any female contact at all...) would oogle and flirt with them. I definitely don't want men who defend my country be destracted by random boobies on the battlefield.
There are women who join the millitary and fight along side men. How do you rationalize them? In actual combat, a man is more conserned about his life than his sexual desires.
Biologically similar? Of course they are! They're the same species, after all. The "naturally weaker" thing is scientific fact. Do your research before saying that again, and definitely give solid proof if you wish to continue saying it.
Yes, that is exactly my point, same species, similar biological strength. And weakness is a social concept, you can't apply such things to science. It would be equally absurd as to say it's a scientific fact that all men commit evil.
Granted, the maximum muscle mass of a man is something like 1/3 greater than that of a woman, but "weak" is a social concept measuring the tendancy to fail (in the context of my words, to lose a fight.) Brute strength plays only a minor role in that aspect as even among men, the person with the bigger muscles doesn't always win.
Thewanderer
2006-01-16, 21:10
Yes, that is exactly my point, same species, similar biological strength. And weakness is a social concept, you can't apply such things to science. It would be equally absurd as to say it's a scientific fact that all men commit evil.
I ment on average. I'm sorry, but I thought it was already implied.
Granted, the maximum muscle mass of a man is something like 1/3 greater than that of a woman, but "weak" is a social concept measuring the tendancy to fail (in the context of my words, to lose a fight.) Brute strength plays only a minor role in that aspect as even among men, the person with the bigger muscles doesn't always win.
That's actually what I was trying to say. Men are physically stronger on average, but that's not very important in today's society. That don't mean we can't aknowledge it.
My views:
Feminism's fine, but only to a certain degree. It's okay for both genders to think "Men and women should be treated equally". What I'm about to say will most likely piss you off, but I hate the idea of "men shouldn't hit women". I'm sorry, but doesn't that contridict the whole fucking men and women should be treated equally thing!?
Well, I guess a perfect world would be where no one would hit anyone at all. But I think what this gets at is "Don't hit people who are weaker than you are." Since the average guy is stronger than the average girl, it applies in most cases. It's not cool for a girl to wail on a little kid or anything, just because she's a girl.
We're not going to treat you differently than every other male just because you have two "y" chromosomes.
Nit picking, but women have two X-chromosomes, and men have an XY. (You didn't do this, but I really hate it when people say that they're talking someone with 2 Y chromosomes, when they're looking for a dude.)
Aristophanes
2006-01-17, 01:01
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2006/01/17/o_beirne/ Interesting link.
It is in human nature that “different” equals “inferior.”
It is also human nature that the inferior party does not want to stay being treated as inferior forever, hence the conflict.
Surely different does not equal inferior but as sad as it sounds, it is how people are.
This is what I think.
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2006/01/17/o_beirne/ Interesting link.
That's the kind of person I actually hate more than extremist left wing feminists.
Any woman that would prefer her people to be opressed rather than face change is a coward and a betrayer.
One thing that I hate is how we women say we want equality and yet we seperate ourselfs by creating all these groups meant only for women, that's just silly to me.
That's the kind of person I actually hate more than extremist left wing feminists.
Any woman that would prefer her people to be opressed rather than face change is a coward and a betrayer.
I don't know about whether she really wants women to be oppressed... did you read the entire article?
IMO, she's got some valid points. I think she's mostly anti-feminist in the sense that she doesn't like how many 'feminists' are trying to be more like men and less like themselves; that instead of just giving women an educated choice between work and domestic life, they are criticizing women who choose the domestic life even if they want to and they are happy doing it. I would never choose the domestic life myself, but just because housekeeping and child-rearing is seen as the traditional role of the woman, it is not necessarily bad or inferior in its own right! In fact, it's crucial to having a good family if one wants to start a family.
Sure, it might not be prestigious, or profitable, but it most certainly requires a lot out of whoever makes the choice to do it! If you do it well, that is. It's not a simple job, anyway. You're raising human beings here, not pets: a good parent who brings all of his or her children up to be intelligent, independent and wise members of society should be highly respected, if you ask me...
I agree with her in that if women choose such a role, they most certainly are not necessarily weak-minded and subservient. Of course, I also do not think it fair that women are expected to perform these duties purely based on the fact that they are women. Frankly speaking I hate people who do that.
It's not that I agree with her in every aspect, though. For example, her quote "Men protect women from the physical threat." ...I don't agree with that. No, how about "Humans protect each other from physical threats."
What's wrong with that?
And as to her idea that she dislikes how women are placing so much importance on themselves, well, why doesn't she go on to criticize men who do exactly the same thing? I'm not saying it's right, but it's more a matter of morality than feminism from how I look at it... Perhaps it has less to do with feminism, but more of a personal choice influenced by the instant-gratification type of lifestyle many people live in these days. Again, I am not criticizing women who choose to hang on for the family if they can - it's a good thing; but it shouldn't just be the women doing it.
"The military is gender-normed, which is a weakness, the workplace ... I think, yes, there has been big net harm. Our culture is feminized, but coarser." I wish she'd elaborate on this. I can't say whether she means women are better without women's rights as they are today, or she means that the type of feminism she was referring to earlier is making the world worse.
Finally: "I think we were better protected by traditional mores and chivalry than we are by lawsuits and laws. Men behaved better." That all depends on each person, and I think she'll find that many women would disagree (though I do not have real evidence of this). In the end, she should be entitled to her own justified opinion, of course...
edit: She says that society would have naturally progressed down the path of equal rights for women without any feminist movement, but I find that highly doubtful
@wao: The valid points she makes are nothing new to the criticizim of feminists. It's everything else that shits from her mouth that pisses me off.
EDIT: I'm not sure if oppression was the right word to use there, but it illustrates a point.
Thewanderer
2006-01-17, 13:42
IMO, she's got some valid points. I think she's mostly anti-feminist in the sense that she doesn't like how many 'feminists' are trying to be more like men and less like themselves; that instead of just giving women an educated choice between work and domestic life, they are criticizing women who choose the domestic life even if they want to and they are happy doing it. I would never choose the domestic life myself, but just because housekeeping and child-rearing is seen as the traditional role of the woman, it is not necessarily bad or inferior in its own right! In fact, it's crucial to having a good family if one wants to start a family.
Exactly! This trend of looking down on very important roles such as that is illogically being rejected by too many women today. For some reason the idea of acting like men or else they're being treated unequal was planted into their heads, and warping their sense of what's really important. IMO, that's pretty selfish if you ask me.
It's not that I agree with her in every aspect, though. For example, her quote "Men protect women from the physical threat." ...I don't agree with that. No, how about "Humans protect each other from physical threats."
What's wrong with that?
I think there's lots wrong with that. Especially where couples are concerned... I'm not sure I'd look up to a man that lets his wife protect him(yes, I said lets). It's just... not right.
Aoie_Emesai
2006-01-18, 12:41
I hate to say it but I live my life thru with my own ideals, whether it's right or wrong, it's all up to the individual, isn't that so?
In my family, that traditional role of woman cooks and such, and the mens supply the females, is so cleverly true within my heritage. Even now, no matter where you look, females and males aren't treated equally. We socialize very good with each other, and we share this rock together, we've done retty well so forth since the dawn of man/woman.
Originally Posted by Tzurial
hmm...you say this, but I think you are somewhat ignorant of the plight of women. Its easy to say something like this now because women do have the option of a career. I agree that differences should be celebrated without being considered inequal treatment..but the differences between men and women have long been used as a consideration for inequality.
We are only ignorant , because we're really all greedy misers. I think most people would love to help other, but it's still more important to look out for number one, eh? Love and hatred are often some of the strongest emotion, they bring out the best and the worst of us.
My views:
Razer_2mb- Feminism's fine, but only to a certain degree. It's okay for both genders to think "Men and women should be treated equally". What I'm about to say will most likely piss you off, but I hate the idea of "men shouldn't hit women". I'm sorry, but doesn't that contridict the whole fucking men and women should be treated equally thing!? I'd say men being unable to hit women to be a massive double-standard, and it separates the two genders from being treated fairly. Back then, women weren't allowed to vote, and then one woman made a huge difference that ended up allowing females to vote. The male gender not being allowed to inflict physical harm and yet girls can hit boys is retarded. That expression spits on the graves of all the women over the centuries who fought for the same rights as men. Guess what ladies? We don't care. We're not going to treat you differently than every other male just because you have two "y" chromosomes.
I often find now that gender roles are now changing. Womens don't just become house sitters all day anymore. And mens don't do all of the providing now too. I think that in the future, our roles in the either way will be either switched, or majoritly ruled by females. I'm sure you guys/gals have noticed the increasing popularity and power of the female classes. This prediction isn't too far fetched.
ps: I though males/females switching roles, wouldn't be such as a burden, but more of a useful experience for the upcoming events. What don't kills you, makes your stronger, eh? -_-
Thewanderer
2006-01-18, 13:59
I hate to say it but I live my life thru with my own ideals, whether it's right or wrong, it's all up to the individual, isn't that so?
In my family, that traditional role of woman cooks and such, and the mens supply the females, is so cleverly true within my heritage. Even now, no matter where you look, females and males aren't treated equally. We socialize very good with each other, and we share this rock together, we've done retty well so forth since the dawn of man/woman.
Exactly. It should be up to the individual. Don't expect everyone to treat you ideally though.
We are only ignorant , because we're really all greedy misers. I think most people would love to help other, but it's still more important to look out for number one, eh? Love and hatred are often some of the strongest emotion, they bring out the best and the worst of us.
Let me get this straight... the most important person in each of our lives is ourselves? That definitely shouldn't be the case, especially for those of us that are married. It kinda saddens me to know that there's ppl like you that don't have anyone you care that much about...
I often find now that gender roles are now changing. Womens don't just become house sitters all day anymore. And mens don't do all of the providing now too. I think that in the future, our roles in the either way will be either switched, or majoritly ruled by females. I'm sure you guys/gals have noticed the increasing popularity and power of the female classes. This prediction isn't too far fetched.
ps: I though males/females switching roles, wouldn't be such as a burden, but more of a useful experience for the upcoming events. What don't kills you, makes your stronger, eh? -_-
Yes, it would be a burden, and if males and females ever entirely switch "roles", the human race is doomed.
Exactly. It should be up to the individual. Don't expect everyone to treat you ideally though.
Let me get this straight... the most important person in each of our lives is ourselves? That definitely shouldn't be the case, especially for those of us that are married. It kinda saddens me to know that there's ppl like you that don't have anyone you care that much about...
Yes, it would be a burden, and if males and females ever entirely switch "roles", the human race is doomed.
It's just a phase. There's always periodic areas of women entering men's roles and some feminist movement. Just nothing as huge as the 60's.
Eventually women would go back enjoying the roles of housekeeping. They'll have the option of going forth and pursuing a career but I see it's going to be a phase.
Just like Metrosexuals. Who the hell wants to be a metro now? It's the Man time and we are free to call them queers, pussies and cunts again.
For now, I see it as women can do whatever the hell they want, but when they run into a deep rut, it's Man-time.
Nightbat®
2006-01-18, 14:45
Let me get this straight... the most important person in each of our lives is ourselves?
those that are independant say it's reality
those that are lonely hope it's not
That definitely shouldn't be the case, especially for those of us that are married.[quote]
Well, looking at divorce rates I'd say it's dangerous to think you can trust
someone else 100%
[quote]It kinda saddens me to know that there's ppl like you that don't have anyone you care that much about...
Don't feel sad for those that choose to
For now, I see it as women can do whatever the hell they want, but when they run into a deep rut, it's Man-time.
Quoted for truth :bow: :D
Thewanderer
2006-01-18, 15:17
those that are independant say it's reality
those that are lonely hope it's not
I'm neither independant nor lonely, so... I don't get it:confused:
Well, looking at divorce rates I'd say it's dangerous to think you can trust
someone else 100%
There's more idiots in the world that get married blindly for reasons other than love. Sex, money, etc. Not to mention the jerks that wouldn't trust ANYONE, but get married anyway, then act superior, and when devorced, become single mothers and then complain about that:rolleyes: If marriage still held the meaning that it did 100 years ago, there wouldn't be so many devorces.
Don't feel sad for those that choose to
Very good point...
Did the idea for this thread, by any chance, come from a NY Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/weekinreview/15patti.html) which was published on the same day this thread was started?
And I think there was some study that showed that men worked longer hours than women, hence the higher promotion rates and higher pay raises. Can't really remember too well, though...
Thewanderer
2006-01-18, 18:47
Did the idea for this thread, by any chance, come from a NY Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/weekinreview/15patti.html) which was published on the same day this thread was started?
Nope, haven't seen it till now.
*reads it*:p
EDIT: A quote from that article:
Choice feminism was an adjustment to reality. But reality, of course, is messy and confusing. It's not clear what should give when women are still responsible for a disproportionate share of the housework, they miss their children while they're at work all day, good child care is expensive, and time off or part-time work hampers a career.
This is the sole reason I get so angry at this "Women's rights" crap. Feminists are too selfish... they don't think of even their families, and if they do, never hold it above their own wants.I mean, what sane woman would rather go to work all day and leave their kids in the hands of their husbands(most don't know what they're doing), or worse, in the hands of strangers... this just sickens me.
Ronin Aquila
2006-01-18, 20:04
While The Wanderer Reads....
Sorry for joining in late, but heres my five cents (count by fives in Australian currency, so two cents is out of the question :p )
In terms of military service, the simple matter of muscle mass is no longer relevant, considering that unlike a blade, the ability to handle a projectile weapon competently relies not on one's strength, but hand eye coordination.
And even when muscle mass is an issue, many of the greatest warriors I've met are women, be it with her bare fists or with swords. Point in fact, the sempai in my Karate Dojo can kick SO hard that if you block it, your arm does not even feel the pain for it has become numb with pain. The only reason that women could not develop muscles until WWII is because we did not let them.
But I digress.
The type of strong woman I respect (yes, feminist) is the type that still cares and dosen't try to walk over a person's dignity and humanity on her road to glory.
The best media example I can think of is Frauline Maria from The Sound Of Music. Now hear me out before you start throwing stones. She is unafraid to voice her views, assertively goes out in the world to do what she wants, brave and kind.
And most importantly of all, she will tell you what you need to hear when you need to hear it, even if you don't want to hear it. Captain Von Trapp has lost the ability to love his children, and won't even care how sad that makes them, and yet Frauline Maria is strong enough a woman to stand up to a Frickin' War Hero and tell him off to care for, listen to and love them.
This noble example of maternally motivated feminism is admirably worthy of respect, as opposed to husband bullying bitches who kill their spouses for mouthing back, and then cry in court pretending to be weak and then run off to Rio with his money to fuck another victim.
Thewanderer
2006-01-18, 20:56
While The Wanderer Reads....
Sorry for joining in late, but heres my five cents (count by fives in Australian currency, so two cents is out of the question :p )
In terms of military service, the simple matter of muscle mass is no longer relevant, considering that unlike a blade, the ability to handle a projectile weapon competently relies not on one's strength, but hand eye coordination.
And even when muscle mass is an issue, many of the greatest warriors I've met are women, be it with her bare fists or with swords. Point in fact, the sempai in my Karate Dojo can kick SO hard that if you block it, your arm does not even feel the pain for it has become numb with pain. The only reason that women could not develop muscles until WWII is because we did not let them.
But I digress.
The type of strong woman I respect (yes, feminist) is the type that still cares and dosen't try to walk over a person's dignity and humanity on her road to glory.
The best media example I can think of is Frauline Maria from The Sound Of Music. Now hear me out before you start throwing stones. She is unafraid to voice her views, assertively goes out in the world to do what she wants, brave and kind.
And most importantly of all, she will tell you what you need to hear when you need to hear it, even if you don't want to hear it. Captain Von Trapp has lost the ability to love his children, and won't even care how sad that makes them, and yet Frauline Maria is strong enough a woman to stand up to a Frickin' War Hero and tell him off to care for, listen to and love them.
This noble example of maternally motivated feminism is admirably worthy of respect, as opposed to husband bullying bitches who kill their spouses for mouthing back, and then cry in court pretending to be weak and then run off to Rio with his money to fuck another victim.
I totally agree with you. You bring up some very good points.
And even when muscle mass is an issue, many of the greatest warriors I've met are women, be it with her bare fists or with swords. Point in fact, the sempai in my Karate Dojo can kick SO hard that if you block it, your arm does not even feel the pain for it has become numb with pain. The only reason that women could not develop muscles until WWII is because we did not let them.
Women have less muscle mass in their upper body, that's a fact. Though you have a good point... it don't apply to every individual, not to mention that regardless of that, women can have pretty strong kicks. One of my female friends actually kicked me across a courtyard(I flew back a good couple of meters), so I can speak from experience myself.
Aoie_Emesai
2006-01-18, 21:19
Originally Posted by Aoie_Emesai
We are only ignorant , because we're really all greedy misers. I think most people would love to help other, but it's still more important to look out for number one, eh? Love and hatred are often some of the strongest emotion, they bring out the best and the worst of us.
Let me get this straight... the most important person in each of our lives is ourselves? That definitely shouldn't be the case, especially for those of us that are married. It kinda saddens me to know that there's ppl like you that don't have anyone you care that much about...
Please don't get me wrong " Thewanderer ". I'm not those sterotypical people out there, that the movies try to depict. I was simply making a point. I try to do my best to be avoided being misleading, and vague, unless it calles for it. I keep it very simple (well sort of) so no hardships shall overcome us, eh?
--
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thewanderer
Let me get this straight... the most important person in each of our lives is ourselves?
those that are independant say it's reality
those that are lonely hope it's not
[quote]That definitely shouldn't be the case, especially for those of us that are married.[quote]
Well, looking at divorce rates I'd say it's dangerous to think you can trust
someone else 100%
I feel that the people closest to me are the ones I care about. These are friends, teachers, co-workers (yes, the managers too), and family members. I keep my distance at times to keep my burden less to me and others.
Nightbat®
2006-01-19, 19:26
I'm neither independant nor lonely, so... I don't get it:confused:
Neither did my buddy, untill his girl walked out on him
This is the sole reason I get so angry at this "Women's rights" crap. Feminists are too selfish... they don't think of even their families, and if they do, never hold it above their own wants.I mean, what sane woman would rather go to work all day and leave their kids in the hands of their husbands(most don't know what they're doing), or worse, in the hands of strangers... this just sickens me.
So it's not being selfish and not thinking of their families (just repeating what you said) when men go to work all day. Why shouldn't their husbands stay at home and take care of the kids? Knowing how to cook and clean and care for babies isn't an innate female trait. Just because she's the one who pops out the kid doesn't mean she can change a diaper or test the temperature of milk with her elbow or some such taking care of baby thing. If a woman wants to go back to work, and her husband wants to stay home, what should stop them?
What sane woman would want to go to work? Maybe one who needs her income to support that kid, or whose husband is out of work or disabled, or has had an emergency come up. A woman working when she has kids isn't always a choice, or some feminist statement.
Thewanderer
2006-01-20, 01:07
So it's not being selfish and not thinking of their families (just repeating what you said) when men go to work all day. Why shouldn't their husbands stay at home and take care of the kids? Knowing how to cook and clean and care for babies isn't an innate female trait. Just because she's the one who pops out the kid doesn't mean she can change a diaper or test the temperature of milk with her elbow or some such taking care of baby thing. If a woman wants to go back to work, and her husband wants to stay home, what should stop them?
Knowing how to take care of a baby IS an innate female trait. If it wasn't, humans wouldn't even exist, as our species would've died off long before neanderthals ever evolved. Even today, you can see that the females of most species of animals know instinctively how to properly take care of their offspring.
There's lots more to taking care of a baby than "changing a diaper" or "testing the temperature of milk with her elbow". Females actually have instincts related to child raising. Males have next to none.
I'm not saying it's impossible for a man to take care of his kids, I'm saying it's more productive if he works while his wife takes care of the kids.
What sane woman would want to go to work? Maybe one who needs her income to support that kid, or whose husband is out of work or disabled, or has had an emergency come up. A woman working when she has kids isn't always a choice, or some feminist statement.
Of course. Those situations are entirely understandable. You're talking like I'm totally aginst the idea of females working, which if you read my very first post, you'd understand that. And FYI, my fiancé is an office lady. She definitely earns her share of the money.
Ronin Aquila
2006-01-20, 04:19
Wow!! Didn't know you were getting married!!
Congratulations sir. :)
Thewanderer
2006-01-20, 04:31
Wow!! Didn't know you were getting married!!
Congratulations sir. :)
Why thank you:)
TrueKnight
2006-01-20, 11:19
Lol, funny thread. I think I'm going to share about the roles of feminist women in the military.
Some of the women I know are one of the best soldiers and marines, even from their male counterparts. Most of them participated in Desert Storm in 1991, and I also know a military instructor who's with the 82nd Airborne and trust me, she's not a bitch you'd want to mess with. :D '
BUT! The numbers of "good women" in the military are extremely low, only around 2/10. The rest of them, sorry about this, but they're just that bad. They're more worried about getting their fingernails manicured and finds out about the latest gossips. And yet they demanded for more role in the military, talk about biased feminism.
As for women in general, then yeah feminism is somewhat bad....but I don't agree saying that only women or your girl who's responsible for doing housework. Because you can always do it together. I've experienced it for about 5 years 'till now and we're doing okay....Man I'm tired.
Thewanderer
2006-01-20, 11:34
Lol, funny thread. I think I'm going to share about the roles of feminist women in the military.
Funny...? o.O
Some of the women I know are one of the best soldiers and marines, even from their male counterparts. Most of them participated in Desert Storm in 1991, and I also know a military instructor who's with the 82nd Airborne and trust me, she's not a bitch you'd want to mess with. :D '
"not a bitch you'd want to mess with"...? That don't seem like an admirable trait, especially for a woman...
BUT! The numbers of "good women" in the military are extremely low, only around 2/10. The rest of them, sorry about this, but they're just that bad. They're more worried about getting their fingernails manicured and finds out about the latest gossips. And yet they demanded for more role in the military, talk about biased feminism.
I agree. Back in 7th grade, I saw a couple girls want to play football with the guys. That would've been an okay request, but they were so girly... long fingernails, makeup, etc. IMO, if they wanted to be taken seriously, they should've at least looked fit enough to.
As for women in general, then yeah feminism is somewhat bad....but I don't agree saying that only women or your girl who's responsible for doing housework. Because you can always do it together. I've experienced it for about 5 years 'till now and we're doing okay....Man I'm tired.
No one's saying that only women are responsible for that.
I'd thought feminism would encourage more women to proudly wear skirts, and even some men to do the same.
Instead both men and women wear constricting uniform pants, symbols of being Cogs in the Machine. (Pants also constrict airflow and allow greater opportunities for foreign objects to get stuck up the wearer's @ss. Unpleasantless therefore ensues.)
I'd thought feminism would make everyone modest and demure and blushing.
Instead the number of boorish sex-starved addicts effectively doubled.
(http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/life/article.jsp?content=20050926_112700_112700)
I'd thought feminism would encourage the father to nurture more and be present in his children's lives.
Instead the mother was encouraged to spend as much time away from home and leave the children in institutions headed by strangers. (The first mistake of the Industrial Revolution was bringing the father out of the home. Both father and mother should be producers at home.)
I'd thought feminism would teach people to be selfless and considerate of others.
Instead the 'Me' culture has risen full force.
I have no idea what this thing is that happened and why it is called feminism.
Thewanderer
2006-01-20, 20:43
I'd thought feminism would encourage more women to proudly wear skirts, and even some men to do the same.
Instead both men and women wear constricting uniform pants, symbols of being Cogs in the Machine. (Pants also constrict airflow and allow greater opportunities for foreign objects to get stuck up the wearer's @ss. Unpleasantless therefore ensues.)
I'd thought feminism would make everyone modest and demure and blushing.
Instead the number of boorish sex-starved addicts effectively doubled.
(http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/life/article.jsp?content=20050926_112700_112700)
I'd thought feminism would encourage the father to nurture more and be present in his children's lives.
Instead the mother was encouraged to spend as much time away from home and leave the children in institutions headed by strangers. (The first mistake of the Industrial Revolution was bringing the father out of the home. Both father and mother should be producers at home.)
I'd thought feminism would teach people to be selfless and considerate of others.
Instead the 'Me' culture has risen full force.
I have no idea what this thing is that happened and why it is called feminism.
Oh, no. Most feminists nowadays are greedy(some I'd even call nazi-ish) b!tches.
I'd thought feminism would encourage more women to proudly wear skirts, and even some men to do the same.
Instead both men and women wear constricting uniform pants, symbols of being Cogs in the Machine. (Pants also constrict airflow and allow greater opportunities for foreign objects to get stuck up the wearer's @ss. Unpleasantless therefore ensues.)
I'd thought feminism would make everyone modest and demure and blushing.
Instead the number of boorish sex-starved addicts effectively doubled.
(http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/life/article.jsp?content=20050926_112700_112700)
I'd thought feminism would encourage the father to nurture more and be present in his children's lives.
Instead the mother was encouraged to spend as much time away from home and leave the children in institutions headed by strangers. (The first mistake of the Industrial Revolution was bringing the father out of the home. Both father and mother should be producers at home.)
I'd thought feminism would teach people to be selfless and considerate of others.
Instead the 'Me' culture has risen full force.
I have no idea what this thing is that happened and why it is called feminism.
Mmm. That was a nice point, really.
What it illustrates is how modern feminism is a force that moulds and encourages females to take on traits which are have been of traditional male territory. That's why "strong" and aggressive women are championed. The most often championed female icons are those who succeed in the workplace -- but isn't it funny that feminism champions females who really beat out males at their own "male" game?
You're right in the way that feminism didn't promote what we normally think as female characteristics to the general public, instead, it's a drive pushing to adopt "male traits" instead. Funny that.
That's actually what I was trying to say. Men are physically stronger on average, but that's not very important in today's society. That don't mean we can't aknowledge it.
Why? If we simply discriminate individuals rather than groups of people, there's no need to acknowledge averages, because there are none.
Thewanderer
2006-01-21, 13:11
Why? If we simply discriminate individuals rather than groups of people, there's no need to acknowledge averages, because there are none.
What do you mean? Of course there's averages... where's your proof of that statement?
Just because focus is on individuals don't negate the facts about the groups.
What do you mean? Of course there's averages... where's your proof of that statement?
An average requires a group of more than 1 'items' (well, it doesn't require it, but it becomes pointless without it); after all, 100 / 1 still equals 100.
When you discriminate individuals and not groups of people, there's no average to be made.
Just because focus is on individuals don't negate the facts about the groups.
What facts? The fact that people are so insistent on dividing people into groups is what caused these problems to begin with.
Certainly there are differences between men and women that er nearly absolute (e.g. women can get pregnant, while men can't) and you have to consider those, but on aspects that are different for each individual (such as physical strength) what's the point in assuming from averages?
Thewanderer
2006-01-21, 18:15
What facts? The fact that people are so insistent on dividing people into groups is what caused these problems to begin with.
Certainly there are differences between men and women that er nearly absolute (e.g. women can get pregnant, while men can't) and you have to consider those, but on aspects that are different for each individual(such as physical strength) what's the point in assuming from averages?
The average woman can get pregnant. Some can't. You assumed that, and not other averages? And I didn't say that we should assume on average, just in generalization. You're making a big deal out of nothing.
The average woman can get pregnant. Some can't. You assumed that, and not other averages?
I wouldn't call that an average, since that would make the average woman about 93% capable of getting pregant... which makes very little sense, but that's just sementics, I suppose.
Anyway, I also said nearly absolute. Plus I didn't think the example through well enough and just went with the first thing that came to mind. So, allow me to rephrase it: all women that are healthy in body and mind, aren't missing 'anything' and are not too old, but not too young either, can technically get pregnant, men cannot (though they might in a few years).
And I didn't say that we should assume on average, just in generalization. You're making a big deal out of nothing.
Just in what situation would we need to generalize up to that point?
Thewanderer
2006-01-21, 19:23
I wouldn't call that an average, since that would make the average woman about 93% capable of getting pregant... which makes very little sense, but that's just sementics, I suppose.
I don't know the amount of men that're stronger than the average woman of the same age, but I'd guess that the ratio is about the same.
Anyway, I also said nearly absolute. Plus I didn't think the example through well enough and just went with the first thing that came to mind. So, allow me to rephrase it: all women that are healthy in body and mind, aren't missing 'anything' and are not too old, but not too young either, can technically get pregnant, men cannot (though they might in a few years).
They might in a few years? WTF? I wouldn't really call them male if they did...
My point is, there's differences in gender other than reproductive functions, and loosing sight of these differences is destroying our society.
They might in a few years? WTF? I wouldn't really call them male if they did...
It is generally considered possible. But due to the dangers and ethical problems involved, noone has tried it yet. With medicine moving at the rate it is, I wouldn't rule it out as a possibilty in ten years or so, though.
My point is, there's differences in gender other than reproductive functions, and loosing sight of these differences is destroying our society.
Certainly, there are other differences. Women are supposedly better at multitasking than men, for instance. Even so, no woman is born with the perfect female body and mind and no man is born with the perfect male body and mind, so there are many women with traits that are generally considered masculine and many men with traits that are generally considered feminine. That being the case, wouldn't it be better not to assume that every member of group 〇 has the same traits?
I don't see how losing sights of these differences would be destructive to society, though. A society isn't made of "men" and "women", after all, it's made of people.
Knowing how to take care of a baby IS an innate female trait. If it wasn't, humans wouldn't even exist, as our species would've died off long before neanderthals ever evolved. Even today, you can see that the females of most species of animals know instinctively how to properly take care of their offspring.
There's lots more to taking care of a baby than "changing a diaper" or "testing the temperature of milk with her elbow". Females actually have instincts related to child raising. Males have next to none.
Uh, no, no they don't. Name one. It's a matter of deduction. If you placed a crying baby in front of a man, he would probably know that 1) the baby may have a messy diaper, 2) the baby is hungry, or 3) the baby needs to get cuddled. If women automatically knew what their baby needed, there wouldn't be a billion "Parenting for Dummies" books.
In nature, I doubt it's so much a matter of male animals not knowing what their offspring need, as not caring, thus they don't even stick around after the mating. In fact, that really the only way I see a woman being more suited to care for a baby, because they may have stronger maternal instincts*.
Of course. Those situations are entirely understandable. You're talking like I'm totally aginst the idea of females working, which if you read my very first post, you'd understand that. And FYI, my fiancé is an office lady. She definitely earns her share of the money.
Even if it's not one of those situations. If you need double incomes to continue your lifestyle, then it must be done. (Of course, if you're at that stage, i would say don't have a kid to begin with, as it won't improve the situation, but that is neither here nor there.)
*Not maternal as it relates to being a mother, but maternal as in having charteristics of a mother. I've seen guys coddle nice cars the same way I see women coo at their babies.
This thread is really quite disturbing. It's as if not a single person read Diodati's post. MOST OF YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT FEMINISM IS. Feminism is NOT about claiming that women are superior. It's about FREEDOM of women (allowing them to do whatever they want, from being a housewife to a CEO), and about equal treatmen from SOCIETY. The comment from Thewanderer about how women who don't enjoy motherhood are "selfish" sickened me to nausea. Most animals don't even have parental care, and the offspring survive on their own just as well. In birds, the male does at least half of the child rearing. And the all too common "men are hunters women are gatherers" is derived from PREHISTORIC times, since nowadays it is virtually impossible to conduct evolutionary studies on humans let alone their sexes. Before patriarchial societies there were matriachal societies, and there is a lot of evidence that it is they who invented the first form of writing.
I for one, do not like babies. I can't bear staying at home and cleaning their diapers and all that other stuff. Thewanderer...please don't make ignorant assumptions. Things like changing diapers, etc, ARE NOT INNATE. In fact, about the only thing science has confirmed that says that women make better parents is that women are more sensitive to children and less prone to violence.
Oh, no. Most feminists nowadays are greedy(some I'd even call nazi-ish) b!tches.
Finally you stopped beating about the bush and said what you finally wanted to. And what makes them greedy? Please explain yourself, Mr. "nazi-ish b!tches"
I'd thought feminism would encourage more women to proudly wear skirts, and even some men to do the same.
Instead both men and women wear constricting uniform pants, symbols of being Cogs in the Machine. (Pants also constrict airflow and allow greater opportunities for foreign objects to get stuck up the wearer's @ss. Unpleasantless therefore ensues.)
I'd thought feminism would make everyone modest and demure and blushing.
Instead the number of boorish sex-starved addicts effectively doubled.
(http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/life/article.jsp?content=20050926_112700_112700)
I'd thought feminism would encourage the father to nurture more and be present in his children's lives.
Instead the mother was encouraged to spend as much time away from home and leave the children in institutions headed by strangers. (The first mistake of the Industrial Revolution was bringing the father out of the home. Both father and mother should be producers at home.)
I'd thought feminism would teach people to be selfless and considerate of others.
Instead the 'Me' culture has risen full force.
I have no idea what this thing is that happened and why it is called feminism.
UMMMMM. DUDE. What the h*ll? Feminism is not about any of those things. It sickens me when people are so confident while they jabber away ABSOLUTE idioticy. You might want to do a search on Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.com) about what feminism is, and it certainly isn't about wearing skirts, or blushing more, about selflessness (I think you're confusing RELIGION with FEMINISM).
As for the "I'd thought feminism would encourage the father to nurture more and be present in his children's lives.Instead the mother was encouraged to spend as much time away from home and leave the children in institutions headed by strangers. (The first mistake of the Industrial Revolution was bringing the father out of the home. Both father and mother should be producers at home.)" :
If both the father and the mother work, then obviously the child needs to be taken care of. And it wasn' t the industrial revolution that took the father out; that has been since...way way long before the industrial revolution.
People seriously need do look up a word or two before they confidently start blabbering on and on about things. It makes one look like an idiot.
And please try to read this:
Y'know I'm only going to post once more in here, but I feel I should at least give my POV rather than bite my tongue...erm fingers.
It's ironic as many of these ‘'women’’ being described in this thread are *not* Feminists - I find it unlikely, truly, that they take an interest in the critical theory involved. I'm saddened to see many women and silly girls manipulate terminology and the 'real' oppression of millions of women into their own trivial girl power slogans. Feminists, of the ones I’ve met in the last ten yeas, are not actually interested in that. They do NOT want double standards. They do NOT promote equality and then are happy with the gendered predetermined ‘roles’ that both men and women are given, in most societies.
One of the core roots of studies in Feminism specifically now, is that of defining ‘female’, ‘feminine’ and ‘feminism’. All of them are DIFFERENT - Feminism itself has about 50 strands to it - some of which greatly disgaree with each other!
I’d rather not bring myself into teaching a philosophy about what it entails but some of you are waaaaaaaaaaaaaay off in what you think Feminism is. Actually it's becoming a bit worrying.
In regards to the empowering of certain women – Feminism is not done through bra burning and all that jazz - these days it tends to be on an examination of aesthetic and artistic levels as well as psyche and representation - it's moved into very European roots. I too immensely dislike the extreme stuff but that isn't ''Feminism'' to me - that's using a very intellectual and varied theory just to bash men. So it really p*sses me off to see 'Feminism' get generalised into misused definitions - and that's not aimed at anyone in particular as many women are equally guilty of doing it - but let me clarify, it's only a select few who promote any of sh*t that people seem to think Feminism is whenever this topic is brought up.
In fact this topic seems less about ‘Feminism’ and more about your own personal opinion on gender politics and socially determinable roles and behaviour. The irony is, such, if you take an interest in the strands Feminism now exists in – these women *do* promote women to go into hard science, politics, and male orientated business.
Mary Wollstonecraft, probably the real pioneer of women’s rights, back in the 1700s declared that it was the responsibility of 'normal' WOMEN, equally, to change the roles and attitudes - regardless of whether that will bring their life into stigma. And that still holds true today.
However it's easier said than done: I went into mathematics and computer science, my father was an electrical engineer, but I got so disgruntled with being viewed as a minority on my course – a token - that I eventually found the whole thing miserable. And the work quite soul-less to be perfectly honest. It's interesting to note that the majority of people in the higher level mathematic and physics classes at my schools were female - yet when given the choice at college and university level they all picked Psychology and what not – I guess because that’s what they think they're supposed to do:
Even if women do choose to go into these ‘male orientated’ paths, I know myself, that certain people will of course view their getting jobs as simply down to them being women. Do you think women like that?? Yes I’m sure it’s true on one level that certain women manipulate it for an easier ride - but not many do. It kinda makes you feel as though you're not able to achieve anything, you never feel acknowledgement or pride in what you do.
It’s verging on being insulting that some of you think many women would find that a worthwhile scenario – the likelihood Feminist women would want that is at about zero %. Like I said before, some of you are thinking some very weird particulars to hold your views – without specifying who these apparent Feminists are that say such views. Ad that might be down to no Feminists ever writing such a thing. Most Feminists I know actually *do* want the standards that so men and women seem to think they avoid:
On one hand it's quite amusing to think that people believe in such 'wrong' ways, that Feminism - but on the other, it kinda upsets me that there is such a lack of understanding and acknowledgement of some of the most intelligent and, imo, important women in western civilisation. (e.g. Simone de Beauvoir, Hélène Cixous, Judith Butler, Mary Wollstonecraft, Virginia Woolf, Julia Kristeva, The Valiant Five, Séverine, Audre Lorde) But anyway, if taking recent people, then women such as Rebecca Walker, Kate Millett, Barbara Smith, Jean Kilbournce, Nadine Strossen etc have the right examples for women to follow in terms of 'applied' Feminism.
Thewanderer
2006-01-21, 21:01
Uh, no, no they don't. Name one. It's a matter of deduction. If you placed a crying baby in front of a man, he would probably know that 1) the baby may have a messy diaper, 2) the baby is hungry, or 3) the baby needs to get cuddled. If women automatically knew what their baby needed, there wouldn't be a billion "Parenting for Dummies" books.
You name one man like that. I love kids, but I'd be scared to death if I was perminantly stuck with raising one by myself. Of course that's just me, but I can't see that it'd be much different than the majority of other men.
In nature, I doubt it's so much a matter of male animals not knowing what their offspring need, as not caring, thus they don't even stick around after the mating. In fact, that really the only way I see a woman being more suited to care for a baby, because they may have stronger maternal instincts*.
You're just contradicting yourself. Females have stronger maternal instincts BECAUSE their female ancestors spent all the time with their offspring, thus evolved with the appropriate abilities.
Even if it's not one of those situations. If you need double incomes to continue your lifestyle, then it must be done. (Of course, if you're at that stage, i would say don't have a kid to begin with, as it won't improve the situation, but that is neither here nor there.)
I know that, and agree with it. Ppl shouldn't have kids if they can't take care of them.
*Not maternal as it relates to being a mother, but maternal as in having charteristics of a mother. I've seen guys coddle nice cars the same way I see women coo at their babies.
That's... just scary. O.o
This thread is really quite disturbing. It's as if not a single person read Diodati's post. MOST OF YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT FEMINISM IS. Feminism is NOT about claiming that women are superior. It's about FREEDOM of women (allowing them to do whatever they want, from being a housewife to a CEO), and about equal treatmen from SOCIETY. The comment from Thewanderer about how women who don't enjoy motherhood are "selfish" sickened me to nausea. Most animals don't even have parental care, and the offspring survive on their own just as well. In birds, the male does at least half of the child rearing. And the all too common "men are hunters women are gatherers" is derived from PREHISTORIC times, since nowadays it is virtually impossible to conduct evolutionary studies on humans let alone their sexes. Before patriarchial societies there were matriachal societies, and there is a lot of evidence that it is they who invented the first form of writing.
I for one, do not like babies. I can't bear staying at home and cleaning their diapers and all that other stuff. Thewanderer...please don't make ignorant assumptions. Things like changing diapers, etc, ARE NOT INNATE. In fact, about the only thing science has confirmed that says that women make better parents is that women are more sensitive to children and less prone to violence.
I sickened you? I'm ignorant? How do you get off comming in here and insulting me like this? I have zero intention of insulting anyone. I meant for this to be a friendly debate... please keep the insults to yourself.
Finally you stopped beating about the bush and said what you finally wanted to. And what makes them greedy? Please explain yourself, Mr. "nazi-ish b!tches"
Beating around the bush? I wasn't referring to feminists as such, just the ones who think they're superior to men. That's what makes them greedy.
UMMMMM. DUDE. What the h*ll? Feminism is not about any of those things. It sickens me when people are so confident while they jabber away ABSOLUTE idioticy. You might want to do a search on Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.com) about what feminism is, and it certainly isn't about wearing skirts, or blushing more, about selflessness (I think you're confusing RELIGION with FEMINISM).
As for the "I'd thought feminism would encourage the father to nurture more and be present in his children's lives.Instead the mother was encouraged to spend as much time away from home and leave the children in institutions headed by strangers. (The first mistake of the Industrial Revolution was bringing the father out of the home. Both father and mother should be producers at home.)" :
If both the father and the mother work, then obviously the child needs to be taken care of. And it wasn' t the industrial revolution that took the father out; that has been since...way way long before the industrial revolution.
I'm a regular at Wikipedia, thank you very much. And I've studied that page in particular.
People seriously need do look up a word or two before they confidently start blabbering on and on about things. It makes one look like an idiot.
And please try to read this:
No, this thread isn't about feminism, it's just the only word I could think of when I made the topic. And again, please avoid the insults if you want anyone to take you seriously. Oh, and yes, I have read that.
For tl;dr: Basically, I'm all for the "Gender Equality" thing, but different genders still have differences beyond reproductive functions, and shouldn't be considered a weakness, but should be embraced as a strength.
This wasn't meant to be an argument, so please forgive me if I insulted anyone.
Nightbat®
2006-01-21, 22:11
This thread is really quite disturbing. It's as if not a single person read Diodati's post. MOST OF YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT FEMINISM IS. Feminism is NOT about claiming that women are superior. It's about FREEDOM of women
People seriously need do look up a word or two before they confidently start blabbering on and on about things. It makes one look like an idiot.
And please try to read this:
I hardly hear anyone claiming to be "Feminist" they seem to know what kind of
image that brings up with people
Most of us here are just "Common" people
and to some of us Feminism is starting to look more like the Superiority of women
than Freedom for women
you have the (rightfully) so-called "Fem-nazi's" to thank for that
they have no "Noble" cause, they base their crusade on Jealousy and revenge
They do not want equality, they want it all!
Playing the victim card to get what they want, justifying their Zero-tolerance and
Man-hate with all the freedoms their movement gained for women
As you found out, the term "Feminism" is used differently by scholars than by
"common" people
I fail to see the big deal about the use of certain terms to describe something
I never heard anyone complain about the use of the word "Lesbian"
while it should be the poet sapfos name to formulate Female/female Love
Writing erotic poems about women and running an all-girls school
-She just happened to live on Lesbos-
How about cancer? it's a starsign, it's the Latin name for crab and a disease
How do the people born in june/juli feel about that?
(Do Animal rights-activists feel sorry for the crab?)
and if we take things for what they really really represent:
the Swastika wouldn't be viewed as a symbol for racism and genocide
This thread is really quite disturbing. It's as if not a single person read Diodati's post. MOST OF YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT FEMINISM IS. Feminism is NOT about claiming that women are superior. It's about FREEDOM of women (allowing them to do whatever they want, from being a housewife to a CEO), and about equal treatmen from SOCIETY
Right, that's the ideology in its "pure form". But some of us are talking about what feminism has BECOME, or how it's normally seen anyways. Thanks for mixing up different semantics and ignorance.
You name one man like that. My dad. Raised his 3 younger sisters. You're honestly telling me that if you saw a crying baby (which is a universally recognizable indication that something is WRONG), you'd be baffled about what the problem could be? Then the problem is not that you have no instinct, but that you can't relate to people or you're stupid. I love kids, but I'd be scared to death if I was perminantly stuck with raising one by myself. Of course that's just me, but I can't see that it'd be much different than the majority of other men.And a single mother would be peachy, since she's a woman. You seem to think that any woman would be better than any man at raising a child, simply because she's female. You're just contradicting yourself. Females have stronger maternal instincts BECAUSE their female ancestors spent all the time with their offspring, thus evolved with the appropriate abilities.Yeah, and I'm sure being given dolls to play with has nothing to do with it. I asked you to name one instinct that women have that men don't when it comes to raising babies. You didn't. Because there isn't one.
You're just contradicting yourself. Females have stronger maternal instincts BECAUSE their female ancestors spent all the time with their offspring, thus evolved with the appropriate abilities.
What you just described is Lamarckism or the "inheritance of acquired characteristics". It's been discredited and is generally considered protoscience.
What you just described is Lamarckism or the "inheritance of acquired characteristics". It's been discredited and is generally considered protoscience.
Cite the appropriate studies. It's generally recognized that general behavioral characteristics are inheritable. I am studying a CONTEMPORARY textbook in Psychology that says just that. Maybe you are talking about the inheritance of more *specific* characteristics, which is largely unproven.
Yeah, and I'm sure being given dolls to play with has nothing to do with it. I asked you to name one instinct that women have that men don't when it comes to raising babies. You didn't. Because there isn't one.
I'm not siding with the person you're arguing with, but your argument is weak. Instincts don't come categorized -- they come in shades. That is, I think we all agree that "instincts" are evolved properties, yes? If you're a creationist or ID-supporter, then you can stop reading. If not, then we all recognize that our instincts to fear, breed and such are all products of evolution. And they come in different strengths -- individuals have each property to a different degree.
Citing your father or whoever relative, or whatever anecdote as a counter-example is a poor argument. What we're talking about is GENERAL POPULATION BEHAVIOR. Let's say we have a statistic that says taller people tend to earn more money (this is true, by the way). You can tell me about your short uncle Bob who's a billionaire, but it's hardly relevant. Statistics are information about the behavior and character of the general population. It can't tell you everything about every single individual. Just like you can't predict whether it's a tails or heads for your next coin toss, but you know it's going to be 50-50 in the long run (and yes, this has been demonstrated multiple times, particularly in WWII, where imprisoned mathematicians performed trials of 10,000+).
So proposing that males and females are different AS THEIR INDIVIDUAL POPULATIONS is not a ridiculous idea. Whether this extends to maternal instincts or not is a real hypothesis that deserves to be tested. It might be true, it might not be true. But certainly your extremist position and over-zealousness in trying to rubbish such claims are coloring your intellect. Sure, there might be males out there who are more sensitive than the average female, more 'maternal' than the average female, even.. but I think what statistics, and general statements such as "females = more maternal" are based on are the differences in population.
Learn.
Cite the appropriate studies. It's generally recognized that general behavioral characteristics are inheritable. I am studying a CONTEMPORARY textbook in Psychology that says just that. Maybe you are talking about the inheritance of more *specific* characteristics, which is largely unproven.
Learn.
Omg...you just ended a comment defending Lamarckism with "Learn." This is disgusting beyond belief. From people starting a thread on feminism when they don't know shit about it, to supporting a discarded theory from evidence in a psychology textbook....
I don't know what to say. Actually I do, but I'd rather not waste my time on some narrow minded kids. Diodati was smart to make a last post, since they knew it was worthless arguing with [].
(and if someone wants to be considered superior to someone, thewanderer, it does not make them "greedy" [another error that an elementary grade kid would not have made] it makes them a CHAUVINIST)
Thewanderer
2006-01-22, 00:53
My dad. Raised his 3 younger sisters. You're honestly telling me that if you saw a crying baby (which is a universally recognizable indication that something is WRONG), you'd be baffled about what the problem could be? Then the problem is not that you have no instinct, but that you can't relate to people or you're stupid. And a single mother would be peachy, since she's a woman. You seem to think that any woman would be better than any man at raising a child, simply because she's female. Yeah, and I'm sure being given dolls to play with has nothing to do with it. I asked you to name one instinct that women have that men don't when it comes to raising babies. You didn't. Because there isn't one.
No, I didn't because I forgot to. Please don't be harsh like this, I'm not trying to argue. Heck, I'm trying to learn more about this myself. You're talking to me like I think I know everything, which I don't.
What you just described is Lamarckism or the "inheritance of acquired characteristics". It's been discredited and is generally considered protoscience.
Okay... though I still think it's some form of Natural selection.
Omg...you just ended a comment defending Lamarckism with "Learn." This is disgusting beyond belief. From people starting a thread on feminism when they don't know shit about it, to supporting a discarded theory from evidence in a psychology textbook....
I don't know what to say. Actually I do, but I'd rather not waste my time on some narrow minded kids. Diodati was smart to make a last post, since they knew it was worthless arguing with [].
Please don't try to argue with each other:upset: I don't want this to turn into a fight...
(and if someone wants to be considered superior to someone, thewanderer, it does not make them "greedy" [another error that an elementary grade kid would not have made] it makes them a CHAUVINIST)
Okay, I used the wrong word. Sorry, I have a habbit of doing that.
TrueKnight
2006-01-22, 01:12
I kinda figured that it somehow would turn this way... But still its funny :D
Omg...you just ended a comment defending Lamarckism with "Learn." This is disgusting beyond belief. From people starting a thread on feminism when they don't know shit about it, to supporting a discarded theory from evidence in a psychology textbook....
I don't know what to say. Actually I do, but I'd rather not waste my time on some narrow minded kids. Diodati was smart to make a last post, since they knew it was worthless arguing with
You actually just killed yourself with your remark, saying you know more about feminism just because your female; and disregarding and degrading the OPINION from all the male around here, wake up girl.
I've encountered much feminism in my life, I won't give an example, but it comes especially from bitches that they think that they could take a man's job and fucking demanding equality, but ended up saying the phrase "ladies first".
Omg...you just ended a comment defending Lamarckism with "Learn." This is disgusting beyond belief. From people starting a thread on feminism when they don't know shit about it, to supporting a discarded theory from evidence in a psychology textbook....
... I read up about Lamarckism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism). Guess what? It's entirely different from what you said, and what I said.
Basically what Lamarckism is --- a theory that acquired differences in an individual organism will be passed down genetically. This is wrong, of course. If any person, from childhood, is trained to be muscular, this doesn't mean that the person's offspring will be muscular. There is no effect on the reproductive cells/genes.
Lamarckism held that traits acquired (or diminished) during the lifetime of an organism can be passed on to the offspring. Lamarck based his theory on two observations, in his day considered to be generally true
What I said was BEHAVIORAL CHARACTERISTICS were found to be inheritable. Two smart parents (genetically smart) have a tendency to produce smart offspring. Two angry, violent parents (genetically so) have a tendency to produce angry, violent offspring. This is true.
So there. I have thoroughly trashed your post, and I hope you come to your senses.
Thewanderer
2006-01-22, 02:14
Okay, this is turned into a debate(or argument, depending on the view) about physical and mental stuff, and not views on feminism and equality like I intended it to be. I guess this topic is sorta related, but could you guys try not to argue? I don't want my thread to be locked...
I'm not siding with the person you're arguing with, but your argument is weak. Instincts don't come categorized -- they come in shades. That is, I think we all agree that "instincts" are evolved properties, yes? If you're a creationist or ID-supporter, then you can stop reading. If not, then we all recognize that our instincts to fear, breed and such are all products of evolution. And they come in different strengths -- individuals have each property to a different degree. I know instinct is an evolved property, but knowing how to care for an infant isn't instinct, at least where humans are concerned. One can't pass on knowledge through genetics.Citing your father or whoever relative, or whatever anecdote as a counter-example is a poor argument.I only did that because he told me to name one male who can understand that a crying baby is somehow in distress. What we're talking about is GENERAL POPULATION BEHAVIOR. Let's say we have a statistic that says taller people tend to earn more money (this is true, by the way). You can tell me about your short uncle Bob who's a billionaire, but it's hardly relevant.Yes, but this dude's argument is, using your example, "Tall people are more successful because they inherited the ability to become successful from their tall ancestors." And this is flawed anyway, since the reason more tall people are successful is because other people are favorably disposed toward their physical characteristics. It's not something at which the tall person is neccesarily better.
Just because your relatives are all kung fu masters and have been for generations, doesn't make you an instinctive kung fu master. Some behaviors are learned, and human child care is one of those.So proposing that males and females are different AS THEIR INDIVIDUAL POPULATIONS is not a ridiculous idea. Whether this extends to maternal instincts or not is a real hypothesis that deserves to be tested. It might be true, it might not be true. But certainly your extremist position and over-zealousness in trying to rubbish such claims are coloring your intellect. Sure, there might be males out there who are more sensitive than the average female, more 'maternal' than the average female, even.. but I think what statistics, and general statements such as "females = more maternal" are based on are the differences in population.I'm not disagreeing with this, in fact I even said that women are probably better at learning how to care for a child because they're more devoted to it, stemming from a stronger maternal instinct. What I'm trying to say is that maternal instinct alone doesn't equal better child care. You need knowledge, gathered from books, your grandma, the redneck down the street who has 10 kids, whomever, or barring that, trial and error.
Compare a woman, who's had no one to emulate, and no baby books to read, with with a man who has reared a child already, and see who knows what they're doing when they're presented with a teething baby. The woman may feel more for the kid's hurt and honestly try and figure out what the problem is, but the man will go get the kid a cold teething ring to suck on, pacifying the kid. He solved the problem because he's learned that cold helps when a kid is teething. The woman wouldn't know, because she's ignorant and her instinct won't help her there.
No, I didn't because I forgot to.Can't help but notice you still didn't mention one. But nevermind, I'm past caring.
Thewanderer
2006-01-22, 02:37
I know instinct is an evolved property, but knowing how to care for an infant isn't instinct, at least where humans are concerned. One can't pass on knowledge through genetics.I only did that because he told me to name one male who can understand that a crying baby is somehow in distress. Yes, but this dude's argument is, using your example, "Tall people are more successful because they inherited the ability to become successful from their tall ancestors." And this is flawed anyway, since the reason more tall people are successful is because other people are favorably disposed toward their physical characteristics. It's not something at which the tall person is neccesarily better.
Just because your relatives are all kung fu masters and have been for generations, doesn't make you an instinctive kung fu master. Some behaviors are learned, and human child care is one of those.I'm not disagreeing with this, in fact I even said that women are probably better at learning how to care for a child because they're more devoted to it, stemming from a stronger maternal instinct. What I'm trying to say is that maternal instinct alone doesn't equal better child care. You need knowledge, gathered from books, your grandma, the redneck down the street who has 10 kids, whomever, or barring that, trial and error.
Compare a woman, who's had no one to emulate, and no baby books to read, with with a man who has reared a child already, and see who knows what they're doing when they're presented with a teething baby. The woman may feel more for the kid's hurt and honestly try and figure out what the problem is, but the man will go get the kid a cold teething ring to suck on, pacifying the kid. He solved the problem because he's learned that cold helps when a kid is teething. The woman wouldn't know, because she's ignorant and her instinct won't help her there.
Can't help but notice you still didn't mention one. But nevermind, I'm past caring.
I agree with you. Knowledge is impossible to pass down to your offspring. My erlier posts were meant to refer to maternal instinct, but everyone took what I was saying wrong. I't prolly just me, not knowing how to explain things well:upset:
Anyway, this is exactly the point I was trying to make from my first post. Maternal instincts just aren't present in most males, but that don't mean they're not capable of child care. Just as normal male stength isn't present in females, but that don't mean that they can't be physically strong if they work hard enough(they'd most likely have to work harder than a man, but hey, determination can get you places).
I hope I made this post clearer...
I hardly hear anyone claiming to be "Feminist" they seem to know what kind of
image that brings up with people
Yes they are aware. They are aware that a particular movement of some 40 years ago (which only a certain sect of Feminists were involved in) has now been 'flipped' onto the study an immense CT as a whole. Which wouldn't be so bad if it didn't disregard the work of many wonderful women from the past 300 years, from a multitude of cultures, races and intentions. Many Feminists hate the opinion of what Feminism now is, because 'that' is quite incorrect. But you either succumb to that wrong 'impression' that so many people seem to have, or you can continue on with your own branches and philosophy hoping that one day, people will actually realise what Feminism now exists as.
I fail to see the big deal about the use of certain terms to describe something
Because it's being used wrong? It would be like talking about any ideology and only quoting the extremists or certain 'trends' or 'fads' that aren't even applicable to Feminism. It's unfair when people do it with religion, so I see it as slightly unfair when people do it with critical theory.
Right, that's the ideology in its "pure form". But some of us are talking about what feminism has BECOME, or how it's normally seen anyways. Thanks for mixing up different semantics and ignorance.
Feminism as what is being referred to in here is a manipulated version of certain sects of the 2nd wave Feminists - the rather infamous extreme kind *or* what I think is even more likely: silly little girls who claim they are Feminists, but aren't at all and just want to bash men. I can guarantee many Feminists hate those sorts of women far more than the ''common people'' do. These groups bear no real accountability to what Feminism is or has ever been, so I can't agree with anyone who says this is what Feminism has 'become'. It's simply women out for their views and tagging Feminism in with it - which I absolutely loathe myself.
I've encountered much feminism in my life, I won't give an example, but it comes especially from bitches that they think that they could take a man's job and fucking demanding equality, but ended up saying the phrase "ladies first".
No please do give an example. I'm a Feminist. I'm absolutely bewildered as to where all this hatred stems from - although I know it gets a bad rep, I'm not an idiot. But these ''Feminists'' (which I don't believe are for one second) are nothing like what I've encountered in my life - maybe you're older than me and have met some lynching 1960's crew? I'm nothing like what is being presented in here. I don't bash men, I'm not a hypocrite, I don't ridicule, I don't rely on double standards, I never say ''ladies first'', I've been educated in a ''male occupation'' (although I found my treatment quite painful to be honest), I'd like to have children one day, possibly adoption but it's not the be all or end all of my life, I don't believe my sexuality should be central to how people consider me, I believe in equal rights and the notion ''Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere'', I've promoted the works of women (and men), not in vein of superiority but one of differentiality and not just in regards to white middle class suburban women but on a scale of cultural celebration. I don't believe women should be left to rot in the house - it's a waste - but nor do I believe that we should all swop 'roles' just for the sake of swopping roles. I believe people should have the option - that men should have more rights as fathers, and that women shouldn't feel 'compelled' by familial or social pressure to behave in a certain way. Just given the oppotunity of what they desire their life to be (and many women, sadly do not have a choice).
If that makes me the monster that some of you have in mind then that's okay. *shrugs*
The fact the person who started this thread put this makes me think that I'll always be a part of a lost cause:
No, this thread isn't about feminism, it's just the only word I could think of when I made the topic.
Thewanderer
2006-01-22, 04:14
Yes they are aware. They are aware that a particular movement of some 40 years ago (which only a certain sect of Feminists were involved in) has now been 'flipped' onto the study an immense CT as a whole. Which wouldn't be so bad if it didn't disregard the work of many wonderful women from the past 300 years, from a multitude of cultures, races and intentions. Many Feminists hate the opinion of what Feminism now is, because 'that' is quite incorrect. But you either succumb to that wrong 'impression' that so many people seem to have, or you can continue on with your own branches and philosophy hoping that one day, people will actually realise what Feminism now exists as.
Because it's being used wrong? It would be like talking about any ideology and only quoting the extremists or certain 'trends' or 'fads' that aren't even applicable to Feminism. It's unfair when people do it with religion, so I see it as slightly unfair when people do it with critical theory.
Feminism as what is being referred to in here is a manipulated version of certain sects of the 2nd wave Feminists - the rather infamous extreme kind *or* what I think is even more likely: silly little girls who claim they are Feminists, but aren't at all and just want to bash men. I can guarantee many Feminists hate those sorts of women far more than the ''common people'' do. These groups bear no real accountability to what Feminism is or has ever been, so I can't agree with anyone who says this is what Feminism has 'become'. It's simply women out for their views and tagging Feminism in with it - which I absolutely loathe myself.
No please do give an example. I'm a Feminist. I'm absolutely bewildered as to where all this hatred stems from - although I know it gets a bad rep, I'm not an idiot. But these ''Feminists'' (which I don't believe are for one second) are nothing like what I've encountered in my life - maybe you're older than me and have met some lynching 1960's crew? I'm nothing like what is being presented in here. I don't bash men, I'm not a hypocrite, I don't ridicule, I don't rely on double standards, I never say ''ladies first'', I've been educated in a ''male occupation'' (although I found my treatment quite painful to be honest), I'd like to have children one day, possibly adoption but it's not the be all or end all of my life, I don't believe my sexuality should be central to how people consider me, I believe in equal rights and the notion ''Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere'', I've promoted the works of women (and men), not in vein of superiority but one of differentiality and not just in regards to white middle class suburban women but on a scale of cultural celebration. I don't believe women should be left to rot in the house - it's a waste - but nor do I believe that we should all swop 'roles' just for the sake of swopping roles. I believe people should have the option - that men should have more rights as fathers, and that women shouldn't feel 'compelled' by familial or social pressure to behave in a certain way. Just given the oppotunity of what they desire their life to be (and many women, sadly do not have a choice).
If that makes me the monster that some of you have in mind then that's okay. *shrugs*
The fact the person who started this thread put this makes me think that I'll always be a part of a lost cause:
No, sorry about that. Though keep in mind that the word "feminist" comes from "feminine", which relates to women, so I did have a misunderstood impression about them.
And you speak far more logically than anyone else in this thread, including myself. You're completely on the right track in all of this. I tried to emphasize that equality is a good thing, but everyone took my mentioning of differences in the genders as unequal and a bad thing. Looking through your perspective, I guess I'm with you "true femininists" about equal rights.
Y'know I'm only going to post once more in here, but I feel I should at least give my POV rather than bite my tongue...erm fingers.
That was too passionate to be true ;)
And you speak far more logically than anyone else in this thread, including myself. You're completely on the right track in all of this. I tried to emphasize that equality is a good thing, but everyone took my mentioning of differences in the genders as unequal and a bad thing. Looking through your perspective, I guess I'm with you "true femininists" about equal rights.
Differences is what spices up our lives. The problem with your "mentioning" of differences lies in the way it can be interpreted. It had some generalization and ignorance. Generaliziation is a very human weakness (because it makes the world easier to understand).
Many people underestimate socialization, some overestimate it... yet sure is, the last thing a person is going to give up without opposition is the own personality/oppinion, which devellops in a socialization process beginning when we are born and ending when we are dead. Socially controversial themes like this one, can attract different oppinions very easily. And every single identity/personality/oppinion/endorser weights the provided oppinions of others differently. So what seems no point for an argument to you (often triggered by unknowingly used generalizations), can be critical for someone else (because he/she might take offense). Human movements like feminism can be compared best with religions. There are all types of supporters (ranges from openminded to radical) and opponents (ranges from openminded to radical too) and others who couldn't care less. The radical types (regardless whether they are supporter or opposition) are responsible for most of the conflicts regarding the issue. All the moderate types are caught up in their ideological "war". Sometimes moderate types are driven to adopt some of the more radical views (or have the feeling to defend their own personality against the radical views of the opponent/own side), which may clash with the views of a moderate opponent (or in some cases supporter), leading to less understanding and weighted generalization as well as ignorance (...biased view).
So the moderate types are like bouncy balls in a play driven by the radical views in the society. However, some are more bouncy than others... :D
My explanation does not intend to formulate a certain standpoint on feminism. It is meant to explain, why the thread is evolving like this.
(If you want, you can try to find the generalization, that made me writing this ;) )
Thewanderer
2006-01-22, 15:51
That was too passionate to be true ;)
Differences is what spices up our lives. The problem with your "mentioning" of differences lies in the way it can be interpreted. It had some generalization and ignorance. Generaliziation is a very human weakness (because it makes the world easier to understand).
Many people underestimate socialization, some overestimate it... yet sure is, the last thing a person is going to give up without opposition is the own personality/oppinion, which devellops in a socialization process beginning when we are born and ending when we are dead. Socially controversial themes like this one, can attract different oppinions very easily. And every single identity/personality/oppinion/endorser weights the provided oppinions of others differently. So what seems no point for an argument to you (often triggered by unknowingly used generalizations), can be critical for someone else (because he/she might take offense). Human movements like feminism can be compared best with religions. There are all types of supporters (ranges from openminded to radical) and opponents (ranges from openminded to radical too) and others who couldn't care less. The radical types (regardless whether they are supporter or opposition) are responsible for most of the conflicts regarding the issue. All the moderate types are caught up in their ideological "war". Sometimes moderate types are driven to adopt some of the more radical views (or have the feeling to defend their own personality against the radical views of the opponent/own side), which may clash with the views of a moderate opponent (or in some cases supporter), leading to less understanding and weighted generalization as well as ignorance (...biased view).
So the moderate types are like bouncy balls in a play driven by the radical views in the society. However, some are more bouncy than others... :D
My explanation does not intend to formulate a certain standpoint on feminism. It is meant to explain, why the thread is evolving like this.
(If you want, you can try to find the generalization, that made me writing this ;) )
You've cirtainly made me understand everyone's standpoints better. I just want everyone to know that I don't mean anything insulting in this thread, though I still want to discuss what the thread was intended to... to find out the views and opinions of everyone else, possibly learning more from them in the process(for myself and anyone else that posts in it)
Nightbat®
2006-01-22, 17:46
Yes they are aware. They are aware that a particular movement of some 40 years ago (which only a certain sect of Feminists were involved in) has now been 'flipped' onto the study an immense CT as a whole. Which wouldn't be so bad if it didn't disregard the work of many wonderful women from the past 300 years, from a multitude of cultures, races and intentions. Many Feminists hate the opinion of what Feminism now is, because 'that' is quite incorrect. But you either succumb to that wrong 'impression' that so many people seem to have, or you can continue on with your own branches and philosophy hoping that one day, people will actually realise what Feminism now exists as.
Because it's being used wrong? It would be like talking about any ideology and only quoting the extremists or certain 'trends' or 'fads' that aren't even applicable to Feminism. It's unfair when people do it with religion, so I see it as slightly unfair when people do it with critical theory.
It's being used wrong by those that claim to be it
as my example of the swastika, which stands for hapiness, a positive life and reincarnation
common knowledge associates it with Genocide, racism and Nazis
it's been abused by extremists
blame the ones that abuse a certain subject and creating a wrong impression
Thruth in your words, but explain why ALL young drivers pay through the nose
for car-insurance, when only a small portion is a "bad" driver
It's the extremes that condemn entire groups
it's those who grab the attention
Okay, this is turned into a debate(or argument, depending on the view) about physical and mental stuff, and not views on feminism and equality like I intended it to be. I guess this topic is sorta related, but could you guys try not to argue? I don't want my thread to be locked...
I know you are trying to be friendly, but what is so nice about calling a group you seem to have a lot of misconceptions about 'greedy selfish nazi-ish bitches'?
Thewanderer
2006-01-22, 20:57
I know you are trying to be friendly, but what is so nice about calling a group you seem to have a lot of misconceptions about 'greedy selfish nazi-ish bitches'?
I wasn't calling every feminist that, just the ones who despise men. There are women out there like that, like this one (http://www.womynkind.org/scum.htm).
hough keep in mind that the word "feminist" comes from "feminine", which relates to women, so I did have a misunderstood impression about them.
The word 'feminist' actually comes from the Latin word 'femina' - 'woman' - and 'ist' relating to study or characteistics.
The radical types (regardless whether they are supporter or opposition) are responsible for most of the conflicts regarding the issue. All the moderate types are caught up in their ideological "war". Sometimes moderate types are driven to adopt some of the more radical views (or have the feeling to defend their own personality against the radical views of the opponent/own side), which may clash with the views of a moderate opponent (or in some cases supporter), leading to less understanding and weighted generalization as well as ignorance (...biased view).
So the moderate types are like bouncy balls in a play driven by the radical views in the society. However, some are more bouncy than others...
Yes that's very true. And I'm not going to get too upset over it, because there isn't much I can do. There are many Feminists who don't use the term Feminism anymore because they don't want to tied as some neo-Nazi-cum******, or a man-basher but I don't see why I should let a select few wackos taint the CT that was around before they ever came along. And I won't - I don't claim to be the only example of Feminism, but I know I'm closer to a sane, pragmatic version than most of the examples given in the thread.
Thruth in your words, but explain why ALL young drivers pay through the nose
for car-insurance, when only a small portion is a "bad" driver
It's the extremes that condemn entire groups
it's those who grab the attention
Well one is Governmental - that none of us have a 'choice' over. The other is an ideology or belief which is simply controlled by information. And it's through media manipulation and lack of education, I'd say, that these misconceptions have gone on as long as they have. Additionally, the 'extremist's are *not* a part of Feminism to me - Feminism isn't really a nice huge big group of many sections. There are hundreds of different branches with their own agenda, each with their own rights/lefts - but I'm quite amazed that a select few have damaged everyone elses work. I feel quite relieved to some degree that I live in Europe, because Feminism is known as a Theoretical study and philosophy in the same sense as Post/Structuralism, Post/Modernism, Marxism, Post-Colonialism is, whereas in America and other places, it seems to be tied to a movement (one of many radical ones) that happened during the Vietnam War. Or simply to any woman who goes berserk with their girl power slogans.
blame the ones that abuse a certain subject and creating a wrong impression
I do blame them - although I feel I can't judge too much on events that happened before I was born. Nor can I undo them. So yes it annoys me that such extremists have given the whole thing such a bad name but I also can't help feel annoyed by the men and women who continue to create that image of Feminism when it's not true. But I'm sure it will fall on deaf ears, life isn't fair - and some of the examples in this thread have not even been about Feminist extremists - they've been about hypocritical women.
I wasn't calling every feminist that, just the ones who despise men. There are women out there like that, like this one.
Yeah the woman died in 1988, her teenage years were full of prostitution, she wrote SCUM in 1966, became mentally unstable, shot Andy Warhol (who she knew btw) and ended up in psychiatric centres.
It's not really picking the cream of the crop in terms of Feminists is it? And some people will probably fail to grasp the point that 99.9% of Feminists these days (and prior) aren't like that. Alas. I've explained all that I can, and there is no need for me to repeat anything.
Thewanderer
2006-01-23, 02:39
The word 'feminist' actually comes from the Latin word 'femina' - 'woman' - and 'ist' relating to study or characteistics.
Okay, if you want to get technical:p
Yeah the woman died in 1988, her teenage years were full of prostitution, she wrote SCUM in 1966, became mentally unstable, shot Andy Warhol (who she knew btw) and ended up in psychiatric centres.
Yeah. I kinda feel sorry for women like that, even if they are evil men-haters...
(maybe I'm too sympathetic? Oh well...)
It's not really picking the cream of the crop in terms of Feminists is it? And some people will probably fail to grasp the point that 99.9% of Feminists these days (and prior) aren't like that. Alas. I've explained all that I can, and there is no need for me to repeat anything.
I know that for sure. I'm not at all about generalization like that.
UMMMMM. DUDE. What the h*ll? Feminism is not about any of those things. It sickens me when people are so confident while they jabber away ABSOLUTE idioticy. You might want to do a search on Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.com) about what feminism is, and it certainly isn't about wearing skirts, or blushing more, about selflessness (I think you're confusing RELIGION with FEMINISM).
Please explain how societal definitions of what is "masculine" or "feminine", or religious views of women have nothing to do with feminism.
Nightbat®
2006-01-23, 17:14
I'm quite amazed that a select few have damaged everyone elses work.
Actually I'm amazed you are amazed
History and current society is FULL of examples like that where a few 'rape' what
is basicly a "good" and 'Innocent" ideaologie/movement/culture
I do blame them - although I feel I can't judge too much on events that happened before I was born. Nor can I undo them. So yes it annoys me that such extremists have given the whole thing such a bad name but I also can't help feel annoyed by the men and women who continue to create that image of Feminism when it's not true.
I do not "create" that image, it's given to me by those bad apples that scream
the loudest
The problem with that is you get a "Boy who cried wolf" effect
But I'm sure it will fall on deaf ears, life isn't fair - and some of the examples in this thread have not even been about Feminist extremists - they've been about hypocritical women.
All modern women should be considered feminist (in the way You describe)
or at least be respected by men on equal level.
So we discussed the Fem-Nazis and those hypocritical women you mention
One group considers themselves Feminist but claim Superiority/want revenge
The other will claim equality but hide behind their "weaker sex" as an exuse to get
men to do the hard/dirty things
both demand men to give them equality, both won't accept they need to earn it
Aoie_Emesai
2006-01-24, 08:14
Here's an offical definition just in case you guys/gals are wondering.
Feminism - The view, articulated in the 19th century, that women are inherently equal to men and deserve equal rights and opportunities. More recently, a social and political movement that took hold in the United States in the late 1960s, soon spreading globally.
Well it's rather offical, its google, have fun.
Thewanderer - well you are correct, this is much more of a debate now than a discussion. hahahah :heh:
--
Nightbat®-
So we discussed the Fem-Nazis and those hypocritical women you mention
One group considers themselves Feminist but claim Superiority/want revenge
The other will claim equality but hide behind their "weaker sex" as an exuse to get
men to do the hard/dirty things
both demand men to give them equality, both won't accept they need to earn it
Well we haven't really been gettting alone that well have we? Men and Womens? Sometime I feel that men and womens feel that they are inferior or superior to the opposite sex. They think that it could've been better if they were born as a male or female. Personally i'm superbly happy with my sex, so i don't consider a sex change an option. Hahahah :heh:
ps: Do you guys/gals ever felt like that?
Sinestra
2006-01-24, 20:05
I think what makes us diffrent is that each culture has some type of belief structure and thats where the problem is i will aknowledge that haveing diffrent people in the world in a great thing nor do i think i am superior to a women i am as nature intended me to be just like animals have certin things about them to help them survive so do men and women my point in this
Id rather have an idea then a belief its a lot easier changing an idea then a belief if more people took this to heart men and women and other cultures might get along better
pinsher6
2006-01-26, 00:42
though world have given different gift to differnt people... we are the same...we live in the same community with equal status...
Kaoru Chujo
2006-01-26, 13:09
Feminism is a good thing. The "man-hating" stereotype is totally exaggerated, promoted by men to try to stop women getting equality. Sure, some women hate men -- and too many women have experiences of violence and discrimination that would justify that feeling, even today. It's amazing that more women don't hate men.
Young women today have no idea how bad things were only 40 years ago: the 60s were an era of liberation, but even the most radical groups treated women as silly toys. Rather like the way women are portrayed in some Japanese media. My grandmother was proud of the fact that she always voted the way my granddad told her. My mother quit her excellent job as soon as she was married because she thought it was wrong for a married woman to work.
Certainly we may have carried the sameness of the sexes a bit far, but it was a necessary antidote to the traditional "separate and totally unequal" situation of the past. The conservative Muslim suppression of women that people criticise so much is not that different from the traditional Euro-American approach.
Legend Ver 2
2006-01-26, 18:29
Feminism is a good thing. The "man-hating" stereotype is totally exaggerated, promoted by men to try to stop women getting equality. Sure, some women hate men -- and too many women have experiences of violence and discrimination that would justify that feeling, even today. It's amazing that more women don't hate men.
Well this is my first time posting in this thread. First of all, don't take it the wrong way if I'm misinterpreting what you're saying (correct me if I'm wrong), but it almost sounds like you agree and promote that women should hate men because of what happen many decades ago. I personally do not think it's that amazing that more women don't hate men. You seem like make it sound like over 50% of men abuse and use violence against women when in reality it's only a small percentage of the male population that do those kind of sick things.
Young women today have no idea how bad things were only 40 years ago: the 60s were an era of liberation, but even the most radical groups treated women as silly toys. Rather like the way women are portrayed in some Japanese media. My grandmother was proud of the fact that she always voted the way my granddad told her. My mother quit her excellent job as soon as she was married because she thought it was wrong for a married woman to work.
I agree that young women have no idea how bad things were 40 years ago, but I don't really see a reason that they should know. If anything, it just brings more caution in the trust they have towards men and maybe instill even more hate because of knowing something so ugly in the past. If young women are happy at what they have today, I say let them be instead of bringing up the past.
Certainly we may have carried the sameness of the sexes a bit far, but it was a necessary antidote to the traditional "separate and totally unequal" situation of the past. The conservative Muslim suppression of women that people criticise so much is not that different from the traditional Euro-American approach.This I would have to agree on.
TrueKnight
2006-01-27, 11:31
The conservative Muslim suppression of women that people criticise so much is not that different from the traditional Euro-American approach.
Bah. Traditional Europe or American were much better. You obviously have no idea what they did to women in Iraq, especially Afghanistan. Underline the word conservative.
Thewanderer
2006-01-29, 20:46
Well, I'm glad that this topic wasn't flamed to death like everyone said it was going to be...
Anyway, next question. What does everyone think about how women are treated/act in Japan?
Aoie_Emesai
2006-01-30, 12:26
Well, personally i have no clue how Japan's cultrue is really true to be within the scope of anime. Since anime often depict women as butt kicking girls, or a really nice all around women.
If Azreal's edititorials are true to be, then it seems that they have much the same right as America, eh? Or am i wrong?
Thewanderer
2006-02-01, 17:56
Well, personally i have no clue how Japan's cultrue is really true to be within the scope of anime. Since anime often depict women as butt kicking girls, or a really nice all around women.
There's gotta be at least a few ppl that know about Japanese politics in a forum that is revolved around an aspect of Japanese culture...
If Azreal's edititorials are true to be, then it seems that they have much the same right as America, eh? Or am i wrong?
The same rights... as far as I know, yes. But I'm talking about how differently females and males act(attitude, politeness, roles, etc)
TrueKnight
2006-02-01, 21:51
Females in Japan were actually still regarded as 2nd class citizens based on the infos I got from a few marines and soldiers who were or still stationed in Okinawa or near Tokyo.
Like somebody already said, Japan is basicly a xenophobic, robotic and male-dominated society. Their government were so scared shitless because their females are running out of the country or marrying foreigners that they decided to pass the first constitution regarding female equality.
But really, women in Japan are really about the same with other women in the world regarding their attitude. Some of them are bitches, some of them aren't.
Last I checked the numbers of high-school girls who're still virgins in Tokyo were only around 9-14 %. That's Japan for you. :)
But really, women in Japan are really about the same with other women in the world regarding their attitude. Some of them are bitches, some of them aren't.
Last I checked the numbers of high-school girls who're still virgins in Tokyo were only around 9-14 %. That's Japan for you. :)
Actually, while you're probably about right in that Japanese women possess the same RANGE of attitudes as does the females of the rest of the world.. I disagree that they are in equal proportion. I think that you'd probably find them more conservative/subservient on average; if only because of the male-dominated culture. I think that's the attraction of Japanese girls to so many foreigners.
Also, I did hear about something like; the average age of girls losing their virginity in Tokyo was 13 :twitch: I found it unbelievable, but they have a pervasive sugar-daddy culture, and they think it's "cool" to have sex. Then again, how many teenagers in urban societies don't...?
Correct me if I'm wrong guys, but men and women are, and should always be different... But that don't make them unequal.
It'd be like saying that every culture in the world should act the same because our differences make us unequal. I mean over the years, isn't it a culture of sorts that has developed as 'gender roles'? Sure the roles have been created from society, but so have many of our most important values.
So what if some of us are at home raising our family? So what if some of us are out having careers and getting jobs? And so what if on average women are more productive doing the former, while men are better at the latter? There should be seperate roles in our society, BUT we shouldn't be forced to assume a cirtain role. Only one that workes for us INDIVIDUALLY.
Everyone should stop the hate and get along with each other, IMO. Discuss.
The issue of men and women being treated unequal is not really as big as it was. Now more men are choosing to stay home with their kids when they are babies and the mothers are the ones keeping the job and bringing in the money. In terms of jobs, I see women doing "men" jobs all the time. There are TONS of female cops for example. A guy at my work is dating a cop and she gets paid good bucks just like all the male cops.
Of course that is North America that I speak of. You can't really go around saying that other countries are wrong for how they treat men vs women. It's just their culture. Some countries are just accustomed to having the male do all the work and bring home the money while having the female stay at home and clean. Some countries hold men higher than women. Sure, it's wrong in our eyes but we have to understand that in their culture, that's just the way things go. We can't change a whole culture just because of our own beliefs. I'm not saying that what they do is right but that's just a part of what they believe in.
Nightbat®
2006-02-02, 13:35
I see women doing "men" jobs all the time. There are TONS of female cops for example. A guy at my work is dating a cop and she gets paid good bucks just like all the male cops.
I see that in my country as well
the shadowside about it is that men are judged much more critical
since law-enforcement is ordered to sign up more women, whether they
meet the physical/mental requirements or not
it's called positive discrimination
Kempis Curious
2006-02-09, 02:31
Hi, all, I'm late to the thread too. :(
I mistrust the idea that "feminism" means "gender equality". The word sounds like "bias towards female" just like how "chauvanism" means "biased towards male".
-k
curious
Being in Okinawa Japan for 7yrs i believe i have a good idea about japanese women.
First off japan is alot nicer then america in many ways. It is some what true that males are regarded more important, but from what i have seen the only reason this is true is due to the fact that it is there culture. The females treat males with great respect and in return they are given respect back.
When you enter into a japanese store such as family mart, oki mart and such as soon as you enter you are greeted. When you check out they kindly accept your money if you give it to them directly, they also bow down and say thank you. Japanese/Okinawan women are very respectful and faithful, as for the school girls they are playful and have a style of there own.
The females are beautiful there and kind. Im not to shure about main land Japan but Okinawa has some what of its own culture as it used to not be a part of Japan. It is true that the females are getting married to american soldiers alot now days, and thats simply because they have more rights and opertunities in america. I often saw couples of american and Japanese.
I really wish i could go back, and maby one of these days i will. Hope this was informational and helpful to all those wondering out there.
Hi, all, I'm late to the thread too. :(
I mistrust the idea that "feminism" means "gender equality". The word sounds like "bias towards female" just like how "chauvanism" means "biased towards male".
-k
curious
Actually, chauvanism refers to bais towards one's own gender. Feminism have been called Female Chauvanism, but then they couldn't use that term against men. :p
Thewanderer
2006-02-11, 19:09
Actually, chauvanism refers to bais towards one's own gender. Feminism have been called Female Chauvanism, but then they couldn't use that term against men. :p
Gah, those are the worst kind of ppl, IMO. Either you despise them for degrading your gender by talking it down, or they give your gender a bad name by being a total jerk.
To quote the Garfield: "They all need to be drug out to the street and shot."
"...out of a cannon!"(okay, I made that part up:heh: )
I'm quite amazed that a select few have damaged everyone elses work.
Be amazed then...its not just Feminism (the "true" ones of course) that suffers from such human judgement.
I'll go off topic (since my post has more about human and society behaviour rather than about fake or true Feminism, its only appropritate to call it off topic)
This is a post I made in regards to my first line. Dont bother reading it if you think humans are the greatest creations of God, because you will be offended.
http://forums.animesuki.com/showpost.php?p=476846&postcount=60
Thewanderer
2006-02-15, 04:17
Be amazed then...its not just Feminism (the "true" ones of course) that suffers from such human judgement.
I'll go off topic (since my post has more about human and society behaviour rather than about fake or true Feminism, its only appropritate to call it off topic)
This is a post I made in regards to my first line. Dont bother reading it if you think humans are the greatest creations of God, because you will be offended.
http://forums.animesuki.com/showpost.php?p=476846&postcount=60
Yeah, stereotypes are harsh sometimes, and completely inaccurate.
Take me, for example. While I am an anime lover, avid Pokémon TCG player, and collector of Transformers action figures(yay for shape-changing robots!!!), not to mention that I have literally no normal life... I'm also not overweight(under 200 pounds), and I'm engaged too. I might consider myself a loser for different reasons though(I'm as dumb as a post:heh: ), no one really looks down on me.
physics223
2006-02-15, 04:59
Feminism is good if moderated. As a guy I still think women have their rights, and are equal with men, but different.
Excessive feminism is what is intolerable for me as a guy. Saying that women are more than men, saying that they are higher than men ... this makes me just want to cite specific examples to give them their just desserts.
I myself like reading the feminist movement in literature, appreciate women in general. This may sound idiotic to you, but I don't fantasize women I respect. Even though they be really hot (I've known quite few), I respect them both in my body and in my mind.
I also despise excessive masculinity. That's empty talk. I admit, I love watching anime. So what's so gay about that? I like reading books and staying at home. What's so gay about that? I'm still a virgin, even when I'm almost 18. So what's too bad with that?
I hate putting people into stereotypes, but am at fault with it a lot of times as well. I can admit, I've judged - wrongly at that - but who hasn't?
I hate putting people into stereotypes, but am at fault with it a lot of times as well. I can admit, I've judged - wrongly at that - but who hasn't?
That a very normal course of action, really. Problem is, we're dealing with mankind (ourselves) here.
Here is what I think human beings are:
We are the race that discreminate skin color.
We are the race that discreminate height.
We are the race that discreminate looks.
We are the race that discreminate the way people dress.
We are the race that like to sterotype people.
We are the race that kill other human beings for reasons besides self-defence and competing for mates (Im taking the "competition of love" that some animals partake to win the hearts of the opposite sex into consideration).
We are the race that creates weapons of which has no purpose besides destruction. Defence is a lousy excuse, since you dont even need that if destruction wasn't present in the first place.
We are the race that will never change our stubbon attitude (as human beings in general, not in personality).
We are the race that take a long time, or sometimes forever, to realise our mistakes.
We are the race that abuses our intelligence.
We are the race with more hypocrites than people who stay true to their words, actions and ideas.
We are the race that feel superior to all other species on Earth.
We are the race that practicse superiority complex alot, hence resulting in "bullying" being a common thing.
Last but not least: We are the most selfish species ever recorded in history, on Earth.
Taking all points into consideration, its not really surprising that we dont accept differences as much as we portray ourselves to be able to.
Its like saying, we will help the poor and needy while we are in comfort, but when we are suddenly (unexpectedly) confronted with them (namely, people who seem like they are near death, or potentially contain life-threatening viruses), we shun them like some disease. A contradiction, thats what our race is.
Regarding Feminism...I dont have a say in this since I've hardly experienced it here on Singapore. But as stated, "true Feminism" is definately nothing thats wrong, the "sterotyped fem-nazis who claim to be feminist" are a definate nono. But as it is, it is impossible to sieve(sp?) out these "bad eggs".
physics223
2006-02-15, 08:52
It's sieve. :)
Hell, I like reading Virginia Woolf and Angela Carter although I'm a guy. I don't choose sex when I read (or maybe I do, because from my experience, a lot more guys are better writers of classics than women) but I am open to read great women writers, which can be counted by the fingertips. (Great in my opinion, of course.)
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.