NationStates Jolt Archive

Feminism. A word I cringe to think about. I loathe feminists and everything they have to say. They are nigh worthless in today's society, I'm tired of hearing them rant, and I'd like to take this chance to shut them up on NationStates for good. Because I hate them. And I don't want to hear them bitch beyond this thread.

Why would anyone be a feminist in America? Really, what is the point? Women have not only been given rights equal to those of men, they have received treatment better than any United States male could expect. So they have to give birth. Big deal - each and every male will get hit in the balls at one point in his life, we're fucking even.

Women get off light on just about everything. Women that join up almost never see the front lines of combat in war, and, in the rare event that they do, it's almost always an accident. When women want sole custody of a child, they win more than 70% of the time. The bitch almost always gets much more than her share of property during a divorce. It's more difficult for a woman to receive the harshest punishment for a violent crime than a man. What is the goddamn point of being a feminist anymore? Why can't all feminists just jump off cliffs?

Maybe I just don't understand what feminism is truly about. What does feminism actually mean?

fem·i·nism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fm-nzm)
n.
1. Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.
2. The movement organized around this belief.

What the fuck? Jesus titty-fucking Christ, you have got to be kidding me. I was right. But, feminists push for and receive way more than equality. This has got to be a typo. And, holy shit, I just realized something - women even get priority in the word for equal rights. Why can't we call it masculinism, for fuck's sake? Oh, shit, that would make us dirty chauvinist pigs. Well, fuck that, I don't feel like oinking.

Well, my blood pressure is getting kind of high, so I think I should wrap up this post. I still can't get over that last little point, though. While their word primarily means equality of the sexes, the "male" word, for lack of a better expression - chauvinist - means something resemblant of an anti-woman redneck. Unbelievable. So, I ask again, why would someone be a feminist in America? Unless they're retarded, I don't know. Maybe someone can explain it to me. Probably not. I'm tired of hearing women and men alike bitch about women's rights, and I don't think I'm the only one who wouldn't give a shit if every single feminist in America found it in their hearts to fling themselves from the top of a very high mountain, thus raising the national IQ and reducing the number of headaches I get per month.

PS: I'm not saying feminism should never have risen, I'm saying it should hurry up and die.

I hope you're the only one who feels this way. :rolleyes:

[snip]

If your post was less vulgar, it might warrant a serious response. Do you talk like that to your mom? grow up.

I hope you're the only one who feels this way. :rolleyes:
You just *had* to comment, didn't you? That robs me of the pleasure of telling him "yes" after he'd bump the thread, I hope you know..

Feminists Rock. Feminists are what make America great! Long live feminists and Aldranins headache *chuckle*

Well, I think you went a bit too far. It's true that feminism has shot past their original goal in most things, and don't know when to stop, but there are still things they aren't equal with men on. I can't think of any right now, but I guess there is something.

I'm just sorry for the men in custody battles and divorce settlements. The women do get the upperhand there, and it needs to be fixed.

Feminism is about gender equality.

Some go to the extreme and believe in superiority.

The reason it's called feminism is, because back when women had little to few political freedoms, the females wanted gender equality. Thus, feminism.

Had men been politically opressed for a long period of time, I'm sure 'masculinism' or whatever would have surfaced.

If your post was less vulgar, it might warrant a serious response. Do you talk like that to your mom? grow up.

Actually, yes, I do. My Mom cheated on my Dad more than once, smokes pot, and is otherwise completely fucking retarded. She doesn't even like me, and definitely doesn't give a shit if I cuss, be it at her or at other people. If vulgarity confuses you to the point that you can't reply to it intelligently, I probably don't want to hear you reply, anyway.

*blinks* Had a bad day that included a run in with a feminist have we?

If your post was less vulgar, it might warrant a serious response. Do you talk like that to your mom? grow up.

Well, he's got a point, though he pointed it out rather rudely. How can you take a group of people who used to be about womens' rights, and now use slogans like "Vote With Your Vagina" seriously? They be crazy!

Well, I think you went a bit too far. It's true that feminism has shot past their original goal in most things, and don't know when to stop, but there are still things they aren't equal with men on. I can't think of any right now, but I guess there is something.

I'm just sorry for the men in custody battles and divorce settlements. The women do get the upperhand there, and it needs to be fixed.

ROFL! Nice post. I got a laugh out of the bolded sentence.

Feminism is about gender equality.

Some go to the extreme and believe in superiority.

The reason it's called feminism is, because back when women had little to few political freedoms, the females wanted gender equality. Thus, feminism.

Had men been politically opressed for a long period of time, I'm sure 'masculinism' or whatever would have surfaced.

The post is about the inanity of modern feminism, not early 20th century feminism, so this post is kind of irrelevant. I'm not saying feminism should never have risen, I'm saying it should hurry up and die.

In fact, I think I'll add that to make sure people understand what I'm saying.

Yeah, I totally can't stand fanatical feminists!
Though we really are still not equal in many aspects, feminists push issues too far... it really does wonders for a person searching for TRUE equality :rolleyes:

I don't see why they can't ask help from men in their cause (I'm sure under reasonable conditions logical men would support them) instead of just trying so desperatly to reverse the roles.

as I have suggested in the other thread, progress for equality between genders would go much more smoothly if men contributed more. In other words, I am saying that males should support feminists to a sensible degree, but should never support a fanatical feminist that 'over steps the bounderies'.

It also disturbs me how vividly proclaimed feminist will claim themselves to be some sort of elite intellectuals... believe it or not there IS a percent of not-so-bright humanoids with vaginas! just as there are with males, just as there are with society; being a feminist doesn't automatically promote you to intelligence!

True, wemon have been treated unfair in the past, but that is no reason to search for 'revenge' or anything silly. I just wish both genders could come to agreements that apply to society rather than worry so much about the detail of which gender.

Somebody needs to get laid before he ends up killing a bunch of prostitutes and stuffing them in his backyard. ;) God save the prostitutes!

Actually, yes, I do. My Mom cheated on my Dad more than once, smokes pot, and is otherwise completely fucking retarded. She doesn't even like me, and definitely doesn't give a shit if I cuss, be it at her or at other people. If vulgarity confuses you to the point that you can't reply to it intelligently, I probably don't want to hear you reply, anyway.


Dude, two words: therapy and Thorazine. :confused: :eek: :rolleyes:

The post is about the inanity of modern feminism, not early 20th century feminism, so this post is kind of irrelevant. I'm not saying feminism should never have risen, I'm saying it should hurry up and die.

Feminism is still about equality. Women still, generally, get paid less then men for the same jobs.

But again, some women go to the extreme. They deserve to fall off a cliff.

But you really have to specify what kind of feminism you're talking about.

You just *had* to comment, didn't you? That robs me of the pleasure of telling him "yes" after he'd bump the thread, I hope you know..Sorry--it was reflex.

Well, I think you went a bit too far. It's true that feminism has shot past their original goal in most things, and don't know when to stop, but there are still things they aren't equal with men on. I can't think of any right now, but I guess there is something.

I'm just sorry for the men in custody battles and divorce settlements. The women do get the upperhand there, and it needs to be fixed.


that's easy, equal pay for equal work. that's what first pops into my mind anyway.

Aldy ol chap, the thing that is wrong with the rudeness and callign people retarted if they are feminists is that you are pretty much showing that you are too intolerant to listen to what anyone has to say and actually think about it. I could be wrong, but that is what it makes it look like at least.

I picked the second option because it had more obscenities in it.

Seriously, though, feminism today is not what it used to be.

*looks around* Um, you know, I can only think of a handful of radical feminists who are pushing to go back to a women first society, where as most feminist writtings I have read of late are more concerned with the lingering equality problems being experianced by both sides.

I'm not sure why you're condeming the whole of the movement, there are after all MEN who gladly state that a woman's place is back at home and yet I have not heard you proclaiming all men to be sexist pigs now.

I'm not sure why you're condeming the whole of the movement, there are after all MEN who gladly state that a woman's place is back at home and yet I have not heard you proclaiming all men to be sexist pigs now.

All men are frackin' sexist pigs!!! :Looks down at genitals: Oh darn.

that's easy, equal pay for equal work. that's what first pops into my mind anyway.

Aldy ol chap, the thing that is wrong with the rudeness and callign people retarted if they are feminists is that you are pretty much showing that you are too intolerant to listen to what anyone has to say and actually think about it. I could be wrong, but that is what it makes it look like at least.

That's just the way I post. My apparent intolerance is at least 30% show. Besides, you'd have to A.) explain to me at what job it is actually legal to pay a woman less than a man for the exact same work under exact same position title, and B.) explain to me how this is worth feminism's survival with all the advantages that women have over men for this to be a remotely valid argument in my semi-artificially intolerant eyes.

Also, women count toward required diversity quotas at some jobs, so paying them a small amount less may be necessary, or at the very least justifiable, as bigoted as that sounds.

Why would anyone be a feminist in America? Really, what is the point? Women have not only been given rights equal to those of men, they have received treatment better than any United States male could expect. So they have to give birth. Big deal - each and every male will get hit in the balls at one point in his life, we're fucking even.
So far as I can ascertain women have not achieved equity with men in the US.

Women get off light on just about everything. Women that join up almost never see the front lines of combat in war, and, in the rare event that they do, it's almost always an accident.
Right, but the upside for men is that joining the armed forces reduces their statistical chances of being the victim of murder, for white women joining the armed forces increases their statistical chances of being murdered.

When women want sole custody of a child, they win more than 70% of the time.
Which does not necessarily indicate inequity, it may be that 70% of the time it happens that sole maternal custody is in the child's best interests.

The bitch almost always gets much more than her share of property during a divorce.
Untrue, after divorce women are economically much worse off whilst men have been shown to be economically much better off, this is true even though (as you point out) the children are quite often with the mother. The fact that approximately half of the children impoverished by their mother's poor economic status following a divorce are male, indicates to me that this is a social problem, not a 'women's problem'.

It's more difficult for a woman to receive the harshest punishment for a violent crime than a man.
I'm not convinced this is true. I understood that the opposite was the case.

What is the goddamn point of being a feminist anymore? Why can't all feminists just jump off cliffs?
Why would they jump off a cliff?

Maybe I just don't understand what feminism is truly about. What does feminism actually mean?
It means that one wishes to achieve equity between the sexes/genders. However it should be noted that calling oneself a feminist does not necessarily cause one to be a feminist. Just as calling oneself 'good looking' doesnt not necessarily mean that one actually is good looking. The problem with 'self identifying' groups (like 'feminists') is that anyone can identify themselves as belonging to the group, even if in fact they do not meet the criteria.

What the fuck? Jesus titty-fucking Christ, you have got to be kidding me. I was right. But, feminists push for and receive way more than equality. This has got to be a typo. And, holy shit, I just realized something - women even get priority in the word for equal rights. Why can't we call it masculinism, for fuck's sake? Oh, shit, that would make us dirty chauvinist pigs. Well, fuck that, I don't feel like oinking.
The reason it is called feminisn, is because at the time when the word was 'coined' the rights of women were largely non-existent. Masculinism was the norm, so clearly masculinism could not serve as a word to describe equalising practises.

It is now a commonly accepted term and unlikely to go away. Further there is little point in changing it, because it describes a specialisation. Feminists are interesting in achieving equality and do so through addressing inequity from a female perspecitve. People only have so many resources (time, energy etc), so most people specialise to some degree or other. The fact that a person specialises in equity from a female perspective does not make that person uninterested in equity from other perspectives, anymore than a pediatrician automatically doesnt care about the health of anyone except children. Specialisation does not mean a total lack of concern for things not specialised in, it simply reflects the need to allocate one's personal resources.

Well, my blood pressure is getting kind of high, so I think I should wrap up this post. I still can't get over that last little point, though. While their word primarily means equality of the sexes, the "male" word, for lack of a better expression - chauvinist - means something resemblant of an anti-woman redneck.
Chauvanist does not describe someone who wants equity, quite the opposite, and the word is equally applicable to females.

Unbelievable. So, I ask again, why would someone be a feminist in America? Unless they're retarded, I don't know. Maybe someone can explain it to me.
Because they are interested in achieving equity between the sexs/genders.

Probably not. I'm tired of hearing women and men alike bitch about women's rights, and I don't think I'm the only one who wouldn't give a shit if every single feminist in America found it in their hearts to fling themselves from the top of a very high mountain, thus raising the national IQ and reducing the number of headaches I get per month.
I suggest this view probably stems at least as much from a misunderstanding as anything else.

All men are frackin' sexist pigs!!! :Looks down at genitals: Oh darn.
Can't help you there I'm afraid. I hear Lorana Bobbit is still around though. ;)

I agree with the Ald... yeah I am bad at names. We should stop laughing at my incompetence now.

I know at least two girls that want a reverse feminist movement quoting them
"We had it made back then."

Also people are more incline to listen to woman more then men, and I am pretty sure that people would think it is a bigger tradegy if a woman dies rather then a man.

NO I AM NOT SEXIST (too much, maybe a tad bit, nothing more. Tad bit.)

That's just the way I post. My apparent intolerance is at least 30% show.
Your 30% show is going to get you warned and forumbanned if you're not more careful. Knock off the flamebait aspects, and stick to your topic. And while you're at it, Jesus titty-fucking Christ, lose the irrelevant profanity.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

That's just the way I post. My apparent intolerance is at least 30% show. Besides, you'd have to A.) explain to me at what job it is actually legal to pay a woman less than a man for the exact same work under exact same position title, and B.) explain to me how this is worth feminism's survival with all the advantages that women have over men for this to be a remotely valid argument in my semi-artificially intolerant eyes.


A.) I don't have to do shit. 2.)Besides Im gunna watch a movie now. 9.) If you really have no clue about the equal pay fact, then look into it. If you choose to keep your eyes closed to it because some poster on a message board doesn't want to prove it to you then i really could care less.

and finally $.) *shrugs*

Wow. Apparently the topic of feminism turns people on both sides into a-holes.

I'd like to take this chance to shut them up on NationStates for good

I got a laugh out of that... I think in my brief time at Nationstates that thats the most ambitious statement I've read yet. Somehow I don't think anyone is gonna get shut up for good :)

I'd have to be both pissed off and drunk in order to make a post like that... although I do agree some of the principle of it, if not the tone. I do see some pretty asinine feminist threads on here from time to time, too.

I've been in the workforce almost 20 years, doing all kinds of jobs, and I've yet to work alongside a woman who does the same job as me and is paid less than I am. I have, however, seen women who had the same job title and got paid the same as I did, but didn't have to do the same physical back-breaking work as I did because they had a vagina.

Maybe its choice of career fields that cause women to be more poorly paid. If you go to college as an English major or an Elementary Ed major, you're gonna get paid less than someone who takes Engineering.

A lot of the problem with feminism is that women collectively don't know what they want... they don't know whether they want to be respected as equals or whether they want to be taken care of and have doors held open for them and shit. Which is fine, go figure out what you want and then come back... but in the meantime don't blame or punish men for that.

I have a little idea that will probably result in my assasination. How about we keep all the men at home and they can take care of the children, clean the house, cook dinner, do the laundry, and whatever the traditional 50s housewife did. The women can go out, work three jobs to bring home the bacon and come home and read the newspaper. Just a thought... I kind of like it. Don't shoot!

If you really have no clue about the equal pay factFemale Police officer get paid 10% less than Males doing the same jobs...Female Doctors get 10% less too...

or something like that...isn't it?

I have a little idea that will probably result in my assasination. How about we keep all the men at home and they can take care of the children, clean the house, cook dinner, do the laundry, and whatever the traditional 50s housewife did. The women can go out, work three jobs to bring home the bacon and come home and read the newspaper. Just a thought... I kind of like it. Don't shoot!

Speaking as a man, I'd make that trade in a second. :D

I have a little idea that will probably result in my assasination. How about we keep all the men at home and they can take care of the children, clean the house, cook dinner, do the laundry, and whatever the traditional 50s housewife did. The women can go out, work three jobs to bring home the bacon and come home and read the newspaper. Just a thought... I kind of like it. Don't shoot!

No.

Men and women are better at different things.

Men>Women in finger taps, 3d puzzles, and almost all forms of math
Women>Men in Multitasking, hearing, fast counting (thats when you know the amount without having to count, like when someone holds up five fingers)

Men>Upperbody strength
Women>Lower body strength

Men and women are better at different things.


Perhaps, but you cannot apply that to every man in comparison to every woman, that's just silly

Right, but the upside for men is that joining the armed forces reduces their statistical chances of being the victim of murder, for white women joining the armed forces increases their statistical chances of being murdered.

Okay, A: those would be funny statistics to see, and B: how does that change the fact that women get off light in the army as far as treatment of their gender goes?

Which does not necessarily indicate inequity, it may be that 70% of the time it happens that sole maternal custody is in the child's best interests.

That's a pretty hefty assumption to make - the woman is simply a better parent than the man 70% of the time? Bullshit.

Untrue, after divorce women are economically much worse off whilst men have been shown to be economically much better off, this is true even though (as you point out) the children are quite often with the mother. The fact that approximately half of the children impoverished by their mother's poor economic status following a divorce are male, indicates to me that this is a social problem, not a 'women's problem'.

I said that the woman gets more than her share, not that the woman gets more. A lot of the time the woman walks away with much more than she has earned or purchased during or before the marriage.

Why would they jump off a cliff?

I told you: because I hate them.

It means that one wishes to achieve equity between the sexes/genders. However it should be noted that calling oneself a feminist does not necessarily cause one to be a feminist. Just as calling oneself 'good looking' doesnt not...equity from other perspectives, anymore than a pediatrician automatically doesnt care about the health of anyone except children. Specialisation does not mean a total lack of concern for things not specialised in, it simply reflects the need to allocate one's personal resources.

Most of this was part of my point - feminists today name themselves as pursuers of an unnecessary agenda, and thus should quit their bitching because they are actually no longer needed.

Chauvanist does not describe someone who wants equity, quite the opposite, and the word is equally applicable to females.

It is mostly used in a manner that describes a feeling of male superiority:

chauvinism

n 1: fanatical patriotism [syn: jingoism, superpatriotism, ultranationalism] 2: activity indicative of belief in the superiority of men over women [syn: male chauvinism, antifeminism]


Because they are interested in achieving equity between the sexs/genders.

Bullshit, that's no longer their goal at all, as it has already been reached and crossed.

I suggest this view probably stems at least as much from a misunderstanding as anything else.

Not quite.

Female Police officer get paid 10% less than Males doing the same jobs...Female Doctors get 10% less too...

or something like that...isn't it?

With cops, maybe I'm missing something and I don't know what their pay structure is like (I assume its like the military), but there is no way that a person of the same rank, with the same time in rank could make less money just because she's a woman... that's just lawsuit city right there.

'Doctor' is a very broad term. I'd guess, for example, surgeons would be at the top of the pay scale, and rightly so. I'd also guess most surgeons are men.

I don't have stats to back me up though. I'd like to see some that would prove me right or wrong, but I don't think there are any out there that aren't biased in some way or too vague to be useful.

Hey! You're back! And I thought you had vanished for good after the first three/four crappy threads. But against all my hopes and dreams, like some unholy electronic phoenix, thou hast risen again! Thou shalt rule again as the king of not caring about anything or anyone! Long live the KING!

May I be the first to welcome back these pointless, semi-coherent rantings.

Of course you know I love you as always. :fluffle: ;) :fluffle:

Speaking as a man, I'd make that trade in a second. :D

Me too man!

I find it horrible that kids end up having such bad relationships with their fathers sometimes cause they work all the time.

Perhaps, but you cannot apply that to every man in comparison to every woman, that's just silly

That for the most part is true (a generalization).

Women also have a longer longevity, but men are generally more useful in the creation of the zygote (In my opinion, they normally choose their best genes compared to the eggs random genes, and determine sex).

A.) I don't have to do shit. 2.)Besides Im gunna watch a movie now. 9.) If you really have no clue about the equal pay fact, then look into it. If you choose to keep your eyes closed to it because some poster on a message board doesn't want to prove it to you then i really could care less.

and finally $.) *shrugs*

I have heard the unequal pay "fact" many times, but never seen it solidly proven, am fairly certain it's discrimination and thus illegal to do, and never found it used when truly unnecessary.

No.

Men and women are better at different things.

Men>Women in finger taps, 3d puzzles, and almost all forms of math
Women>Men in Multitasking, hearing, fast counting (thats when you know the amount without having to count, like when someone holds up five fingers)

Men>Upperbody strength
Women>Lower body strength

Do women actually have stronger legs than men? I dunno about that. But either way it doesn't matter what you're good at.. it matters more what you actually want to do IMO.

Do women actually have stronger legs than men? I dunno about that. But either way it doesn't matter what you're good at.. it matters more what you actually want to do IMO.

Thats why for the physical fitness test their times for average are lower then mens.

Hey! You're back! And I thought you had vanished for good after the first three/four crappy threads. But against all my hopes and dreams, like some unholy electronic phoenix, thou hast risen again! Thou shalt rule again as the king of not caring about anything or anyone! Long live the KING!

May I be the first to welcome back these pointless, semi-coherent rantings.

Of course you know I love you as always. :fluffle: ;) :fluffle:

:D Ahhh, but they do possess a degree coherence.

That for the most part is true (a generalization).

Ah, well if I'm correct, the whole debate over gender specifications would be inexistant if it weren't for generalizations...

(I would like to generalize that generalizations are the cause of many disagreements... which I suppose is why I oppose your statements... I'm not a fan of general generalizations...though I am having too much fun with the word play :p )

Your 30% show is going to get you warned and forumbanned if you're not more careful. Knock off the flamebait aspects, and stick to your topic. And while you're at it, Jesus titty-fucking Christ, lose the irrelevant profanity.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

My apologies, great Frisbeeteria... my angry, vulgar style is what seems to keep people coming back, but I'll try to tone it down.

Thats why for the physical fitness test their times for average are lower then mens.

Are you referring to running? Because if so, I used to be a distance runner and I know for a fact that that isn't true. It's not true for sprinting either.

The only thing I can think of is that maybe they have stronger legs in proportion to their body weight, and I'm not even sure about that. If they really did have stronger lower bodies, then women would be better at a number of mainstream sports than men... soccer comes to mind.

What this post shows is a fundamental misunderstanding as to what "feminism" actually is. To define feminism as simply the fight for equality is just one relatively small, and somewhat antiquated, aspect of the "movement." I use the term movement loosely as calling it a single movement overly essentializes what feminism truly means in our post-modern society. I understand that your definition comes from a more-than-likely reputable dictionary; however, I will get to why dictionary definitions are bad in a moment. Let's begin by discussing the many faces of feminism.

The definition of feminism which is both yours and the dictionary's is based on what scholars call liberal feminism. For clarity's sake, liberal feminism has nothing to do with the tradition political binary. Rather, it refers to the fight for equality. In current discourse on feminism there is no "conservative" feminism. This does not mean there are not conservatives who are feminists (such as members of Feminists For Life). Liberal feminism focuses on much of the fight of the early 20th century as well as the fight during the 1970's. (Contray to popular belief, bra burning did not happen en masse like most of us assume. Yes, there were a few small instances, but the large scale bra burning protests are just part of the American Feminist Mythology.) These liberal feminists are the ones who cite the statistic that women only male 73 cents on the dollar. However correct they are, most feminists have moved beyond this fight explicitly to a more modern approach in which this argument is an assumed truth rather than a startling statistic.

Liberal feminists are the core of the first two waves of feminism. To date, there have been three major waves of feminist thought. First wave feminism deals with the concept of the "New Woman." That is, these early feminists (1890-1945) were focused on four major aspects of the woman expirence. First, they began fighting for independence from men. The three major areas though are education, health services, and labor rights. It's during this time that women begin attending college and summer programs such as the one at Bryn Mawr which opened the world of social labor relations to many women. This is also when we see the first major push for birth control. Until this point, women's sexuality was seen as solely a means to childbirth. Studys from England show women with 7 or 8 children by the time they are 30. Most of these women suffered from major health ailments as well related to excess childbirthing. Finally, women also began to enter the workforce at this time, finally giving women a much deserved wage.

Second wave feminism emerges with Gloria Steinum in the 1970's. Slightly more radical than the first wave, these feminists are the ones who fought for total independence from men and are often those who would argue against pornography and public expressions of female sexuality as oppressive. They also fought to dispell the myth of the vaginal orgasm. Until the late 1960's, the popular and "scientific" belief was the origin of the female orgasm was the vagina. This meant that intercourse would be require for women to experience sexual pleasure. Foretunately, and thanks much to the work of the Kinsey Institue, they discovered this not to be true. The female orgams, in reality, occurs in the clitorus- meaning that women could orgasm through manual stimulation without a penis.

Currently, we are dealing with third wave feminism, often called Post-Modern feminist. This is what really problematizes your view. Third wave feminists reject the notion that feminism is about women as a whole. Most even will say that men are an essential part of feminism- not as criminals or demons of the system, rather as fellow victums of patriarchy. Post-Modern feminists recognize the importance of the individual and narrative (a common theme of post-modernism). This is why if you try searching for a book on third wave feminism you're most likely going to find anthologies of personal narratives rather than a deep theoretical work (that is, unless you actually like Judith Butler).

So, I've talked about two major branchs of feminism: liberal and post-modern. Rather than boring you ( I know, I already have) with explainations of any others, I just thought I'd list a bunch:

Radical/Difference
Marxist
Scientific
Existential
Cultural Creative
Aestheic
Psychoanalytic
Historical
Womanism (Really cool- exclusively about the experience of Black Women).
Amazon Feminism
Anarcho-Feminism
Cultural
Erotic
Eco-Feminism (Very cool again)
Individualist/Libertarian
Lesbianism
Socialist Feminism
"Pop-Feminism"
Sepritism
Cyborg Theory (My favorite)

Including the two discussed, that's 22 COMPLETELY different views of feminism and all you have is a silly definition. Hmmmm...

Reasons dictionary defs are bad:

1. They are exclusive rather than inclusive.
2. They overly essentialize
3. They don't encompass experience (which if you don't do in a post-modern era, you really fail at life)
4. They marginalize

Now to address specific points of your post-

A. Women on the frontline- You're right actually. Women are rarely, if ever, on the frontlines. Two reasons why this is actually part of antiquated, but still used, military POLICY: 1.Women are supposed to be "saved" for childbearing. We can't have the only means to reproduction die now can we? 2. Women are "inferior" fighters. That's what the military says at least. See, it's not about women choosing not to be on the frontlines, many want to, they just are not given the oppertunity.

B. Divorce- This occurs because most states have a "no-fault equality" policy when it comes to divorce. This is good because that means the state recognizes that women who choose to stay at home and raise a family contribute just as much as their "bread winning husband."

C. Masculinism- This does infact exist. Many universities in the United States offer programs in this area. Many feminists contribute to this as well. Masculine studies work to free men from the system of patriarchy much as feminist studies work to free women.


So, I'm wraping up now. I know that your first responce to this is going to tell me to quit bitching. Well, I'm not. I'm explaining rather than critizing. I never once called you a chauvinist or a patriarch. I believe that it's important to have this dialouge.

If you want to learn more about feminism (which I would suggest. Even if you still end up hating feminism, at least you would know how better to attack it then) I would recommend reading bell hook's (her name isn't capitalized) book "Feminism is For Everybody"

Peace,
Pete

*snipage*
*bows* Excellent post, welcome to NationStates!

Okay, A: those would be funny statistics to see,
I admit, I fail to see the joke, however;
"A 1986 study showed that male soldiers' homiced rate is one-sixth that of male civilians....For every 100 white female civilians murdered, 139 are killed in the military"

and B: how does that change the fact that women get off light in the army as far as treatment of their gender goes?
How do women 'get off lightly'? Has it occured to you that women who join the armed forces might actually want to be in combat, and rather than 'getting off lightly' are simply once again finding themselves discriminated against?


That's a pretty hefty assumption to make - the woman is simply a better parent than the man 70% of the time? Bullshit.
It's not an assumption, it is a possible explanation. Another possible explanation is that large numbers of fathers may not contest the custody applications, or may be absent. My point is not that it is in the child's interest 70% of the time, but rather that the scant information you have provided may indicate something other than discrimination, it simply isnt possible (based on the information you have provided) to conclude why mothers are getting sole custody of children 70% of the time.

I said that the woman gets more than her share, not that the woman gets more. A lot of the time the woman walks away with much more than she has earned or purchased during or before the marriage.
After having provided 'free' services for sometimes decades on end? How do you conclude that women walk away with more than they have earned? Have you calculated the contribution to house and child maintanence, the enhancement wives often bring to a husband's career? I suggest you have vastly oversimplified this issue.

I told you: because I hate them.
i'm not sure why you imagine your personal feelings would result in such drastic action on the part of such a large group of people, many of whom do not know you personally... :confused:


Most of this was part of my point - feminists today name themselves as pursuers of an unnecessary agenda, and thus should quit their bitching because they are actually no longer needed.
Feminists do not see equity as unnecessary.

It is mostly used in a manner that describes a feeling of male superiority:
Yeah, that's because instead of calling a female chauvanist a chauvanist, they usually get called a feminist, thus denigrating those who want equity. Do you think denigrating women who seek equity by labelling chauvanists feminists is something feminists want, rather than being an attack of female equity?

Bullshit, that's no longer their goal at all, as it has already been reached and crossed.
So you say, but I am not convinced.

Not quite.[/QUOTE]
You think I do not quite suggest it? I can assure you I do suggest it.

[snip]
Okay, first of all, I must say one thing: holy shit. You have a lot of time on your hands.

Second of all, while the history on feminism was informative, it was generally irrelevant up to the part about post-modern feminism, because I'm not referring to ancient feminism, I'm referring to the feminism of today, which seems unnecessary, and which no one has shown me to be wrong about yet. Now, maybe there are truckloads of minor branches of feminism that mean something separate from the generic term, but those aren't what's being referred to here, and I've never heard a feminist from any of those circles rant about something that is a belief held only by that branch and not by the "major branches" of feminism, and unless I'm mistaken, and I actually have heard rant from a specific branch that you listed which is the only branch to rant in that manner, then all of these minor branches are somewhat irrelevant as well.

Reasons dictionary defs are bad:

1. They are exclusive rather than inclusive.
2. They overly essentialize
3. They don't encompass experience (which if you don't do in a post-modern era, you really fail at life)
4. They marginalize

Agreed - the dictionary definition was mainly included as a joke and a filler.

B. Divorce- This occurs because most states have a "no-fault equality" policy when it comes to divorce. This is good because that means the state recognizes that women who choose to stay at home and raise a family contribute just as much as their "bread winning husband."

Yes, but if she contributes "just as much" why is she rewarded more? It's a bad policy.

C. Masculinism- This does infact exist. Many universities in the United States offer programs in this area. Many feminists contribute to this as well. Masculine studies work to free men from the system of patriarchy much as feminist studies work to free women.

You learn something new every day. When that becomes mainstream and annoying, maybe I'll write about it.

True feminism is fine. Female supremacy disguised as feminism isn't.

I admit, I fail to see the joke, however;
"A 1986 study showed that male soldiers' homiced rate is one-sixth that of male civilians....For every 100 white female civilians murdered, 139 are killed in the military"

How do women 'get off lightly'? Has it occured to you that women who join the armed forces might actually want to be in combat, and rather than 'getting off lightly' are simply once again finding themselves discriminated against?

...Okay, first of all, in your apparent quote - which I doubt is an actual quote - the person quoted spelled homicide incorrectly, so those statistics just lost all of their credibility. Also, to suggest that the women who join the military want to be on the frontlines so that they can die more often is laughable.



It's not an assumption, it is a possible explanation. Another possible explanation is that large numbers of fathers may not contest the custody applications, or may be absent. My point is not that it is in the child's interest 70% of the time, but rather that the scant information you have provided may indicate something other than discrimination, it simply isnt possible (based on the information you have provided) to conclude why mothers are getting sole custody of children 70% of the time.

Gee, let me go find some statistics online for you...

Okay, here's an excerpt from an Arizona study:

For the conflicting families (Father wanted joint custody, mother wanted sole custody).
Maternal Sole Custody awarded: 77%
Joint Custody awarded: 23%

In this scenario, the father just wants both parents to be able to see the kid, whereas the mother wants sole custody, and the mother still wins out more than 70% of the time. Here are some more statistics out of California:

PHYSICAL CUSTODY OUTCOME WHEN PARENTS' REQUESTS CONFLICT:

Mother's Request: Mother Mother Joint
Father's Request: Joint Father Father
-------------------------------------------------------
Who got Custody:

Mother 68.6% 46.2% 0.0%
Joint 25.8% 36.5% 42.9%
Father 2.4% 9.6% 42.9%
Split 3.2% 7.7% 14.2%

After having provided 'free' services for sometimes decades on end? How do you conclude that women walk away with more than they have earned? Have you calculated the contribution to house and child maintanence, the enhancement wives often bring to a husband's career? I suggest you have vastly oversimplified this issue.

It's the same why in situations where both husband and wife work.

i'm not sure why you imagine your personal feelings would result in such drastic action on the part of such a large group of people, many of whom do not know you personally... :confused:

Gee, I don't personally know any terrorists, and I hate them just fine. I don't personally know any lawyers, and I hate them just fine. Maybe I'm just good at hating people.

Feminists do not see equity as unnecessary.

Equality already exists, so pursuing it is unnecessary.

Yeah, that's because instead of calling a female chauvanist a chauvanist, they usually get called a feminist, thus denigrating those who want equity. Do you think denigrating women who seek equity by labelling chauvanists feminists is something feminists want, rather than being an attack of female equity?

My point is that the ideal feminist you refer to that isn't actually a "chauvinist" in disguise doesn't exist, because such a creature has nothing to pursue in the way of equity.

...Okay, first of all, in your apparent quote - which I doubt is an actual quote - the person quoted spelled homicide incorrectly, so those statistics just lost all of their credibility.
That is a very strange conclusion. Most people would not conclude that because a poster on the internet mistyped a word, that the source from which they typing was discredited. How exactly does my typing blunder discredit a source from another party? :confused:

Also, to suggest that the women who join the military want to be on the frontlines so that they can die more often is laughable.
How very sexist of you. Or did you just not know that some people do wish to participate in combat?

Gee, let me go find some statistics online for you...
Okay, here's an excerpt from an Arizona study:
In this scenario, the father just wants both parents to be able to see the kid, whereas the mother wants sole custody, and the mother still wins out more than 70% of the time. Here are some more statistics out of California:
But what were the reasons, who was deciding these cases, what factors were involved? Let's assume for a moment that the statistic can be explained by stereotypes. What stereotype would that be, the one where women are presumed to be 'good little housewivie/mothers', while men are presumed to be 'good earners/heads of the household'? You know the one a great number of feminists have strived to dispell?

It's the same why in situations where both husband and wife work.
Aha, and very well might be the result of the very stereotype that feminists have worked hard to dispell.

Gee, I don't personally know any terrorists, and I hate them just fine. I don't personally know any lawyers, and I hate them just fine. Maybe I'm just good at hating people.
How is this relevent. Perhaps you misinterpreted my comments. Do you have some expectation that at some point in the near future all the terrorists and lawyers are going to jump off a cliff?

Equality already exists, so pursuing it is unnecessary.
Equity does not exist. Even if it did, that would not dispell the benefit of seeking further improvements. The fact that males and females might be equally suffering from avoidable problems, is hardly a good reason to abandon attempts to get rid of those problems. The fact that some people will attempt to address these problems by focussing on them from a perspective of males, or children, or elderly persons, or females etc is simply a reflection of the need to allocate limited personal resources.

My point is that the ideal feminist you refer to that isn't actually a "chauvinist" in disguise doesn't exist, because such a creature has nothing to pursue in the way of equity.
Yes but we have already established that you were not aware of the existence of the male counterparts of feminism, so perhaps your view of the situation is not entirely complete, and consequently flawed.

That is a very strange conclusion. Most people would not conclude that because a poster on the internet mistyped a word, that the source from which they typing was discredited. How exactly does my typing blunder discredit a source from another party? :confused:

Because if it were actually from another party on the fucking internet, you'd have copied and pasted it. Obviously.

How very sexist of you. Or did you just not know that some people do wish to participate in combat?

But not as many as you would have people believe, and definately not that many women. It has nothing to do with being sexist. Males are more eager to kick ass because their bodies produce a bunch of testosterone.

But what were the reasons, who was deciding these cases, what factors were involved? Let's assume for a moment that the statistic can be explained by stereotypes. What stereotype would that be, the one where women are presumed to be 'good little housewivie/mothers', while men are presumed to be 'good earners/heads of the household'? You know the one a great number of feminists have strived to dispell?

Let's say fuck stereotypes and pretend we have a fucking brain for just a second. How likely is it that women are consistently so much better at parenting, especially at parenting boys, that they win out over the father on that alone?

Aha, and very well might be the result of the very stereotype that feminists have worked hard to dispell.

What does that even mean? Was that an argument or a concession or just you blubbering around?

How is this relevent. Perhaps you misinterpreted my comments. Do you have some expectation that at some point in the near future all the terrorists and lawyers are going to jump off a cliff?

God, damn it, are you fucking with me? Seriously, you have got to be kidding me. My point is that saying you can't hate someone without meeting them personally is fucking retarded. Jesus.

Equity does not exist. Even if it did, that would not dispell the benefit of seeking further improvements. The fact that males and females might be equally suffering from avoidable problems, is hardly a good reason to abandon attempts to get rid of those problems. The fact that some people will attempt to address these problems by focussing on them from a perspective of males, or children, or elderly persons, or females etc is simply a reflection of the need to allocate limited personal resources.

But things are equal between men and women, in fact women have numerous advantages over men, which is exactly why I am saying that feminism should hurry up and die. Women don't need more rights - lately, if anything, men do.

Yes but we have already established that you were not aware of the existence of the male counterparts of feminism, so perhaps your view of the situation is not entirely complete, and consequently flawed.

What the hell are you talking about? "We," my ass, someone else mentioned that and I wasn't aware that there was an actual movement called "masculinism." I had heard of antifeminism, just not masculinism. I doubt you were, either, I don't know why you brought it up, or what the hell you think someone else's point does for your credibility. Besides, male counterparts of feminism don't make feminism any less useless. Are you just trying to piss me off now or are your replies always this lacking in substance?

I haven't had time to read the whole thread yet, so I've just read the first few posts. I too hate all this femminist bullshit that is going on.
Sometimes a gentlemen has to worry about being nice to a women because she might be a femminist and take it the wrong way.
Eg. A kind man opens a door for a lady, but she turns around saying something a long the lines of 'What are you doing? I can open a door myself. What? You think women can't take care of themselves? yadda yadda..' (yes, this did happen btw)

A real famminist: Someone who wants equal and fair rights.

A 'modern day' femmist: Morons. I wouldn't mind if they all suffocated in their sleep. :)

I haven't had time to read the whole thread yet, so I've just read the first few posts. I too hate all this femminist bullshit that is going on.
Sometimes a gentlemen has to worry about being nice to a women because she might be a femminist and take it the wrong way.
Eg. A kind man opens a door for a lady, but she turns around saying something a long the lines of 'What are you doing? I can open a door myself. What? You think women can't take care of themselves? yadda yadda..' (yes, this did happen btw)

A real famminist: Someone who wants equal and fair rights.

A 'modern day' femmist: Morons. I wouldn't mind if they all suffocated in their sleep. :)

Exactly. All I'm saying is that real feminists no longer exists, and modern day ones should die. I have no idea why you spelled "feminist" three different incorrect ways, but I'll pass it off as technique.

Exactly. All I'm saying is that real feminists no longer exists, and modern day ones should die. I have no idea why you spelled "feminist" three different incorrect ways, but I'll pass it off as technique.
I'm not a great speller :(

And before someone mixes me up, as usual, and accuses me of being some guy wanting to bash on feminists, I am infact female :p

Because if it were actually from another party on the fucking internet, you'd have copied and pasted it. Obviously.
Aha, where-as if it were not copied and pasted from the internet....which happens to be the case in this instance...

But not as many as you would have people believe, and definately not that many women. It has nothing to do with being sexist. Males are more eager to kick ass because their bodies produce a bunch of testosterone.
:confused: I have presented no numbers, oppression may occur at the macro-end, but it's effects manifest at the micro-end. It's not about numbers, it is about range of opportunity. One way or another, it appears you are claiming that there is some lack of equity here, why then you claim that there is no lack of equity, I cannot quite work out. As for testosterone, I am not convinced that it makes men 'more eager to kick ass'.


Let's say fuck stereotypes and pretend we have a fucking brain for just a second. How likely is it that women are consistently so much better at parenting, especially at parenting boys, that they win out over the father on that alone?
You are missing the point. If the stereotype that feminists are trying to dispell is responsible for some inequity in custody cases, then why do you want to stop feminists from dispelling the stereotype. I am not suggesting the stereotype is correct, rather I am suggesting that the concern you raised may very well be caused by the very thing the feminists you claim are no longer needed, are working to put an end to. So we essentially have you claiming that they are not needed, while complaining about an issue that they are attempting to address.

What does that even mean? Was that an argument or a concession or just you blubbering around?
What it means is that there are certain stereotypes around, for instance that men are more eager to kick ass. As a result of people believing in these stereotypes, sometimes less than ideal outcomes occur. Many feminists are working very hard to address this. In essence the very people trying to do something about the things you are complaining about, are the people you are complaining about...

God, damn it, are you fucking with me? Seriously, you have got to be kidding me. My point is that saying you can't hate someone without meeting them personally is fucking retarded. Jesus.
How is that (saying that you can't hate someone without meeting them personally is fucking retarded) relevent to any of my comments? You wanted to know why feminists all dont jump off a cliff, I could see no reason why they would, and so I asked you why they would, and your reason was because you hate them. In response I asked why people who have never met you would all suddenly jump off a cliff based on your hatred...

But things are equal between men and women, in fact women have numerous advantages over men, which is exactly why I am saying that feminism should hurry up and die. Women don't need more rights - lately, if anything, men do.
If things are equal then why do men (as opposed to people) need more rights. Either things are equal or they are not equal. It cannot both be true that things are equal, and things are not equal, because equal and not equal are contradictory states. Even if things were entirely equal, this would not preclude things being in such a state that they could be improved. Figuring out what could be improved and how can be quite complex and is likely to require some specialised knowledge, so therefore even if equality exists there is still a likely need for people to seek improvements to the status quo, and a greater likilihood of such a need being best met by having people specialise.

What the hell are you talking about? "We," my ass, someone else mentioned that
Yes, someone did mention the existence of specialised groups who seek to alter the status quo in an effort to improve the lives of men. You stated words to the effect that you were not previously aware of this. Barring dishonesty on your part, or extreme stupidity on the part of individual readers, anyone who read the comments can establish that you were unaware of the referred to groups prior to reading the post in which they were mentioned. I understand that more than one person has read the posts referred to, and I am assuming that at least one of them (other than myself) is not too stupid to come to the rather obvious conclusion that I have asserted has been established. Thus in my understanding more than one person would have established the fact referred to, and I know myself to be one them...ergo 'we'.

and I wasn't aware that there was an actual movement called "masculinism."
I would have thought the activities were of importance, not the name. Call a banana a tap dancing orange, it's still a banana...call a group that specialises in improving the lot of men by any name, and it is still a group that specialises in improving the lot of men...

I had heard of antifeminism, just not masculinism.
I doubt you were, either,
Then you'd be wrong.

know why you brought it up, or what the hell you think someone else's point does for your credibility.
Actually it had nothing to do with my credibility, but rather pointed to the likliehood that your veiw was based on incomplete knowledge and as a result there is a high likliehood that your veiw is flawed.

Besids, male counterparts of feminism don't make feminism any less useless. Are you just trying to piss me off now or are your replies always this lacking in substance?
I'm not trying to piss you off, you appear to have arrived there before I typed a word (aka your first post)...

I haven't had time to read the whole thread yet, so I've just read the first few posts. I too hate all this femminist bullshit that is going on.
Sometimes a gentlemen has to worry about being nice to a women because she might be a femminist and take it the wrong way.
Eg. A kind man opens a door for a lady, but she turns around saying something a long the lines of 'What are you doing? I can open a door myself. What? You think women can't take care of themselves? yadda yadda..' (yes, this did happen btw)

A real famminist: Someone who wants equal and fair rights.

A 'modern day' femmist: Morons. I wouldn't mind if they all suffocated in their sleep. :)
That's about as sensible as hating all priests because some priests who proclaim to be one thing (upholders of christian values) are in fact child abusers. Obviously people are flawed, the fact that some claim to be feminists is hardly suprising since any other namable group also includes flawed people. I open doors for everyone and the majority of people like it, there are a few who act like jerks, but they are in the minority and are certainly not going to ruin things for me and those who are happy and pleased to have doors held open for them.

<sigh. anothere minldesss rant spiced with just enough vitriol and random assertions to tittillate the massess.

Feminism. A word I cringe to think about. I loathe feminists and everything they have to say. They are nigh worthless in today's society, I'm tired of hearing them rant, and I'd like to take this chance to shut them up on NationStates for good. Because I hate them. And I don't want to hear them bitch beyond this thread.

As you you later make clear a feminist is merely one that strives for the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes. Why isn't everyone a feminist?

You should be unless (a) you don't like women, (b) you don't like men, or (c) you are against the concept of equality or equity.

Why would anyone be a feminist in America? Really, what is the point?

Explainied above. The point is equality or equity for all. Something we do not have, but should all desire.

Women have not only been given rights equal to those of men, they have received treatment better than any United States male could expect.

Utter bullshit.

Although your sentence uses the past tense, I would go into the history of women's oppresssion in this country. Women have long been little more than chattle. Women are approaching equal footing, but are not there yet.

That women are treated better than men is an oft-asserted myth. I'd love to see some solid examples.

Women have not received pay equity.
Women have not received equal oppportunity in many workplaces.
Women are disproportionately subject to violent crime -- including rape and domestic violence.
Need I go on? Or can we set aside the feeble notion that women sit in a superior position.

So they have to give birth. Big deal - each and every male will get hit in the balls at one point in his life, we're fucking even.

BFD. We are not claiming women are superioer because they give birth anymore than you can claim a single kick in the balls is vaguely analogous to childbirth.

Women get off light on just about everything.

Prove it. Give some solid examples.

Women that join up almost never see the front lines of combat in war, and, in the rare event that they do, it's almost always an accident.

Feminists (your enemy remember) have fought for women to be allowed to fight on the front lines. It is neither women nor feminists that hinder women's participation in the miliitarty. Strike one.

When women want sole custody of a child, they win more than 70% of the time.

I'ld love to see the source and reasoning behind this. And why you assume it is objectionable.

Shared parenting is a rather new concept helped into existence by feminists. It used to be much more one parent got the child.

In the early part of the century, child were the putative property of the father. As courts and social scientists began exploring the best interests of the child came to the forefront as did joint custody arrangement.

For a varieity of reasons women have been more likely to get sole custody of young children. This has little or nothing to do with an inequity in the custody system and lots to do with surrounding factors.

The bitch almost always gets much more than her share of property during a divorce.

Complete bulllshit. You have no idea what you are talking about.

It's more difficult for a woman to receive the harshest punishment for a violent crime than a man.

Hmmm. This may be true. For the same crime. All of there things considered, women are propably less likely to get a death sentence. On the other hand, a black or latino is more likely to get a death sentence. HHHHMMMM.

What is the goddamn point of being a feminist anymore?

The National Organization for Women (NOW) is the largest organization of feminist activists in the United States. NOW has 500,000 contributing members and 550 chapters in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. NOW is dedicated to making legal, political, social and economic change in our society in order to achieve our goal, which is to eliminate sexism and end all oppression. NOW was established on June 30, 1966

NOW strives to:

*eliminate discrimination and harassment in the workplace, schools, the justice system, and all other sectors of society;
*secure abortion, birth control and reproductive rights for all women;
*end all forms of violence against women;
*eradicate racism, sexism, and homophobia;
*promote equality and justice in our society

NOW's current priorities are (1) pressing for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will guarantee equal rights for women; (2) achieving economic equality for women; (3) championing abortion rights, reproductive freedom and other women's health issues; (4) supporting civil rights for all and opposing racism; (5) opposing bigotry against lesbians and gays; and (6) ending violence against women.

Why would you be against these things?

Why wouldn't you be a feminist?

Why can't all feminists just jump off cliffs?

Feminists and lemmings have little in common.

Maybe I just don't understand what feminism is truly about. What does feminism actually mean?

fem·i·nism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fm-nzm)
n.
1. Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes
2. The movement organized around this belief.

What the fuck? Jesus titty-fucking Christ, you have got to be kidding me. I was right.

You were right what you hate is the "believe in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes." Ain'tchyu one to make your mamma proud.

But, feminists push for and receive way more than equality. This has got to be a typo.

You have yet to substantiate this with anyting except half-assed bravado and innuendo.


And, holy shit, I just realized something - women even get priority in the word for equal rights. Why can't we call it masculinism, for fuck's sake? Oh, shit, that would make us dirty chauvinist pigs. Well, fuck that, I don't feel like oinking. Well, my blood pressure is getting kind of high, so I think I should wrap up this post. I still can't get over that last little point, though. While their word primarily means equality of the sexes, the "male" word, for lack of a better expression - chauvinist - means something resemblant of an anti-woman redneck. Unbelievable.


Men can be feminists.
Chauvinism has a very different name.
This is the pettitiest of pettifoggerry.

So, I ask again, why would someone be a feminist in America? Unless they're retarded, I don't know. Maybe someone can explain it to me. Probably not.

Follow closely:

BECAUSE ..... THEY ... BELIEVE.... IN .... THE ....
SOCIAL, .... POLITICAL, ....AND ECONOMIC EQUALITY OF GENDERS!!!

Why is that so hard to grasp?


I'm tired of hearing women and men alike bitch about women's rights, and I don't think I'm the only one who wouldn't give a shit if every single feminist in America found it in their hearts to fling themselves from the top of a very high mountain, thus raising the national IQ and reducing the number of headaches I get per month.

Nice flamebait. The feeling is increasingly mutual, but I think you can still be saved from the darkside.

PS: I'm not saying feminism should never have risen, I'm saying it should hurry up and die.

Why?

<sigh>

another minldesss rant spiced with just enough vitriol and random assertions to tittillate the massess.

Feminism. A word I cringe to think about. I loathe feminists and everything they have to say. They are nigh worthless in today's society, I'm tired of hearing them rant, and I'd like to take this chance to shut them up on NationStates for good. Because I hate them. And I don't want to hear them bitch beyond this thread.

As you you later make clear a feminist is merely one that strives for the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes. Why isn't everyone a feminist?

You should be unless (a) you don't like women, (b) you don't like men, or (c) you are against the concept of equality or equity.

Why would anyone be a feminist in America? Really, what is the point?

Explainied above. The point is equality or equity for all. Something we do not have, but should all desire.

Women have not only been given rights equal to those of men, they have received treatment better than any United States male could expect.

Utter bullshit.

Although your sentence uses the past tense, I would go into the history of women's oppresssion in this country. Women have long been little more than chattle. Women are approaching equal footing, but are not there yet.

That women are treated better than men is an oft-asserted myth. I'd love to see some solid examples.

Women have not received pay equity.
Women have not received equal oppportunity in many workplaces.
Women are disproportionately subject to violent crime -- including rape and domestic violence.
Need I go on? Or can we set aside the feeble notion that women sit in a superior position.

So they have to give birth. Big deal - each and every male will get hit in the balls at one point in his life, we're fucking even.

BFD. We are not claiming women are superioer because they give birth anymore than you can claim a single kick in the balls is vaguely analogous to childbirth.

Women get off light on just about everything.

Prove it. Give some solid examples.

Women that join up almost never see the front lines of combat in war, and, in the rare event that they do, it's almost always an accident.

Feminists (your enemy remember) have fought for women to be allowed to fight on the front lines. It is neither women nor feminists that hinder women's participation in the miliitarty. Strike one.

When women want sole custody of a child, they win more than 70% of the time.

I'ld love to see the source and reasoning behind this. And why you assume it is objectionable.

Shared parenting is a rather new concept helped into existence by feminists. It used to be much more one parent got the child.

In the early part of the century, child were the putative property of the father. As courts and social scientists began exploring the best interests of the child came to the forefront as did joint custody arrangement.

For a varieity of reasons women have been more likely to get sole custody of young children. This has little or nothing to do with an inequity in the custody system and lots to do with surrounding factors.

The bitch almost always gets much more than her share of property during a divorce.

Complete bulllshit. You have no idea what you are talking about.

It's more difficult for a woman to receive the harshest punishment for a violent crime than a man.

Hmmm. This may be true. For the same crime. All of there things considered, women are propably less likely to get a death sentence. On the other hand, a black or latino is more likely to get a death sentence. HHHHMMMM.

What is the goddamn point of being a feminist anymore?

The National Organization for Women (NOW) is the largest organization of feminist activists in the United States. NOW has 500,000 contributing members and 550 chapters in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. NOW is dedicated to making legal, political, social and economic change in our society in order to achieve our goal, which is to eliminate sexism and end all oppression. NOW was established on June 30, 1966

NOW strives to:

*eliminate discrimination and harassment in the workplace, schools, the justice system, and all other sectors of society;
*secure abortion, birth control and reproductive rights for all women;
*end all forms of violence against women;
*eradicate racism, sexism, and homophobia;
*promote equality and justice in our society

NOW's current priorities are (1) pressing for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will guarantee equal rights for women; (2) achieving economic equality for women; (3) championing abortion rights, reproductive freedom and other women's health issues; (4) supporting civil rights for all and opposing racism; (5) opposing bigotry against lesbians and gays; and (6) ending violence against women.

Why would you be against these things?

Why wouldn't you be a feminist?

Why can't all feminists just jump off cliffs?

Feminists and lemmings have little in common.

Maybe I just don't understand what feminism is truly about. What does feminism actually mean?

fem·i·nism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fm-nzm)
n.
1. Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes
2. The movement organized around this belief.

What the fuck? Jesus titty-fucking Christ, you have got to be kidding me. I was right.

You were right what you hate is the "believe in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes." Ain'tchyu one to make your mamma proud.

But, feminists push for and receive way more than equality. This has got to be a typo.

You have yet to substantiate this with anyting except half-assed bravado and innuendo.


And, holy shit, I just realized something - women even get priority in the word for equal rights. Why can't we call it masculinism, for fuck's sake? Oh, shit, that would make us dirty chauvinist pigs. Well, fuck that, I don't feel like oinking. Well, my blood pressure is getting kind of high, so I think I should wrap up this post. I still can't get over that last little point, though. While their word primarily means equality of the sexes, the "male" word, for lack of a better expression - chauvinist - means something resemblant of an anti-woman redneck. Unbelievable.


Men can be feminists.
Chauvinism has a very different name.
This is the pettitiest of pettifoggerry.

So, I ask again, why would someone be a feminist in America? Unless they're retarded, I don't know. Maybe someone can explain it to me. Probably not.

Follow closely:

BECAUSE ..... THEY ... BELIEVE.... IN .... THE ....
SOCIAL, .... POLITICAL, ....AND ECONOMIC EQUALITY OF GENDERS!!!

Why is that so hard to grasp?


I'm tired of hearing women and men alike bitch about women's rights, and I don't think I'm the only one who wouldn't give a shit if every single feminist in America found it in their hearts to fling themselves from the top of a very high mountain, thus raising the national IQ and reducing the number of headaches I get per month.

Nice flamebait. The feeling is increasingly mutual, but I think you can still be saved from the darkside.

PS: I'm not saying feminism should never have risen, I'm saying it should hurry up and die.

Why?

Aha, where-as if it were not copied and pasted from the internet....which happens to be the case in this instance...

Okay, I'm going to start talking to you as if you are an idiot, whether or not that is the case, because you're acting like one. A: Why would you have not copied and pasted it, B: why wouldn't you have just given me a link by now?

:confused: I have presented no numbers, oppression may occur at the macro-end, but it's effects manifest at the micro-end. It's not about numbers, it is about range of opportunity. One way or another, it appears you are claiming that there is some lack of equity here, why then you claim that there is no lack of equity, I cannot quite work out. As for testosterone, I am not convinced that it makes men 'more eager to kick ass'.

What the hell do you mean you're not convinced? It's fucking science, we are naturally more aggressive.

You are missing the point. If the stereotype that feminists are trying to dispell is responsible for some inequity in custody cases, then why do you want to stop feminists from dispelling the stereotype. I am not suggesting the stereotype is correct, rather I am suggesting that the concern you raised may very well be caused by the very thing the feminists you claim are no longer needed, are working to put an end to. So we essentially have you claiming that they are not needed, while complaining about an issue that they are attempting to address.

What fucking stereotype are you talking about? Are you just talking to be talking, or is there a point somewhere in that mess of a paragraph?


What it means is that there are certain stereotypes around, for instance that men are more eager to kick ass. As a result of people believing in these stereotypes, sometimes less than ideal outcomes occur. Many feminists are working very hard to address this. In essence the very people trying to do something about the things you are complaining about, are the people you are complaining about...

A: When have modern feminists worked hard to dispel stereotypes about men, and B: men being more aggressive isn't a fucking stereotype, it's a fact.

How is that (saying that you can't hate someone without meeting them personally is fucking retarded) relevent to any of my comments? You wanted to know why feminists all dont jump off a cliff, I could see no reason why they would, and so I asked you why they would, and your reason was because you hate them. In response I asked why people who have never met you would all suddenly jump off a cliff based on your hatred...

Holy shit! You said, and I quote:

i'm not sure why you imagine your personal feelings would result in such drastic action on the part of such a large group of people, many of whom do not know you personally...

Implying that you must know a group of people personally to hate them, which I was showing not to be true.

If things are equal then why do men (as opposed to people) need more rights. Either things are equal or they are not equal. It cannot both be true that things are equal, and things are not equal, because equal and not equal are contradictory states. Even if things were entirely equal, this would not preclude things being in such a state that they could be improved. Figuring out what could be improved and how can be quite complex and is likely to require some specialised knowledge, so therefore even if equality exists there is still a likely need for people to seek improvements to the status quo, and a greater likilihood of such a need being best met by having people specialise.

Things are equal as far as the rights that modern feminists press for are concerned. They aren't needed. Women have more rights than men, and thus don't need to be pushing for more in the name of "equal rights."

Yes, someone did mention the existence of specialised groups who seek to alter the status quo in an effort to improve the lives of men. You stated words to the effect that you were not previously aware of this. Barring dishonesty on your part, or extreme stupidity on the part of individual readers, anyone who read the comments can establish that you were unaware of the referred to groups prior to reading the post in which they were mentioned. I understand that more than one person has read the posts referred to, and I am assuming that at least one of them (other than myself) is not too stupid to come to the rather obvious conclusion that I have asserted has been established. Thus in my understanding more than one person would have established the fact referred to, and I know myself to be one them...ergo 'we'.

It's not a fact, that's not an obvious deduction, and I don't think anyone short of retarded would gather that from my reply. What the poster and I were referring to solely was the a movement called masculinism, as opposed to antifeminism, that I did not know existed.


I would have thought the activities were of importance, not the name. Call a banana a tap dancing orange, it's still a banana...call a group that specialises in improving the lot of men by any name, and it is still a group that specialises in improving the lot of men...
The difference was the name. That was the entire subject of my original post on that specific point, which you would most positively understand, could you read. I said why not call the pursuit of equality masculinism instead of feminism. It had nothing to do with the concept of antifeminism. They said masculinism exists. I didn't know that. That was the end of it.

Actually it had nothing to do with my credibility, but rather pointed to the likliehood that your veiw was based on incomplete knowledge and as a result there is a high likliehood that your veiw is flawed.

A lack of knowledge that didn't exist except in name, thus my views are no more flawed than your incoherent rant, and in fact are much less so.

I'm not trying to piss you off, you appear to have arrived there before I typed a word (aka your first post)...

No, my post was semi-sarcastic, which should have been obvious to anyone intelligent, and the fact that you seemed to miss that and take everything I said completely literally pissed me off - for instance, the part about feminists killing themselves. All of what you have said leads me to believe that you are a complete dolt, and I fear that if I keep talking to you, my head will cave in and my heart will explode. As such, I am not going to waste anymore energy replying to your stupid posts, as they are without merit and mostly incoherent, citing unclear goals and quoting apparently nonexistent sources.

*sigh* Couldn't you have shown up an hour ago? I'm going to bed, I'll reply to this when I wake up tomorrow. *grumbles*

Feminism. A word I cringe to think about. I loathe feminists and everything they have to say. They are nigh worthless in today's society, I'm tired of hearing them rant, and I'd like to take this chance to shut them up on NationStates for good. Because I hate them. And I don't want to hear them bitch beyond this thread.

Why would anyone be a feminist in America? Really, what is the point? Women have not only been given rights equal to those of men, they have received treatment better than any United States male could expect. So they have to give birth. Big deal - each and every male will get hit in the balls at one point in his life, we're fucking even.

Women get off light on just about everything. Women that join up almost never see the front lines of combat in war, and, in the rare event that they do, it's almost always an accident. When women want sole custody of a child, they win more than 70% of the time. The bitch almost always gets much more than her share of property during a divorce. It's more difficult for a woman to receive the harshest punishment for a violent crime than a man. What is the goddamn point of being a feminist anymore? Why can't all feminists just jump off cliffs?

Maybe I just don't understand what feminism is truly about. What does feminism actually mean?



What the fuck? Jesus titty-fucking Christ, you have got to be kidding me. I was right. But, feminists push for and receive way more than equality. This has got to be a typo. And, holy shit, I just realized something - women even get priority in the word for equal rights. Why can't we call it masculinism, for fuck's sake? Oh, shit, that would make us dirty chauvinist pigs. Well, fuck that, I don't feel like oinking.

Well, my blood pressure is getting kind of high, so I think I should wrap up this post. I still can't get over that last little point, though. While their word primarily means equality of the sexes, the "male" word, for lack of a better expression - chauvinist - means something resemblant of an anti-woman redneck. Unbelievable. So, I ask again, why would someone be a feminist in America? Unless they're retarded, I don't know. Maybe someone can explain it to me. Probably not. I'm tired of hearing women and men alike bitch about women's rights, and I don't think I'm the only one who wouldn't give a shit if every single feminist in America found it in their hearts to fling themselves from the top of a very high mountain, thus raising the national IQ and reducing the number of headaches I get per month.

PS: I'm not saying feminism should never have risen, I'm saying it should hurry up and die.
Calm down before your testes explode.

Calm down before your testes explode.

Too late I think =p

*sigh* Well, big surprise, I'm going to have to answer "yes" to another one of these. However, I'm going to skip typing out all the obvious reasons why I'm answering "yes," because Cat-Tribe already did an excellent job of doing that for me. Cookies to Cat-Tribe. :)

I will add, however, that to call the few idiots who want female superiority or some such nonsense "feminists" is a misnomer. There are male idiots who think themselves superior to all women, there are female idiots who think themselves superior to all men, there are white idiots who think themselves superior to all black people, there are black idiots who think themselves superior to all white people, and so on and so forth - so what? Idiots come in all varieties, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with feminism, which any sane and decent person pretty much has to support. Equality = good. Sexism = bad. If you agree with those two statements, you're a feminist.

Yes, but he clearly feels that all feminism is now a waste of time, air etc. I don't think he's separating out the women who feel they are superior, he's massing all feminists into the same group.

Okay, I'm going to start talking to you as if you are an idiot, whether or not that is the case, because you're acting like one. A: Why would you have not copied and pasted it, B: why wouldn't you have just given me a link by now?
Well, my computer's cut and paste function only works on electronic sources such as files on my computer or the text on internet sites. It doesnt allow me for instance to highlight cut and paste the text from a book. Somehow I dont see that actually cutting the book and pasting the slip of paper to my keyboard or computer screen would be an effective means of communicating the information to other posters. As for not posting a link I have no idea what a URL to non-electronic source would look like, perhaps you can enlighten me.

What the hell do you mean you're not convinced? It's fucking science, we are naturally more aggressive.
I mean I am not convinced. I am not aware of any robust studies or research that backs this up. I am aware that the levels of testosterone in a males body is not constant either between males or in any one male across time. The same is true of females. Whether an individual wants to participate in combat or not is not simply a matter of their testosterone level, so far as I can ascertain.

What fucking stereotype are you talking about? Are you just talking to be talking, or is there a point somewhere in that mess of a paragraph?
The stereotype that females are better nuturers, less career ambitious, more fufilled by motherhood etc, whilst conversely men are not so good at nuturing but for instance prefer to kick some ass etc. Are you not aware of this stereotype?

A: When have modern feminists worked hard to dispel stereotypes about men, and B: men being more aggressive isn't a fucking stereotype, it's a fact.
That something is factual does not preclude it being included in a stereotype. I have already stated that I have doubts about your 'more aggressive due to testosterone levels', and some of my doubts were directly contributed by the writings of .....feminists who were evidently making an attempt to address the existance of such gender stereotypes.

Holy shit! You said, and I quote:



Implying that you must know a group of people personally to hate them, which I was showing not to be true.
No I did not imply any such thing and am not responsible for your false inferences. If someone who didnt know you hated you, would this motivate you to jump off a cliff? I sincerely hope not, and I suggest that your hatred for people you have not met will be unlikely to result in the referred to people jumping off any cliffs. I have no idea why this should be such a source of confusion for you... :confused:

Things are equal as far as the rights that modern feminists press for are concerned. They aren't needed. Women have more rights than men, and thus don't need to be pushing for more in the name of "equal rights."
Equal means no one has more than anyone. As has been pointed out to you equality is not synomonous with ideal, and the complexity of seeking improvements is likely to require specialisation. You appear to prefer to ignore this point...

It's not a fact, that's not an obvious deduction, and I don't think anyone short of retarded would gather that from my reply. What the poster and I were referring to solely was the a movement called masculinism, as opposed to antifeminism, that I did not know existed.
As I have pointed out the activities are more important than the names. Were you unaware that groups analogous to feminists, but concentrating on the male perspective exist or not?

The difference was the name. That was the entire subject of my original post on that specific point, which you would most positively understand, could you read.
I have already addressed why the movement was termed feminism. I dont think that feminists are repsonsible for those in the male orientated counterparts to feminism, choosing to not call themselves 'masculinists', if you really do have an issue with this, perhaps you ought to take up the issue with those who concentrate on equality from a male perspective. Feminists do not, nor should they have the power or authority to tell such groups what word they should or should not use to describe their activities.

I said why not call the pursuit of equality masculinism instead of feminism. It had nothing to do with the concept of antifeminism. They said masculinism exists. I didn't know that. That was the end of it.
Which didnt you know? That such groups exist, or whether or not such groups choose to use your preferred terminology to describe their activities and point of veiw. Either way it's not something feminists have control over and so blaming them is just a bit silly.

A lack of knowledge that didn't exist except in name, thus my views are no more flawed than your incoherent rant, and in fact are much less so.
So basically your problem is how these groups choose to describe themselves...aha, well if you really think it's that much of an issue you can always take it up with them. Personally I think they've got more important things to do then rename themselves just to humour you....

No, my post was semi-sarcastic, which should have been obvious to anyone intelligent,
Sacarsm and anger often go together.

and the fact that you seemed to miss that and take everything I said completely literally pissed me off - for instance, the part about feminists killing themselves.
I am not responsible for your emotional state any more than feminists are responsible for how other interest groups choose to describe themselves, which is to say not at all.

All of what you have said leads me to believe that you are a complete dolt, and I fear that if I keep talking to you, my head will cave in and my heart will explode.
As such, I am not going to waste anymore energy replying to your stupid posts, as they are without merit and mostly incoherent, citing unclear goals and quoting apparently nonexistent sources.
:rolleyes:

Yes, but he clearly feels that all feminism is now a waste of time, air etc. I don't think he's separating out the women who feel they are superior, he's massing all feminists into the same group.

So it seems. I don't know why so many people do that - as far as I can tell, the vast majority of women and a reasonable majority of men are feminists, so why are the only "feminists" others pay attention to the nutty ones all the rest of us ignore? Is it just a function of listening to Rush Limbaugh too much?

Okay... just as a hypothetical... what if it were true that women got a slightly better deal than men? Let's say it was the case that the deck was just a tiny bit stacked against men.

Would a real man cry about it? No. He'd bugger on and get the job done with out a lotta bitchy whining in an internet forum. A real man would let it slide and tip his hat to the lovely ladies with a roguish grin.