NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm a 16 year old feminist living in Britain. When I tell people this, I'm often given the response: "Isn't feminism redundant now?" Their logic is that, considering that here in Britain we already enjoy pretty good sexual equality and freedom, feminism no longer has any relevance. Personally, I feel that we still have a long way to go in the developed world, let alone in the Third World. So what do you think? Does feminism still have a place in society?

We enjoy sexual equality in the UK do we? Legally, yes, but in reality? Pftt, dream on. Actually, women in the British army are still banned from combat. Whilst I'll agree that on average women and men are not physically or mentally equal. There are very definately differences on average, but if an individual woman has what it takes to be in an infantry division and wants to be then why ban her from combat? Geoff Hoon needs to be shot for his role in that ban as defence minister.

The MOD conducted field tests, and when they didn't get the results they were looking for they just dismissed the tests for not being able to replicate the stress of combat. How about they try and do a test that can or start with a very small trial out in the field. The MOD needs a kick up the backside.

Yup, deinitely. Perhaps it's not QUITE as important - after all, it's more equal than it was in the 70's - but still, it ain't properly equal. Just as long as you're not a fucking female chauvinist, all "Women should be in charge" and the like.

Plus, modern feminism gave us Le Tigre, Metric, and riot grrl, for which we should all be grateful.

Hell yes. People (women and men) still have an incredible abmount of gender bias which underlies seemingly innocuous behaviors, but also extends to more serious issues like true equality in the workplace and the home.

Feminism is like having someone new steering a big ass ship. The wheel has been spun, the rudder is hard over but its gonna take a crapload of time for the society to really come round fully to the new heading. Is it redundant? Well, it did it's job - you can get severely penalised by society for believing women are anything less than equal, which is a victory of sorts I guess... unfortunately it's also being exploited by morality free marketing corporations and money-grabbing litigation monkeys.

In truth, classical feminism has been corrupted to the point where it is either a tool for further female exploitation (it's empowering to wear skimpy clothing! Yes... and pose nekkid!) a method of male exploitation (that man joked with me as if I was any other colleague! SUE SUE SUE!) or so extremist it's lost all validity (All men are taught in special lessons at the age of twelve that rape is a useful method of subduing women. Well shit, I missed that lesson).

Traditional feminism was great in an age when sexism was unquestioned and innate within society. That age is gone. Without doubt, there needs to be a movement to highlight womens issues in the world, but it needs to make a clean break with the confrontational and prejudiced feminism.

Currently, feminism looks after the interests of races other than white, homosexuals and women.

I personally believe that feminism is becoming redundant in the western world for the reasons that the abomination specified, however I do think that if feminism were to take the final great step, and also look after the interests of straight white males, then it would become the first truly egalitarian organisation.

Consider it, it would be like a consumer watchdog, but for equality. It would cover the issues of everyone and as it already has much of it's organisation in place, aswell as enjoying considerable political power through pressure groups it could achieve a lot of good for the entire world. If feminism started protecting mens equality aswell, it would remove all the stereotypical ideas of feminist being "lesbians" or "ugly women who cant get a date" or what have you, and so would have a much larger population base supporting it.

We would have the FIRST truly mass egalitarian organisation ever.

1) Women, at least in the States, are still not making the man's dollar. Last I paid attention, it was sometihng like $0.82 to the male dollar. But I wonder how relevant and accurate that measure is.

2) Virtually nobody wants to listen to feminism in its strident, litigious and extremist modes. Generalization doesn't work, whether it's "all women are mothers or whores" or "all men are assholes or rapists". Screaming for equality and then suing me if I defend myself from a woman's physical attack is not equality. I was told by BOTH my parents as a child to defend myself no matter what the gender of my attacker. In short, if you wish equality, accept all of it.

3) Is the concept of women taking on the worst traits of stereotypical men really equality? I don't care what gender you are, an asshole is an asshole. The only change I made was to not use the word "bitch" to describe a female asshole anymore.

4) Surely equality between genders is a subjective matter. Objective equality seems impossible given physical differences and preferences...not to mention the fact that any individual is never a stereotype. Women who don't want children, men who do; men who don't like sports, women who do; and so forth.

So perhaps it's time for feminism to evolve into "individualism" -- which is to imply that we're all guaranteed the same rights regardless of gender and let's continue to work on the areas where it's cut and dried, like salaries (once we figure out whether that's accurate).

If feminism started protecting mens equality aswell,

What do you mean, "if it started..."? Feminism already addresses both men's and women's issues, as one cannot be addressed without the other. One cannot address that women are pushed into a specific gender role (stay home and nurture the kids) without pointing out that men are also pushed into a specific gender role (go out and be the breadwinner). One cannot highlight inequities without highlighting them all 'round.

So perhaps it's time for feminism to evolve into "individualism" -- which is to imply that we're all guaranteed the same rights regardless of gender and let's continue to work on the areas where it's cut and dried, like salaries (once we figure out whether that's accurate).

You mean like it is now?

Good then.

Far and long ago, when I was but an impressionable teen, I too had tendencies to call myself a "feminist" (though, to be honest, it was more just because I didn't have a cause in reality and nothing appealed to me more than a cause which seemed to have already been significantly won, so I personally had little obligation). But so many questions did pop up about, essentially, the point of modern feminism that, on a whole, I decided that maybe feminist was not the thing for me to be.

I think that first people need to re-think what it is to be "feminist" these days. I used to get such extreme examples of what people supposed I was for -- men no longer opening doors for women, women learning to leave the seat up for men, women picking up the tab on dates -- that I just got sick of explaining the whole deal. Once the major issue of people completely misunderstanding what feminists stand for now is tackled, perhaps it can continue on it's happy little path.

As for me, though, I've settled that I'm not terribly bothered by the inequality in my personal life, because it doesn't touch me very much at all.

What do you mean, "if it started..."? Feminism already addresses both men's and women's issues, as one cannot be addressed without the other. One cannot address that women are pushed into a specific gender role (stay home and nurture the kids) without pointing out that men are also pushed into a specific gender role (go out and be the breadwinner). One cannot highlight inequities without highlighting them all 'round.

Sorry, but it really isn't. It's not attacking men anymore, but it completely ignores straight white men.


You mean like it is now?
Good then.

Feminism has almost always dealed in generalisations, such as "men rape" rather than "individuals rape"

Sorry, but it really isn't. It's not attacking men anymore, but it completely ignores straight white men.

Feminism was never about attacking men, although the occasional person calling themself a feminist might have done it.

And how, pray tell, are "straight white men" completely ignored? Are straight white men not often pushed by society into a certain gender role (ie. breadwinner, unconcerned with appearance, etc.)? Are straight white men not often seen as unconcerned with children or not able to be "nurturers"? Last I checked, these stereotypes apply to straight white men, as they apply to pretty much all straight men, and they are problems that feminists attempt to address.

Now, if you mean that feminists don't address "straight white men" as a single group, as if they are somehow more or less important than "gay white men", "straight black men", "gay Asian men," etc., you are correct.

Feminism has almost always dealed in generalisations, such as "men rape" rather than "individuals rape"

I have yet to see a single feminist who says "men rape." Some men do, yes. Some women do as well. And the main issue that must be fought on that frontier is the fact that the victim of rape is still commonly seen as being somehow responsible for the actions of the rapist.

Feminism was never about attacking men, although the occasional person calling themself a feminist might have done it.

I never said it was about attacking men, I said it's stopped doing that.

[/quote]And how, pray tell, are "straight white men" completely ignored? Are straight white men not often pushed by society into a certain gender role (ie. breadwinner, unconcerned with appearance, etc.)? Are straight white men not often seen as unconcerned with children or not able to be "nurturers"? Last I checked, these stereotypes apply to straight white men, as they apply to pretty much all straight men, and they are problems that feminists attempt to address. [/quote]

The problem with feminism is that theres a kind of it for each person who is under the label of feminist.

Now, if you mean that feminists don't address "straight white men" as a single group, as if they are somehow more or less important than "gay white men", "straight black men", "gay Asian men," etc., you are correct.

I have yet to see a single feminist who says "men rape." Some men do, yes. Some women do as well. And the main issue that must be fought on that frontier is the fact that the victim of rape is still commonly seen as being somehow responsible for the actions of the rapist.

http://notafeministbut.blogspot.com/

I never said it was about attacking men, I said it's stopped doing that.

...which implies that "attacking men" was, at some point, a focus of feminism. It never was.

The problem with feminism is that theres a kind of it for each person who is under the label of feminist.

This is true of any ideological viewpoint. But the kind I am describing is actually what I have seen from every self-described feminist I have ever met.

http://notafeministbut.blogspot.com/

When the name of the blog is "I'm not a feminsit, but..." can we really say, "This is a feminist saying 'X'"?

I think women have come a LONG way in reaching equal footing with men. Granted, there are some things which remain unequal, but some of those things have a reason. Statistically, for instance, men are stronger than women, and women are smarter than men.
That's just a fact.
What would be wrong is to discriminate based on that fact, because anyone who knows stats, knows that there's an overlap in curves, so that there are women who are stronger than many men, and men who are smarter than many women.
I think many modern feminists take it too far when they talk of subjugating men beneath them as it would be "fair" for us to experience what they did, back in the past.
Sorry, but most of the women today weren't actually around back when it was that bad. The basis of their argument is just silly. Why should men today suffer for indignities that women today didn't actually suffer through? It's just ridiculous.

In short: Discrimination bad. Equality good. If you have a man and a woman who can do the same thing equally well, it should be a coin toss as to who gets to do it. I am 100% against hiring "token" women, or ethnic minorities, if they are not actually as capable as others who apply. I am also 100% against discriminating against people just because they're women, or minorities. You wouldn't think it would be that hard to balance it out.

...which implies that "attacking men" was, at some point, a focus of feminism. It never was.

No, merely that it was something which they thought was an acceptable tactic at the time.

This is true of any ideological viewpoint. But the kind I am describing is actually what I have seen from every self-described feminist I have ever met.

More so of feminism than just about any other, however.

When the name of the blog is "I'm not a feminsit, but..." can we really say, "This is a feminist saying 'X'"?

It's supposed to be irony.

No, merely that it was something which they thought was an acceptable tactic at the time.

"They" who? A few extremists, like the ones you are trying to use to paint all modern feminsists?

More so of feminism than just about any other, however.

Not that I've seen. Talk to a few different "conservatives". You'll see vastly different viewpoints on a number of issues. Talk to a few different Christians. The variations are huge. And so on...

If you take any ideology, and have people who actually think for themselves follow it, only the basic core will be the same. Views on exact issues, modes of implementation, etc. will be vastly different.

It's supposed to be irony.

And its ironic that someone who thinks they are helping "their" side is actually harming it, don't you think? It is ironic that anyone might think that they could achieve "equality" by focusing entirely on one group, and demonizing the other.

"They" who? A few extremists, like the ones you are trying to use to paint all modern feminsists?

Look over what I've written and tell me how I'm trying to paint all modern feminists that way.

Not that I've seen. Talk to a few different "conservatives". You'll see vastly different viewpoints on a number of issues. Talk to a few different Christians. The variations are huge. And so on...

OK, granted.

If you take any ideology, and have people who actually think for themselves follow it, only the basic core will be the same. Views on exact issues, modes of implementation, etc. will be vastly different.



And its ironic that someone who thinks they are helping "their" side is actually harming it, don't you think? It is ironic that anyone might think that they could achieve "equality" by focusing entirely on one group, and demonizing the other.

Indeed I do. What's your point?

Look over what I've written and tell me how I'm trying to paint all modern feminists that way.

I didn't say you were trying to paint all modern feminists that way, simply that you are trying to paint all modern feminists (and sometimes all feminists throughout history) by the actions of a few extremists:

Feminism has almost always dealed in generalisations, such as "men rape" rather than "individuals rape"

http://notafeministbut.blogspot.com/

I personally believe that feminism is becoming redundant in the western world for the reasons that the abomination specified,


referring to, I would assume:

In truth, classical feminism has been corrupted to the point where it is either a tool for further female exploitation (it's empowering to wear skimpy clothing! Yes... and pose nekkid!) a method of male exploitation (that man joked with me as if I was any other colleague! SUE SUE SUE!) or so extremist it's lost all validity (All men are taught in special lessons at the age of twelve that rape is a useful method of subduing women. Well shit, I missed that lesson).

Indeed I do. What's your point?

That feminism is not so ironic. The irrational statements of certain people are, but the underlying core is not.

Here in the US, feminism isn't dead, but it's not for lack of trying by the right wing. Rush Limbaugh did a lot by coining the term "feminazis" (and has yet to get a single bit of shit for that from the right, who went apeshit when some left wing moron made a flash ad for a contest for Moveon.org that compared Bush to the Nazis--hypocrisy, anyone?).

The evangelical movement is out to destroy feminism if they can--all these laws they're pushing about abortion and birth control (remember the recent threads where Eutrusca and I were actually agreeing? That's serious) are bent on getting women out of the public sphere and back into a dependent position where they can't tell men to fuck off and get out of their lives.

I think feminism has already been successful in the sense that a lot of women being raised today have raised expectations of what their lives will be like, as opposed to 30 years ago. My sister--who will be 36 this year--was raised in a society where there was increased hope, but it was still expected to be a struggle. My daughter--15 now--looks at the future and questions how well she'll succeed, as opposed to whether or not she will. That's progress. But there's a danger of complacency, because as recent events have shown, there are plenty of people out there who don't like it that women have demanded to be treated as equals, and they'll do whatever they can to shove women back into servitude.

You mean like it is now?

Good then.
Perhaps it's relevant to ask how you think it is now?

Shit man, there is bias everywhere. Personaly I feel that we may never get rid of it. Why? Because the old adage about people being afraid of what they don't understand is true. I don't understand women, I like them, I have respect for them, but understand why they do certian things? I know for instance that I should not offer my wife advice and fixes when she is crying over something that I percive a silly, but just cuddle her instead, why though?

What we don't understand we treat differantly, if not with fear then at least with a sense of ahhha what the hells going on! So untill a time comes that women are like men, and men are like women, or black folx are like white folx and white folx are like black folx, or the young understand the old whilst being young, then true, truely true equlity, which I guess means being treated the same is not going to happen.

As to the women in war thing, perhaps we in the UK don't let you see any frontline action is because we expect men to be on the opposite side, and would not send an army of women against an army of men? Is that truely a male chauvonist thing to say, or do you just not understand my way of thought?

Perhaps it's relevant to ask how you think it is now?

A feminist works to end the discrimination and unequal treatment people undergo because of their sex or gender. This ends up spreading into women's issues, men's issues, LGBT issues, etc. because they all come down to the same thing - that a person should not be treated differently simply on the basis of sex, gender, or sexuality. No person should be pushed into a gender role that their own personality does not meet. No person should be assumed to have certain traits simply because they are attributed to a given gender. And so on...

What it is not is the elevation of women "above" men.

Shit man, there is bias everywhere. Personaly I feel that we may never get rid of it. Why? Because the old adage about people being afraid of what they don't understand is true. I don't understand women, I like them, I have respect for them, but understand why they do certian things? I know for instance that I should not offer my wife advice and fixes when she is crying over something that I percive a silly, but just cuddle her instead, why though?

Does your wife really represent all women? Do you think that no woman should be offered advice, but should be cuddled, when she is upset?

What we don't understand we treat differantly, if not with fear then at least with a sense of ahhha what the hells going on! So untill a time comes that women are like men, and men are like women, or black folx are like white folx and white folx are like black folx, or the young understand the old whilst being young, then true, truely true equlity, which I guess means being treated the same is not going to happen.

Do you really think you can tell much about a person just by looking at their genitals, their skin color, or their age?

As to the women in war thing, perhaps we in the UK don't let you see any frontline action is because we expect men to be on the opposite side, and would not send an army of women against an army of men? Is that truely a male chauvonist thing to say, or do you just not understand my way of thought?

It seems to suggest that you somehow think that women cannot fight men. Especially when you consider modern warfare, that seems a bit sexist, yes.

The thing is... Femminism is just irrating now.

I called a girl Woman the other day and she said "You can't call me that! Thats sexist!"

I responded with "Sorry, I didn't know Woman was a derogatory term."
Shut her up.

The thing is, you Guys, or should I say girls, already have equal rights. Sure, in some cases Women are paid less then men. But, alot of men feel more comfortable working along side other men. Plus, if the Population is to grow (which is desperatly needed in Europe!), someone has to stay at home, and Women are alot better at that.

I think it would be a sad day for us to abandon the idea of empowering our daughters to be whatever they want to be. "Okay, you little boy, can grow up to do anything you want to do. You, little girl? Not so much."

We enjoy sexual equality in the UK do we? Legally, yes, but in reality? Pftt, dream on. Actually, women in the British army are still banned from combat. Whilst I'll agree that on average women and men are not physically or mentally equal. There are very definately differences on average, but if an individual woman has what it takes to be in an infantry division and wants to be then why ban her from combat? Geoff Hoon needs to be shot for his role in that ban as defence minister.

The MOD conducted field tests, and when they didn't get the results they were looking for they just dismissed the tests for not being able to replicate the stress of combat. How about they try and do a test that can or start with a very small trial out in the field. The MOD needs a kick up the backside.


arent they banned in combat because men tend to treat them differently, ie try to protect them when hopeless, etc

I think it would be a sad day for us to abandon the idea of empowering our daughters to be whatever they want to be. "Okay, you little boy, can grow up to do anything you want to do. You, little girl? Not so much."

Sure women can be whatever they want to be, but stop moaning when your paid less- if your employer is sexist go work somewhere else.

A feminist works to end the discrimination and unequal treatment people undergo because of their sex or gender. This ends up spreading into women's issues, men's issues, LGBT issues, etc. because they all come down to the same thing - that a person should not be treated differently simply on the basis of sex, gender, or sexuality. No person should be pushed into a gender role that their own personality does not meet. No person should be assumed to have certain traits simply because they are attributed to a given gender. And so on...

What it is not is the elevation of women "above" men.



Does your wife really represent all women? Do you think that no woman should be offered advice, but should be cuddled, when she is upset?



Do you really think you can tell much about a person just by looking at their genitals, their skin color, or their age?



It seems to suggest that you somehow think that women cannot fight men. Especially when you consider modern warfare, that seems a bit sexist, yes.


Ahahah a pertfect example of such misunderstanding huh! Man look one example does not mean that is the way I view all women, it was an EXAMPLE

But to answer your questions.

Yes she is to me, and in my experiance most women like a cudlle when they are upset.
Once again the point was that until a time comes when we all are the same then I do not belive that true eqaulity can exist, please show where I said I can tell much about a person by looking at their gentials, skin colour of age, it was just an EXAMPLE.

So to suggest that a woman is phiscaly not as strong as a men is not true anymore, but sexist?

Btw, if anyone reading my posts thinks I'm sexist don't. I mean, I own loads of women.
:P

The thing is, you Guys, or should I say girls, already have equal rights. Sure, in some cases Women are paid less then men.
You do recognize that that's not equal, then, right?


But, alot of men feel more comfortable working along side other men.
C'mon! Big tough guy can't handle working side by side with a woman? Give me a break.


Plus, if the Population is to grow (which is desperatly needed in Europe!), someone has to stay at home, and Women are alot better at that.
How very 1940s of you. Funny, I've grown my local population by two and managed to do it and hold down a job. Go figure!

Feminism does have a place in society, however the extent to which it is important depends on the society.

For example, in nearly all minority world countries (which is basically the "Western" world, including Australia & New Zealand) women are now almost exactly equal to men in nearly every aspect of life. As such it is my opinion that feminism does not have the same relevance today as it did say twenty years ago.

However with regard to Majority world countries (often reffered to as the "Third" world) feminism is perhaps more important, as women enjoy next to no political or social freedom. This however does not mean to say that woman in these countries are inclined to take any action to correct these inequalities.

But it is important to note that Culture & Religeon both play a very large role in determining whether or note feminism is important in a society. For example although Japan is a very modern society, the national attitude towards women leaves much to be desired to those of us in societies such as Britain. The same applies to women in Muslim countries such as Afghanistan, Turkey and Iran. Due to the highly held religeous beliefs in these countries it is virtually impossible for a woman to be even considered the equal of a man.

And the sad thing is that although these women are being oppressed (to an extent), there is nothing that feminists from overseas can do to change this. Feminism was only successful because the women themselves chose to rise up. In most majority world countries women have no means to be able to stand up for themselves, and even if it were possible for them to do so they most likely would not especially in countries where the motivation for the oppression of women stems from religeous ideals.

In British society, the job of radical feminists is pretty much done. There is not much left to change, and what is left to be changed is being changed for other reasons, not because women are out burning their bras or whatever.

As for women not being allowed to serve in frontline combat units, the reason is simple though harsh. The combat effectivness of an army is more severely reduced when a female soldier is killed than when a male soldier is killed. This is also partly the reason that children are not allowed to serve in the military (partly, not the whole reason!). Psychological studies have shown that males take longer to come to terms with the death of a woman or child, than the death of a fellow male. As such logic would dictate that male soldiers would be less effective should a female squad mate be killed or injured during the course of a battle. And this loss of effectiveness could well allow the enemy the opportunity required to win the battle.

Like I said, simple though harsh.

I do have one major gripe with feminism though. It was taught to me as part of a Political Concepts & Ideas module at University, during the section about Ideologies. My gripe is this; Feminism is not an ideology of its own, it does not meet the basic requirements of an ideology. Feminism is simply a very large pressure group, perhaps the largest of all pressure groups, but it is most definitely not an ideology in its own right. Thankfully the lecturer mentioned this at the end of the lecture, otherwise I might have throttled him :p

Sure women can be whatever they want to be, but stop moaning when your paid less- if your employer is sexist go work somewhere else.
My employer isn't. Everyone starts a grade level at the same pay. Period. What you do from there is on merit alone.

Pretty damn dead, if you ask me

My employer isn't. Everyone starts a grade level at the same pay. Period. What you do from there is on merit alone.

I didn't mean you in perticular, I meant the Femminism Movement in general.
Kudos to your boss btw.

The thing is... Femminism is just irrating now.

Well, when you hold sexist views, those that tell you otherwise will seem irritating.

I called a girl Woman the other day and she said "You can't call me that! Thats sexist!"

I responded with "Sorry, I didn't know Woman was a derogatory term."
Shut her up.

Yes, and this represents feminism. :rolleyes:

The thing is, you Guys, or should I say girls, already have equal rights. Sure, in some cases Women are paid less then men. But, alot of men feel more comfortable working along side other men. Plus, if the Population is to grow (which is desperatly needed in Europe!), someone has to stay at home, and Women are alot better at that.

And there you demonstrate that you are sexist. Are women really "better" at staying at home? Always? Are there no men who make better homemakers than their wives? Are there no women who do better out in the workplace?


arent they banned in combat because men tend to treat them differently, ie try to protect them when hopeless, etc

That is often the excuse given, but it doesn't seem to actually happen in real life. Officers in Iraq have reported that, when the shit hits the fan, everyone (male or female) does their job, regardless of gender. They may treat each other differently outside of battle, but once real danger is present, they are soldiers, plain and simple.

Ahahah a pertfect example of such misunderstanding huh! Man look one example does not mean that is the way I view all women, it was an EXAMPLE

Then why would you use it to explain how you "don't understand women." What you mean is, "I don't understand this woman."

But to answer your questions.

Yes she is to me, and in my experiance most women like a cudlle when they are upset.

Hmmm, now we have changed to "most women".

Once again the point was that until a time comes when we all are the same

Human beings are never "all the same", even within the little defined groups that many try to place them in. That is exactly the point! You can't say, "Black people are different from white people," unless you are talking only about skin color, because neither "black people" nor "white people" are a homogenous group.

then I do not belive that true eqaulity can exist, please show where I said I can tell much about a person by looking at their gentials, skin colour of age, it was just an EXAMPLE.

And your examples demonstrate that you think you can tell quite a bit about how "different" a person will be based only on their genitals, skin color, or age.

So to suggest that a woman is phiscaly not as strong as a men is not true anymore, but sexist?

It never was true. A given woman may be physically stronger than a given man, or even the average man. At best, you can say that women are statistically physically weaker than men. But to then use that to assume that the woman you are talking to actually is physically weaker than you, without actually demonstrating it, is sexist.

. . . 2) Virtually nobody wants to listen to feminism in its strident, litigious and extremist modes. Generalization doesn't work, whether it's "all women are mothers or whores" or "all men are assholes or rapists". . . . In short, if you wish equality, accept all of it.

3) Is the concept of women taking on the worst traits of stereotypical men really equality? I don't care what gender you are, an asshole is an asshole. The only change I made was to not use the word "bitch" to describe a female asshole anymore.

Amen, brother.

Sorry, we are nowhere near on an equal plane - culturally or legally - as far as gender is concerned. Feminism is just as relevent today as it was anytime.

I didn't mean you in perticular, I meant the Femminism Movement in general.
Kudos to your boss btw.

Well I don't believe that my situation should be singled out as noteworthy. I think that all people have the right to earn equal pay for equal work. If that's such a radical notion, then I guess being a feminist is pretty radical. :rolleyes:

Uhm...what has the feminist movement (at least in America) done for society? One result of it, I would point out, is the fact that women drink a great deal these days. You know what the problem with that is? Pretty much all cases of date rape involve alcohol. And not just the man, folks. Whether or not its core beliefs elevate women above men, many feminists do, and that is ridiculous. Women are just as sinful, deceptive, etc. as men. In fact, since women ON THE AVERAGE are not as physically strong as men, they generally use different methods to get their way, and many of the ways rely on things that humans consider far worse than simply shooting a rival. One example of this set of values: it's culturally "better" to beat a person to within an inch of their life than to have an affair. Besides, one massive problem with feminism is that now having a problem with the way many women behave is labeled as sexism. Some women DESERVE to be mistreated. So do some men. Further, for example, Hillary Clinton does not deserve to be President just because she's a woman, which is one reason that many will vote for her and that many will vote against her. You can't demand special privileges just because you're a woman. So while this has nothing to do with whether feminism is redundant, I ask what it provides for society.

Has anyone here ever had the idea that equality doesn't actually work because every person is an indivisual?

And even if I do have sexist views (which I don't) why shouldn't I be allowed them?

We're told not to enforce our opinions on you, but thats exactly what you do to those that disagree with you.

So I conclude the Femminist Movement is Hypocritical.

Well, when you hold sexist views, those that tell you otherwise will seem irritating.



Yes, and this represents feminism. :rolleyes:



And there you demonstrate that you are sexist. Are women really "better" at staying at home? Always? Are there no men who make better homemakers than their wives? Are there no women who do better out in the workplace?



That is often the excuse given, but it doesn't seem to actually happen in real life. Officers in Iraq have reported that, when the shit hits the fan, everyone (male or female) does their job, regardless of gender. They may treat each other differently outside of battle, but once real danger is present, they are soldiers, plain and simple.



Then why would you use it to explain how you "don't understand women." What you mean is, "I don't understand this woman."



Hmmm, now we have changed to "most women".



Human beings are never "all the same", even within the little defined groups that many try to place them in. That is exactly the point! You can't say, "Black people are different from white people," unless you are talking only about skin color, because neither "black people" nor "white people" are a homogenous group.



And your examples demonstrate that you think you can tell quite a bit about how "different" a person will be based only on their genitals, skin color, or age.



It never was true. A given woman may be physically stronger than a given man, or even the average man. At best, you can say that women are statistically physically weaker than men. But to then use that to assume that the woman you are talking to actually is physically weaker than you, without actually demonstrating it, is sexist.


Pedantry, you seem like an intelengent person, I know you understand the meaning of my ill formed sentances, and bascily you just feel like taking the piss. Fine I can understand that but then does that make you biased about people you percive to be less intelegent? Or at the very least less educated.

Uhm...what has the feminist movement (at least in America) done for society?

Moved towards equal treatment, regardless of sex, gender, or sexuality?

One result of it, I would point out, is the fact that women drink a great deal these days.

And that follows how?

You know what the problem with that is? Pretty much all cases of date rape involve alcohol. And not just the man, folks.

(a) Do you have a source for this, or are you just making silly assumptions?
(b) Are you suggesting that a victim who has been drinking is somehow responsible for being raped?

Whether or not its core beliefs elevate women above men, many feminists do, and that is ridiculous.

Of course it is ridiculous, and it flies in the face of the core of feminism. It's kind of like having a Libertarian who wants to lock people up in their houses and keep them from watching anything but state-run TV - it simply doesn't make sense.

Some women DESERVE to be mistreated. So do some men.

No one deserves to be mistreated.

Further, for example, Hillary Clinton does not deserve to be President just because she's a woman, which is one reason that many will vote for her and that many will vote against her.

I'd most likely vote against her because I don't like her policies. How's that?

You can't demand special privileges just because you're a woman.

No, you can't. What's your point?

Has anyone here ever had the idea that equality doesn't actually work because every person is an indivisual?

Actually, the whole point of any equality movement is that every person is an individual - that you cannot treat them as nothing more than a member of some nebulous group.

And even if I do have sexist views (which I don't) why shouldn't I be allowed them?

You should be allowed them. You can have whatever viewpoints you like, although we don't have to respect you for them. A KKK member is perfectly entitled to his viewpoint that black people and Jews are somehow inferior, but I don't respect that viewpoint.

We're told not to enforce our opinions on you, but thats exactly what you do to those that disagree with you.

How so? How do we force anyone to view the groups they see as "inferior" as actually being human beings?

Pedantry,

You seem rather fond of this word. In truth, I'm not sure how it applies here.

you seem like an intelengent person,

Thank you.

I know you understand the meaning of my ill formed sentances,

I am taking your sentences at face value, and demonstrating what they mean, based on what is said. If you mean something else, you are going to have to clarify it.

And, it doesn't really make much sense to say, "I know I didn't say what I meant to say, but I know you know what I meant to say."

and bascily you just feel like taking the piss.

So glad to know you're a mindreader. What am I thinking right now?

Fine I can understand that but then does that make you biased about people you percive to be less intelegent? Or at the very least less educated.

I have no problem with people who are less intelligent or less educated than me. And I'm not sure how you get that out of anything I have said.

Feminism is not redunctant in the Western world or any part of the world. Until true equality (in action and in thought) is reached, the struggle for it will never grow old or become redundant.

Moved towards equal treatment, regardless of sex, gender, or sexuality?
In that case you shouldn't have anything to whinge about now- which you don't. Femminists who get their backs up at the drop of a hat annoy me- they don't know how good they got it.



Actually, the whole point of any equality movement is that every person is an individual - that you cannot treat them as nothing more than a member of some nebulous group.

Exactly, and so making different groups for Femminism, Homosexuals and Ethnic Minorities is bullsh*t.


How so? How do we force anyone to view the groups they see as "inferior" as actually being human beings?
Through laws passed by Parliament. :P

Now, I want to ask you a question. What would your response be to me saying, being partly serious "Women are not as clever as men, they're mostly emotional eegeits."

**I am not saying this btw, I'm asking what your response would be. Dam... I've got myself arguing against my own view point again.*

As a man, I share in the housework at home with my girlfriend. I'm going with her when she finds out what graduate school she is going to and as her workload increases, I'll increase my share of the housework. While also maintaining a full time job. Feminism is alive in our relationship but only as far as fairness, which as I understand is what feminism is all about in the first place. She works more, I take more of a share in all those "womanly duties" anti-feminists talk about. As a man, I'd prefer not to be so insulted as to be told that I cannot wash a dish or a sweep a floor as well as a woman can.

Are there crazy feminists that want to castrate all men? Yeah. Just like there are crazy anti-feminists that want to rape as many women as they can.

In that case you shouldn't have anything to whinge about now- which you don't.

Really? So a girl who wants to be an engineer being told that "girls aren't good at math and science" isn't a problem? A man who likes cooking being told that he must be a "fag" if he wants to be a chef isn't a problem? A woman with the same level of experience and doing the same job as a man at the same company isn't a problem? The viewpoint that a woman will automatically be the nurturer of her children, while man will not isn't a problem?

Exactly, and so making different groups for Femminism, Homosexuals and Ethnic Minorities is bullsh*t.

How so? Focusing on a specific subset of issues does not mean you are unconcerned with others? And, as I already pointed out, many of them end up overlapping, so that feminism ends up in all sorts of gender issues.

Through laws passed by Parliament. :P

Laws change your viewpoint? You must not be very strong-willed. Personally, I disagree with some laws.

Now, I want to ask you a question. What would your response be to me saying, being partly serious "Women are not as clever as men, they're mostly emotional eegeits."

I would ask you to support such a statement. When you couldn't, I'd ask you why you then hold it. If you still continued to make such statements, I would know that you weren't worth my time, any more than any type of bigot.

I am a 16 year old girl living in the us.
Sure I get harassed eery now and then,
but dont guys get harassesd by women as well?

I think there needs to be another word for it besides
feminism... I dont think that here and now it is really
here. But as far as I am concerned
equalities for women have finally come to an equal high.
And women are powerful, people have been realizing this.
And now its not nessesary.
But thats just what I think, other countries its probably not like this.

As a man, I share in the housework at home with my girlfriend. I'm going with her when she finds out what graduate school she is going to and as her workload increases, I'll increase my share of the housework. While also maintaining a full time job. Feminism is alive in our relationship but only as far as fairness, which as I understand is what feminism is all about in the first place. She works more, I take more of a share in all those "womanly duties" anti-feminists talk about. As a man, I'd prefer not to be so insulted as to be told that I cannot wash a dish or a sweep a floor as well as a woman can.

Are there crazy feminists that want to castrate all men? Yeah. Just like there are crazy anti-feminists that want to rape as many women as they can.
Your relationship sounds a bit like mine--we just swap off whatever needs to be done. I tend toward the laundry and cleaning the kitchen, and she tends toward cooking, but there's no hard and fast splitting of duties. It's a partnership, and there are no gender roles involved.

Until true equality (in action and in thought) is reached

This therefore begs the question what is true equality?

In terms of equality of opportunity, men and women in contemporary British society are in fact almost exact equals. Yes there are some opportunities which specify gender preferences, but these are in the minority.

In terms of equality of outcome, men and women are again almost exactly equal. The main differences here are determined by the individuals actions, and are only partly to do with their gender.

So please specify, what in your opinion is true equality, and how is it possible to achieve it given that all human beings are individuals, and as such have different requirements to deem themselves equal.

But that is a fair point to make, it is not possible for feminism to be completely redundant if some inequalities still exist, but perhaps it is not as important as it once was.

Your relationship sounds a bit like mine--we just swap off whatever needs to be done. I tend toward the laundry and cleaning the kitchen, and she tends toward cooking, but there's no hard and fast splitting of duties. It's a partnership, and there are no gender roles involved.
Honestly, I can't understand any other situation that could be called a loving relationship.

Your relationship sounds a bit like mine--we just swap off whatever needs to be done. I tend toward the laundry and cleaning the kitchen, and she tends toward cooking, but there's no hard and fast splitting of duties. It's a partnership, and there are no gender roles involved.

Unfortunately for my fiance and I, we are equally lazy on getting these things done. =( We do tend to be a little more OCD about certain things, and there are a few "rules", although they are not hard and fast. I generally cook (when we eat at home), because he doesn't know how and is terrified of trying. But when I do cook, he is supposed to do the dishes (unless there is a reason he can't). I'm more obsessive about making sure the laundry gets done. He's more obsessive about keeping the floors clean. And everything else kind of gets done when one or both of us happen to get around to it.

Really? So a girl who wants to be an engineer being told that "girls aren't good at math and science" isn't a problem? A man who likes cooking being told that he must be a "fag" if he wants to be a chef isn't a problem? A woman with the same level of experience and doing the same job as a man at the same company isn't a problem? The viewpoint that a woman will automatically be the nurturer of her children, while man will not isn't a problem?

Now, don't act dumb you know what I mean. Sure, being told your not able to do something because of your sex sucks, but, just ignore them. Its when your told by someone alot more powerful you that you actually CANT do something because of your sex morally wrong. That doesn't really happen in the West. There are Sexists, but the majority of men aren't (at least not openly). Modern Western Femminism is just a sympton of our soicety.

As we've removed all life threatening problems, we purposly look for something to make us feel hard done by.

If you want to make a difference to Women's rights, get off your computer and move to the Middle East- anywhere with a Hamas group majority. Thats where Femminism is needed, not in Europe or America.

Laws change your viewpoint? You must not be very strong-willed. Personally, I disagree with some laws.[QUOTE]

Im not weak-willed, I just dont have an opinion on anything :P.



[QUOTE=Dempublicents1]I would ask you to support such a statement. When you couldn't, I'd ask you why you then hold it. If you still continued to make such statements, I would know that you weren't worth my time, any more than any type of bigot.

My point there was that alot of so called Femminists make remarks like that, and we men are supposed to put up with it. Say anything against it and they'll simply say "Tests have provent that Women are the smarter sex."

Odd, considering Femmis are always going on about removing generalisations.


----bump------

Now, don't act dumb you know what I mean.

You suggested that there are no inequalities to "whine" about. Is that not what you actually jmeant?

Sure, being told your not able to do something because of your sex sucks, but, just ignore them.

A child is not generally told that they can "just ignore" what their elders tell them. In fact, most children look up to adults and will take what they are told at face value.

Its when your told by someone alot more powerful you that you actually CANT do something because of your sex morally wrong.

You mean like an adult telling a child that they must meet certain stereotypes because of their sex?

That doesn't really happen in the West.

Clearly, you have never visited the rural southeastern portions of the US. Clearly, you have never visited certain types of fundamentalist churches.
Clearly, you have never seen a young boy get beat up for being "prissy". Clearly, you miss out on all sorts of things that *do* happen in the West.

Is it as prevalent as it once was? No, and that is a good thing. Does it still happen? Yes, absolutely. And as long as it still happens, it is still a problem.

There are Sexists, but the majority of men aren't (at least not openly).

Most people are not blatantly sexist, no. However, there are some deep-seated stereotypes in our society that still push men and women into gender roles that they may or may not be comfortable in. These things need to be addressed.

Modern Western Femminism is just a sympton of our soicety.

You say that as if fighting for equality is a bad thing.

As we've removed all life threatening problems, we purposly look for something to make us feel hard done by.

Yes, you're right. The fact that I have not suffered from people telling me what I can and cannot do because of my gender actually leads me to "look for something to make me feel hard done by," by going out and addressing problems that others *do* go through. Yup, I feel so "hard done by" that I'm trying to help others.

If you want to make a difference to Women's rights, get off your computer and move to the Middle East- anywhere with a Hamas group majority. Thats where Femminism is needed, not in Europe or America.

(a) Feminism addresses more than simply "women's rights".
(b) Feminism is needed *anywhere* that inequalities and unfair stereotypes are still prevalent.

My point there was that alot of so called Femminists make remarks like that, and we men are supposed to put up with it. Say anything against it and they'll simply say "Tests have provent that Women are the smarter sex."

You won't find a feminist saying that because it goes against the very core of feminism. You might find someone who calls themself a feminist saying that, just as you might find someone who calls themself a Libertarian pushing for stricter regulations on the media, but it goes against the very definition of the word.

If feminism is (as many on this thread have claimed) about removing inequality in society and being equally pleasant towards men and women the first place it could start is with a new name.

I mean come on, feminism sounds like it already has an incredible bias. With a name like that its no surprise that gender supremacists all either love it or loathe it, depending on the gender in question.

I reiterate my original request to all genuine omni-loving feminists out there. Change your name and make the movement at least appear inclusive, then maybe this goddamn sociological gender war will end.

If feminism is (as many on this thread have claimed) about removing inequality in society and being equally pleasant towards men and women the first place it could start is with a new name.

I mean come on, feminism sounds like it already has an incredible bias. With a name like that its no surprise that gender supremacists all either love it or loathe it, depending on the gender in question.

I reiterate my original request to all genuine omni-loving feminists out there. Change your name and make the movement at least appear inclusive, then maybe this goddamn sociological gender war will end.
I couldn't have said it better myself.

If feminism is (as many on this thread have claimed) about removing inequality in society and being equally pleasant towards men and women the first place it could start is with a new name.

Because nobody can actually look at the movement itself, instead of the name.

When feminism, as a movement, began, the inequalities were obviously skewed, so feminists focussed on issues with women. As time has gone on, the movement has evolved. We have realized that one cannot address issues of discrimination against women - issues of gender roles being forced upon women - without also addressing those issues with men, transsexuals, etc.

You don't have to change the name to see what the focus is.

I'm a 16 year old feminist living in Britain. When I tell people this, I'm often given the response: "Isn't feminism redundant now?" Their logic is that, considering that here in Britain we already enjoy pretty good sexual equality and freedom, feminism no longer has any relevance. Personally, I feel that we still have a long way to go in the developed world, let alone in the Third World. So what do you think? Does feminism still have a place in society?
No, feminism is not as relevant as before. And no, feminism is not dead, painfully painfully not dead. What we have to day is a polarisation between girls who don't really care but know thay should, and penis-owning-neo-hyper-feminism. As a result, practically all modern feminists are flagrant sexists.

No, feminism is not as relevant as before. And no, feminism is not dead, painfully painfully not dead. What we have to day is a polarisation between girls who don't really care but know thay should, and penis-owning-neo-hyper-feminism. As a result, practically all modern feminists are flagrant sexists.

And you are going battle these uber-sexists by:

making silly stereotype statements about all feminists, when actually referring only to a small subset?

Yeah, you showed them!

Why are we so concerned about pay scales? Unless you work for the government, your wages are a contract between you and your employer. What the two of you decide is reasonable is not relevant to any other employee and vice versa. Shouldn't an employer have the right to set wages suitable to his and his employees purposes? If he chooses to favor one employee over another (for any reason) is that something that should be curbed with legislation? I don't think so. You cannot force an attitude change, no matter how many laws you make. The best way to make a lasting societal change is from the bottom up, not the top down. I also don't understand why the idea of men and women being different is so repugnant. The modern feminist movement has gone so far in to the other extreme, that it now makes young women who would choose to be at home raising their own children and caring for their family to feel that this is something to be ashamed of.

Also, I agree. The term feminism has extreme sexist connotations to the general public. If the purpose of the movement has shifted, then a shift in name would be advisable if it is to be understood.

I personally believe that feminism is becoming redundant in the western world for the reasons that the abomination specified, however I do think that if feminism were to take the final great step, and also look after the interests of straight white males, then it would become the first truly egalitarian organisation.


That's like asking gay rights activists to spend half their time campaigning for
the rights of heterosexual couples.

Some feminists do devote time and energy to making sure the men are equally treated too, and most feminists agree that men are exploited, treated unfairly etc. in modern day society. However, feminism is a movement that sprung up to promote women's rights everywhere, and quite frankly, if men think they are being unfairly treated and don't like it, then perhaps they should get up and do something about it instead of expecting other people to do it for them.
The fact that I've seen so many comments suggesting that feminists are essentially sexists because they don't work for men's rights as well would suggest that, rather than actually being concerned about men's rights, the people saying such things are really just anti-feminists trying to ridicule and downplay a movement.
After all, if they were so concerned, then they'd do something about it and make their efforts well known, just as the first, second and third-wave feminists did and are still doing.

If the feminist movement was really fighting for equality, I would support it. But, I am sorry to say, that isn't the message I'm getting from them.

Were I to start a "Men's Only" club, I would be harrassed or taken to court. Yet there are several Women Only social clubs in this city, and even a Women's Only Exercize Complex. It get's plenty of radio advertising time, and trumpets it's Women's Only status.

Were I to get married, have children, and get divorced, I'd be lucky to get joint custody. 70% of such cases are awarded to the wife.

Not to mention the confusion aspect. I've been yelled at for not giving up my seat to a woman on the bus; I've been yelled at for giving up my seat to a woman on the bus. End result - I stay sitting down. If I'm going to be called a sexist pig (BOTH TIMES) then I might as well be comfortable.

From where I'm sitting, the feminist movement is trying to make me a second-class citizen. I won't have that. Someone wants to be my equal, cool - but not my better.

As many have pointed out, in the west many of the battles have been won. Legally, women are entitled to the same work/education/etc opportunities as men. However, as others have pointed out, modern social thought has not evolved to innately uphold these rights.

The radical feminists of the past, which got all the press and thus seemed to be the 'real' feminism was a minority then and is a minority now. The goals of the past aren't as relevant now, given the results of the last 40 years. The so called "Third Wave of Feminism", has not risen yet mainly because the galvinaizing goal has not yet become clear. This, however, does not mean that it is not there; its just that the issues of today are so polarizing.

But there are still issues that need to be addressed. One is the culture mindset that subjugates women. Body shape, clothing, eating disorders, etc fit under this catergory. Others have proposed that increased representation of women in office should be the goal. Or women's health issues (contraception, screening funding, etc). Today in the west there are many slights toward women, granted they are nothing compared to those commited under Sharia law in the middle east; but they, nonetheless, exist and can be combated.

It's alive and kicking. Definatly.

I do agree with Dododecapod though..
From where I'm sitting, the feminist movement is trying to make me a second-class citizen. I won't have that. Someone wants to be my equal, cool - but not my better.
Nice.

Well, I was just reading about a feminist theorist who claims all heterosexual sex is rape and another who claims the sonata of classical music is sexist and imperialist. I'm all for equal rights and even the end of gender rôles, but there does seem to be a lot of nonsense in the modern feminist movement.

If the feminist movement was really fighting for equality, I would support it. But, I am sorry to say, that isn't the message I'm getting from them.

Were I to start a "Men's Only" club, I would be harrassed or taken to court. Yet there are several Women Only social clubs in this city, and even a Women's Only Exercize Complex. It get's plenty of radio advertising time, and trumpets it's Women's Only status.

Were I to get married, have children, and get divorced, I'd be lucky to get joint custody. 70% of such cases are awarded to the wife.

Not to mention the confusion aspect. I've been yelled at for not giving up my seat to a woman on the bus; I've been yelled at for giving up my seat to a woman on the bus. End result - I stay sitting down. If I'm going to be called a sexist pig (BOTH TIMES) then I might as well be comfortable.

From where I'm sitting, the feminist movement is trying to make me a second-class citizen. I won't have that. Someone wants to be my equal, cool - but not my better.


Actually, where I am, there are plenty of 'men only' clubs.

There are, as I have said before, feminist groups who do indeed campaign as much for the rights of fathers as for those of mothers. There are also predominantly male groups, composed mostly of fathers who campaign for their own rights. Tell me, are you a member of any such group, or have you contributed to them in any way? Or are you, in actual fact, not actually bothered and simply interested in ridiculing another group?

The fact that women usually get custody rights is not actually due to the feminist movement but due to the fact that for centuries children have been seen as the 'mother's responsibility' and that they should stay with the maternal half of their parents for their own good, unless it could be proven that the mother was indeed the worse guardian. Feminism hasn't changed this, it merely hasn't been reversed.

Women-only gyms often spring up because women, either for personal or religious reasons, do not wish to exercise in a male environment. Certainly, a lot of gyms I've visited have a predominantly male patronage. Such an environment can actually make some (though not all) women feel a little uncomfortable in a way that they wouldn't if they were surrounded by just women who have 'seen it all before'. Also, by your account this place is one of a kind in your area, which suggests that it's not stopping you from going to a gym if you so wish.

As for bus seats, one way around the problem is to give up your seat if the person in question is heavily burdened, pregnant or disabled - this is usually seen as courteous, not sexist. However, if they don't fit such categories, keep your seat and, if people shout at you, reply that there's no reason why you should and that, if they're so bothered about it, perhaps they should give up THEIR seat. If there's no reason for you to give up your seat, then don't.

It seems to me that the 'feminists' you've come across don't quite understand the point of the movement at all.

As long as there is inequality and non-complacence, there will be feminism. A lot of women don't seem to care these days because they're quasi-equal... But there will always be a few passionate feminists.

Well, I was just reading about a feminist theorist who claims all heterosexual sex is rape and another who claims the sonata of classical music is sexist and imperialist. I'm all for equal rights and even the end of gender rôles, but there does seem to be a lot of nonsense in the modern feminist movement.
I'd be willing to bet real money that if you read what the first feminist theorist actually wrote instead of "about" what she wrote, you'd never find the "heterosexual sex is rape" comment, because it doesn't exist. It was a shitty paraphrase that has taken on a life of its own. I'm not blaming you for getting the wrong impression of what was actually written--the paraphrase has become the well known idea--but it's still incorrect.

I'd be willing to bet real money that if you read what the first feminist theorist actually wrote instead of "about" what she wrote, you'd never find the "heterosexual sex is rape" comment, because it doesn't exist. It was a shitty paraphrase that has taken on a life of its own. I'm not blaming you for getting the wrong impression of what was actually written--the paraphrase has become the well known idea--but it's still incorrect.

I see. Catherine MacKinnon was the name sited. Familiar with her?

I see. Catherine MacKinnon was the name sited. Familiar with her?
Yep, that's the one (http://www.snopes.com/quotes/mackinno.htm).

Like I said, it's not all that surprising to hear it, even though it's been discredited time and again, because it's taken on such a life of its own.

I'd be willing to bet real money that if you read what the first feminist theorist actually wrote instead of "about" what she wrote, you'd never find the "heterosexual sex is rape" comment, because it doesn't exist. It was a shitty paraphrase that has taken on a life of its own. I'm not blaming you for getting the wrong impression of what was actually written--the paraphrase has become the well known idea--but it's still incorrect.

feminism has a long history with many things having been written. ive read some pretty outrageous things in my day. as a sensible woman i take the stranger things ive read in the proper context, one where many ideas are thrown out and discussed. those who hate feminism pick out bits and pieces of outrageousness and put them forth as if they are mainstream feminist thought.

my point being that there may well have been some article written sometime somewhere that suggested that if you look at it in a certain light, all sexual intercourse is rape. i dont believe its ever been accepted by an appreciable number of feminists as true.

feminism has a long history with many things having been written. ive read some pretty outrageous things in my day. as a sensible woman i take the stranger things ive read in the proper context, one where many ideas are thrown out and discussed. those who hate feminism pick out bits and pieces of outrageousness and put them forth as if they are mainstream feminist thought.

my point being that there may well have been some article written sometime somewhere that suggested that if you look at it in a certain light, all sexual intercourse is rape. i dont believe its ever been accepted by an appreciable number of feminists as true.
The explanation of the "heterosexual sex is rape" comment is there at the Snopes link above. That one's been well documented over time. Sure, there are all sorts of theorists who say ridiculous things, but that one didn't happen, at least not the way it was said to have happened.

The explanation of the "heterosexual sex is rape" comment is there at the Snopes link above. That one's been well documented over time. Sure, there are all sorts of theorists who say ridiculous things, but that one didn't happen, at least not the way it was said to have happened.
did you think i missed it?

Feminism, being concerned primarily with women's rights, is just a subset of a broader equal rights movement for all members of society. All inequality is basically the same, but for each unequal group the specific problems and the best ways to confront them vary. Discrimination against women is expressed differently from discrimination against gays, or discrimination based on race or religion. Different myths are promulgated, and there are different ways to overcome those myths and educate the public about them.

As for feminism itself, it will never be "redundant" as long as women's rights are denied or being undermined anywhere. I include everything from pernicious gender stereotypes and income disparity in the rich West, to severe oppression of women up to and including slavery in many poor nations, to the international increase in religious fundamentalism which always seem to put a prominent focus on rolling back women's rights wherever it takes hold.

I would also point out that the movement for women's rights through the 19th and 20th centuries, even before it was called "feminism," also ignited public awareness of labor issues, children's issues, public health and education issues, and poverty issues in Western countries, all of which has benefitted more than just women.

So to suggest that a woman is phiscaly not as strong as a men is not true anymore, but sexist?

I'd have to say it depends a LOT, on the woman and man/men in question.

My point there was that alot of so called Femminists make remarks like that, and we men are supposed to put up with it. Say anything against it and they'll simply say "Tests have provent that Women are the smarter sex."

Odd, considering Femmis are always going on about removing generalisations.


----bump------

This I find funny... I am a man who considers himself a feminist, which apparently excludes me from 'we men'.

Then, the same poster continues to debate 'removing generalisations'...

If feminism is (as many on this thread have claimed) about removing inequality in society and being equally pleasant towards men and women the first place it could start is with a new name.

I mean come on, feminism sounds like it already has an incredible bias. With a name like that its no surprise that gender supremacists all either love it or loathe it, depending on the gender in question.

I reiterate my original request to all genuine omni-loving feminists out there. Change your name and make the movement at least appear inclusive, then maybe this goddamn sociological gender war will end.

The thing is, however, that the bias is still AGAINST the female in society, so the preponderence of effort is STILL focused on 'feminism'.

Feminism is creating pressure for equality WITH men, FOR women.

It is NOT averse, while it is doing that, to finding equality regardless of gender.

I think that feminism is still as alive and ever and just as relevant as it has ever been. However, I get the impression that it's lost its focus (not that it's diversified too much); almost that it seems scattered, and with out any sort of cohesion or specific issues to try to deal with.

Just my opinion, anyway.

There are, as I have said before, feminist groups who do indeed campaign as much for the rights of fathers as for those of mothers. There are also predominantly male groups, composed mostly of fathers who campaign for their own rights. Tell me, are you a member of any such group, or have you contributed to them in any way? Or are you, in actual fact, not actually bothered and simply interested in ridiculing another group?


Actually, there's a group of men's rights activists here who are campaigning against gender preference in custody awards and alimony. I'm not a member, but it's one of a very few groups I support financially.

It seems to me that the 'feminists' you've come across don't quite understand the point of the movement at all.

That may well be the case. I can only give you my impression; it's not an area I've studied in depth.

The women's rights movement has been very good for women, and largely successful. In the United States, in the younger generations, traditional sexism is either gone, or passed down to a much lesser extent from a parent/grandparent. Either way, traditional sexism is being effectively phased out of the legal environment and social strata.

However, these equal rights have not come with equal responsibility. The origins for this sexism stem from the time when wars were fought with brute strength. One would swing a blunt or bladed object, and sheer size and power counted for very much. In such a society and world, men have a necessary role that takes precedence over the role of running the household.

Physical ability was enough to survive.

Physical ability was enough to gain status.

Today, with no major wars fought like this, and with matter of survival requiring far less strength and far more filling out for government aid, society can afford to eliminate it's idea of women as an essential, yet dispensable, single-minded tool. Instead, with a HUGELY higher percentage of hard physical work handled by labor saving devices, AND so much being produced that there is enough for everyone to focus on what they WANT instead of what they NEED women can have social and professional equality.

Survival is not paramount.

Furnishing one's nest is paramount.

However, as stated before, the other half of women's rights is missing. The direct correlation to right is responsibility. Equal rights demands equal responsibility. Women are non combatants in the military. Many, many women expect to be paid for socially by men. Unequal responsibility. Equal rights. Wrong.

However, as stated before, the other half of women's rights is missing. The direct correlation to right is responsibility. Equal rights demands equal responsibility. Women are non combatants in the military. Many, many women expect to be paid for socially by men. Unequal responsibility. Equal rights. Wrong.
im not getting your point. what responsibility are women dodging? most women work, even when they have small children at home. most do what needs to be done to keep their families together. most do not fight against putting women into combat jobs in the military. what responsibility is being dodged?

<snip>
However, as stated before, the other half of women's rights is missing. The direct correlation to right is responsibility. Equal rights demands equal responsibility. Women are non combatants in the military. Many, many women expect to be paid for socially by men. Unequal responsibility. Equal rights. Wrong.
The only responsibilities women don't fulfill are the one they are not allowed to take on -- like serving in combat. As for that having men pick up the tab complaint -- I just love it when vague references to undefined circumstances that may or may not be relevant or even exist are used to stereotype an entire group of people (in this case, women). :rolleyes:

The women's rights movement has been very good for women, and largely successful. In the United States, in the younger generations, traditional sexism is either gone, or passed down to a much lesser extent from a parent/grandparent. Either way, traditional sexism is being effectively phased out of the legal environment and social strata.

However, these equal rights have not come with equal responsibility. The origins for this sexism stem from the time when wars were fought with brute strength. One would swing a blunt or bladed object, and sheer size and power counted for very much. In such a society and world, men have a necessary role that takes precedence over the role of running the household.

Physical ability was enough to survive.

Physical ability was enough to gain status.

Today, with no major wars fought like this, and with matter of survival requiring far less strength and far more filling out for government aid, society can afford to eliminate it's idea of women as an essential, yet dispensable, single-minded tool. Instead, with a HUGELY higher percentage of hard physical work handled by labor saving devices, AND so much being produced that there is enough for everyone to focus on what they WANT instead of what they NEED women can have social and professional equality.

Survival is not paramount.

Furnishing one's nest is paramount.

However, as stated before, the other half of women's rights is missing. The direct correlation to right is responsibility. Equal rights demands equal responsibility. Women are non combatants in the military. Many, many women expect to be paid for socially by men. Unequal responsibility. Equal rights. Wrong.
You know what? Rather than just shrug off this ridiculous argument with just the two bits of nonsense in the last paragraph like I was going to, I've decided to take issue with the whole thing. Because it's just got me flabbergasted.

I bolded your first paragraph because that's the part that's correct. Everything else in it is sheer fantasy. Your historical thumbnail explanation of how brute-force warfare made sexism necessary, natural and right in olden times is utterly unconnected to any historical reality -- unless you count those caveman movies that starred Raquel Welch and Ringo Starr.
Quoting you:
Physical ability was enough to survive.

Physical ability was enough to gain status.
Oh, really? Women having babies, and men and women both raising families, and both men and women using their brains had nothing to do with human history whatsoever? Everything was just banging people over the head with rocks? And women did what? Just lie on the ground and get fucked and, 9 months later, ooze out babies while still lying there? They didn't contribute anything else of value to society?

And then you go on to tell us how in modern times, life is so easy that society can afford to let those useless women go out and futz away everybody's time with what they "want" to do instead of what they're needed to do -- which would be what? Lie around uselessly like before?

I suppose we should be grateful to have made enough progress to have you realize that the feminist movement did actually do something in the world, but really, your weird ideas of what women do, why they do it, and what they should be doing are the reason feminism is still relevant and needed today.

Absolutely, of course it is.

.

I personally believe that feminism is becoming redundant in the western world for the reasons that the abomination specified, however I do think that if feminism were to take the final great step, and also look after the interests of straight white males, then it would become the first truly egalitarian organisation.



We would have the FIRST truly mass egalitarian organisation ever.


That is almost frighteningly sensible.

You mightve posted on the wrong forum.

That is almost frighteningly sensible.

You mightve posted on the wrong forum.

Not really. I fail to see how being a straight white male in a western country is a hindrance in any situation. Sorry.

We enjoy sexual equality in the UK do we? Legally, yes, but in reality? Pftt, dream on. Actually, women in the British army are still banned from combat. Whilst I'll agree that on average women and men are not physically or mentally equal. There are very definately differences on average, but if an individual woman has what it takes to be in an infantry division and wants to be then why ban her from combat? Geoff Hoon needs to be shot for his role in that ban as defence minister.

The MOD conducted field tests, and when they didn't get the results they were looking for they just dismissed the tests for not being able to replicate the stress of combat. How about they try and do a test that can or start with a very small trial out in the field. The MOD needs a kick up the backside.

The military is very well known for developing a sense of brotherhood among the men out in the field. Place even a single woman into that group, and the whole thing could easily be shot to hell. It's a male bonding thing, brother watching over brother. If a female was placed into there, who knows what could go wrong. Maybe the men would feel like they need to watch out for her out of a gentlemanly sentiment. Maybe one or two of them would take a liking to her, and these feelings could overwrite their basic training during intense situations. I'm not saying that this is the case without a doubt, but it is certainly within the realm of possibility.

I am in the process of enlisting, and I know exactly how I'd feel if there were mixed-gender platoons. It would just be uncomfortable. All the years I've been considering enlisting, it has been to make such close friendships with the men I'm going to be relying on out in the field that makes it so appealing. Having friends that you know that well? That are so close? It would be - and has been cited as - having a second family. Maybe women in combat positions would be perfectly peachy, maybe not. But if you break that brotherly bond between the men just because you're trying to keep the sexes equal, then you've seriously damaged that group's military capacity.

And that's my two cents.

Not really. I fail to see how being a straight white male in a western country is a hindrance in any situation. Sorry.

Strange how the suicide rate for men is four times higher than that for women. Take Australias population of 20,000,000. If 5 men turned up dead one day in the Melbourne Cricket Ground, there's be news coverage. If 5 men turned up dead at the Melbourne Cricket Ground every day, there WOULD be something done about it. There isn't.

Or that Domestic Violence against women is pretty much ignored, and who cares if the numbers aren't as many as womens.

Straight white males are also the majority of the homeless. That's strange.

Straight white males are also occupy the vast majority of hazardous jobs. Admittidly, this is because women are largely excluded but that is a social problem in itself - women are being "protected" from these jobs.

Straight white males also occupy the vast majority of demeaning menial jobs.

These are all social problems. Open your eyes maybe.

Not really. I fail to see how being a straight white male in a western country is a hindrance in any situation. Sorry.


Are you now or have you ever been a straight white male in a western country?

Are you now or have you ever been a straight white male in a western country?

Quite obviously not.

Strange how the suicide rate for men is four times higher than that for women. Take Australias population of 20,000,000. If 5 men turned up dead one day in the Melbourne Cricket Ground, there's be news coverage. If 5 men turned up dead at the Melbourne Cricket Ground every day, there WOULD be something done about it. There isn't.

This wouldn't be because mental illnesses as a whole are much more common amongst men than women, is it?

...or is that the fault of women?

Or that Domestic Violence against men is pretty much ignored, and who cares if the numbers aren't as many as womens.

I fixed it for you. ;)

Naturally, any domestic abuse is a bad thing, but it makes sense to tackle violence against women overall, as it is many times more common. Do you have any reliable figures for the proportion of men involved in domestic incidents compared to women?

Straight white males are also the majority of the homeless. That's strange.

I'd like you to prove that to me. I've seen my fair share of homeless aboriginals - women, too. I'd also like to know how many homeless people you've asked about their sexuality.

Straight white males are also occupy the vast majority of hazardous jobs. Admittidly, this is because women are largely excluded but that is a social problem in itself - women are being "protected" from these jobs.

Straight white males also occupy the vast majority of demeaning menial jobs.

Well, hey, straight white males also occupy the vast majority of high paying jobs too, no?

Are you now or have you ever been a straight white male in a western country?

Quite obviously not.

Yes, I am. Excuse me, but I still fail to see how it is a significant disadvantage to me in any way shape or form.

This wouldn't be because mental illnesses as a whole are much more common amongst men than women, is it?

...or is that the fault of women?

Nowhere did I say it was the fault of feminism or women. It is, however, due to social factors.

I fixed it for you. ;)

Thank you :)

Naturally, any domestic abuse is a bad thing, but it makes sense to tackle violence against women overall, as it is many times more common. Do you have any reliable figures for the proportion of men involved in domestic incidents compared to women?

No, there really haven't been any comprehensive studies done into it. But I don't think it's as low as many people think, nor anywhere near as high as most MRAs think. It just seems to me that if feminism, a large, powerful political pressure group, could step in on behalf of men this issue would be more likely to be addressed.


I'd like you to prove that to me. I've seen my fair share of homeless aboriginals - women, too. I'd also like to know how many homeless people you've asked about their sexuality.

http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/free.nsf/0/5AD852F13620FFDCCA256DE2007D81FE/$File/20500_2001.pdf

Take a look at page 38.

http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/facts/Whois.pdf


Well, hey, straight white males also occupy the vast majority of high paying jobs too, no?

True, but I don't think that 10,000 elite upper class males is the same as 100 million lower class males.

Yes, I am. Excuse me, but I still fail to see how it is a significant disadvantage to me in any way shape or form.[/QUOTE]

To you personally, maybe not. Just like there are many middle-upper class women that don't face discrimination. As always, it's the lowest classes that suffer the most.

The aged institution of Feminism.

As much in demand as pictures of Jayne Mansfield.

Nostalgia-street and wrinkles.

The military is very well known for developing a sense of brotherhood among the men out in the field. Place even a single woman into that group, and the whole thing could easily be shot to hell. It's a male bonding thing, brother watching over brother. If a female was placed into there, who knows what could go wrong. Maybe the men would feel like they need to watch out for her out of a gentlemanly sentiment. Maybe one or two of them would take a liking to her, and these feelings could overwrite their basic training during intense situations. I'm not saying that this is the case without a doubt, but it is certainly within the realm of possibility.

I am in the process of enlisting, and I know exactly how I'd feel if there were mixed-gender platoons. It would just be uncomfortable. All the years I've been considering enlisting, it has been to make such close friendships with the men I'm going to be relying on out in the field that makes it so appealing. Having friends that you know that well? That are so close? It would be - and has been cited as - having a second family. Maybe women in combat positions would be perfectly peachy, maybe not. But if you break that brotherly bond between the men just because you're trying to keep the sexes equal, then you've seriously damaged that group's military capacity.

And that's my two cents.
Funny how that doesn't seem to be a crippling problem in armies where women do participate fully, such as the Israeli army, or in total war situations where women -- whether they were soldiers or civilians, had to either fight or die alongside the soldiers when battles over-ran their towns, such as during Napoleon's campaign in Spain and the seige of Leningrad in WW2. Women stood and fought alongside male soldiers in WW1, WW2, the French Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution, and the American Revolution. Women were full participants in partisan fighting in WW2 and the Spanish Civil War and in urban resistance units' bombings and assassinations throughout WW2. Women also seem to make perfectly good terrorists and assassins, to look at the dark flip side of this "band of brothers" romanticism.

Your argument that "we're used to doing it this way, so we should never change" rings a bit hollow when compared to history.

Why are we so concerned about pay scales?

They are a prime example of how bigotry can affect a person's life?

You cannot force an attitude change, no matter how many laws you make.

But is there really something wrong with working to change that attitude?

I also don't understand why the idea of men and women being different is so repugnant.

It isn't, where they actually are different. The repugnant idea is that a man or woman should be viewed as "inferior" or "different" in ways that they, in actuality, are not.

The modern feminist movement has gone so far in to the other extreme, that it now makes young women who would choose to be at home raising their own children and caring for their family to feel that this is something to be ashamed of.

I have yet to meet anyone who wanted to be a homemaker and was ashamed of it - or a feminsit who would make such a person be ashamed. Someone who wants to be a homemaker should certainly have that choice, just as someone who does not want to do so should not be pushed into doing it.

Also, I agree. The term feminism has extreme sexist connotations to the general public. If the purpose of the movement has shifted, then a shift in name would be advisable if it is to be understood.

The purpose hasn't shifted. It was always equity between the sexes - and such a goal could never be reached if only the problems of one sex were addressed. The only thing that has begun to shift is the focus. As more and more women's issues are dealt with, the discrepancy between the number of discriminatory practices faced by both narrows.

Were I to start a "Men's Only" club, I would be harrassed or taken to court.

What makes you think that? I have seen quite a few men-only clubs.

Were I to get married, have children, and get divorced, I'd be lucky to get joint custody. 70% of such cases are awarded to the wife.

Untrue. In a recent thread, we looked at the statistics on this one. Of all the cases that actually go to court, well over 50% are awarded joint custody. The 70% number comes mostly out of cases that are decided entirely by the parents - the court only gets involved enough to sign off on the agreement already made by the parents. Thus, if you wanted joint custody, you would have a very, very high chance of getting it.

The military is very well known for developing a sense of brotherhood among the men out in the field. Place even a single woman into that group, and the whole thing could easily be shot to hell.

Never mind that women are fighting side-by-side with men right now, and nothing has been "shot to hell." In fact, women have been commended by COs in the field - COs who point out that, when combat starts, every soldier is a soldier - sex doesn't even come into it.

I am in the process of enlisting, and I know exactly how I'd feel if there were mixed-gender platoons. It would just be uncomfortable.

Then maybe you should grow up before enlisting.

All the years I've been considering enlisting, it has been to make such close friendships with the men I'm going to be relying on out in the field that makes it so appealing. Having friends that you know that well? That are so close? It would be - and has been cited as - having a second family.

And you can't have a close friendship with a woman? Seems like a problem with you, my friend.

What bugs me is that many women will balk at being described as feminists. As if it's something to be ashamed of. We should be heading in the opposite direction: men should feel comfortable describing themselves as feminsts, then we might really start achieving positive change.

I wish feminism were dead, but alas, it is alive and kicking. The feminist cause in modern society is being abused. Instead of equality for sexes, many feminists these days are taking things way too far. Why can't they just accept the huge gains they have made and stop pushing? Men aren't going to sit by and watch these women try and take their jobs forever. By pushing for even more equality, feminists are encouraging a larger anti-femininst group to rise up in response. If I were a feminist I would calm down a bit before all the hard work I did goes to waste.

In other words, many modern day feminists are trying to take more than the modern day man is willing to give. I don't think that is a good idea.

I wish feminism were dead, but alas, it is alive and kicking. The feminist cause in modern society is being abused. Instead of equality for sexes, many feminists these days are taking things way too far. Why can't they just accept the huge gains they have made and stop pushing? Men aren't going to sit by and watch these women try and take their jobs forever. By pushing for even more equality, feminists are encouraging a larger anti-femininst group to rise up in response. If I were a feminist I would calm down a bit before all the hard work I did goes to waste.
what do you think men are going to do? rise up and force women to make them sammiches? quit getting married? quit fucking women? stop going to work?

you think that women should stop short of their full potential because "men" might get pissed off at them for it?

women arent taking men's jobs. they are doing the job they are qualified for the same as men are. most men love it when the women in their lives bring in good money for doing good jobs. they arent wishing that the burden was all on them to provide every monetary need for the family. they want the better things in life that come from having a good income.

I wish feminism were dead, but alas, it is alive and kicking. The feminist cause in modern society is being abused. Instead of equality for sexes, many feminists these days are taking things way too far. Why can't they just accept the huge gains they have made and stop pushing? Men aren't going to sit by and watch these women try and take their jobs forever. By pushing for even more equality, feminists are encouraging a larger anti-femininst group to rise up in response. If I were a feminist I would calm down a bit before all the hard work I did goes to waste.
In other words, many modern day feminists are trying to take more than the modern day man is willing to give. I don't think that is a good idea.
LOL! That's so cute and funny. Those uppity chicks should get back into line like good little girls and wait for men to decide they feel like sharing power or else the boys will...you know...think of something to do about it...

Gosh, yeah, you know, now that you mention it, I'm so worried about upsetting some outdated and half-dead social power structure that I think I'll let myself be schooled by a vaguely threatening but really just peevish attitude. Hell, why should I try to live up to the legacy of countless women who put their lives on the line all through the past 100 years, up to right now, to fight for the rights I enjoy today? Especially if it might annoy some man. Ooh, yeah, I better shut my mouth.

:rolleyes:

In other words, many modern day feminists are trying to take more than the modern day man is willing to give. I don't think that is a good idea.

What you're basically saying is that women shouldn't have as many rights as men, and that's sexist.

What bugs me is that many women will balk at being described as feminists. As if it's something to be ashamed of. We should be heading in the opposite direction: men should feel comfortable describing themselves as feminsts, then we might really start achieving positive change.
Hear, hear.

Hear, hear.

At the moment, many men don't feel very invluded in feminism and often refer to themselves as "pro-feminists" rather than feminists. I even heard one radical say that men can't be feminists, only pro-feminist. Many Feminists should do more to make men feel as part of the process, rather than saying that straight white men have it easy and don't know much about discrimination.

I wish feminism were dead, but alas, it is alive and kicking. The feminist cause in modern society is being abused. Instead of equality for sexes, many feminists these days are taking things way too far. Why can't they just accept the huge gains they have made and stop pushing? Men aren't going to sit by and watch these women try and take their jobs forever. By pushing for even more equality, feminists are encouraging a larger anti-femininst group to rise up in response. If I were a feminist I would calm down a bit before all the hard work I did goes to waste.

Pushing for "even more equality".

You don't see a problem with that sentence?

1) Women, at least in the States, are still not making the man's dollar. Last I paid attention, it was sometihng like $0.82 to the male dollar. But I wonder how relevant and accurate that measure is.
In my stats class we tooled around with this statistic. What we found was that what the situation actually is is that women work about 80% of the hours that men work...ON AVERAGE. The number is derived from weekly pay, as opposed to hourly pay. As it stands, women and men make roughly equal amounts per hour, with there being perhaps a percentage difference between the two. At the same time, the amount of time women do spend in the workplace is increasing at a fairly rapid pace, and as it increases, so does the week-based pay ratio.

Never mind that women are fighting side-by-side with men right now, and nothing has been "shot to hell." In fact, women have been commended by COs in the field - COs who point out that, when combat starts, every soldier is a soldier - sex doesn't even come into it.

Have I said at all that women cannot - in actuality - be good soldiers? No. What I'm saying is that women and men together will stir up emotions. There are far more straight males in the military than homosexuals, and obviously there will be cases of said men taking a real liking to a woman in their platoon. Love is not stable, and it can seriously affect a guy. THAT is what the problem with combining them is.

Then maybe you should grow up before enlisting.

Oh please. Everyone has the stereotype image of soldiers - at least combat soldiers - being men in uniform. What I'm saying is that if that were in the process of being changed to include women in those positions, then it would take some getting used to. Changes always do, don't they?

And you can't have a close friendship with a woman? Seems like a problem with you, my friend.

Close relationships with the opposite sex are best kept for your private life. Ending up in a close relationship with someone at work has always been frowned upon, whether it's in the military or at a desk job in a skyscraper.

I am with Dempublicents on this one. Of course, I'd support the creation of a matriarchal society, so perhaps I am a tad extremist in this regard.

I am with Dempublicents on this one. Of course, I'd support the creation of a matriarchal society, so perhaps I am a tad extremist in this regard.

Indeed you are. You'd be reversing the sexism.

Indeed you are. You'd be reversing the sexism.
I know, and for this reason I go no farther than supporting absolute genderial equality, even though a matriarchy would delight me.

The thread title is somewhat poorly chosen (those who know their fighting videogames get what I'm saying).

[NOTE: Sorry if someone else said a similar comment. I'm at school now, and we've got this censor thing which stopped me from accessing the first page of the thread, thus I skipped to the last.]

The thread title is somewhat poorly chosen (those who know their fighting videogames get what I'm saying).

[NOTE: Sorry if someone else said a similar comment. I'm at school now, and we've got this censor thing which stopped me from accessing the first page of the thread, thus I skipped to the last.]


Pfft.

Shameless bump

Have I said at all that women cannot - in actuality - be good soldiers? No. What I'm saying is that women and men together will stir up emotions. There are far more straight males in the military than homosexuals, and obviously there will be cases of said men taking a real liking to a woman in their platoon. Love is not stable, and it can seriously affect a guy. THAT is what the problem with combining them is.



How do you KNOW there are more straight males in the military than homosexuals? It's a guess, surely? Since the whole 'don't ask' idea makes me assume most 'don't tell', no?

Nations which DO have combined militaries don't seem to consider that big a deal.


Oh please. Everyone has the stereotype image of soldiers - at least combat soldiers - being men in uniform.

No, they don't.


What I'm saying is that if that were in the process of being changed to include women in those positions, then it would take some getting used to. Changes always do, don't they?


You think we should leave inequalities, because you don't like change?

That kind of logic means we shouldn't have mixed races in the military, right?


Close relationships with the opposite sex are best kept for your private life. Ending up in a close relationship with someone at work has always been frowned upon, whether it's in the military or at a desk job in a skyscraper.

Always? No.

The Ancient Greeks encouraged same-sex relationships in the military, because it means one soldier is more willing to risk everything for his fellow soldier(s).

We enjoy sexual equality in the UK do we? Legally, yes, but in reality? Pftt, dream on. Actually, women in the British army are still banned from combat. Whilst I'll agree that on average women and men are not physically or mentally equal. There are very definately differences on average, but if an individual woman has what it takes to be in an infantry division and wants to be then why ban her from combat? Geoff Hoon needs to be shot for his role in that ban as defence minister.

The MOD conducted field tests, and when they didn't get the results they were looking for they just dismissed the tests for not being able to replicate the stress of combat. How about they try and do a test that can or start with a very small trial out in the field. The MOD needs a kick up the backside.

That certain example is probably true not because males (in general, at least I don't) don't believe women are any less or more capable, but because in a majority of hotspots around the world women prisoners would be treated far less humane then male prisoners of war.

Have I said at all that women cannot - in actuality - be good soldiers? No. What I'm saying is that women and men together will stir up emotions. There are far more straight males in the military than homosexuals, and obviously there will be cases of said men taking a real liking to a woman in their platoon. Love is not stable, and it can seriously affect a guy. THAT is what the problem with combining them is.

And, as I already pointed out, it HASN'T BEEN A PROBLEM. Whatever emotional issues there are - whatever different treatment there may be during downtime - when battle starts, the military machine works just as it always has. All the soldiers, male, female, gay, straight, whatever - do their part.

Your arguments are no different than those who thought that letting "darkies" fight alongside white guys was going to destroy the military. Guess what? It didn't happen! And guess what? Women are fighting alongside men and the military hasn't fallen apart!

Oh please. Everyone has the stereotype image of soldiers - at least combat soldiers - being men in uniform. What I'm saying is that if that were in the process of being changed to include women in those positions, then it would take some getting used to. Changes always do, don't they?

You seem to think that the process hasn't already happened. It has. There are already men and women in uniform. There are already men and women in combat.

Close relationships with the opposite sex are best kept for your private life.

Why?

Ending up in a close relationship with someone at work has always been frowned upon, whether it's in the military or at a desk job in a skyscraper.

Do you really think that the only relationship between members of the opposite sex must be a romantic or sexual one? I have many close relationships with men that have nothing to do with romance or sex.


That certain example is probably true not because males (in general, at least I don't) don't believe women are any less or more capable, but because in a majority of hotspots around the world women prisoners would be treated far less humane then male prisoners of war.

I've heard this excuse too, but I have yet to see it every backed up with anything resembling facts.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents1}
I've heard this excuse too, but I have yet to see it every backed up with anything resembling facts.[/QUOTE]


Jessica Lynch?? One example if women were in combat multiply that example many times.

Jessica Lynch?? One example if women were in combat multiply that example many times.

You fail to see the facts here, my dear.

Women ARE in combat. Every day. You know how you hear of this or that patrol getting attacked in Iraq? Every single one of those patrols has at least one female soldier in it - in case a female civilian must be searched. Women are in combat constantly these days, and no problems have surfaced.

Jessica Lynch was blown out of proportion by the media, not the military. And do recall that Lynch was not the only female soldier involved. There was another woman who was also involved in the fighting - and died. Did we hear about her?

Feminism is like having someone new steering a big ass ship. The wheel has been spun, the rudder is hard over but its gonna take a crapload of time for the society to really come round fully to the new heading. Is it redundant? Well, it did it's job - you can get severely penalised by society for believing women are anything less than equal, which is a victory of sorts I guess... unfortunately it's also being exploited by morality free marketing corporations and money-grabbing litigation monkeys.

In truth, classical feminism has been corrupted to the point where it is either a tool for further female exploitation (it's empowering to wear skimpy clothing! Yes... and pose nekkid!) a method of male exploitation (that man joked with me as if I was any other colleague! SUE SUE SUE!) or so extremist it's lost all validity (All men are taught in special lessons at the age of twelve that rape is a useful method of subduing women. Well shit, I missed that lesson).

Traditional feminism was great in an age when sexism was unquestioned and innate within society. That age is gone. Without doubt, there needs to be a movement to highlight womens issues in the world, but it needs to make a clean break with the confrontational and prejudiced feminism.

Love the super-tanker analogy but I think you could extend it by saying the rudder went over so hard, so fast that it had to be steerd back the other way a bit before society ended up permanently on the orcks

Your arguments are no different than those who thought that letting "darkies" fight alongside white guys was going to destroy the military. Guess what? It didn't happen! And guess what? Women are fighting alongside men and the military hasn't fallen apart!

First of all, don't you dare try and compare me to a racist. Not happening.

Second, the "darkies" you're mentioning were all men, and PART of the reason people thought they'd be tearing the military apart was because a lot of them really didn't want to be there. Korea and Vietnam were both tough wars, but by 'Nam nobody wanted to be in the military. Particularily during the latter years...Anyway, it was the fact that a huge group of unmotivated, angry, new people were being recruited that scared people. Yes they were worried about the "darkies" wrecking things, but it was for more reasons than simply skin colour. The women we have enlisting nowadays are doing it voluntarily - I would assume :rolleyes: - and so there really isn't as many causes for concern. But putting many women into an infantry or armoured roll on the scale of men has not yet been done, and so I still think there is a chance for something to go wrong. Is it just me being cautiously paranoid? More than likely. But you have to admit, the possibility is there.

You seem to think that the process hasn't already happened. It has. There are already men and women in uniform. There are already men and women in combat.

I have yet to see an all-female platoon. Or even a majority-female platoon, for that matter. I know that women are seeing the field more and more each and every day, but if you consider the size of the military, there are very, very few compared to men. I'm sure that there are more women being posted to field positions, but it is hardly an equal ratio thus far. I know there are many, many more women in uniform in positions that aren't directly combat-related, and the man/woman ratio there is equalling out...sort of. It's moving faster than the man/woman ratio in combat positions, that much is certain. Therefore, it is still considered normal to think "man in uniform" when someone says 'soldier'. I've even asked people I know what they first thought of when I said 'soldier', just to make a point on this overly drawn out discussion...:p

Do you really think that the only relationship between members of the opposite sex must be a romantic or sexual one?

And, uh...for the record, no, I don't. :)

First of all, don't you dare try and compare me to a racist. Not happening.

Why not? You are using the exact same arguments they did. If it bothers you, perhaps you should examine your logic.

Second, the "darkies" you're mentioning were all men, and PART of the reason people thought they'd be tearing the military apart was because a lot of them really didn't want to be there.

They also thought that they wouldn't "bond" because they were "different." White guys couldn't bond with or trust black guys and vice versa. They also claimed all sorts of strange things - they were supposedly less well-suited for combat because of physical differences that don't really exist. And so on...

Nearly all of the same arguments used against female combat soldiers.

The fact that the physical descriptor that was keeping them out was different is irrelevant - the arguments are the same.

The women we have enlisting nowadays are doing it voluntarily - I would assume :rolleyes: - and so there really isn't as many causes for concern.

So were most of the black men that enlisted - even though it kept them in largely menial jobs.

I have yet to see an all-female platoon.

Do you think there should be? It seems to me that keeping groups separated on such types of basis would weaken the military.

*snip*

You seem to have a serious problem with ratios here. Who cares what the ratio is? The fact is that women are serving in combat roles - and no problems have ensued. Do you think that black and white men have ever been in the military in equal ratios? What about young and old?

And, uh...for the record, no, I don't. :)

Then why do you continually imply it? Why must a close bond between a man and a woman be "private" while a close bond between a man and a man doesn't have to be?

MEN, I HAVE AN IDEA!

Lets make extreme feminism go away, ignore it.


It'll probably end up going away when no one is paying attenion/money to it.

Start off by not posting in this Thread. :P

MEN, I HAVE AN IDEA!

Lets make extreme feminism go away, ignore it.


It'll probably end up going away when no one is paying attenion/money to it.

Start off by not posting in this Thread. :P

Ugh...I think I'm gonna take you up on this, actually. The way Dempublicents1 is out for my blood makes me think that there's no way to get my message across unless I'm talking face to face with her, as a LOT of my typed messages have been sorely misinterpreted and cut out of proportion...:upyours:

So unless anyone really wants me back and begs the case, I think I'll be with New Lofeta; as in simply not here. :p

MEN, I HAVE AN IDEA!

Lets make extreme feminism go away, ignore it.


It'll probably end up going away when no one is paying attenion/money to it.

Start off by not posting in this Thread. :P

You think this thread is an example of 'extreme' feminism?

On your own, my friend.

You think this thread is an example of 'extreme' feminism?

On your own, my friend.

Yeah, apparently it is "extreme" to expect people to treat others as individuals, instead of as whatever genitalia they happen to have.

At the moment, many men don't feel very invluded in feminism and often refer to themselves as "pro-feminists" rather than feminists. I even heard one radical say that men can't be feminists, only pro-feminist. Many Feminists should do more to make men feel as part of the process, rather than saying that straight white men have it easy and don't know much about discrimination.
Many people call themselves by names/titles that they don't really live up to. There are, unfortunately, plenty of pseudo-feminists running around. For instance, I have been criticized by self-proclaimed "feminists" (female ones) who say that, because I am an aggressively competitive person, I am not a proper woman because I am aping male behaviors. I (aggressively) laugh in such people's faces, denounce them as "sexists," and demand to know where the hell they get off defining "proper womanhood" to me or anybody. I take the same attitude towards those who claim men can't be feminists. They have no right to tell a man what he can or can't think. I encourage all men to consider the benefits of feminist principles and to adopt them if they agree with them.

I have to say, I am meeting more and more men where I live in the US who do not hesitate to describe themselves as "feminist," meaning that they support women's rights and social equality for the sexes. It's a happy trend.

MEN, I HAVE AN IDEA!

Lets make extreme feminism go away, ignore it.


It'll probably end up going away when no one is paying attenion/money to it.

Start off by not posting in this Thread. :P
Excellent idea! 'Bye. :rolleyes:

Let me explain something, dear: You picking up your marbles and running off home is not going to make feminism go away. It just means the world will go on without your participation.

Jessica Lynch?? One example if women were in combat multiply that example many times.
Um, the Jessica Lynch story was so distorted by the military and the media, that I don't think it can be used to illustrate any points here. But if you'd like a contrasting personal anecdote:

I can't remember the woman's name, but just last night I saw a report on the evening news about veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan running for office on Democratic tickets in opposition to Republicans, and the report featured a woman who is running for a state senate office, who was a combat pilot of a Blackhawk helicopter that was shot down by enemy fire in Iraq. As she told the story, the last thing she heard her male co-pilot say before she blacked out was "She's dead", but because she was his crewmate, he dragged her presumably lifeless body out of the wreckage, along with the similarly fucked up bodies of other (male) crewmates. Surgeons saved her life, but she lost both her legs. She says running for office is pretty easy -- I guess she means by comparison.

Shall we have more dueling anecdotes, or can we accept that women can face the rigors of combat just the same as men do?

Until men are giving birth and breastfeeding, true equality will never be reached. There are no inherent differences between men and women whatsoever, and it's a sad reflection on society how poorly women are treated by our manocratic maleocracy.

Until men are giving birth and breastfeeding, true equality will never be reached. There are no inherent differences between men and women whatsoever, and it's a sad reflection on society how poorly women are treated by our manocratic maleocracy.

Stupidest comment ever.

Of course there are inherent differences. Men produce more testosterone which increases aggressiveness. This is just one of many examples.

While biology doesn't play that large a party in shaping a persons character compared to social environment, it is still an important factor.

Excellent idea! 'Bye. :rolleyes:

Let me explain something, dear: You picking up your marbles and running off home is not going to make feminism go away. It just means the world will go on without your participation.

I find it bizarre that this person finds the form of 'equality' argued here 'extreme'... and somehow thinks 'men' (collectively) embrace the same platform he (I assume it's a 'he') claims.

Feminism is more relevant than ever before today in a world where people are constantly being exploited and degraded by the sex industry and where women are under increasing pressure to make themselves sexually attractive to men at any cost.