The F-word (Feminism)

[Jessiebelle]

Back to Feminism, I'll keep this short:

Gender Roles exist. Women who try and say they shouldn't, are unrealistic and fictional. Stop trying to be equal to a man, because you are not. In the same sense, a man is not equal to a woman. We are designed differently and our role in society is no more important than yours. It's in your biology, It's in your chemistry.

Men and women should be treated the same when it comes to the basic rights, such as being paid the same as a man, or having the same constitutional rights. We are not above you, and you are not above us, we're just different.

That's why when a woman says "I can do anything a man can do!", and less commonly when a man says "I can do anything a woman can do!", I laugh at their face.

To that woman, I would challenge her to fertilize eggs.
To that man, I would challenge him to breast feed.

Egg fertilization requires sperm, not a man.
Also men can actually lactate, and transmen who didn't get top surgery could both get pregnant and possibly breastfeed.

The idea that men and women are not the same tends to come from evolutionary psychology, a school defined by the phrase "Men and women are different, humans and chimps are the same". I find all conclusions based on this school highly questionable.

Further, gender roles are not biological concepts, they are social constructs. Many anthropologists have found societies where gender roles are reversed, or where gender is determined by the work you do, not the bits in your pants. I could complicate this more by including genderqueer, agender and transgender people in the discussion.

Good try, but not quite.

 

[Hahvoc The Decepticon]

@Hahvoc: We get it. You are horny. I kid, but the slut-shaming issue is quite fascinating actually. As I mentioned before, we seem to be in a transitional phase of moral boundaries where we disagree even more on what counts as promiscuous behavior. It's an incredibly complex debate that seems to always come around to personal opinion. My personal opinion (totally non-scientific)? Live and let live. Fuck who you want when you want as long as they want it too. Most people in modern western society have been with more than one lover before they settle into a monogamous relationship. I'm not even going to get into the emotional and psychological implications of sexual intimacy. For me, I understand that my partner will have a past. I do too. I just don't want the last whack at the pinata now candyless and broken. Ya feel me?!?!

"Candyless and broken"? The fuck. To me, that comes off rude as fuck. Maybe it's because my mother married a man she couldn't have children with because of surgery, making her sterile. However, he doesn't give a fuck because he loves her and her children that she was able to have.

Secondly, you make it sound like we're prizes. That's how that comes off as. I could be reading a little too into it, but "candyless and broken" was pretty hard to ignore.

Honestly, if a woman sleeps with over a 100 partners, that's really not your business. Same as if a man did. That's my ideology on the whole thing. I don't care as long as it was consensual and safe, which ties into the whole "Men and women should be on equal playing fields when discussing 'promiscuity.'"

Lol. Yeah... Because we keep ourselves on the shelf until Ms. Perfect comes along... It's funny when you think about it. You think we don't put out and we don't think you put out. I'm kind of surprised that is your sentiment though. Most men I know will fuck anything with the requisite parts. Anyway, may you find whatever it is you are looking for... and soon.

I had skipped over this pretty much because I didn't think it was worth mentioning but now...

You do realize I was actually kidding, right? Or were you too wrapped up in your opinion to figure that out?

 

[KarenNelson]

Further, gender roles are not biological concepts, they are social constructs. Many anthropologists have found societies where gender roles are reversed, or where gender is determined by the work you do, not the bits in your pants. I could complicate this more by including genderqueer, agender and transgender people in the discussion.

Good try, but not quite.

I sense a bit of tautology in the above. Seems like some "feminist" academics have burned up a lot of processor loops constructing new "genders" like "genderqueer" and "agender," only to then turn around and claim gender is a social construct. Why? Because they pushed science fiction to the edge to construct "new" genders?

Seems to me there's a pretty firm biological basis for two genders and two genders alone: male and female. Yes, you have a tiny percentage of people who, through birth defect, are born with no/both sets of genitalia. That's not a new gender. And when you talk about "gender determined by the work you do," then you're talking about specialization of labor into organizations and social strata, not biological gender (guilds, societies, etc.).

Don't get me wrong--exploring in fiction the notion of a species with more than two genders is fine and dandy with me. But that's not reality.

 

[Hahvoc The Decepticon]

Gender is different from the sex of a person.

Gender is mentality and sex is physical form.

There are two sexes but multiple genders.

 

[My_Apocalypse_Pony]

Gender is different from the sex of a person.

Gender is mentality and sex is physical form.

There are two sexes but multiple genders.

Laci Green is wonderful
[video=youtube]http://youtu.be/5sHBAVjahp8[/video]

 

[Nennius]

@Hahvoc: I'll make a note that the pinata analogy was lousy. I'm sorry if I offended you (or anyone else with it). I guess the material from my other posts didn't make it clear how I feel about equality. For the record, the reference could be reserved just as easily. I can see how it was a bad analogy though.

Allow me to clarify if I may: You're right that it's not my business what other people do sexually. Hence why I said "live and let live." I just personally don't want to be with someone who has had hundreds of lovers. It's not a slight against them. It's just my personal choice. I have been selective in my lifetime because I still believe sexual intimacy is something special. That may sound old-fashioned, but it doesn't stem from any religious source. If everyone on the planet wants free love, then so be it. I would just like to be with someone who shares my values to some extent.

If you took my analogy to refer personally to your parents, let me assure you, that's not what I'm talking about. And for the third time, I agree that people's sexual history is their own business. Of course in the age of STD's, most people like to at least know their partner is medically healthy.

I just responded to your joke with a thought it provoked for me. That was all. It was really nice of you to qualify it with an insult though.

 

[KarenNelson]

Gender is different from the sex of a person.

Gender is mentality and sex is physical form.

There are two sexes but multiple genders.

So we're veering into psychology, which is a "make it up as you go along" quasi-science. I don't bother with discussions on psychology because the goalposts end up getting moved way too often.

 

[My_Apocalypse_Pony]

Gender is different from the sex of a person.

Gender is mentality and sex is physical form.

There are two sexes but multiple genders.

So we're veering into psychology, which is a "make it up as you go along" quasi-science. I don't bother with discussions on psychology because the goalposts end up getting moved way too often.

you are the one that brought it up in the first place, she was only correcting you.

 

[Hahvoc The Decepticon]

@Hahvoc: I'll make a note that the pinata analogy was lousy. I'm sorry if I offended you (or anyone else with it). I guess the material from my other posts didn't make it clear how I feel about equality. For the record, the reference could be reserved just as easily. I can see how it was a bad analogy though.

Allow me to clarify if I may: You're right that it's not my business what other people do sexually. Hence why I said "live and let live." I just personally don't want to be with someone who has had hundreds of lovers. It's not a slight against them. It's just my personal choice. I have been selective in my lifetime because I still believe sexual intimacy is something special. That may sound old-fashioned, but it doesn't stem from any religious source. If everyone on the planet wants free love, then so be it. I would just like to be with someone who shares my values to some extent.

If you took my analogy to refer personally to your parents, let me assure you, that's not what I'm talking about. And for the third time, I agree that people's sexual history is their own business. Of course in the age of STD's, most people like to at least know their partner is medically healthy.

I just responded to your joke with a thought it provoked for me. That was all. It was really nice of you to qualify it with an insult though.

You made a terrible analogy so I prompted to see if you were wrapped up in your opinion to see that it was bad.

@Karen- As Pony said, I was correcting you since you brought it up. People mix the words "gender" and "sex" as if they are interchangeable. They aren't. Scientists would agree.

And now we're very clearly off-topic unless someone wants to see if gender and feminism could tie themselves together, which is true in some cases.

 

[Ruphhausin]

@Rupphausin- I like how you call women in televison harpies Shrews and Jezebels then claim there's no war on women, especially when a State just passed a law banning abortion before most women even know they're pregnant. It was amusing. While I agree that there are women who hide behind feminism while doing blatantly anti-feminist actions for their own gain (eg. Sarah Palin) I find your examples...questionable. Secondly, what exactly do you consider to be "real" women's rights? Is the right to vote the only "real" right we need, or is autonomy over our bodies something only for people without uteruses?

Actually, to put a point on it myself, I like how you are singling me out, when a number of posts on here from women make a point of at least somewhat validating (by agreeing with) what I am saying.

There is a War on Feminine Hypocrisy, I restate. One of the reasons, sorry to say, that states want to pass laws limiting, to a draconian degree I say, abortion is the fact, I am sorry, of the bullshit behind the statistics. I am not saying there are not women raped or victims of incest who have a right to access to abortion, don't misjudge me, because they do. The reality is, however, in who is really the most vocal militants about feminism today, and for the last 25 years specifically. That has been women who are only carrying about their reproductive and bodily freedoms when it comes to getting what they want without consequence. For every women who is for all women, there are a disproportionate number who are after a specific agenda that in reality is only for "some certain women".

I don't have to list names again, but they are there for all to see. As for the names I used, those are, I am sorry to say, legitimized symbolization of women who, with modern examples, live the very things that nullify what they claim to represent. Jezebel was a woman who married a man only to use him as a puppet to get power she never deserved. Shrew (or Katherina) is a person who convinces herself she deserves better and better, but when she gets it she is never happy or satisfied. Harpy, that is someone who shrilly screams and exaggerates everything in any manner possible. I use examples from mythology and literature.. but there are women who LIVE those stereotypes, Jess. I agree that there are men who live those of our gender.. but denying that there are women who fit those, and other, descriptions perfectly is disingenuous at best and outright revisionist at worst.

Women have the rights as men, but most feminists today want all rights and privileges with no responsibilities or consequences. It is that simple. What I think are rights they deserve are the right to vote, to speak their mind, to read, listen to, watch, and enjoy the same things as men, but they also have the responsibility to get the consequences as well. Women also have the right to accept that the reality is that just as we men have to accept things, so should women. That includes that with every one of those freedoms come the responsibilities to use them wisely and to deal and receive the consequences when they don't or when they abuse them. Men should and are expected to, and that is equal rights.

None of what I have said on here is off topic, rather very much on topic. The media does exaggerate, yes, but that doesn't erase that those people are out there. They are out there, and I am sorry if that offends, but it offends me when there are women who are real victims who don't get to have those rights anymore because of the actions of others. Just like there are black, Hispanic, and other "leaders" who have sold out those they claim to stand up for to get the prime cuts of life, liberty, and happiness.. the females I am talking about are very much real, Jessiebelle. It disgusts me, no matter the gender or creed or whatever, but I am a realist when I say this.

Most "feminists" aren't there for other women. They are after only what they can get for themselves... and other women are paying the price.

 

[Ms_Muffintops]

I think the concept of sex vs. gender would have to bring the debate to a whole other level. But I can see both points of view.

Gender roles are not limited to sex, and vice versa.

In a matriarchy, there is still dominance and gender roles or else it wouldn't be called a matriarchy.

All genders have their own expectations placed upon them. A gender role is either masculine or feminine in tendency. You can be a masculine or feminine woman, or a masculine or feminine man. Society has leaned us towards masculine men, and feminine women. A masculine woman and a feminine man are taboos and often scrutinized and laughed upon. A woman who is masculine is often seen as a 'butch'/lesbian or a bitch. A man who is feminine is either gay/'faggot' or a wuss.

I think the path for both sexes has been laid out, and even though men came out on top as the dominant one, they too have been victims of societies expectations. Yes, men are statistically more domineering, in personality and physical strength, so women are easily victimized and subjected to submission to men, but at the same time, thanks to the high expectations placed on men, they too are prone to not accepting their who they may truly be and are less in touch with themselves.

Example: Men in Japan. Japan is about 20 years behind the US in feminism. There are still 1950s-esque family roles in Japan, but feminism is on the rise. But still for men, they are raised to believe that their purpose in life is to get an education, get married, get a good job from his education so he can make a lot of money and support his family. Japan is also a country with a rather high suicide rate. Suicide is often regarded as a noble thing in Japan. And one of the highest, if not the highest, demographics for suicide in Japan is men who have lost their job. If they lose their job they are not making money, if they are not making money, they are not supporting their families. If they are not supporting their families, their purpose in life is no longer being fulfilled. And what do they do? They kill themselves because they have failed their families.

Is this not a product of gender roles? Women are not the only victims of gender roles and the pressures associated with them.

 

[Trygon]

@Nennius Holy crap, I come back from a PM trying to explain how you're really kind of a terrible person to find MORE people telling you the same! Are you ready to listen and improve yet?

 

[Rave]

Egg fertilization requires sperm, not a man.
Also men can actually lactate, and transmen who didn't get top surgery could both get pregnant and possibly breastfeed.

The idea that men and women are not the same tends to come from evolutionary psychology, a school defined by the phrase "Men and women are different, humans and chimps are the same". I find all conclusions based on this school highly questionable.

Further, gender roles are not biological concepts, they are social constructs. Many anthropologists have found societies where gender roles are reversed, or where gender is determined by the work you do, not the bits in your pants. I could complicate this more by including genderqueer, agender and transgender people in the discussion.

Good try, but not quite.

Let me just end you quickly here.

Sperm, comes from a...

I'll give you a second to think about it:

It's MAN! Welcome to Grade 5 biology. A woman cannot produce sperm, and so cannot fertilize an egg.

Secondly, if you had done any research before you started babbeling, you'd know that male lactation is only naturally possible in some animals, and even so it is less than a 1% chance. Human male lactation can only be brought on by medication that stimulate the mammary glands, and further-more, it is unhealthy for an infant.


As for your anthropologist argument, what you said is useless and completely besides my point. Putting off the fact that such tribes or populations are extremely rare to non-existent, gender roles are dictated by your mind which has enough reasoning to figure out that men were built in a way to preform certain tasks better than women, and women were built in a certain way to preform better than a man at some things. It's literally in every single animal species, and we're included.

A male Lion doesn't produce milk to feed it's cubs, while the female fights other lions. That's not things work. A Queen Bee sits on her ass and gives birth, creating new life. All the males are soldiers. Gender Roles is pretty self explanatory: Your gender has a role. Stick to it.

Your ignorance astounds me.

 

[Trygon]

I could really set things off here by bringing in 'anthropologist reports' and 'scientific studies' about how everything but basic male/female gender roles are the result of mutations and malformations. Things going wrong, basically. Nature shitting itself, and out comes these people you're upholding.

Not all 'anthropologists' and 'scientists' agree with you, lady, so do be careful about wholesale basing your argument on what they say.

 

[Hahvoc The Decepticon]

Gender Roles is pretty self explanatory: Your gender has a role. Stick to it.

Your ignorance astounds me.

Whoa.

That didn't sound incredibly misogynist.

In case you haven't noticed, gender roles have changed, otherwise, women would still be housewives and never work, silent in the company of men, and heaven forbid they had a baby outside of wedlock.


There are some roles that only men can fill and some that women can only fill. However, just because you want your world in a very stark black and white, you should know by now that not everyone is going to fit into those roles whether they are mentally built outside of it or simply choose not to fit it.

Hell, some men still get their jockstraps in a twist if a woman has a strong dominance in her field/career and is "above them" in standing. That's something men need to get over just like some women need to get over that men are more "easily" built for hard labor like construction.

Also, 73% of statistics are made up.

Just a note: If women weren't as good at math and science, then there would be a hell of a lot more male nurses than female nurses. Those nursing programs are killer and only allow people who keep a 3.5 gpa and up in the program. [That's pretty much how it is in my school. So that's what I'm basing this on. It could be different at other schools but it is a rigorous program.]

From experience: There are also a lot more female students in the biology program than male students at my school. Most male students are either business majors or sports management/physical therapy majors. And the business majors gripe about taking science classes which I find kind of funny.

 

[Rave]

No, It wasn't misogynistic. At all.

Not once did I single out a woman or a girl, or the female species as a whole. My entire post, and the one before it, was speaking to both men and women. I thought I made that pretty clear, because I'm the farthest thing from a misogynist. Even having a comment that might be perceived as such bothers me greatly.

Furthermore, I said Gender roles, not Sex roles. If you are a man but identify as a woman, you are free to do as many feminine things as you want. Though there will be biological limitations, unless you get extensive surgery.

But you can't deny that the ratio of 'housewives' is in the woman's favor. You'll find 90% of stay at home parents are women, and not because they are forced into it, it's because they choose it, and they always have the option of doing something else.

A man or a woman having a role does not mean they can't be something above that role. My mother is the biggest example. She is a housewife, a mother of two, cleans and cooks and does literally every household chore. My mom is also a surgeon.

I never once said that women weren't as good at math and science, I only said there are roles in which women are better than men at, and that's undeniable. Vice Versa.

 

[Hahvoc The Decepticon]

It came off that way, but I see your point so I concede on that.

 

[Rave]

I still <3 you bb.

 

[Nico]

I came across this discussion, and found I actually had something to say. One reason being my mother is a feminist, and the other being I am a man. I believe that the word Feminist already does something to set us off, almost as if the point was to create conflict between the sexes. However, I don't believe that it is intentional. Before I get into my own opinion about this subject, I wanted to address one of the recent posts.

Let me just end you quickly here.

Sperm, comes from a...

I'll give you a second to think about it:

It's MAN! Welcome to Grade 5 biology. A woman cannot produce sperm, and so cannot fertilize an egg.

Secondly, if you had done any research before you started babbeling, you'd know that male lactation is only naturally possible in some animals, and even so it is less than a 1% chance. Human male lactation can only be brought on by medication that stimulate the mammary glands, and further-more, it is unhealthy for an infant.


As for your anthropologist argument, what you said is useless and completely besides my point. Putting off the fact that such tribes or populations are extremely rare to non-existent, gender roles are dictated by your mind which has enough reasoning to figure out that men were built in a way to preform certain tasks better than women, and women were built in a certain way to preform better than a man at some things. It's literally in every single animal species, and we're included.

A male Lion doesn't produce milk to feed it's cubs, while the female fights other lions. That's not things work. A Queen Bee sits on her ass and gives birth, creating new life. All the males are soldiers. Gender Roles is pretty self explanatory: Your gender has a role. Stick to it.

Your ignorance astounds me.

Yes, you're right. Sperm does come from a man. A+. However, it has also been proven that females can make a child (without a male/sperm). It's possible because of the X chromosomes in the woman's egg. Of course, that also means that possibly women would only be able to have a female child. So, there's an upside for lesbian couples once they refine this process for humans. I don't believe it's actually been implemented in humans yet, but it is possible. I find it slightly unfair that men can't do this.

As for men lactating, I've got no clue.

In regards to her point, I don't think it was so far off the mark. I ( this is my personal opinion now ) find it terribly funny you still believe gender "roles" exist in this day and age. Men don't preform certain tasks better than women, and women don't preform certain tasks better than men. If you are talking about childrearing vs. the workplace, I can tell you that is bullshit. Men can be mothering types, and women can be proficient at crushing their adversaries in corporate combat. ( Both horrible stereotypes of the opposite gender, mind you. ) If you are talking about biological functions- such as woman's ability to give birth, and fact that men are (not always) stronger physically than women, then I will concede there. However, that's about as far as your credibility goes.

As for your examples in nature of what I am assuming you call traditional male and female roles, I have to point out a few fallacies. First, male lions fight off contending males from their pack, effectively stationing themselves as the only male and then they basically sit around. Females do all the hunting, so I don't see your correlation there.

Same with the bees. The "Warror" bees, the majority of the population of the hive, sometimes called "Worker bees" as well, are female. A worker bee is any female (eusocial) bee that lacks the full reproductive capacity of the colony's queen bee. "Drones" are male honey bees. They develop from eggs that have not been fertilized, and they cannot sting, since the worker bee's stinger is a modified ovipositor (an egg laying organ). So, I don't see your correlation there either.

Basically, the males in both cases are around to fertilize the females, and then be ignored. The males aren't soldiers.

I think as humans, with the mental capability we have, we also have the ability to choose what roles (or lack thereof) we want to fill.


My opinion on this topic is that Feminism really doesn't come down to wanting to gain rights for women over men. Rather it is women's desire to seek equality with men. Or it should be. Otherwise, I'm sorry, it's true that men do feel victimized. It's like telling Germans nowadays how horrible they are for being what race they are, even when it was their great ancestors who had possibly committed the Nazi's atrocities. I understand that women should get the same pay and benefits as men, but I also don't think it's really about women dominating men.

What I am trying to say is that both genders should be equal, but that provisions should be made for their distinct differences as well. We should be equal in the sense that we get the same pay for the same work, we are held to the same expectations, don't have to put up with sexual harassment in the workplace (sorry ladies, unfortunately you get more of this than we do), and be able to pursue what we want to without limitation due simply to gender.

I come from a family with a history in the military. I understand my sister's wish to prove herself. If she wants to be in the armed forces on the front lines in combat, let her. She will hopefully be held to the same standards as the men, and I know she will have to go through the same training and testing, which I also know she will ace. She's a strong woman.

I think the attitude towards feminism is misguided. It's not "for women against men," but should be for women with men. We should be on equal terms. I don't believe that men should continue to be subjected to the brunt of female hatred for their strife. If women are unhappy about their situation, I wholly support them, but I don't see how complaining about what men aren't doing is going to solve anything. Women are just as capable as men are.

Another point I want to make is; do you ever stop to wonder how this effects us? How we feel having to grow up and be told on one hand we have to hard ball and be dominant in all that we do if we ever want to win over a woman's affections? Or that we have to be the strong support system if anyone is ever even going to consider us as a potential mate? (Not saying that's everyone, but it's pretty prevalent in our media and our culture.) On the other hand we are continually harassed- yes, harassed- if we do not pick up the bill, or open the door, and sometimes if we aren't emotionally sensitive enough. Small potatoes, maybe, but it gets to me.

In my opinion, our society regards gender roles as set ideals, and not as messy as they actually are. I believe that ideally gender will be able to level out into a neutral acceptance of both the sexes as equal. Women should be given the care they need for their bodies and mental health, just as men should.

 

[the.bard.incarnate]

I would like to make a VERY important distinction. There are essentially two distinct brands of feminism. The first is led by intelligent, well-adjusted women genuinely interested in gender equality and promoting a healing of the chasm that exists between the sexes. These people have my most ardent support, and I count many among my closest female friends. The second is led by women who feel that they have been "oppressed" (whatever that means to them) and want, NOT relief from oppression, but rather, revenge. Not against their specific "oppressor/s". No. That would make sense. Against men in GENERAL. Men who have never wronged them. Men who have never wronged ANY woman. Unfortunately, it is the latter group (being the most vocal and strident in voicing their opinions) that tends to make the most noise, and therefore get the most attention. It is also they who shape many of the legal policies that have become so damaging to men in the US in the modern world.

I won't get into my own personal experience here, as it is frankly too painful to remember. Rather, I will relate a true story that is NOT mine to tell. While on a trip to Las Vegas, I was getting into a cab out of which a man and two women were getting out. As the cabbie waited for his fare, a debate broke out over who was going to pay. It was casual, until one of the women started whispering to the other, and they turned toward their male companion, and said, "If you don't pay, we'll call the police and tell them you hit us." The man looked like HE had just been slapped, he was that stunned. Neither of the women in question had been treated aggressively by the man in question; they had all been laughing good naturedly together just a few moments before. As I watched this scene, dumbfounded, I was alarmed by the fact that the response of the man thus accosted wasn't either amused incredulity or outrage. It was instantaneous submission. Not that I was SURPRISED by this fact... after all, I had been through the things I had been through... but it was still cause for alarm, and a bit of outrage on my own end (though I was careful to keep it suppressed, for what I hope are obvious reasons). As he paid for the cab fare, he walked off... still in the company of the two women. And after a few minutes, as they walked off into the distance, I heard them laughing again, as if nothing of note had happened.

Getting into the cab, I turned to the cabbie, and shook my head. "You believe that shit?" I asked as I buckled my seatbelt. "Not that he caved. I get that. I mean that they had the gall to pull that stunt to begin with." The cabbie looked at me, and he actually looked sad, sighing as he replied. "I believe it. See it, or something like it, at least once a day." We didn't speak again the entire trip to LAX, but then again, I don't think we needed to.

Any legal climate that strips ANYONE... regardless of race, gender, age, or ANYTHING... of the rights to due process or equality before the law (which current laws do, in cases of alleged abuse of women by men) is oppressive and wrong. And the process has been snowballing. The more the extremist arm of the feminist movement gains, the more they strive for. And there is no end in sight.

Now, I don't believe a man should ever strike a woman for any reason other than immediate and pressing defense of his own life, or that of someone who cannot protect themselves. Even then, I think that anyone who uses more than the minimum amount of force needed to save themselves should be punished severely. But I also believe that a woman who alleges that she HAS been abused should have to demonstrate at least some shred of evidence to support her claims before a man is hauled off to a jail cell for the night, and wakes up to a restraining order that means he has suddenly lost all of his possessions, his home, and if he's unfortunate enough to have any in the equation, his children. I have watched as innocent men have been jailed for non-existent violations of fraudulently instated restraining orders, their jobs and their futures forfeit to the whim of an angry (or in one instance deranged) girlfriend or wife. The worst part is that once a woman sets these things in motion, SHE loses the power. It becomes a matter for the state to deal with, and even if she later decides that she has made a mistake, the nuke has been dropped; detonation is inevitable.

To the genuine feminists (and members of the male rights movement) whose interest is in promoting equality, unity, and cooperation between the sexes, I give a heartfelt salute. To the extremists on both sides of the argument, who give their more level-headed compatriots a bad name, and contribute far more to the problem than to the solution, I give just as heartfelt a salute... The one-finger variety.

EDIT: Keep in mind, this is only one legal sense in which men now have a tendency to get hosed with no recourse. There are others. What's so wrong with both genders having the same privileges, and being held to the same standards, and having the same laws applied to them? Maybe I am the crazy one?

 

[Ruphhausin]

the.bard.incarnate... I would quote what you said, but lets make is more simple. Every word you said is very much in sink with what I did, and nothing but pure unadulterated truth.

 

[Rudolph Quin]

Most of the time I ignore Feminists and discussions about women's rights - particularly when they involve discussion of the Western World and developed countries - because they can't seem to make up their mind about what they want. When I hear talk of it the most is how women are portrayed in pop culture and media and the like. So, we're supposed to encourage this idea of empowerment that women can choose to do what they want with their bodies and enjoy their sexuality and yet video game/movie characters that show any bit of sexuality or look sexualized in any way are "being treated as objects" and need to cover the fuck up. Yeah, okay.

And what's the deal with wanting more roles for women in strong roles and yet when they get it in a movie like Sucker Punch, it's "wrong" because they're all acting like men, or taking on what are considered masculine qualities, so, it doesn't count(oh, AND they're wearing revealing outfits which is totally bad and ew! How dare they!). I thought that was the whole point? That there wouldn't be a set criteria. That women could still take on what are traditionally considered male qualities and male roles and still be considered women?

 

[Ms_Muffintops]

Most of the time I ignore Feminists and discussions about women's rights - particularly when they involve discussion of the Western World and developed countries - because they can't seem to make up their mind about what they want. When I hear talk of it the most is how women are portrayed in pop culture and media and the like. So, we're supposed to encourage this idea of empowerment that women can choose to do what they want with their bodies and enjoy their sexuality and yet video game/movie characters that show any bit of sexuality or look sexualized in any way are "being treated as objects" and need to cover the fuck up. Yeah, okay.

And what's the deal with wanting more roles for women in strong roles and yet when they get it in a movie like Sucker Punch, it's "wrong" because they're all acting like men, or taking on what are considered masculine qualities, so, it doesn't count(oh, AND they're wearing revealing outfits which is totally bad and ew! How dare they!). I thought that was the whole point? That there wouldn't be a set criteria. That women could still take on what are traditionally considered male qualities and male roles and still be considered women?

I thought the SAME thing about Sucker Punch. And their outfits in Sucker Punch weren't even that bad... I've seen people criticize that movie saying it's objectifying women and that it makes a joke out of rape. It's like some people want them to pause the movie and have the director come on screen and do a PSA about the flaws of the movie and remind people that they are bad. Let's forget the fact that the entire movie is about the girl coping with the trauma of the whole incident of being blamed for killing her sister whom she was trying to save from rape. And this is also why I tend to avoid topics of feminism.

Something similar is currently going on in the Doctor Who fandom. Some people are pushing for a female doctor. But any time someone says they'd like the doctor to remain male because they like him just the way he is, or for the sake that he's been male since the 60s and that they fear it'd be too drastic of a change they are automatically called a sexist.

 

[Fenrir]

My logic on the topic of feminists is pretty simple: gender equality is the goal. Let me say it with empathis: GENDER EQUALITY.

Now, the reason "gender equality" is all underlined and whatnot is because some women don't want gender equality; rather, they want women to be more equal.

Down where I used to live, we'd get some protests every now and then. From the way some of these women talk, you'd think they wanted men sitting in a little kitty cushion while women get the throne of superiority (sometimes people would raise their hands in that two-in-the-pink sign and shot "HEIL CLITLER" at them, and I grudgingly admit to laughing). Now, I believe the minorities with the most problems in this country are women, homosexuals, non-whites, and children. I believe that everyone deserves the same rights, whether they want to own a handgun or adopt a child. However, we're only discussing women here. And I think that if you're a woman, and you want the same status as a man, you don't want a representative that looks and sounds like an angry housewife who got pissed at her husband for some reason or another.

That's all I have to say on the matter, badly-worded though it is.

 

[Ruphhausin]

Actually, Fenrir, what you said is worded very well.