The F-word (Feminism)

[MisterKing]

Well. In an attempt to lighten up a thread that won't refuse to lighten up, have some jokes:

Q: How many feminists does it take to replace a lightbulb?
A: THAT'S NOT FUNNY!!

Q: How many MRAs does it take to replace a lightbulb?
A: None; they just complement it and get mad when it won't screw.

 

[SweetKissHardBite]

Well. In an attempt to lighten up a thread that won't refuse to lighten up, have some jokes:

Q: How many feminists does it take to replace a lightbulb?
A: THAT'S NOT FUNNY!!

Q: How many MRAs does it take to replace a lightbulb?
A: None; they just complement it and get mad when it won't screw.

LOL Good job

And yes, you are right, this has gone way too far, I'll just leave it with a pretty simple logic bomb, since regardless of his deflection, he touched a very important point, at least I think it is

I'm pretty positive being treated equally doesn't mean being treated like a man, ie, told to suck it up, be emotionless, and be agresssive or else you are somehow less of a man? I do believe equality is treating all sides with respect as persons and realizing that, hey, no one is perfect, men cry and can be vulnerable, and women can be aggressive and barely show emotion.

Equal : the same in number, amount, degree, rank, or quality

Just so you remember next time, your point gets across much better, if you use a minimun of Logic

Treating both men and women equally could literally mean, treating men and women like women, men and women like men, or men and women as something else entirelly, none of which Feminism seems to be willing to do, seeing how they keep demanding more and more Privilages, but well, that is None of my Business I guess

 

[Pazzo]

I will never understand how or why women were ever thought of as being less human than men...

 

[SweetKissHardBite]

Personally I don't think they ever were thought of us Lower, if that was the case, we wouldn't had have, as a species, the aproach of Women and Children First, every single time, on every single subject, Men's only privilege was to be the ones doing the dangerous stuff...

Which in turn became the path to success and power, like being Chieftain, of course, only for the 1 guy that didn't get torn open by wild animals or enemy tribesmen

If anything, I think Women are always thought of as more important, so important that they need to be protected, and from there is were limitations might come

 

[KaitouKid5790]

In my opinion Feminism is not all about Women's Rights, though that is a very important part of it. Feminism is about gender equality and fairness for all genders. To me this includes people who are Transsexual, who were born one sex but spiritually and emotionally identify as another.

Feminism is about all of that stuff, rape culture, how women are objectified in popular media, How advertizing effects body image, equal pay for equal work. And I will also add, gay marriage and trans gender issues to this as well.

It annoys me so much when people use the word femnism like it is a 'bad word' Like because I am a feminist I am a man hater or a lesbian or whatever other messed up views they might hold. I like men. I have a boyfriend, that does not mean that I cannot be passionate about the issues and stand up for my own gender.

The misuse of the term feminism and feminist are a huge pet peeve for me I have to say. Someone told me that Anaconda by Niki Minage was considered a feminist song... I was almost physically ill. If you want a femanist song about women with body shapes that don't fit the norm I suggest All About That Base, it is WAY more feminist than Anaconda.

 

[LizH]

A lot of the replies on this thread show why feminism is still a relevant thing.

 

[Trygon]

A lot of the replies on this thread show why feminism is still a relevant thing.

Don't just leave a drive-by snipe. Address the people that you take issue with, explain your issues. This is a discussion forum, after all.

 

[MisterKing]

I feel like this should be posted here.

A lot of the replies on this thread show why feminism is still a relevant thing.

Either you're stating the obvious (this sub is about relevant, complex issues so clearly this would be relevant), or you're attempting to invoke Lewis' Law. If it's the latter then I'm exiting right now with more screaming and explosions than a KISS concert before this gets any more haphazard.

 

[BlisteredBlood]

There have been a lot of people I've come across in my travels that have echoed this argument and on quite the consistent basis. But, if you want my honest opinion about it, then I suppose you might as well get all hunkered down and settled in, because I've been thinking about this for a while now.

To be honest, the movement is noble. I think I've made this perfectly clear that I'm for equality in any scene. Doesn't matter to me what it is, I don't care. But when you enter a movement and start opining about shit that either never happened, is completely meaningless to the topic that you're attempting to talk about, or was never really your business in the beginning, not only does this make you out into a typical SJW that I've seen all the time on Tumblr - Yep, I have an account there, laugh it up - but at the same time, it also makes me want to smack these baseless accusers clear across the face with an open palmed slap.

I try my absolute hardest to not come off as an asshole when it comes to arguments such as these, but at the same time, I also wish to remind the good feminists of the strides that Susan B. Anthony took to achieve Women's Rights at least a 100 years ago. Or something to that effect. Don't quote me on that. But had she not, I honestly think that things would be a lot different nowadays. Don't know to what extent, so I'm not sure what to say about that. I suppose what it is that I'm getting at is that the movement has merit. I can understand that completely. I don't entirely agree with it, but I'm keeping my eye on the elements within that movement that are doing more harm to it than good and attempt to weed those out, but like the cockroaches some of them can be, they just keep on coming back in bigger and bigger numbers.

You know the ones. The ones that scream about the patriarchy, being oppressed, whine about there being not enough women in video games - that's another subject for another time - or just randomly from out of the blue get in your face and tell you about your privileges and that you should check them if you even remotely disagree with them and ba-ba-ba. Plus, they got that clipped haired, mean faced look about them and they have that t-shirt on that says, "Stop The Hate" ironically while they're in your face and shit?

If they want to continue on, I'll let them. It's their right after all. But, if they don't look at these certain elements within their movement, then I'm afraid it's all going to end up crashing down on them like a ton of bricks. Think of this something like a cautionary tale and I think you got the idea.

 

[Minako2012]

I may have shown my opinion before but honestly I don't like most feminists. It seems like so many of them are just horrible people. And I really hate the feminists on tumblr thankfully I've never seen a feminist that claims "Men can't get raped" or even "If you have a penis you're a rapist" In real life. If I ever did I'd probably punch the fucker's lights out. Like there was a story circling about a young autistic boy who'd been raped by his female caretaker and there were people fucking claiming that it was ableism not rape because the victim was male. The good feminists who just want equal rights and aren't trying to get men burned at the stake don't bug me though.

 

[Outside-the-Box Jellyfish]

Yeah, but those aren't REAL feminists

Once you bring the "No True Scotsmen" concept into play, you kinda have to admit your 'ism' has been compromised and just admit that there are people who call themselves feminists that are rotten, and people who refuse to call themselves feminists who are actually on your side.

And part of the reason why I don't like calling myself a feminist -- probably the biggest part -- is the fact pretty much no one will bother to ask why. And that's the kind of attitude that really bugs me.
For me "feminism" is not a statement of value or affiliation... I just don't feel it is useful to me in that respect.

And when people come at me with something like, "Well but feminism is just the radical idea that women are people", I would tend to reply that reducing almost 200 years (only counting the time "feminism" as a term has been around), numerous people involve, movements, events, writings, etc, down to a single quip is not the best way to view things.

I'll say I'm a feminist if it's a colloquial kind of situation and I just want to say "yeah I support women's rights and don't support sexism" and don't have time to get into philosophical nitpicks, or if I'm dealing with some MRAs and want to pick a fight or something, but otherwise, nah.

 

[Kenkay]

I personally would not have a problem with feminism if it did not constantly create double standards. You can not claim to want equal rights when you yourself call for a lower standard. It can be seen in just about every profession. Take where I work now. There was a little lithe guy that used to work the clean and hang position for dippers (a part of the rear boom on a backhoe) he wasn't able to repeatedly lift the forty pound links to hang with the dippers. So he was disqualified from the job and put into assembly. But then the small woman Who works loader arm clean and hang who can't repeatedly lift the thirty pound rods to hang them not only didn't get reduced to the lower paid assembly classification she actually gets to have a floater come and hang her rods when she gets tired.

Sure you could say that's a failure on the company's part. But I've seen it in every job for every company I've worked for, and that includes the military. How can anyone expect equal pay when they aren't doing equal work?

And then there's the double standard when it comes to consent. No I'm not saying that it shouldn't be rape if you screw someone that's passed out. But if you're blackout drunk why can you not consent to sex but you can be held legally responsible for other decisions you've made while blackout drunk?

 

[Outside-the-Box Jellyfish]

And then there's the double standard when it comes to consent. No I'm not saying that it shouldn't be rape if you screw someone that's passed out. But if you're blackout drunk why can you not consent to sex but you can be held legally responsible for other decisions you've made while blackout drunk?

Because "consent" and "legal responsibility" are two entirely different things.

 

[Kenkay]

Consenting to sex means that you are legally responsible for your actions. Legal responsibility well yeah same dammed thing.

 

[Kenkay]

Give that man a like button.

You will find that women in supervisor positions do make less, same with executives. This isn't because they are women. It's because they are less likely to negotiate for more compensation. Even with the company I work for supervisors can negotiate for more during the hiring process and at contract time. A few weeks ago one of the female supervisors was complaining because she made less than her coworker. They'd been with the company about the same amount of time and had near the same experience. When we were out on break I interrupted her complaining session and asked her if she tried to negotiate up. She said no. Her coworker laughed and said, why the hell not? I laughed at them when they gave me the first figure. She still didn't get it.

 

[Outside-the-Box Jellyfish]

Consenting to sex means that you are legally responsible for your actions. Legal responsibility well yeah same dammed thing.

Here's the thing. The crime isn't having sex. It's having sex with someone who did not consent to the act. And if their ability to consent is impaired, because they're intoxicated and may not fully comprehend the situation in the way that they would if they are sober, that means they can't actually consent to it.

So while they might be responsible because they got drunk, being a victim is a crime. Violating someone's consent *is* (and if the laws don't reflect this in the instance of consent while intoxicated, then they need to be changed).

Unless you think it should be okay for someone to threaten a person to get to 'consent' to sex while under duress.

Or if you think that it should be okay for pedophiles to talk children into 'consenting' to sex acts they might not understand.

Give that man a like button.

You will find that women in supervisor positions do make less, same with executives. This isn't because they are women. It's because they are less likely to negotiate for more compensation. Even with the company I work for supervisors can negotiate for more during the hiring process and at contract time. A few weeks ago one of the female supervisors was complaining because she made less than her coworker. They'd been with the company about the same amount of time and had near the same experience. When we were out on break I interrupted her complaining session and asked her if she tried to negotiate up. She said no. Her coworker laughed and said, why the hell not? I laughed at them when they gave me the first figure. She still didn't get it.

Exactly. When you talk about 'equal pay for equal work', that sort of thing doesn't actually exist. There is not a concrete measure for work and a standard value for that work.
I'd have to wonder what results one might find if you looked at men vs. women in hourly wage positions where negotiations don't figure into things as much.

 

[Kenkay]

And this is where the discussion always turns. I'm not talking about threatening a drunk woman into sex. I'm talking about a drunk woman that has been black out drunk and all over someone.

But anyway. Same thing can be said about someone that was blackout drink and got into a car. They may never have intended to drive home drunk. They might have even put a twenty aside in their purse or wallet for a cab. But in their blackout state they are held accountable for their decision to drive. But are not held accountable for their decision to have sex with the guy they'd been all over since they blacked out.

This is the double standard I'm talking about.

 

[Risky]

Here's my problem with feminism, there're people who call themselves feminists or claim to be well informed about what a feminist is, and then they say the wrong thing.

Feminism is the social, economic, and political equality of ALL sexes, INCLUDING MEN. So why are there sluts, radicals, and other parties of feminism strictly going for women's rights and thinking men are complete pigs? They seem to think they can live in an all woman society, but much like the over hunting of wolves in the United States, we didn't realize the shit storm we started until there was no reversing it.

Basically we killed a bunch of wolves and now the deer of the US have no natural predators other than us.

But my point is, the fact that so many feminists don't actually realize the definition of the group they are fighting for is sad and disgusting, especially when they are being so hypocritical about it, I don't understand the point in hating one sex when you claim to be fighting for all sexes.. Just saying.

 

[Trygon]

And this is where the discussion always turns. I'm not talking about threatening a drunk woman into sex. I'm talking about a drunk woman that has been black out drunk and all over someone.

But anyway. Same thing can be said about someone that was blackout drink and got into a car. They may never have intended to drive home drunk. They might have even put a twenty aside in their purse or wallet for a cab. But in their blackout state they are held accountable for their decision to drive. But are not held accountable for their decision to have sex with the guy they'd been all over since they blacked out.

This is the double standard I'm talking about.

It's not about the choice to get laid. The woman in this situation is not on trial.

The question is, is it okay for a SOBER person to sleep with her, knowing she's impaired?

And the answer is pretty resoundingly no. It's okay for drunk people to fuck. It is not okay for one drunk person and one sober person to fuck, except in cases where this has been agreed upon when both parties are sober.

 

[Kenkay]

The question often isn't if the guy was sober. It's how sober was he. Even black out drunk he is held accountable for sleeping with a blackout drunk girl.

But that's all beside the point. If you are not culpable for your actions drunk with regards to sex then you aren't culpable for anything when your drunk or high or what the hell ever. It's a double standard that should not exist.

 

[Trygon]

No, both participants being drunk has resulted in rape trials getting thrown out.

Once again, it's about ultimate culpability. If I found someone blackout drunk and convinced them to kill someone for me, believe me, I would be legally liable too.

 

[Outside-the-Box Jellyfish]

Why can a woman speeding down the highway while intoxicated or accidentally running over somebody while drunk, be charged with manslaughter but she is suddenly too fragile and vulnerable to take responsibility while drunk and having sex

Because, as I said before, the crime isn't having sex, is having sex with someone who didn't consent. Impaired consent is not consent.

They don't have to take responsibility because there's nothing for them to be responsible *for*.

Now, a double standard would be if a woman got really drunk, made a bunch of aggressive sexual advances towards a man, and that person gave into those advances, and then got accused of rape because the woman was drunk. When if the genders were reversed, people still pounce on the man.

My position on intoxication and consent is the same regardless of the genders of people involved.

If you think my double standard is in regards to thinking alcohol absolves one of responsiblity for sexual consent, when it doesn't absolve one of culpability for crimes committed while drunk, I'll clarify that a bit.

But that's all beside the point. If you are not culpable for your actions drunk with regards to sex then you aren't culpable for anything when your drunk or high or what the hell ever. It's a double standard that should not exist.

Here's the thing. Let's say we decide "decisions made while drunk don't legally count as decisions". So if you "choose" to consent to sex while drunk, it doesn't count as a choice.

And if one "chooses" "chooses" to kill someone, it doesn't count as a choice to do that. So they shouldn't be responsible, right?

Well, except, in that case, making a conscious choice doesn't matter. They still killed someone. So it might not be first-degree murder, but it's probably manslaughter, just as if they were sober and it's a homicide, so they are still responsible for that, just as if they were sober and accidentally killed someone.

So you could suggest we don't hold people responsible for intent regarding things they do while drunk, but can't suggest absolving them of all responsibility, when there's still things people get held responsible for regardless of their intent.

I have to agree. It is not someone else's responsibility to keep track of how drunk you are and I do not think it should be.

Personally, I think the burden of consent should totally be on the initiator, to judge if the other person is in a right mind to make a choice.

I wouldn't blame someone who, if a drunken person came up to them and said, "Wanna have sex with me?" would say, "Yes."
But I would still advise them to say "No" as a general, "Acting like this might be a bit rough on you but it'll make the world and everyone's lives better if you do it" sort of way.

Admittedly, the waters can be murky. If they say, "well, they were all over me", does that mean they didn't do anything wrong? (though I would maintain unless they actually proposition sex directly, it doesn't count... same as if they're sober and flirt/tease/are otherwise 'all over' someone, it doesn't give the other person a right to take it further than they've explicitly said).

As for "well, they chose to put themselves into that state". And yeah, maybe so. My stance is that it doesn't matter how they got into that state... if they're in that state, they can't properly consent.

Rape is clear cut - saying "no" or fighting with the person trying to get with you, resistant and clearly not desiring the sex to occur = consent not given.

Actually, not saying "yes" = consent not given, and it that isn't how the law works, then the law needs to be changed.

 

[Kenkay]

Who here remembers the movie 40 days and 40 nights?

 

[Rudolph Quin]

Who here remembers the movie 40 days and 40 nights?

Josh Hartnett vehicle. Didn't watch it because it was a Josh Hartnett vehicle. Also had that chick, Sossamon or whatever in it who was really popular around that time and nobody could figure out why.

Anyway, why? Is there a point to be made?

 

[Kenkay]

There is. But it'll have to wait until after I'm off work.