Are you a feminist?
Yes
30.5%
275
No
56.3%
507
Maybe/unsure/rather not answer
13.2%
119
901 votes
incognitocoup said: guyklc said: incognitocoup said: guyklc said: Sora_N said: Someone said that women should have to sign up for the Selective Service and I totally agree with it. I think that every U.S. citizen should have to sign up for selective service once they are the age of 18. I think that it’s everyone’s duty if the time is needed to help their country. Oh wow, I kid you not, you're the first feminist I've ever met (real life or online) who wants women to be pulled by selective service. Well then, my respect to you. I can respect the feminist movement more if there were more people like you. No one, man, woman, or a person of any other gender, should have to submit to the selective service process. How's that for equal rights and equal responsibilities? I disagree completely, but that's off topic. As citizens of a certain country, it is your responsibility and duty to aid your country when needed, whether it be through paying taxes, voting, serving in jury duty, or the military to defend the country. But as I said before, that's offtopic on whether selective service is necessary. Oh but it isn't. Selective service, just like women's oppression, is endemic to the capitalist system. Selective service (and taxation, jury duty, etc) is essential to the upkeep of the capitalist state, which exists solely to defend private property and its owners. The question of women's oppression in inextricably linked to the bourgeois family, which itself came into existence solely as a basis of tracing lineage for the purpose of inheriting private property. Furthermore, it is in the interest of the bosses, their state, and the bourgeoisie to maintain the oppression of women (just like the oppression of racial, ethnic, and national minorities, homosexuals, etc) serves to keep the working class divided against itself, thereby making it more difficult for it to organize against the ruling class for the purposes of its own emancipation. Neither women's oppression nor the problem of the capitalist state (and, thus, selective service) can be eradicated while leaving capitalism and the rule of the bourgeoisie in tact. The two questions are part of the same struggle. Are you trolling? Because it seems like you are. So you think a country without oppression is a country without military, taxes, wealth, etc.? |
 Thanks, person who gave me this on another site a long time ago, lol. |
| Offtopic: About Popular Vote and Majority On-topic: it seems like what's being discussed is about whether feminism is a true egalitarian movement at all. My stand, as stated earlier, is that it isn't due to women focus. As already shown, anti-feminism easily arises because the increased attention on women can be easily seen as anti-equality. For an equality topic, I wonder why the terms Equality of Opportunity Equality of Result have not appeared. Apparently, they are generic ideas for equality. I think it might be easier to give equal opportunities through education, and those who cannot study are the ones left behind(perhaps, a necessary cost, or just blame the education system). Equality of result still is not seen, and the only dramatic way to do it is by extreme legislation which I believe will not be signed nor enforced. |
 「みんながいるからだ。」 － 棗鈴 |
| We might get to the point of equity, but, equality? i think not The enormous odds are, if two things are different, they vary in magnitude in most aspects It's possible that either Male or Female was born superior, or it was formed through years of evolution I agree that Men and Women should be treated with equity and equality, and stereotypes should be done away with, but i doubt it would come any close to true equality |
| Okay, I'll be serious now. I don't want to be banned again Aoishiro said: AnnoKano said: Personally, I believe that the inclusion of both genders should be encouraged. I think the perception that feminism is a movement for man-hating extremists is the result of the empowerment of women in recent decades, combined with the lack of any prominent male feminist figures. This has nothing to do with it at all. It's just men's reaction to a threat to the status quo. This perception, among men, would happen with or without feminism. Strong, independent women were always seen with suspicion... I think it's more to do with the suffragettes movement in the early 20th century, where they used violence and arson to try and get equality. These actions created a stereotype which has persisted throughout the years. Strong independent women are not always seen with suspicion, granted I've only lived in one country, and thus my experience is limited, but what you are saying is not true, it may be true for many, but not all. Anyway, society in general has always been cautious or at worse against change, this is true for both men and women. Our culture changes gradually, as do attitudes. Aoishiro said: AnnoKano said: Fair enough for the first two, but 'walking talking pussies'... really now? Yeah, that's basically what happens, most of the time. The first thing a man thinks when he sees a woman at least remotely attractive to him is sex. That's basically the only "utility" we have to most men. So, cut the crap. Don't come with this politically correct shit... Isn't this sexist? That's not true of all men, it's not even true of all straight men. Yes, your generalization is largely true, but a generalization is a generalization. And in any case, what exactly are you supposed to think when you see someone? You're initial thoughts will be based of what you're seeing, you're not going to think "I wonder if she shares my hobby?" or "Her personality!". If she's attractive, you'll most likely think "She's attractive". People have a multitude of different thoughts depending on who they are "She looks nice", "she looks like a bitch", "Enough Fake tan to sink a battleship" could be first thoughts for many men. Also, evolutionary, we are highly tuned to think about potential mates, not that I think it justifies the way in which some men view woman, but it is an evolutionary response. |
| Does it class as a feminist if I think women deserve as many rights as men? some say so, and if it's the case then yes. But otherwise, no, I'm not. |
Kaiserpingvin said: Monad said: OH! for the love of God. Is called FEMINISM, it can't be a movement about equality. It is called a free market. So it can't be unfree and deprive the majority of their freedoms while giving it to the few and rich. It's called the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea. So it can't be a dynastic, aristocratic dictatorship. It's called National Socialism, it can't be corporatist and capitalist! OH WAIT Yes, it is at the time a slightly inaccurate word in root meaning. Get over it. There's a simple historical reason. Monad said: So it may use the words equality but is FOR WOMEN. It is not for people who want to support equality in general or people who want equality for genders is for people who care about women rights ONLY. Equality is equal no matter which side you work on. Say you have two numbers. One is 2 and the other is 5. Now you find a 2-ist, which means they think that 2 should be equal to the other number. This plainly fucking means they want it to be 5, not more, not less. And where the bloody hell did you get the exclusion from? Do you even vaguely know that most feminists historically have been social democrats, socialists, or otherwise widely interested in equality? Because, well, big shocker here, they were. No when you seek equality but care only for one gender in the end you will fail at actually seeking the equality you are supposed to be seeking because your support for one gender will eventually lead you to a wrong road. In the end inevitable you will just be trying to spread dominance of the supporting gender because your gender support will guide you there. Again am saying this: If we could create tomorrow a world that will have the role of women as men where 100years ago. Can you imagine the feminist movement start seeking equality for men? Be honest now to you really think they will? You know the answer don't you? That fact alone proves that in the end feminism isn't about equality of the genders it started simply with the goal of women gaining rights that should have had but as it can't seem to disappear whether it achieved the original creation goal or not, it will just keep existing and getting twisted by claiming whatever it finds and just become an enemy of the idea of true equality. Aoishiro said: AnnoKano said: Personally, I believe that the inclusion of both genders should be encouraged. I think the perception that feminism is a movement for man-hating extremists is the result of the empowerment of women in recent decades, combined with the lack of any prominent male feminist figures. This has nothing to do with it at all. It's just men's reaction to a threat to the status quo. This perception, among men, would happen with or without feminism. Strong, independent women were always seen with suspicion... Or maybe is because most feminist speak like you. seriously there is a limit to how ridiculous you can be. And did you even noticed the shit you where writing? First you only notice the things in your way because of who you are, completely ignoring the things the other side has on it's way and take that as evidence of not being treated fairly because you fail to even see than being equal doesn't mean being the same. Just look at this: Aoishiro said: Again, i'll have to rely on your comment about the "historical dominance of men in western society". And this is an euphemism... it definitely isn't a prerogative of the west. One of the reasons for this is the lack, on women, of a well-defined self image, a completely independent one, created by us, for us. Something to be passed to us from early on, since childhood, and not added later on, as an afterthought. We are still living under patriarchal rules that differentiate us from men, from an early stage. And one of the examples of this are the greater freedom enjoyed by boys, given to them by parents. They are encouraged to go after "chicks", to be bold, independent, while women... hah, we are too fragile, vulnerable, weak-minded. We usually remain under a much closer scrutiny than boys. We are taught to become obedient housewives or, at least, to seek marriage as an objective in our lives. To look for a "good man". And we are bombarded by stereotyped images of femininity. We're not encouraged to think differently, independently, with originality. Our new gained "freedom" is nothing more than a lie. When a man is promiscuous, for example, he's doing what society expects from him. He is encouraged, admired, even by some women. But if a woman does that, she's nothing more than a bitch. It's time for us women to play by our own rules. To seek a new identity, with or without men's cooperation or understanding. To look for a position away from feminist radicalism, but also independent from men's "benevolence". THIS is a necessity. To put an end on this "tutelage". To find a position were we can face men and impose ourselves, if necessary. Which position is this? Which characteristics it should possess? I'm afraid I'm too young to have precise answers, specially ones adequate enough to satisfy arrogant minds, such as yours. But one thing is certain for me, and no amount of rhetoric or similar expedients, often used by pseudo-intellectuals and people whose verbosity is far greater than their true intellectual capabilities, can convince me to accept it otherwise: women are still under the gun. We're still considered inferior. And I simply refuse to cooperate with this situation. I'll try to find my own solutions, and a definition for what it means to be a free woman..., even if I can't share it with no one else!!! You are exactly what many accuse feminist of being basically the "I want to be treated like a man when it suits me while keeping all the benefits of being a woman too". You want to play around without being called easily a slut but you don't want to be called a pervert or a chauvinistic pig ether with every little thing, you want to have less pressure on getting married from your parents but you don't want the extra pressure for making a fortune getting money-power and proving yourself in the society battle or else you are a weakling and a loser and so on and so on. Your silly arguments are nothing but "The grass is always greener on the other side" type of thing. Each gender has it's own shit it has to deal with honey, not just yours. That's because no matter how equal they become they will still be different. How about waking up and notice that annoying and unfair things in the world aren't only the ones that bothers you. So charming playing the victim isn't it? If you want to be a free, strong and independent woman how about starting by not playing the victim and blaming society for being against you because you are a female. Then maybe you will find that many men actually like a true strong woman instead of a pretentious one. |
MonadNov 18, 2011 4:08 PM
Aoishiro said: AnnoKano said: You are proud to be something that you were born as? Buddy, do you know the meaning of the phrase "statement of fact"? Better yet, have you ever heard about transsexuals? I guess not because, if you did, you would never ask such a stupid, presumptuous question. Yes, I am familiar with the phrase 'statement of fact' and I have heard of transexuals before. I am still not clear on why my question is presumptuous though. I am of the understanding that your 'sex' is what you are as a physical entity, while your 'gender' is what you identify as, the 'sex' you are psychologically speaking. Transsexuals are people who undergo a cosmetic or physical process to have their sex changed, normally to fit the gender they identify themselves as psychologically. However, in that process the only thing that is changing is their physical appearance (which would be categorised under 'sex') and not their 'gender' which remains constant, regardless of such physical appearances. Therefore your 'gender' is still something you are born with, and the question of why you should be proud of it remains. Since it was not something that resulted from individuall effort or personal choice, what reason is there to be proud of it? Transsexuals may be proud that they underwent transition from one to the other, but they would only have reason to be proud of the physical changes, as that is the only thing about them that has actually changed. This is if you subscribe to the idea that 'sex' and 'gender' are different things, of course. aoishiro said: AnnoKano said: Do all men hold the same points of view? Probably not, but this doesn't change the fact that we're leaving in a "men's word" (and you seem to agree with that, since you've mentioned, on a previous post, the "historical dominance of men in western society"). Those (men) who disagree seem to be an insignificant minority. You said: "The world is still biased towards men's necessities and points of view" I asked if all men hold the same points of view. The answer to that question is obviously negative, and you need only look as far as this thread to see that men can disagree with each other, to the point that they contradict one another. aoishiro said: AnnoKano said: Fair enough for the first two, but 'walking talking pussies'... really now? Yeah, that's basically what happens, most of the time. The first thing a man thinks when he sees a woman at least remotely attractive to him is sex. That's basically the only "utility" we have to most men. So, cut the crap. Don't come with this politically correct shit... Wow, for someone who only moments ago complained that I was being presumptuous, you sure are presumptuous. I think I will paraphrase something you said previously to demonstrate it: Buddy, do you know the meaning of the phrase "bigot"? Better yet, have you ever heard about homosexuals? I guess not because, if you did, you would never make such a stupid, presumptuous statement. Aoishiro said: AnnoKano said: But when you listed the various inequalities between men and women, all of them were the result of men treating women badly; how do you suppose encouraging women not to take it and finding alternative solutions will be able to stop injustices which men are responsible for, according to your own argument? The biggest problem with feminism is the level of fanaticism that characterizes most of it's proponents That is funny, because thus far you are definitely the person who most resembles that stereotype. Aoishiro said: Many feminists still see it as a crusade, a "holy war". And this is an obstacle to a broader acceptance of it's theories. I don't believe women should fight a war against men... just disregard their opinions almost completely. The problem isn't with the theories; few men nowadays are against equality of the sexes or believe women should be subjugated. The problem is the perception that feminists hate men. While you claim you do not want to wage a war against them, you clearly have a number of prejudices against them that people of both genders would find unreasonable, and even hateful. So your statement that you don't see it as a "holy war" is a token gesture. Really, there is no obvious distinction between you and those you claim to oppose. aoishiro said: Again, i'll have to rely on your comment about the "historical dominance of men in western society". And this is an euphemism... it definitely isn't a prerogative of the west. It is not a euphemism; it is not attempting to disguise the possibility that men dominate elsewhere, but was an attempt to address the problem specifically as it relates to the West. aoishiro said: One of the reasons for this is the lack, on women, of a well-defined self image, a completely independent one, created by us, for us. Something to be passed to us from early on, since childhood, and not added later on, as an afterthought. aoishiro said: We are still living under patriarchal rules that differentiate us from men, from an early stage. And one of the examples of this are the greater freedom enjoyed by boys, given to them by parents. They are encouraged to go after "chicks", to be bold, independent, while women... hah, we are too fragile, vulnerable, weak-minded. We usually remain under a much closer scrutiny than boys. We are taught to become obedient housewives or, at least, to seek marriage as an objective in our lives. To look for a "good man". And we are bombarded by stereotyped images of femininity. It seems to me that your problem is not that the image you have been "forced" to prescribe to, but the fact you have been prescribed to an image at all. You have a variety of complaints about the way women are treated in society. Most of these seem pretty reasonable to me. You also blame men for being the cause of that self-image, which may well be the case. However, lets imagine for a moment that the self-image of women was not the result of men prescribing them that image, but of women prescribing it to themselves. Now, I'm sure you would argue that women would not prescribe such a thing to themselves and so on, but whether or not that is true is irrelvent. Would you be happy to spend your life being subjugated by men, and adhering to what is expected of you as a woman, if you were safe in the knowledge that those who decided your fate were women? aoishiro said: We're not encouraged to think differently, independently, with originality. Our new gained "freedom" is nothing more than a lie. When a man is promiscuous, for example, he's doing what society expects from him. He is encouraged, admired, even by some women. But if a woman does that, she's nothing more than a bitch. It's time for us women to play by our own rules. To seek a new identity, with or without men's cooperation or understanding. To look for a position away from feminist radicalism, but also independent from men's "benevolence". THIS is a necessity. To put an end on this "tutelage". To find a position were we can face men and impose ourselves, if necessary. How you view promiscuity is largely a matter of personal perspective. There are also plenty of countries where promiscuity of either sex is not tolerated, yet these countries are often still considered to be sexist and holding women in subjugation. aoishiro said: Which position is this? Which characteristics it should possess? I'm afraid I'm too young to have precise answers, specially ones adequate enough to satisfy arrogant minds, such as yours. In what way was my post arrogant? I merely asked you to elaborate on a number of points you made for the sake of clarity, raised some questions about some points you made that seemed illogical and offered you my own perspective with an attempt to justify it in relation with what you said. In what way could these be considered arrogant? aoishiro said: But one thing is certain for me, and no amount of rhetoric or similar expedients, often used by pseudo-intellectuals and people whose verbosity is far greater than their true intellectual capabilities, can convince me to accept it otherwise: women are still under the gun. I am flattered that you consider my rhetoric and vocabulary to be worthy of comment! Would it be showing off if I were to now demonstrate my strong logical capabilities too? Suggesting that I am a pseudo-intellectual because I use rhetoric, and that rhetoric is often used by pseudo-intellectuals is a logical fallacy. Furthermore, attacking someone’s use of language would constitute an ad-hominem attack. Argue with me if you wish, but please attack my arguments rather than me personally. aoishiro said: We're still considered inferior. And I simply refuse to cooperate with this situation. I'll try to find my own solutions, and a definition for what it means to be a free woman..., even if I can't share it with no one else!!! If you can't share it with anyone, surely it is something you feel as an individual rather than something you feel as a 'woman'? aoishiro said: AnnoKano said: Personally, I believe that the inclusion of both genders should be encouraged. I think the perception that feminism is a movement for man-hating extremists is the result of the empowerment of women in recent decades, combined with the lack of any prominent male feminist figures. This has nothing to do with it at all. It's just men's reaction to a threat to the status quo. This perception, among men, would happen with or without feminism. Strong, independent women were always seen with suspicion... I was making the point that men and women may be less likely to believe that feminism is a movement for man hating extremists if there were prominent male feminists; I was not arguing that men began considering women as having achieved equality recently. |
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
Aoishiro said: Probably not, but this doesn't change the fact that we're leaving in a "men's word" (and you seem to agree with that, since you've mentioned, on a previous post, the "historical dominance of men in western society"). Those (men) who disagree seem to be an insignificant minority. Unfortunately, I do agree that we do live in a 'men's world.' Statistically observed fact, after all. Yet it actually says nothing about the opportunities given to women, or if women chase them. At least in my country, I'm quite jealous of women due to some law(hint hint, military, duhhhhh) But even so, apparently(hearsay) the government awards men of the same rank a higher pay(exactly how much? I don't know, less than 10 or 5 percent?), and I think the reasonable reason is this exact law. Aoishiro said: Yeah, that's basically what happens, most of the time. The first thing a man thinks when he sees a woman at least remotely attractive to him is sex. That's basically the only "utility" we have to most men. So, cut the crap. Don't come with this politically correct shit... Actually, no. The first thing I think when I see a pretty woman is... *wait for it* "She pretty!" How obvious can you get? I don't know where you live, but certainly it's quite inadvisable to engage in intimate activity with everyone you see due to health risks. Perhaps it's my society, but I'd judge the perceived intelligence next, although this is much more difficult to determine, because intelligence is a vague thing, and it's simply not easy to determine the capability of another human. The only utility I seem to think of that is important is if that person is a colleague(of some sort, generically speaking it means anyone involved in work) Aoishiro said: The biggest problem with feminism is the level of fanaticism that characterizes most of it's proponents (you'll have to excuse my lack of domain of english... it makes it hard to elaborate). Many feminists still see it as a crusade, a "holy war". And this is an obstacle to a broader acceptance of it's theories. I don't believe women should fight a war against men... just disregard their opinions almost completely. Clearly, it's wise to disregard opinions. This is what makes lot of good talent wasted. Not to invoke Godwin's, but. My opinion that today's American Universities are so successful is because of the Holocaust. Perhaps the jews are intellectually gifted, or whatever. Today I seek going to Gottingen, even though it's probably not even a shadow of its peak. While not disregarded, the science and mathematics was destroyed and driven away. And I think I can say Germany suffered. Aoishiro said: Again, i'll have to rely on your comment about the "historical dominance of men in western society". And this is an euphemism... it definitely isn't a prerogative of the west. One of the reasons for this is the lack, on women, of a well-defined self image, a completely independent one, created by us, for us. I have to probe a bit here. What kind of independent image, independent of what, created by who, and for who? I don't even know why an image is needed. A feminine image? I certainly do not expect(and obviously, not observe) women to be Yamato Nadeshiko on the streets. If you're going for a strong image, I also don't expect everyone to be Hilary Clinton or, if that's a poor example, Oprah. Surely, there are some positive images of strong women, but no one is like them. The same applies for men. Not everyone is Alexander the Great, or can hack into records to steal(and later, sell) credit card numbers. Aoishiro said: If I were a parent, I certainly wouldn't want my daughter to go out late at night. The reason is simple: safety. Unless she's a martial artist, or somehow able to be safe, I wouldn't give that much freedom. I think it's quite reasonable to assume that women are more vulnerable to rape. How much more? I can't say, perhaps not 91%(Female)+9%(Male) spread, but with a scientifically supported average lower muscle mass, compounded with societal opinions... I'm not sending my female child out. Or, at least, I'm more worried about a female child out than a male child, and much much more so if said child is mine.Something to be passed to us from early on, since childhood, and not added later on, as an afterthought. We are still living under patriarchal rules that differentiate us from men, from an early stage. And one of the examples of this are the greater freedom enjoyed by boys, given to them by parents. To note, I do live in a comparably safe country. Aoishiro said: They are encouraged to go after "chicks", to be bold, independent, while women... hah, we are too fragile, vulnerable, weak-minded. Boldness and independence is a western concept. In any case, the age of majority is equal. One cannot vote unless some time has passed since your birth. Boldness is not always good either: what's wrong with being risk-adverse? My country is, supposedly, risk-adverse as hell. But would you risk anything if you're talking about millions? (of Lives, Property ...) As for the fragility, an average lower muscle mass simply does not support going bold. Of course, violence can be taken to be not the answer. But we live in a world where a well-aimed strike at the temple can end the life of a human. If you're good(... At killing, I guess?), some kind of change in momentum around the sternum is said to be potentially fatal as well. Violence is always an issue. Other than the fundamental factors, perhaps indeed more could be done to give women a more determined mind. I'm not sure how it could be done. Aoishiro said: As to the last question: are men not? A virtuous wife is always worth bragging about. I think it's easier to land oneself at a marriage to a rich man than to strike it big a la American Dream.(If you want to live it, you have a bigger chance at Denmark! Or wherever the hell is the most American Dream place now?) We usually remain under a much closer scrutiny than boys. We are taught to become obedient housewives or, at least, to seek marriage as an objective in our lives. Aoishiro said: To look for a "good woman," what do we have? To be a "good man" obviously... To look for a "good man". And we are bombarded by stereotyped images of femininity. Aoishiro said: Is this an issue truly directed at female learners or children? It's not like I saw an entrepreneurship campaign and it emphasised "Men!" or something... We're not encouraged to think differently, independently, with originality. Aoishiro said: I'm not sure what freedom you speak of. Our new gained "freedom" is nothing more than a lie. Aoishiro said: Err... I would rather have less AIDS/HIV-Positive in my country. No, I do not expect a man to be promiscuous. He would be a disgrace, and not notable if not only for promiscuity. When a man is promiscuous, for example, he's doing what society expects from him. Aoishiro said: ... He is encouraged, admired, even by some women. Aoishiro said: ... At least it corresponds correctly to behaviour observed in dogs. But if a woman does that, she's nothing more than a bitch. Aoishiro said: With what? A big red button labelled "MAD"? It's time for us women to play by our own rules. Aoishiro said: It is this point I'm quite sure you're not an egalitarian. I wouldn't call it wise to not seek the powerful's understanding and/or cooperation. Even if not powerful, men are, at least(probably more), a half of the human population. To seek a new identity, with or without men's cooperation or understanding. Aoishiro said: This sounds exactly like "Let's have a Theory of Everything. It shall be able to describe all physical phenomena. More details? What kind of rubbish do you think you are spouting? There's nothing!"To look for a position away from feminist radicalism, but also independent from men's "benevolence". THIS is a necessity. To put an end on this "tutelage". To find a position were we can face men and impose ourselves, if necessary. Which position is this? Which characteristics it should possess? I'm afraid I'm too young to have precise answers, specially ones adequate enough to satisfy arrogant minds, such as yours. It's an idea. It ends... as an idea. To reduce ambiguity I think it would be almost suffice to either add "useless" as an adjective or add 'l' to the end to form 'Ideal' Aoishiro said: But one thing is certain for me, and no amount of rhetoric or similar expedients, often used by pseudo-intellectuals and people whose verbosity is far greater than their true intellectual capabilities, can convince me to accept it otherwise: women are still under the gun. We're still considered inferior. And I simply refuse to cooperate with this situation. I'll try to find my own solutions, and a definition for what it means to be a free woman..., even if I can't share it with no one else!!! Not quite the society person either. ... That's not very helpful, woman, man, or whatever you are. This isn't even asocial, it's antisocial. Aoishiro said: I sure don't see Oprah with suspicion. I see some Ex-Prime Minister of some 'Boot'-like looking country on the world with strong suspicion though, and there's no denial he's male. I see Merkel with suspicion, simply because of the Greek's big deal. It's not like I see 'Strong female=suspicious'This has nothing to do with it at all. It's just men's reaction to a threat to the status quo. This perception, among men, would happen with or without feminism. Strong, independent women were always seen with suspicion... I guess people like you are quite expected for a feminism thread, if few. |
ZmffkskemNov 19, 2011 6:37 AM
「みんながいるからだ。」 － 棗鈴 |
Kuramii said: Does it class as a feminist if I think women deserve as many rights as men? some say so, and if it's the case then yes. But otherwise, no, I'm not. apparently it does yeah, as it turns out I've had the meaning of this word a tad jumbled for a fair while, oh well, i still don't see how it should spark the debates i see here, not that i'm surprised it has though. |
| Tea and bickies with the Bold and the Beautiful |
| The only reason I voted "No" is because I study it in class and it annoys me... I respect Women and everyone as long as they respect me :P |
 |
| I believe that women should be able to do anything men can do as long as its not impossible like using a urinal. haha |
| I like objectifying men. I like yaoi. And we all know what yaoi is. It's pretty clear what side of the "feminist wars" this would put me on. Depending on how strictly you define a feminist, I probably count as one. I'll probably end up giving someone in this thread a long rebuttal eventually. But for the moment, I don't have time for a wall of text. Not even to read many posts in this thread. |
| Not crazy. |
| I personally dislike the word "feminist", because like you mentioned, it carries a lot of baggage. I acknowledge the societal constraints placed on women, and various ways that traditional gender roles have impacted our society both in favor of, and against women, but I do not think abandoning traditional sentiments is a good thing. There are douchebags everywhere and I will admit that. I hear, and I'm sure we have all heard "Make me a sandwich" jokes. I get mad when I hear them. I discourage their use. I don't like people making fun of how women are viewed by society in any circumstance. I believe that women should have the same political rights as a man (owning land and voting and the like) I am a dude, and I find women inspiring. Seriously. If men were the ones giving birth, there would be significantly less people on the earth. It is a biological fact that by default, men have more muscle mass than women. But it is also a fact that women are by default, a lot stronger mentally and can handle a lot of stress. I'm fine with that. I don't think that women having something over me is a bad thing. I love it when women are portrayed as great characters in animes. It is for that reason that I love Miyazaki's heroines. Sexual attractiveness is great, but it should take a back seat to other more personal qualities of the individual. Maybe I'm alone here, but there was a panel in the Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind manga (great female character btw) where Nausicaa is carrying two babies, one in each arm, that she found crying alone in the ruins of an enemy village. She is walking with them before giving them to some women from the village she was staying at, and she feeds them some of her food she had with her from her mouth as she walks. I don't honestly know why but that stuck out to me as a chillingly strong feminine image, and i still remember that panel even now. I believe that this: Should exist alongside this: Maybe I'm weird, but I think the more powerful feminine aura comes from the second picture. /My personal views. Take them or leave them. |
| See, I don't see women as super fantastic strong amazing wonder great people. I see them as mediocre people. Just like I see everyone else ;/ |
Cottonrabbit said: Made me attempt to imagine it.Ghostt said: I believe that women should be able to do anything men can do as long as its not impossible like using a urinal. haha Actually it is possible for women to use urinals but I won't scar you with the details :) I guess... it's doable. I guess the issue is how to "direct" it rather than if the position is physically practical. |
| I am not a feminist but I am a lesbian trapped in a male sailors body! |
| I GOT SCURVY!!!!!!!!! |
Grimm3r said: See, I don't see women as super fantastic strong amazing wonder great people. I see them as mediocre people. Just like I see everyone else ;/ Such impudence! Don't you know? No one is better than anyone else, and everyone is the best at everything!  |
| > The Fellow MAL Users Social Link has reached level 6! > Your power to create Forum Posts of the Anime Arcana has grown! |
| Meh, I don't know really. If someone says something disrespectful I will get really angry and shout/lecture them or something. Thats about it. |
| <img src="http://i42.tinypic.com/n3t6b7.png" /> |
| Yea I can support that. Just use some god damn make up and dont tie hair in a ponytail you lazy woman. |
| What a buzzword. Seems like this one word is a guarantee to immediately gather the masses and make them express their (often times completely uneducated) opinion about that topic. What the fuck ... If I am not mistaken, there are more than 10 different traits and types of feminism. Some overlapping and sharing a basic goal of course, but still largely different from each other. You can be a feminist and still not behave like the unwashed and hairy female version of a macho asshole. And you can be a feminist with a face for the radio and fulfill all the banal stereotypical roles many interpret with being a feminist. Even within feminism as a whole, there is critique among each other, as some see certain behaviour as inappropriate practices. |
| I don't know if i a feminist. I do agree the men and women deserve to be treated equal. People who say they don't want a women president i say why not. Why can't men and women a have jobs that most people think are more for one gender then/than the other gender? Some people may have compeling arguments for both, yet some people have no idea wht they are talking about. Even if we did have a women president it would get me to give a damn about politics. sorry if none of wht i typed made no sense. |
| This sums up the YuYu Hakusho anime well (paraphrased) “you can’t end a good party without someone on the floor.” Yusuke Urameshi |
| All that feminists do is confuse me. They demand respect. But respect is nothing you DEMAND its something you DESERVE for what you do. Its like a small dog meeting a big one. The small dog is all like *bark*bark*bark* and the big one just "Hmmm? Whats with you?".(man, how anti-feminist is this?) My point is: As long as you dont ACT as if youre equal, you wont be treated as an equal. For instance, sports: Now we have two soocer world championships, because women can play soccer TOO. Then WHY, if youre EQUAL, dont you play against the male teams? Is it because youre admitting that youre inferior and you'll just lose? I personally dont think so. Im not a soccer expert but I doubt that female teams would lose to every male team. Or if they totally want to do something they just can not do and then being all "Hey thats so anti-feminist!!". Like I was trying to become an athlete(im physically pretty darn weak), of course Id suck and noone would really bother with me. And Im not like "Hey thats so unfair!!". Does any men complain that they cant give birth? Never met any. Now I hear you feminists saying "Yeah, thats right, giving birth is all women are good for, you anti-feminist!". Thats throwing shit on the most important thing there is. Without women giving birth to children, theyd be no life o_O And thats plenty of responsibility if you ask me. Dont go around barking like an idiot, dont ask for the impossible and youll be treated respectfully. But these are just the thoughts of an anti-feminist... |
| I have yet to meet a woman who is a feminist who truly supports ideal feminism without wanting or taking advantage of the benefits of the double standard. Since that's the case, you'd have to get rid of one or the other, but that's just not realistic. I don't support feminism, and I never will. Instead, I'll just judge people on their social standing, rather than their gender. |
| Egalitarianism is the belief that all people are born equal, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, social status, religion, or ethnicity. I think it casts a wider net for equality than feminism. |
| > The Fellow MAL Users Social Link has reached level 6! > Your power to create Forum Posts of the Anime Arcana has grown! |
| I wouldn't say so, but the majority of "feminists" I have come across are misandrist pillocks. They badger on and on about equality, yet whinge when it doesn't work in their favour. Take maintenance payments to your ex-spouse after a divorce. Most women think its fine for their ex-husband to pay them a maintenance allowance, yet the majority think its outrageous that they should do the same if their financial circumstances are reversed. I might be female, but I can't stand feminists. |
| Sigh. It sure is hard to identify as a feminist when the only 'feminists' people actually pay attention to are the loud extreme cray-cray ones. For me, being a feminist is about wanting equal opportunities and the same amount of respect for women as men seem to get with no questions asked. It's not about wanting to take away men's rights as a lot of people seem to think it is. Personally it's also about not just sitting down and be sexually harassed and objectified and get called a bitch or a slut every single day because we have a vagina and a pair of breasts instead of a cock and a prostate. I'm also against gender roles (men being macho and dominant, women being fragile and submissive, men works outside the house, women take cares of housework), but since I'm against it for men too I guess it doesn't really fall under the feminism category. |
| Yeah I'm a feminist. Being a feminist means you believe that women are human. Not that you're bat shit insane and hate everything with a penis. |
 |
| So this thread is pretty much dead, and since most people seemed to vote "no" I guess that's a good thing for my blood pressure (I hope you're all uneducated idiots on the term rather than actually not believing in what it means), but I'm just gonna go ahead and revive it for one post. I just watched this documentary on youtube about sexism in advertisement and media, and I just really wanted to share it. I know it's 40 minutes long and I'm sure some people here can't concentrate on something for that long, but I really recommend at least watching some of it. |
| Just watch. |
| yes |
 |
| What's your point, Monad? That patriarchy also has negative implications for men? If so, go on. |
JoshNov 22, 2012 1:35 PM
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
Monad said: Just watch. The one that cheered clearly has some issues with men. lol |
 |
Nordhau5 said: What's your point, Monad? That patriarchy also has negative implications for men? If so, go on. My bigger point isn't the double standard of not considering it a problem when a man is on the receiving end (for me that's not a big problem, unlike unrealistic feminist who think that every slightly unfair element toward women should be corrected i realize that we can see that men get their unfair treatment too and that the unfair elements in each genders favor seem to balance themselves out. Of course feminist will never admit that men might have as much unfairness as women in modern society and in the end no gender actually being above the other) but something completely else. What that else is? The reaction of some women celebrating the event(you go girl), or some immediately feeling that he deserves it simply because his a man. So their element of his guild is just his gender and nothing else. This is the type of thing modern feminism is creating. Equality and peace and all that heavenly stuff are just the bullshit talk they hide behind. They spread hate and a vindictive attitude against men. And this inner feeling of many if not most women wanting some kind of revenge or simply thinking men as evil just because they exist is a thing that creates twisted women movements(which is what feminism has become now since those movements represent feminist activity) that care more about creating war with the opposite gender than creating a society of peaceful coexistence. |
MonadNov 22, 2012 6:30 PM
Creator_Izanagi said: I really hope that this was sarcasm.I am a right-wing and I support the equality of male and female genders.. Nonetheless, I believe that it is totally wrong to hit a female regardless of the situation even though it is perfectly fine to beat the crap out of a male depending on the situation.. Woman or not if someone acts as a real asshole/bitch then you must beat the shit out of him/her.Or at least a slap in the face. Those that think that women should NEVER be hit are really trying hard to be the "good guys" or as we say it here "mounodouloi"=pussy slaves. |
ssjokgNov 22, 2012 6:36 PM
Monad said: In order of bolds:My bigger point isn't the double standard of not considering it a problem when a man is on the receiving end (for me that's not a big problem, unlike unrealistic feminist who think that every slightly unfair element toward women should be corrected i realize that we can see that men get their unfair treatment too and that the unfair elements in each genders favor seem to balance themselves out. Of course feminist will never admit that men might have as much unfairness as women in modern society and in the end no gender actually being above the other) but something completely else. What that else is? The reaction of some women celebrating the event(you go girl), or some immediately feeling that he deserves it simply because his a man. So their element of his guild is just his gender and nothing else. This is the type of thing modern feminism is creating. Equality and piece and all that heavenly stuff are just the bullshit talk they hide behind. They spread hate and a vindictive attitude against men. And this inner feeling of many if not most women wanting some kind of revenge or simply thinking men as evil just because they exist is a thing that creates twisted women movements(which is what feminism has become now since those movements represent feminist activity) that care more about creating war with the opposite gender than creating a society of piecefull coexistence. 1) As I've had to say time and time again on MAL, this simply isn't true. I can back it up if you want me to, but I'm rather tired of doing so. I really should just save a pre-written answer, lol. 2) Who's this elusive "they"? I'm not denying that "male-haters" exist, and in fact it's a good sign that they do exist (in equality there should be an equal amount of sexism on both sides), but "they" do not represent modern feminism in the slightest. Oddly enough it is "Women's Worth Week" at my university right now, and I can tell you that none of the speakers and advocates I have read up on are remotely anti-male. They simply discuss things such as self-respect, physical abuse awareness, women in academia, etc. Essay incoming: I think you are right in that feminism is creating more hostility towards males from females, but wrong in that it is the goal of feminism and an inherently bad thing. My view that more hostility towards men is not inherently a bad thing is based on the following reasoning. Everyone has a sense of self-worth as related to their gender, some people believe that their gender is great, others not so great. Overall, each gender has an average sense of self-worth. Due to the way society has functioned historically, the average self-worth of women has always been much lower, or at least lower to some degree. Historically, the average woman considered herself to be of less universal importance than your average man and your average man considered himself to be above the average woman. This implies that only outliers, women who thought very very highly of their gender, thought that they were better than men. In other words, "man haters" were a rare phenomenon. On the other end, the vast majority of men felt that they were superior to women. We might call them "women haters" now, but at the time it was simply normal. Enter fairly recent history, and a large part of the gender equality movement is ensuring women that they are equals and have no reason to feel inferior. So the average sense of self-worth goes up and approaches the average sense of self-worth that men hold of themselves. Basic statistics will tell you that this means many more women now feel themselves to be superior to the average man, which men don't like. Of course, many less men now feel themselves to be superior to the average woman, which is the part we're all okay with. In a perfect state of equality 50% of gender elitist would be male and 50% would be female. While female gender elitists are on the rise, I probably wouldn't give them more than 5-20% of the total (20% being only in select first world countries). Yes, those numbers are nothing more than instinctual. The reason us men react so strongly towards the rise of female gender elitists is because we're not used to living without our privilege. We're not used to being discriminated against because of our gender and the thought, rightly so, scares us. Unfortunately it's a fact of life (I consider to be one, at least), and so if we genuinely want equality, we must accept that more women are going to unjustly hate us, to put it bluntly. Aside: the exact same reasoning can be applied issues of race, sexuality, and any other scenario where a party that has been deprived of rights historically is being given them now. There have been many a claim of "black people are given too much leeway now, they can beat up white people and no one cares." |
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
| Hell no |
 |
| I'm not necessarily a feminist... I just want everyone to be on equal footing. I want it to be just as likely for a man to be the "housewife" and for the woman to be the bread winner as it is for the opposite. I'd be supporting men if our roles in society were switched. When someone has a lower salary despite having the same (or better) qualifications as an employee of the opposite gender, it just makes me say wtf? How do I define feminism? I don't really know. I'm pretty laid back, and the topic of gender equality doesn't get under my skin or make me froth at the mouth, but it's still a cause of concern in me that our society still behaves this way despite claiming to be "modern". I've never protested before or gotten into any heated arguments on the subject, and I'm willing to see things as they are from both sides of the story. I guess my perception of "feminism" is that of stubborn people who constantly on the lookout for ways that women are being undermined, and are more prone to be... incensed by any statement that isn't in line with what they believe when it comes to this topic. That's just what I've noticed... although it's hard to take "quiet feminists" into account when I'm collating all of my experiences with who I believe feminists are, as the more vociferous/stubborn people that belong to that group are more outspoken and stick out more in my mind, thus shaping my opinion on what it means to be a feminist as a whole. If feminism is wanting everyone to be able to whatever they want to do, regardless of gender, then I suppose I'm a feminist. |
كنت تهدر وقتك عن طريق ترجمة هذه. mattbenz99 said: Christians and Satanists are technically the same thing |
| Of course I am. Any self-respecting woman should be. I fucking hate the new implications the word "feminism" has. Feminism: the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men. It doesn't make me a man hater. I just want to be paid the same as a man does. |
 |
| Yes. Not a radical feminist who hates men and transwomen(that...wouldn't even make sense). Just a feminist. |
Maal said: princessv said: @Maal: [snip] Yeah, i didn't look the for the word enought... and i know why breast cancer get more publicity, a boob is prettier than a random internal organ, and people feel less ashamed to say they have breast cancer than prostate, cause it doesn't involve an anal inspection. To throw in another perspective on this: It's not just that breasts are prettier, it's also the fact that breasts are so wrapped up in a woman's self-image in our culture that the thought of a mastectomy is devastating. It's not just biologically deadly, it's socially and mentally deadly. Further, many women worked/continue to work very hard to bring attention to the issue (partly because it wasn't talked about before, and again, because it goes beyond illness to consequences of self-image). It seems like guys don't want to work as hard to get the word out about prostate cancer because, as you said, it's not glamorous, and also I think many men don't want to hear about it because they don't want to think that they could very well get it. But yeah, more attention to that issue would not go amiss. I actually bought a type of tea from Einstein Bagels the other day that said a portion of the proceeds would go towards prostate cancer research, which was cool to see. Also, another thing to keep in mind: Men are susceptible to breast cancer, too. It's not by any means just a woman's issue. In fact, my sister's college roommate probably saved her friend's life because she asked to use him as a model for an assignment whereby they were teaching students to check for breast cancer. Lo and behold, she found a lump in his breast and it turns out it was malignant. They caught it early enough that he was okay. |
Post-Josh said: Monad said: In order of bolds:My bigger point isn't the double standard of not considering it a problem when a man is on the receiving end (for me that's not a big problem, unlike unrealistic feminist who think that every slightly unfair element toward women should be corrected i realize that we can see that men get their unfair treatment too and that the unfair elements in each genders favor seem to balance themselves out. Of course feminist will never admit that men might have as much unfairness as women in modern society and in the end no gender actually being above the other) but something completely else. What that else is? The reaction of some women celebrating the event(you go girl), or some immediately feeling that he deserves it simply because his a man. So their element of his guild is just his gender and nothing else. This is the type of thing modern feminism is creating. Equality and piece and all that heavenly stuff are just the bullshit talk they hide behind. They spread hate and a vindictive attitude against men. And this inner feeling of many if not most women wanting some kind of revenge or simply thinking men as evil just because they exist is a thing that creates twisted women movements(which is what feminism has become now since those movements represent feminist activity) that care more about creating war with the opposite gender than creating a society of piecefull coexistence. 1) As I've had to say time and time again on MAL, this simply isn't true. I can back it up if you want me to, but I'm rather tired of doing so. I really should just save a pre-written answer, lol. 2) Who's this elusive "they"? I'm not denying that "male-haters" exist, and in fact it's a good sign that they do exist (in equality there should be an equal amount of sexism on both sides), but "they" do not represent modern feminism in the slightest. Oddly enough it is "Women's Worth Week" at my university right now, and I can tell you that none of the speakers and advocates I have read up on are remotely anti-male. They simply discuss things such as self-respect, physical abuse awareness, women in academia, etc. Essay incoming: I think you are right in that feminism is creating more hostility towards males from females, but wrong in that it is the goal of feminism and an inherently bad thing. My view that more hostility towards men is not inherently a bad thing is based on the following reasoning. Everyone has a sense of self-worth as related to their gender, some people believe that their gender is great, others not so great. Overall, each gender has an average sense of self-worth. Due to the way society has functioned historically, the average self-worth of women has always been much lower, or at least lower to some degree. Historically, the average woman considered herself to be of less universal importance than your average man and your average man considered himself to be above the average woman. This implies that only outliers, women who thought very very highly of their gender, thought that they were better than men. In other words, "man haters" were a rare phenomenon. On the other end, the vast majority of men felt that they were superior to women. We might call them "women haters" now, but at the time it was simply normal. Enter fairly recent history, and a large part of the gender equality movement is ensuring women that they are equals and have no reason to feel inferior. So the average sense of self-worth goes up and approaches the average sense of self-worth that men hold of themselves. Basic statistics will tell you that this means many more women now feel themselves to be superior to the average man, which men don't like. Of course, many less men now feel themselves to be superior to the average woman, which is the part we're all okay with. In a perfect state of equality 50% of gender elitist would be male and 50% would be female. While female gender elitists are on the rise, I probably wouldn't give them more than 5-20% of the total (20% being only in select first world countries). Yes, those numbers are nothing more than instinctual. The reason us men react so strongly towards the rise of female gender elitists is because we're not used to living without our privilege. We're not used to being discriminated against because of our gender and the thought, rightly so, scares us. Unfortunately it's a fact of life (I consider to be one, at least), and so if we genuinely want equality, we must accept that more women are going to unjustly hate us, to put it bluntly. Aside: the exact same reasoning can be applied issues of race, sexuality, and any other scenario where a party that has been deprived of rights historically is being given them now. There have been many a claim of "black people are given too much leeway now, they can beat up white people and no one cares." Some interesting points! And yeah, Monad, you're not hanging out with true feminists if they honestly see a random person being beaten up and just cheer because the aggressor is female. Actually, I'm thinking anyone you are near who starts cheering when they find some people fighting for unclear reasons or with no context is someone to stay away from. I classify myself as a feminist and I use the OP's definition, which is the one the actual movement uses and recognizes. In my given field of study (video games) I face a lot of cruel and thoughtless sexism from my peers. And sometimes I admit that, combined with other sexist things in our culture, does lead me to wonder, "Why should we ever bother with men at all!" But just like jerks on the internet can get ya down, you realize after a while that not everyone is like that and move on (helps having a very patient male best friend who is also sensitive to sexism and who will not hesitate to call you out when you're being sexist). But that also doesn't mean it's not a widespread problem and that we should stop talking about it/fighting for rights. And that means fighting discrimination wherever it is, for men and woman alike. It's true, for example, that men by and large get screwed in cases of divorce and parental rights. Although, interestingly enough, the system was actually skewed just as badly, if not worse, in favor of men initially. The move to favoring the woman didn't come about til after the early to mid 1900s. But that radical shift isn't right and shouldn't be upheld. Understanding the history puts it in perspective, but now it's just as important to stand up and say, "Okay, now the other side is being discriminated against and that's just as horrible as what was initially fought against." Those laws really do need to be re-assessed. But one case of sexism doesn't negate the injustice or the outcries of another. They are both sexist and wrong and need correction. |
More topics from this board
» You become MAL's owner overnight, what are the first changes you implement?fleurbleue - 2 hours ago |
8 |
by rohan121
»»
26 minutes ago |
|
» Where do you guys meet people irl?Cneq - Oct 25 |
28 |
by breeze-
»»
1 hour ago |
|
» To all the cat lovers who don't own a cat, what's stopping you? (and cat haters who own a cat, what's wrong with you?)fleurbleue - Yesterday |
19 |
by FZREMAKE
»»
1 hour ago |
|
» How many new friends have you managed to make in your adult years? How?Rally- - Yesterday |
9 |
by FZREMAKE
»»
1 hour ago |
|
» If your avatar / signature was a MAL Moderator, would they do a good job?IpreferEcchi - Oct 28 |
13 |
by eroguy
»»
1 hour ago |