66 replies to this topic

[Diabolical_Jazz]

When I get home, I'll see if I can find someone reasonable on the internet. I know one or two internet people who are female, feminist, and use forums sometimes, but I don't think they'll want to show up for an argument. XD
Plus the one that immediately springs fo mind is also pretty non-social.
The trouble is, it's hard to point at a reasonable feminist, because most of us don't preach much. I guess I'm an exception. =P

I agree that the semantkcs are important... but my lunch break is short.

DO SOME WRITING!

[Calvary]

Ah, well that's always a pitfall I suppose. =/

Preaching is the worstest.

AND I DON'T RESPOND WELL TO SHOUTING! T^T

[mightydamsels]

I don't think I'm bat shit crazy...and neither are my friends.....

[Diabolical_Jazz]

So I googled "Feminism" and this was an article linked on the very first hit that wasn't a dictionary definition:

http://feminist.com/...om/cgwomen.html

[Diabolical_Jazz]

Also, a quote:

"Once men realize that they are also deprived — not as much as women, just as whites are not as deprived as blacks — but there is a full circle of human qualities we all have a right to. And they're confined to the "masculine" ones, which are seventy percent of all of them, and we're confined to the "feminine" ones, which are thirty percent. We're missing more, but they're still missing a lot. If a man fights to be his whole self, to be creative, to express emotions men are not supposed to express, do jobs men are not supposed to do, take care of his own children — all of these things are part of the feminist movement." -Gloria Steinem

[Calvary]

I can't put my finger on it, but there's something I don't like about that article, the voice and the message just don't seem quite right. The over-arcing goal of equality between genders and the advancement of an empathetic human race is fine and I support that, but why do it under the guise of feminism when Humanists are already trying to do this sort of thing without the negative extremist stigma attached to them. You never meet an extremist Humanist because it's simply impossible according to Humanist doctrine.

There should be a movement to improve the rights and equality of women, but it' something that must occur in so many different ways across different cultures. In Islamic countries such as Iran for instance, the fundamental beginnings of this movement would come with a rejection of Sharia law and the advancement of secularism within law and order circles. There would have to be an overhaul in academic and scholastic circles so that not only can women acquire jobs and think for themselves, but they are given the tools with which to make their collective voices heard. A crowd of people cannot go ignored, it's another simple impossibility. Most importantly perhaps, such a movement would have to be conducted from within such a country with no external influence or impact. If women in that country want liberation from the strict moral and religious values imposed upon them by the mistranslation of an ancient patriarchal text then they must commit to that revolution themselves. To have someone cast the shackles of oppression off your wrists is not the same as doing it for yourself and fundamentally it breeds resentment. You can look towards Iraq and Libya for a governmental example of this.

In a western society, there is not the threat of having to walk ten steps behind your husband for fear of Sharia repercussions certainly anyone who tried to do this would be ridiculed and scorned by the wider society. If this problem was a primary problem, getting the vote was secondary and now women face tertiary problems, I imagine these include: the want for equal wages, the want for a removal of negative stigmas and etcetera. However these advances could be made amongst others for an international embrace of equality covering gender, religion or lack of religion, ethnicity, sex and creed. Instead of focusing on one single demographic, they could pool their resources into one body for the advancement of humanity and I think this is fundamentally what is wrong with feminism because it is a narrow viewpoint.

The dictionary defines feminism as follows:

The advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

That very sub-clause 'to men', in my opinion, nullifies the whole statement. Why compare women to men? Why not just advance women's rights full stop? And then with it, everyone else's until we are at a paradigm of equality?

[Affray]

Also, a quote:

"Once men realize that they are also deprived — not as much as women, just as whites are not as deprived as blacks — but there is a full circle of human qualities we all have a right to. And they're confined to the "masculine" ones, which are seventy percent of all of them, and we're confined to the "feminine" ones, which are thirty percent. We're missing more, but they're still missing a lot. If a man fights to be his whole self, to be creative, to express emotions men are not supposed to express, do jobs men are not supposed to do, take care of his own children — all of these things are part of the feminist movement." -Gloria Steinem

"We are missing more" (shudder)

What this lady seems to not understand is that the vast majority of men are quite content with our roles in society.
Both men and women need to work in today's society to make ends meet, but when a baby is involved one of the parents generally stays home to raise the bugger. Men tend to be the one to work and women tend to stay home, sometimes the roles are reversed.
Sometimes women have a better paying job and therefore are the breadwinner, so they work.
If a man wants to stay at home and raise the kids while his wife works, sweet.
That scenario rarely happens it seems, but it does happen.

Men don't generally feel the need to conform to social standards.
If I see a guy rocking the parenthood thing and his wife has a rocking job, I am tempted to throw him a high five.

[Diabolical_Jazz]

I can't put my finger on it, but there's something I don't like about that article, the voice and the message just don't seem quite right. The over-arcing goal of equality between genders and the advancement of an empathetic human race is fine and I support that, but why do it under the guise of feminism when Humanists are already trying to do this sort of thing without the negative extremist stigma attached to them.

So your problem with feminism is that people don't like it?
Feminism is an idea entirely separate from Humanism. Humanism is a philosophy. It does not have goals. It's all well and good to say you value all of humanity, but that's not a movement. It doesn't seek to accomplish anything.
The reason I call myself a feminist and a humanist separately is because they are separate things.

There should be a movement to improve the rights and equality of women, but it' something that must occur in so many different ways across different cultures. In Islamic countries such as Iran for instance, the fundamental beginnings of this movement would come with a rejection of Sharia law and the advancement of secularism within law and order circles. There would have to be an overhaul in academic and scholastic circles so that not only can women acquire jobs and think for themselves, but they are given the tools with which to make their collective voices heard. A crowd of people cannot go ignored, it's another simple impossibility. Most importantly perhaps, such a movement would have to be conducted from within such a country with no external influence or impact. If women in that country want liberation from the strict moral and religious values imposed upon them by the mistranslation of an ancient patriarchal text then they must commit to that revolution themselves. To have someone cast the shackles of oppression off your wrists is not the same as doing it for yourself and fundamentally it breeds resentment. You can look towards Iraq and Libya for a governmental example of this.

Sir, you are a Feminist.

Everything else you've said is completely valid. There are complications with any movement. But the fact that you believe that there needs to be a movement to improve the rights and equality of women makes you a feminist. That's what a feminist is.
Not every feminist agrees about everything, and there are certainly outliers, but that's the core of it.

However these advances could be made amongst others for an international embrace of equality covering gender, religion or lack of religion, ethnicity, sex and creed. Instead of focusing on one single demographic, they could pool their resources into one body for the advancement of humanity and I think this is fundamentally what is wrong with feminism because it is a narrow viewpoint.

And while we're at it, why not repair all of the infrastructure of every city on the planet, all while saving the rainforests and finding a way to clone extinct animals?
Pardon the sarcasm.
Focus is the only way to accomplish anything. Especially when we're talking about such radically large and socially ingrained problems. You said yourself that the problems vary by nation, and that the solutions to those problems vary by nation. If you broaden the focus too much, you end up discussing nothing, and accomplishing nothing.
And who's to say that any given feminist is not also an environmentalist, humanist, and an activist in various political battlefields?

That very sub-clause 'to men', in my opinion, nullifies the whole statement. Why compare women to men? Why not just advance women's rights full stop? And then with it, everyone else's until we are at a paradigm of equality?

As opposed to what, though?
"Equality" is a comparative term.
I'm not sure what exactly is wrong with the idea that things being unequal is unacceptable.

Besides, the dictionary definition of Feminism is derivative of the ideals of the Suffrage movement that gave birth to the Feminist movement, and the language reflects that.
The ideal for most Feminists is that advancing the rights of women will create a better situation for everyone. Which is the spirit of the quote I posted above.

[Diabolical_Jazz]

"We are missing more" (shudder)

Is something about that untrue?

What this lady seems to not understand is that the vast majority of men are quite content with our roles in society.
Both men and women need to work in today's society to make ends meet, but when a baby is involved one of the parents generally stays home to raise the bugger. Men tend to be the one to work and women tend to stay home, sometimes the roles are reversed.
Sometimes women have a better paying job and therefore are the breadwinner, so they work.
If a man wants to stay at home and raise the kids while his wife works, sweet.
That scenario rarely happens it seems, but it does happen.

Men don't generally feel the need to conform to social standards.
If I see a guy rocking the parenthood thing and his wife has a rocking job, I am tempted to throw him a high five.

So wait, if we are content with our roles in society, then how is it you can find fault with the idea that women are missing more than men are in terms of gender rights and roles?
You think that we're equally oppressed and women are just whiny?


Anyway I disagree with you on both points. Men are not universally happy with their gender roles. The difference is that we have more freedom to change them. Not absolute freedom, but significant freedom.
If you think that you have absolute freedom to change your gender role, I invite you to wear a belly shirt and pink hotpants to a diner in the U.S. deep south, and say that something looks fabulous. See if you don't suffer some social stigma, not to mention potential loss of life and limb.

[Diabolical_Jazz]

I am *terrible* at this not-arguing thing. =/

[Bowsette]

yup

[Krankykoala]

O.o eh i think i would have simply gone for the even easier "There are more millionaires than there are cabinet members altogether."

[Diabolical_Jazz]

A single person on Facebook does not constitute an accurate representation of feminism.
Furthermore, just because she was bad at arguing does not mean she didn't have a point, initially.

Maybe she didn't. Frankly I don't know much about UK politics.

But it appeared that her opponent was implying two things which were certainly erroneous: Millionares are hard working and competent by default, and the women who run for cabinet positions were not also hard working and competent.

That second assumption is vastly mysoginistic, but he got away with it because he implied it rather than stating it, and .
That may be why she resorted to telling him off.

Anyway, I'm not trying to suggest that all feminists are reasonable, intelligent, and well-spoken. Only that the values represented by feminism are valid and necessary in modern society. We can't be asked to asnwer for every person holding up a sign on the internet

[Bowsette]

He wasn't implying at all that millionaires work hard. Cabinet members are basically the same as the US Congress. If someone is a part of that, it is because they are highly skilled, respected, and capable of the job. That girl's point appears to be that because there are fewer women in that line of work, the reasoning is obviously because of anti-female segregation, rather than the fact that the men doing those jobs are better-suited to it than the prospective females who may or may not have applied for the position.

His comment in its entirety was an interpretation of her picture.

The reason I posted that is because that is the style of feminism I come into contact with most often. They don't present their arguments intelligently, they don't accept other points of view, they just brow-beat you into submission, sometimes with things that have no bearing at all on the argument at hand. I lost a "friend" whom was a feminist because I pointed out maternity leave when having a child is twelve months, but the same thing for men lasts only six months. This, according to her, makes me a right-wing racist. And this is what I usually encounter. Stupidity.

Feminism tends to demand equality and more which is why I disagree with it. I fully accept there are things men can do that I cannot. I also fully accept the opposite. Equal pay? If you're doing the exact same job sure, knock yourself out. If you're not, you have no right for equal pay. Equality in general is pointless because none of us are truly equal, nor will we ever be. It's become a political correctness rampage where employers are forced in many cases to hire someone not fit for the job, because they have to balance the numbers. Certain places require a certain number of disabled people to get tax breaks etc. but that's a different story entirely >.>

[SpleenBeGone]

You obviously don't know how the us congress works. >.>

[mightydamsels]

Sir, you are a Feminist.

I have been trying to tell these guys this since I joined this forum in July.

Also, Diabolical_Jazz, I think I love you

. Cabinet members are basically the same as the US Congress. If someone is a part of that, it is because they are highly skilled, respected, and capable of the job.

Erm. I may be a silly Canadian, but from what I can tell, if you have a lot of money and a good southern name or belong to the good ol' boy club, you can basically be apart of congress.
I think the reason why there are hardly any women in most political realms (including Canada) is because politics isn't usually an option for women when deciding their career paths. Look at Hillary Clinton. She's depicted as an ice Queen all because she's really good at her job and not the Sarah Palin type. Hopefully this will change in the next few generations.

[Calvary]

You're not looking at what Xiao actually means though. She's just saying people who are good at a job deserve it.

Oh and as far as I'm aware, Hillary Clinton is regarded with high prestige amongst the international community. I don't know her credentials but she would appear to be a good candidate for President.

Also, no, I'm not a feminist. That's likes saying I'd be a Christian if I believed in a god.

[Diabolical_Jazz]

Also, Diabolical_Jazz, I think I love you

Hah. Thanks. =P

[Diabolical_Jazz]

I will totally get back to this conversation.

I'm taking care of my god rat until monday (plus avoiding my moody roommate) though, and my friend's apartment has no internets, which makes it difficult to carry out a lengthy debate.