Well like I said in this thread before equality is not restricted too certain legal rights. The definition of feminism that I agree with includes social, political, and economic equality of the sexes. The modern wave if feminism is also concerned with concepts such as gender roles and privelage not just a womans ability to own land and vote.
What exactly is feminism?
- Thread starter Kokonoe
- Start date
- Status
Well like I said in this thread before equality is not restricted too certain legal rights. The definition of feminism that I agree with includes social, political, and economic equality of the sexes. The modern wave if feminism is also concerned with concepts such as gender roles and privelage not just a womans ability to own land and vote.
Phrozenflame500
Member
It's something that people argue about on the internet.
There are "standard" feminists who just want equivalent rights between genders (and thus ironically pretty much share the same ideology to the more liberal MRAs) and there are "internet" feminists who whine on Tumblr how looking at a women without consent is rape or something.
There are of course bullshit on every side of the gender wars, and trying to summarize anything under a single banner is impossible without oversimplifying.
There are "standard" feminists who just want equivalent rights between genders (and thus ironically pretty much share the same ideology to the more liberal MRAs) and there are "internet" feminists who whine on Tumblr how looking at a women without consent is rape or something.
There are of course bullshit on every side of the gender wars, and trying to summarize anything under a single banner is impossible without oversimplifying.
One of the issues (on both sides) is the seeming inability of intractable persons to admit that these are complicated issues where groups can have edges/privileges over each other (even if those advantages don't result in anything close to equal scales), and that everyone belongs to a multiple number of subgroups with various advantages and disadvantages. (Kyriarchy)
When more than a handful of U.S. lawmakers actively try a number of ways to push control over a woman's sexual and reproductive rights, I plainly see what feminism is still fighting for.
The perception that women have the same rights as men in the U.S. seems rather inaccurate when I see a legal system that is supposed to protect people from sexual assault totally fail to do it's job, either because of male-oriented power structures (the military, athletics), anti-sex views targeted against women, or thousands of rape kits going untested for no good reason.
This post will likely inspire some MRA-minded person to say "but society and the justice system fails men in a lot of ways, too". That is certainly true, but complaining about one does not (and should not) mean denying the other.
Patriarchy is the same that says that women "want to be raped" if they are using a short skirt,that women should be inferior to men and do what they say, women should do every house work and that men can't be nurses or their manliness is at stake (and the fact that their manliness being at stake is a bad thing ... because being girly is BAD and should be avoided at all costs)
Laugh not to cry... some of those are dangerously close to the creationists ones
Laugh not to cry... some of those are dangerously close to the creationists ones
Honestly, I think you probably are. The idea that it's only a problem in developing countries doesn't stand up at all, perhaps it would seem more obvious from a legal-rights perspective? (genuinely don't know a great deal about this), but gender inequality is kinda inescapable from a societal perspective regardless of how 'developed' the country.
Juliet's 8½ Spirits
Banned
I'm a humanist, and not a feminist; mostly because i don't agree with all the patriarchy baggage that comes with it, and also because the majority of writing I've read by the feminist authors who helped define the term in the 20th century, was bat-shit insane.
I think there have been enough reasonable explanations of what feminism is here, maybe ignore the people who think it's some insidious thing.
My only "issue" with feminism is this attempt to take any male gender related issue under it's wing. I don't think there are a lot of great male support groups out there, but there are some - so I'd rather people feel they have options if they're in need of support.
The "we don't need men's rights/support groups because we have feminism and that can do that stuff too" arguments are frustrating.
My only "issue" with feminism is this attempt to take any male gender related issue under it's wing. I don't think there are a lot of great male support groups out there, but there are some - so I'd rather people feel they have options if they're in need of support.
The "we don't need men's rights/support groups because we have feminism and that can do that stuff too" arguments are frustrating.
Neoriceisgood
Member
What?
I always thought those reactions were to the idea of MRA-like movements, what do you mean by support groups? This is something I've not really encountered at all so genuine question.
A few of my unorganized thoughts related to feminism:
- I support gender fairness, rather than gender equality. I don't think the genders are the same (i.e. equal), but I do think each should be treated fairly. For example, A woman should be given longer leave from work after childbirth because she's the one that had to give birth, and she needs time to physically recover that a man doesn't need. There are other examples, but you get the idea.
- "Feminism" is a bit like "Christianity", in that there are many sects with differing beliefs, but there is a sort of general doctrine that most within the movement subscribe to. Also, you will hear from the most radical more loudly than the mainstream.
- "Equality" can be sought either a) in application of a law/policy (i.e. a gender-blind policy), or b) in result (i.e. a gender-aware policy meant to actively promote one gender). As an example, let's think of a movie theater, and they're playing Twilight. Equal application of the theatre's advertising policy would be "Come one, come all, we don't care who!" Such a policy will end up with a theatre full of mostly women. Alternatively, if one seeks equality in result, the application of a policy must not be equal. Advertising would have to say something like "We have plenty of women, guys, we want you!" Such a non-gender-equal application is seeking a gender-equal result.
- The above dual-yet-mutually-exclusive means of "equality" generally lead to abuse of the term by feminists, MRAs, and, well, pretty much everyone. Everyone advocating equality tends to switch between the two types, depending on which result they desire. For example, an MRA may advocate for equal application (i.e. gender blindness) when discussing executive representations, and then advocate for equal result (i.e. gender awareness) when discussing college graduate rate. Feminists tend to do the same switching back and forth, and pretty much every person does the same thing.
- Regardless of which version of "equality" you're arguing on a particular issue, you will argue your stance is Promoting Equality®, while those advocating the other version of equality are Anti-Equality Bigots, because their policy is opposed to yours, and your stance is clearly for equality, so anyone opposing equality must be a bigot.
It's simply the belief in women should be treated as men's equals. In practice it takes many different forms, some of which (the more radical kinds) rub people the wrong way.
There's lots of misconceptions about what it means. Some people think it means that feminism wants to make everyone the same and eliminate all difference between the sexes. Others think feminism is nothing more than a special interest group aiming for more than just equality with men.
Feminism is definitely a noble goal as women have been treated like subhuman for an incredibly long time. My only issues with the movement have been things like using that inaccurate wage gap figure (77 cents to a man's dollar) to further the agenda, mandatory gender quotas, or that man become stay at home husbands despite the economy being awful and double-income households being the norm.
But those are really minor things compared to the movement's successes and aims (especially in developing countries, like India).
There's lots of misconceptions about what it means. Some people think it means that feminism wants to make everyone the same and eliminate all difference between the sexes. Others think feminism is nothing more than a special interest group aiming for more than just equality with men.
Feminism is definitely a noble goal as women have been treated like subhuman for an incredibly long time. My only issues with the movement have been things like using that inaccurate wage gap figure (77 cents to a man's dollar) to further the agenda, mandatory gender quotas, or that man become stay at home husbands despite the economy being awful and double-income households being the norm.
But those are really minor things compared to the movement's successes and aims (especially in developing countries, like India).
Dabookerman
Member
Name some legit issues that males suffer from and it's highly likely that it'll end up under the definition of feminism.
Tertullian
Member
It seems to me that it is not helpful to define feminism as simply the idea that men and women should be equal in society. It's not helpful because everyone assents to the simple proposition "men and women should be equal in society." A definition should be disqualifying; it should tell us who is not a part of a group as well as who is.
Feminism encompasses not only the simple belief that men and women should be equal in society, but also certain implications about how far we currently are from equality, and how dramatic or how fundamental the necessary reforms are. A feminist believes that women are systematically and pervasively disadvantaged in society, and so, dramatic and fundamental reforms are necessary to achieve equality. That may very well be true, but it cannot be equated with the simple proposition "men and women should be equal in society," because it encompasses more than what is strictly contained in that proposition.
The idea that women are systematically and pervasively disadvantaged in society is baked right into the existence of feminism. After all, why do we need feminism specifically? Why not just a more general movement for equality among all people? Well, a feminist would say, we need feminism specifically because women are commonly discriminated against as women. They're not just discriminated against because of race, or religion, or income level, or individual characteristics, but because of their sex per se. And this discrimination is systematic, so a generalized movement is needed to confront it.
Does this seem reasonable?
Feminism encompasses not only the simple belief that men and women should be equal in society, but also certain implications about how far we currently are from equality, and how dramatic or how fundamental the necessary reforms are. A feminist believes that women are systematically and pervasively disadvantaged in society, and so, dramatic and fundamental reforms are necessary to achieve equality. That may very well be true, but it cannot be equated with the simple proposition "men and women should be equal in society," because it encompasses more than what is strictly contained in that proposition.
The idea that women are systematically and pervasively disadvantaged in society is baked right into the existence of feminism. After all, why do we need feminism specifically? Why not just a more general movement for equality among all people? Well, a feminist would say, we need feminism specifically because women are commonly discriminated against as women. They're not just discriminated against because of race, or religion, or income level, or individual characteristics, but because of their sex per se. And this discrimination is systematic, so a generalized movement is needed to confront it.
Does this seem reasonable?
Well, I've only encountered this in GAF in discussions about feminism, but when discussing things like MRAs, sometimes people will say something like "I'd like it if there were more groups to support guys who are having trouble with guy stuff." And more than one person would respond "there are: feminist groups. There doesn't need to be one specifically for men". Rubs me the wrong way every time.
See, something like this. I think if a male is having any gender related issues, and he feels as though he needs support from a male oriented group, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It doesn't matter the issue, that you feel there SHOULDN'T be these male support groups is what's troubling.
The problem with MRAs may actually be an inherent flaw with feminism as well in that it's a collection of a large group of topics and issues that are grouped together under a gender's "interest group", where all grievances are put on the table, regardless of severity. The nature of personal self-interest leads people to prioritize the things that affect them on a daily basis and the things they are interested in, leading to the criticisms of MRAs for being delusional (as their aggregate marginal problems aren't as severe as those for women and are probably better off being addressed individually) and feminism for being only concerned with the issues of upper-class white women (because they're the ones with the most spare time and money in US society.)
That's it the main drawing line I think. For some people, equality under law is enough, while for other ones is not. Most modern feminists falls into the latter cathegory, I believe.
The question is: Is any kind of difference between men and women inherently harmful and / or degrading? Can every single difference of treatment been caused by sexism?
I think that this is not the case, and that's why I am not on completely on board with feminism myself. I believe that there's quite a lot of confusion between sex and sexism, so to speak (hence why there are postures against prostitution and porn inside the feminist movement, for example).
There are some activists who call themselves feminists who'll talk about men being malformed females, poisoned by testosterone and raised to hate women. I think those guys are unreasonable and obnoxious.
Equality of opportunity and feminism great causes.
Yep, I agree with this. Anecdotally, my feminist friends that have made that claim--that feminism already covers the male gender related issues so male-oriented activist groups aren't needed--have generally done so after first denying that male gender issues exist, and then minimizing the issues when confronted with them (one friend tried to say losing your children in divorce proceedings wasn't a big deal). Only after the denial was refuted and the minimizing was refuted have my friends turned to "feminism takes care of men's issues anyway". All three of those (denial, minimization, and adoption of male issues) were made to say "so men's rights groups aren't needed."
Now, I'm no MRA--that movement has generally been anti-feminism, rather than men-supportive--but the "men don't need an activist group" angle that sometimes manifests among feminists bothers me.
Neoriceisgood
Member
From what I understand MRA groups have a history of devolving into outright hate groups & having little to no intersectionality at all. (To the point where most "MRA" groups are usually trans-exclusive and specifically pander to straight men)
I'm pretty sure the negative reaction to the idea of "male support groups" is largely based on those associations more so than people fundamentally thinking men aren't allowed to have a support network.
Basic human rights are a can of worms? Fuck that noise.
OK I get what you mean I think, though I'm probably one of those people who annoy you
+ believe male gender-related issues can fall under the umbrella of feminism, if only because it's such a broad field. I think it better to have all discussions on gender under the same roof so to speak, and also because discussions on masculinity are already taking place. But I agree with you that it doesn't have to at all and can stand on its own.I think some people see people separating their discussion from the discussion at large and fear the motive (i.e. marginal hate groups, MRAs, etc).
The Albatross
Member
Exactly? Feminism is the ideology that men and women are equal.
But, in practice? It's a whole bunch of things and a whole bunch of things that it isn't and it changes from person to person and some of those things -- maybe even many of them -- contradict each other and compliment each other in weird and confusing ways.
But, in practice? It's a whole bunch of things and a whole bunch of things that it isn't and it changes from person to person and some of those things -- maybe even many of them -- contradict each other and compliment each other in weird and confusing ways.
There's biological differences between men and women, for sure. However these differences playing a role in modern day social, political, and economic equality between the sexes is ridiculous to me. We are different but these differences shouldn't have any bearing on equality and our own social constructs.
IMO, discussing issues about gender should not, in itself, be segregated by gender. I think everyone should get together and discuss gender, though I also see reason to their being compartmentalized groups addressing specific problems.
When someone gives the response that " there doesn't need to be a group for men", I can see how that is frustrating for someone to hear, and I don't think its the best way to deliver that message. The intent, though, is to say that feminism is not simply a self-interested girls club; it is addressing things that matter to men, too. It may not be the complete solution to men's problems, but a positive nonetheless.
It could be a warmer welcome, and again, I don't see anything wrong with the idea of a male movement (only that the current one is awful), but I do think that people should work together and consider themselves to be under both banners. A guy can be feminist and men's rights, a woman can be men's rights and feminist.
I think the simplest definition is feminism is the observation that men and women are not equal, and the belief that they should be. It gets more complicated as you delve into exactly what that means, how those inequalities actually manifest, how other identities intersect and cause those inequalities to actually be concentrated amongst certain groups of women more than others, and blah blah blah.
I would suggest reading some books. If you need ideas, here are some books about feminism (and one about masculinities, but it's relevant to the broader study) and its history:
Here are some books about feminist issues, make use of a feminist perspective, or use feminist theoretical constructs:
Other books that I haven't read but are on my personal to-do list:
I would suggest starting with Estelle Freedman's No Turning Back for the history and placing feminism(s) in its historical context(s), and then moving on to whatever sounds interesting.
I would suggest reading some books. If you need ideas, here are some books about feminism (and one about masculinities, but it's relevant to the broader study) and its history:
Here are some books about feminist issues, make use of a feminist perspective, or use feminist theoretical constructs:
Other books that I haven't read but are on my personal to-do list:
I would suggest starting with Estelle Freedman's No Turning Back for the history and placing feminism(s) in its historical context(s), and then moving on to whatever sounds interesting.
I realized after the discussion thread a few weeks back that much of the backlash to RAINN's policy recommendations seemed driven by RAINN attempting to excise sexual assault policy from the space within the broader progressive/feminist it has traditionally occupied and address it individually, leading to a lot of criticisms that it was ignoring the interests of other subgroups.OK I get what you mean I think, though I'm probably one of those people who annoy you
I think some people see people separating their discussion from the discussion at large and fear the motive (i.e. marginal hate groups, MRAs, etc).
Red Blaster
Member
citation needed
The Albatross
Member
There was a pretty good episode on Freakanomics from a couple weeks/months back about equality of the sexes, mostly about pay, but also about a bunch of other silly things. Of course, Freakanomics is often brash, tongue-in-cheek, and intentionally disruptive, all under the guise of "don't get upset, we're just economists!"
What follows is extremely tongue in cheek.
Men are more likely to be incarcerated in prison than women, about 10x more likely, and they receive longer sentences, and are less likely to receive parole. Men are also 3x more likely to be murdered than women. The naive explanation of this is that men are far more likely to commit violent crimes, by a rate of 9:1, men have a much higher homicide rate, men are more likely to participate in the majority of illicit crimes (only one significant illicit crime has women outranking men, prostitution), therefore, the imbalance of incarceration and sentencing is deserved. However, given that men and women are equal, these statistical realities cannot be because of a biological, physiological, or some other -logical difference between men and women, they must be caused by external factors. Therefore, systematic discrimination is forcing men to partake in violent crimes, and social, political, and economic discrimination is causing men to be 10x more likely to be convicted of these supposed crimes. If we want equality -- which we do -- these external social, political, and economic mechanisms that discriminate against men need to be rectified so that women participate in violent crimes at a higher rate and are incarcerated for it, and men are forced to participate in violent crimes at a lower rate and are not incarcerated for it.
The preceding was tongue in cheek. I believe in equality of the sexes, think that the argument above is silly, and strive for equality in pay. A counter-argument to the one above is that there are biological and physiological differences between men and women that push men into certain roles and women into others. These are amplified by social, political, and economic disparities between the sexes. Further, when striving for equality, the goal should never be to achieve equality by means of taking away a privileged position of one party, but to provide that same privilege to those who are discriminated against: For instance, the "solution" to Black slavery was not to enslave Whites equally; the "solution" to women not having the right to vote was not to take away that right from men, and so on.
What follows is extremely tongue in cheek.
Men are more likely to be incarcerated in prison than women, about 10x more likely, and they receive longer sentences, and are less likely to receive parole. Men are also 3x more likely to be murdered than women. The naive explanation of this is that men are far more likely to commit violent crimes, by a rate of 9:1, men have a much higher homicide rate, men are more likely to participate in the majority of illicit crimes (only one significant illicit crime has women outranking men, prostitution), therefore, the imbalance of incarceration and sentencing is deserved. However, given that men and women are equal, these statistical realities cannot be because of a biological, physiological, or some other -logical difference between men and women, they must be caused by external factors. Therefore, systematic discrimination is forcing men to partake in violent crimes, and social, political, and economic discrimination is causing men to be 10x more likely to be convicted of these supposed crimes. If we want equality -- which we do -- these external social, political, and economic mechanisms that discriminate against men need to be rectified so that women participate in violent crimes at a higher rate and are incarcerated for it, and men are forced to participate in violent crimes at a lower rate and are not incarcerated for it.
The preceding was tongue in cheek. I believe in equality of the sexes, think that the argument above is silly, and strive for equality in pay. A counter-argument to the one above is that there are biological and physiological differences between men and women that push men into certain roles and women into others. These are amplified by social, political, and economic disparities between the sexes. Further, when striving for equality, the goal should never be to achieve equality by means of taking away a privileged position of one party, but to provide that same privilege to those who are discriminated against: For instance, the "solution" to Black slavery was not to enslave Whites equally; the "solution" to women not having the right to vote was not to take away that right from men, and so on.
God Dayumm
Banned
Am I the only one who believes the tumblr feminazi is another fake meme, just like "nice guys", that at worst (if they exist) won't bother you in the real world because they are shut in at home with their cats?
Most women don't want to stomp over men, they just want better opportunities for themselves because they have ambitions too, you know.
Most women don't want to stomp over men, they just want better opportunities for themselves because they have ambitions too, you know.
Noone does, it's observed behaviour patterns that change between eras and cultures. The femininity I was talking about is the one that exists in modern western cultures, it's behaviour that I personally see value in. I don't see it as a threat to human rights or equality and believe it has it's place in modern society. But then I also don't believe that parents or teachers should be coaching young girls into being 'homemakers' as if it's a gender specific thing.
The problem is that those differences do exhibit themselves in the two sexes having different overall patterns of behavior. Violent crime is nearly all guys. Men appear to be naturally overconfident, women, under. Gay men and lesbians have radically different social communities (and completely different dating apps!)
Those structural factors are in play, and are important to consider when thinking about how these issues originate. (Albatross's Freakonomics excerpt does a good job of highlighting the problems that come with excising/ignoring them, actually.) The broader behavior patterns that we've been illuminating with studies (and not just anecdotal evidence) can bring a much needed perspective to issues- some may be less able to be addressed than we'd think, while others may require a much different approach than what we've been attempting up until this point.
There are a lot of fucking crazy bloggers. I've seen the idea thrown about that sexual assault does not have to be physical, it can be emotional or verbal. I think that's ridiculous.
But just because members of a group say idiotic bullshit does not mean their views are representative of the entire movement. Feminism is one of the most ideologically diverse movements in the world, and you shouldn't let the voices of the radicals shape your impressions of the entire movement.
This is a little suspicious. There's no way to tell if different accounts posted the comments, and it's odd that all four comments were posted at the same time. The typing style is the same, throughout. I've never once heard anybody say "a cis", but that's used twice in that Facebook screengrab. This is probably a hoax created for Reddit karma.
TwEE-N-Toast
Banned
I think they believe when there is a power imbalance the person with less power cannot possibly give true consent.
Neoriceisgood
Member
Any source or context here? I'm not familiar with this argument.
I don't see anything wrong with this idea, as long as it's not taken to absurd extremes.
Naturally? I'm not saying the argument can't be made, but there's more than enough noise from social expectations and differing experiences to make this a questionable assertion.
Cathy Brennan is a bigoted anti-trans radfem with a gender essentialist perspective; she has almost nothing in common with feminists who have been influenced by sex-positive and post-structuralist feminisms, queer theory, and intersectionality, and who make up the 'mainstream' of feminism today.
That's just something I've seen thrown about on various blogs. Because Tumblr creates an echo chamber effect, people often come to think of their own personal radical views as the norm. This isn't always a bad thing, but it proliferates radicals, and you should absolutely not let Tumblr radicals shape your idea of a group.
The issue with feminism is more of an issues with definition than anything else. It kind of like marriage vs civil union. (another discussion)
There are two main meanings of feminist.
1. Someone that wants gender equality within the means of physical limitations. (Like you can't have men give birth) No one should be fighting against this, this is a noble cause and everyone should be feminist.
2. Someone that wants to to get as many advantages as possible for woman. These people are sexist and are just as bad as men's right groups. No one should be this type of feminist.
The problem is a good amount of people believe in the terms so when discussions occur they usually aren't productive cause they're talking about completely different things.
There are two main meanings of feminist.
1. Someone that wants gender equality within the means of physical limitations. (Like you can't have men give birth) No one should be fighting against this, this is a noble cause and everyone should be feminist.
2. Someone that wants to to get as many advantages as possible for woman. These people are sexist and are just as bad as men's right groups. No one should be this type of feminist.
The problem is a good amount of people believe in the terms so when discussions occur they usually aren't productive cause they're talking about completely different things.
Biologically speaking men and women definitely have different behavioural instincts. Thats something that isn't only observed in the human species, which makes it easier to factor out societal influences.
TwEE-N-Toast
Banned
Well saying that there is no such thing as consensual sex or that all sex is rape is a pretty absurd extreme though.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
Chris Ryan had an interesting talk on his podcast a while back ( http://chrisryanphd.com/tangentially-speaking/ ) where he talks about the argument for human violence.
He pinpoints, because chimps are our closest cousin of the primates (with a 98% identical genome) and because chimps are the most violent, territorial and aggressive of all primates, that some people believe that rape, opression, domination and violence are natural parts of being human.
He however argues the fact, which is much less known publicaly, that human beings also have a 98% identical genome with a different type of primate... The Bonobo.
The Bonobo is the complete opposite of the chimp. Non-violent, non-territorial, doesn't rape. is orgiastic, which means, that the Bonobo solves all it's conflicts through sex. Also incest in all configurations with the exception of mother-son sex. Bonobo have been forgotten in science since their discovering because their deep sexual orgie lifestyle reflected bad as a cover for promoting theory of evolution. The chimps violent rape lifestyle is a much more easy and sensational headlines for everyone to accept.
The whole point being - If you want to argue that the reason men have been so dominate and oppressive towards women for the last 10,000 years since the dawn of agriculture (guns, germs, and steel < please read this book by Diamond. explains everything: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0393317552/?tag=neogaf0e-20 ) because men's faith is linked biologically to that of the chimp, you are only looking at one side of the coin.
The other side being the bonobo which haven't gotten the mainstream press and exposure they deserve. We know that many pagan cultures and pre-Christianity sects and groups and tribes have lived in orgiastic tribes as well. There are theories about smaller groups of human beings living like this in almost all parts of the world, and almost always oppressed. Small native Indian tribes being enslaved by the powerful and warlike Aztecs, being a good example.
People like to pull out specific examples or studies or statistics, but as time goes by I feel these become and more meaningless, and they almost unanimously and can be twisted and turned to serve an agenda or position. The bottomline for me is this: Women have suffered oppression along with many other groups, like gays, trans, left-handed people, dyslexics and so on. Oppression has been in the game for a long time.
What feminism has been good at, is creating a helpful community for women to help them. Something men are not good at it because there lingers a stigma in male society that says "dont talk about your problems, be john wayne". Men suffer too, and little attention have been given. It's not being taken serious, even though it though it should. this has nothing to do with women or womens rights, but rights for all. We are all just people, and just like the misdeeds of our ancestors and their oppression, so is it important to recognize mens issues, like treating fathers in court with the same equality as mothers during a divorce or separation, or making sure that boys are not getting 5 times the ADHD medications as girls because they have too much energy to fit within the norms of society, or the circumcision of baby boys due to old jewish propaganda.
He pinpoints, because chimps are our closest cousin of the primates (with a 98% identical genome) and because chimps are the most violent, territorial and aggressive of all primates, that some people believe that rape, opression, domination and violence are natural parts of being human.
He however argues the fact, which is much less known publicaly, that human beings also have a 98% identical genome with a different type of primate... The Bonobo.
The Bonobo is the complete opposite of the chimp. Non-violent, non-territorial, doesn't rape. is orgiastic, which means, that the Bonobo solves all it's conflicts through sex. Also incest in all configurations with the exception of mother-son sex. Bonobo have been forgotten in science since their discovering because their deep sexual orgie lifestyle reflected bad as a cover for promoting theory of evolution. The chimps violent rape lifestyle is a much more easy and sensational headlines for everyone to accept.
The whole point being - If you want to argue that the reason men have been so dominate and oppressive towards women for the last 10,000 years since the dawn of agriculture (guns, germs, and steel < please read this book by Diamond. explains everything: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0393317552/?tag=neogaf0e-20 ) because men's faith is linked biologically to that of the chimp, you are only looking at one side of the coin.
The other side being the bonobo which haven't gotten the mainstream press and exposure they deserve. We know that many pagan cultures and pre-Christianity sects and groups and tribes have lived in orgiastic tribes as well. There are theories about smaller groups of human beings living like this in almost all parts of the world, and almost always oppressed. Small native Indian tribes being enslaved by the powerful and warlike Aztecs, being a good example.
People like to pull out specific examples or studies or statistics, but as time goes by I feel these become and more meaningless, and they almost unanimously and can be twisted and turned to serve an agenda or position. The bottomline for me is this: Women have suffered oppression along with many other groups, like gays, trans, left-handed people, dyslexics and so on. Oppression has been in the game for a long time.
What feminism has been good at, is creating a helpful community for women to help them. Something men are not good at it because there lingers a stigma in male society that says "dont talk about your problems, be john wayne". Men suffer too, and little attention have been given. It's not being taken serious, even though it though it should. this has nothing to do with women or womens rights, but rights for all. We are all just people, and just like the misdeeds of our ancestors and their oppression, so is it important to recognize mens issues, like treating fathers in court with the same equality as mothers during a divorce or separation, or making sure that boys are not getting 5 times the ADHD medications as girls because they have too much energy to fit within the norms of society, or the circumcision of baby boys due to old jewish propaganda.
That's just bullshit.
For example dental assistants - the vast majority of those are female. Not because males don't want to do that job, but because patients prefer female assistants, thus males are discriminated against for wanting to do that job. You want a male fingering around in your face or a female?
Then there are all sorts of jobs related to children - the vast majority of people taking care of children are female. Not because males don't want to do that job, but because males are always and always potential child molesters + rapists nowadays. Thus males are discriminated against as well. You want 3 males taking care of your 5 year old daughter or 3 females?
Same for nurses. Having female nurses seeing male and female adults + children naked is not a problem at all. Male nurse washing a female patient? Oh Oh Oh. Big red warning sign. Male nurse washing a female child? Oh Oh red flag, potential molester. That's probably the cause why especially in pediatric care, there are almost always 100% female nurses.
Are there actual male delivery nurses? I surely don't think so.
It's kinda disgusting that you want to change this definitive and systematic discrimination against males into a "Patriarchy" issue and even change the gender of the victims from male to effectively female.
With regard to mainstream feminism in 1st world countries, What are the actual battlefields on which feminism levys its supporters to fight? If you were to give an elevator pitch.
My instant thoughts were glass ceiling, paygap, maternity leave, and abortion.
Obviously there are more general thinga but they arent really tangible frontlines, more like small fires that need to be put out or viewpoints that have to be changed over time.
I understand fully that is poorer and developing parts of the world women are treated much much worse.
My instant thoughts were glass ceiling, paygap, maternity leave, and abortion.
Obviously there are more general thinga but they arent really tangible frontlines, more like small fires that need to be put out or viewpoints that have to be changed over time.
I understand fully that is poorer and developing parts of the world women are treated much much worse.
Zen_Arcade
Banned
As a general rule of thumb you should never take anything said in the comment section of a gaming website as fact.
I had a really sour experience with a radfem the other day. It came down to the simple fact that I was a man living, I was supporting the rape and abuse of women, nothing I could say was correct.
I was explaining to her I consider myself a humanist, I think all people should be considered completely equal, and not be discriminated on by visual appearance. She told me I was an idiot, and that "humanist" is inherently misogynistic.
I had to excuse myself from the discussion. Honestly at that point, I feel they are doing more harm than good. I even told her I consider myself a feminist in the beginning, hoo boy, bad idea.
I was explaining to her I consider myself a humanist, I think all people should be considered completely equal, and not be discriminated on by visual appearance. She told me I was an idiot, and that "humanist" is inherently misogynistic.
I had to excuse myself from the discussion. Honestly at that point, I feel they are doing more harm than good. I even told her I consider myself a feminist in the beginning, hoo boy, bad idea.
User 100115
Banned
I'm a woman, and a feminist, and basically, it breaks down, to me, to being about choice.
For example: Women and men should be able to choose what to do with their own lives without having to worry about gender roles dictating their place in society. If a woman want to be a stay at home mom, she should be able to. If she wants to be a CEO, she should be able to. On the flip side, if a man wants to be a stay at home father, a nurse, a kindergarten teacher, a CEO, etc he should be able to as well without pushback from society.
It's about sexual freedom and breaking away from the 'promiscuity=slut' for women, virginity/few partners=emasculating to men. It's about being inclusive of all sexualities and the lack thereof. As long as everything is safe, sane, and consensual, people should stay the fuck out of other people's sex lives.
It's also about (again for me) the way our law enforcement and society treat victims of sexually based crimes and the people who commit them. Educating people on the issues surrounding rape is sort of a personal crusade of mine. We can't change how society deals with it without speaking up and talking about it. Might not happen in my lifetime, but hopefully I've been able to change a few minds here and there.
For example: Women and men should be able to choose what to do with their own lives without having to worry about gender roles dictating their place in society. If a woman want to be a stay at home mom, she should be able to. If she wants to be a CEO, she should be able to. On the flip side, if a man wants to be a stay at home father, a nurse, a kindergarten teacher, a CEO, etc he should be able to as well without pushback from society.
It's about sexual freedom and breaking away from the 'promiscuity=slut' for women, virginity/few partners=emasculating to men. It's about being inclusive of all sexualities and the lack thereof. As long as everything is safe, sane, and consensual, people should stay the fuck out of other people's sex lives.
It's also about (again for me) the way our law enforcement and society treat victims of sexually based crimes and the people who commit them. Educating people on the issues surrounding rape is sort of a personal crusade of mine. We can't change how society deals with it without speaking up and talking about it. Might not happen in my lifetime, but hopefully I've been able to change a few minds here and there.
- Status