Because human beings don't like to be thought of as objects most of the time.
--
Then they shouldn't consent to be on said billboards or pornography. Its not like these things are created without consent (Okay, they are sometimes, but not the mainstream.)
I agree with the dogma presented in the first post on this subject, however, I would not identify myself as a feminist for a number of reasons. The most important of which being that I don't like societal labels; I stand for what I stand for and what its called shouldn't make a difference. In addition, I believe energies are better spent improving the rights of *everyone* than focusing on only 50 or so percent of the population. Of course, I'm not going to try to keep a feminist from doing his or her thing; I would just rather focus my own attentions on more universal pursuits.
The other large problem with the term feminist I have is the connotations that can be associated with it. While I agree with what the movement is really about, all too often 'feminist' is used in place of misandrist.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH: UUUJin-Gitaxias, Core AugurUUU
Modern WWWHatebearsWWW
Not every woman ever appears on billboards, in advertisements or in porn. They're still stuck with the objectification and the expectations of what a woman should be.
And you can't just say that you should improve everyone's rights equally when it is a fact that some groups in society have it worse. Everyone must have the same rights, this is true, but there are some people who start out much higher up on the ladder.
Like when?
I'm not saying the rights shouldn't be balanced; rather that I don't see the point in focusing energies *exclusively* on one group. But then I'm not much of an activist to begin with, sooo...
And as for your argument against the objectivity...I'll always hold that freedom of choice (I don't mean abortion, here, I mean period) when not directly harming someone else should be held above the issue you're speaking of. Likewise, I don't believe that major league sports should be disbanded despite the fact that as a child I wasn't 'cool' because I didn't play as many sports as the other boys and was out of shape. One could argue that the sexual objectification is worse, in which case we'll have to simply agree to disagree on that point-I'd in turn argue that its only worse because society deems it that way, whereupon we'd reach a meta-meta argument.
As for when its used in the place of misandry? Well, stereotypes are there for a reason. In this case, its because for every 100 invocal majority feminists who actually know what it is to be a feminist, there is the one vocal minority who spots ideas about how men should have less rights than women simply because we're men. Which is in fact the opposite of the goal of feminists and other equal rights groups-equal rights.
EDIT: Before I get jumped on for it, I'm not saying that using women for advertisements and pornography is out-and-out okay, I'm just saying it shouldn't be a forced societal change-society would get to the point where its not neccessary, ideally, but something as major as outlawing it would evoke a major outcry.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH: UUUJin-Gitaxias, Core AugurUUU
Modern WWWHatebearsWWW
But a poster with an attractive woman on it isn't a woman, it's an object. A girls gone wild video isn't a person, it's an object. People react to images and videos of women as objects because the images and videos are objects.
And the definition given on that page is still incredibly vague and could mean any number of things.
Not every woman ever appears on billboards, in advertisements or in porn. They're still stuck with the objectification and the expectations of what a woman should be.
Is modeling objectification? If not, where does it become objectification? We objectify everything in our world. Men are objectified right along with women.
Seems a lot like whining because they can't be as pretty as the prettiest women. What is wrong with enjoying looking at attractive women? What is wrong with women who are attractive wearing clothes that show it off?
Yes, we can't all be attractive, and some people will never be as skinny as others, no matter how hard they try. Their rights should be absolutely equal, however I'm not sure we should be making efforts to halt the rules of physical attraction. That would be a losing battle.
As far as I'm concerned, you are a jerk if you AREN'T a feminist.
Your average macho idiot guy thinks feminism is the same thing as hyper feminism. Two completely different things.
Our society is horrible. Women are objectified by men, and consistently put down by men. Just look at the way people talk these days "*****es" "***** that" "***** this" you wouldn't catch me dead calling a woman or referring to women as "*****es".
You want to talk about society? Don't limit it to potential ways women are put down. Look at men trying to take jobs anywhere near kids these days. Look at divorce proceedings that still favor mothers over fathers as a general principle.
I hate to make a generalization here, but in divorce cases where one party is at fault, it is generally the guy.
Yes, men are put down in society sometimes, but so is everyone. If a dude thinks he is being subjugated because of his sex or a similar issue, he should simply confront said subjugator about it.
In my opinion, Feminism is about equality, and protecting the rights and futures of women. Culture tends to be pretty oppressive towards women, something i think should change forever.
Men get put down as much as women. The problem is that the way it's done to men is dismissed as normal and the guy told to just "suck it up" because that's the way it's done.
I agree with posters above who are for equality, not feminism. Feminism, as with any other agenda that seeks to promote the interests of a single group, can and has gone too far at times.
I strongly disagree. Feminism promotes a single group which has been Severely culturally and religiously oppressed for thousands of years. Women need the spiritual power to be able to stick up for themselves.
Yes, there are cases of feminism going to far, or getting too ridiculous, but so has every other similar group in the history of the human race.
Lets review that dictionary quote again
the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
You are for equality, not feminism? That sound weird. You are for equality, but you disapprove of women sticking up for themselves and protecting they're rights and freedoms?
I have a feeling some people are going to get pretty pissed off because of this post. Not that that really bothers me.
Distance...out of reach...just a hair's breath away
Please help me Cause I'm breaking down,
this picture is frozen and I can't get out,
Please help me cause I can't get out,
This pictures frozen and I can't get out of here,
Objectification happens to everyone. Plain and simple. Every single person in the world is judged by some outside metric that reduces them to numbers on a sheet compared to something under whatever model you use.
You want to talk about society? Don't limit it to potential ways women are put down. Look at men trying to take jobs anywhere near kids these days. Look at divorce proceedings that still favor mothers over fathers as a general principle.
Men get put down as much as women. The problem is that the way it's done to men is dismissed as normal and the guy told to just "suck it up" because that's the way it's done.
I agree with posters above who are for equality, not feminism. Feminism, as with any other agenda that seeks to promote the interests of a single group, can and has gone too far at times.
Frankly, your post just screams like you're white-knighting and that is itself a knock against men AND women alike.
Oh please. Don't give me this "Men get put down just as much as women" bull☺☺☺☺. Guess who puts down Women? MEN. Guess who puts down men? MEN. You need to point the finger at the "Man's Man" of the world who put down anyone they deem "inferior" when in fact most of these men are complete idiots who don't even know what the word "Feminism" means.
They see a group of hyper feminist protesters on TV, and say "Feminists are evil!!! Women should just shut up and take it up the ass!!"
Divorce proceedings favor mothers, because in our law system, a mother has an innate higher ranking then a man when a child is born. If the 2 weren't married, the women has almost all rights to the child. This is done not because women are favored, but because it is the correct way it should be done.
I sure am "White-Knighting", if you call sticking up for what I believe in "White-Knighting".
Oh please. Don't give me this "Men get put down just as much as women" bull☺☺☺☺. Guess who puts down Women? MEN. Guess who puts down men? MEN. You need to point the finger at the "Man's Man" of the world who put down anyone they deem "inferior" when in fact most of these men are complete idiots who don't even know what the word "Feminism" means.
The problem is that many men I have met do know what feminism is, and the reason they and I reject it is that these theories are just that; theories. Nepotism, stereotypes, and other cultural mechanics also enter into part with these complex situations. Clinging to a single trend in the scope of history is asking for trouble like what we saw become of Marxist historical interpretation and philosophy. Today we see this with radical capitalism as a historical movement and economic philosophy to life.
They see a group of hyper feminist protesters on TV, and say "Feminists are evil!!!
Granted there is a natural reaction for people to not like people that tell them they are wrong and prove that they are wrong. However, in this case I side against intellectual feminism. It has, in the mainstream, become defined by what Limbaugh calls "feminazis." There is also liberal and conservative arguments against feminism in its predisposition on historical analysis.
As a minority, I believe that feminism and specific movements focus on specific minorities is flawed. I was once poor, and frankly I knew poor whites that were male that became troubled men. They could have used some of the special treatment that was available to me based on my birth and circumstances.
Women should just shut up and take it up the ass!!"
Polemicism frankly makes your argument look like an Edmund Burke or Ann Coulter style that has little intellectual rigor. Granted, I am no master at debate nor a polymath myself and still need improvement. It would be better if you could move onward to more substance than style.
Divorce proceedings favor mothers, because in our law system, a mother has an innate higher ranking then a man when a child is born. If the 2 weren't married, the women has almost all rights to the child. This is done not because women are favored, but because it is the correct way it should be done.
Why? What are your statistics? Where is your data or philosophy to support this assertion?
Speaking as a father that is a simple layman that reads extensively, I can say that without a doubt that women do have the evolutionary advantage to nurse and take care of babies because of the external equipment. However, statistically "breast milk is best" is still out there in the research when you get into the nitty gritty data available to doctors. There is also research that shows that being a "good mother" is dependent upon your previous experiences, your own mother, and environment. Granted free will can change two of these factors and overtime adjust to change a "mediocre mother" to a good mother.
The same however is also with the father. To get to know how to comfort baby and so forth is reliant upon trial and error with the specific two individuals involved, namely parent and baby. Gay men have raised children, and so have gay women without much issue to the psychology and health of the child. So I don't buy how "Mom is best," especially if "breast milk is best" is scientifically still out there.
Let us move beyond the "baby stage" to whenever the child can walk talk and is autonomous, for a child to teenage years can be anyway. Frankly speaking with data, rich people make better parents than poor people. This is obviously connected to opportunity and culture that is associated with wealth. So speaking "scientifically," although these studies are more of a soft science than a hard science, then we should give children to the wealthier parent, no?
Women's advantages stop short of giving birth and having breasts in line of child care. As the child grows, the male will set in place specific socio-psychological or more mundanely cultural mandates upon the child. The male of the family reinforces cultural sexual identity. Granted I have no clue about this with gay couples, but my own personal experiences does equate this data. This ranges from my personal experiences as both son and later a father, to seeing how others raise their children.
For example, if a father calls his daughter "princess" and buys the child clothes and other feminine apparral. The child will be reinforced to be more feminine and if the child's genes and other external experiences reinforces this the child will be a "girly girl." But, there is a limit to this. Tom boys can be created a number of ways. The first is genetics, the second testosterone overexposure in the womb, and the third expression of those culturally or "free will" just systematizing to the child to be a "tom boy." The same goes with an effeminate female.
So the creation of this "ideal child" is complicated. For generations they have their own culture. They speak slightly differently than their adults in many ways from the obvious vernacular to the speech rate and pronunciation of words. So children are inculcated into micro and macro cultures from their own generation and cross referenced with other cultures like media.
So without going too far in depth with genetic expression and psycho social stuff that I've only begun to understand myself. I have come to the simple expression that with the various family experiments I see ranging from homosexuals to single parents; that with great certainty, I cannot use many means to vivisect a single "truth."
What I can say with some objectivity coupled with a sense of respect to traditional frameworks is that the two person household and economy is superior to today's two person income household. I say this after studying economics, history, and especially personal experience that division of labor within the family is great. Having a "jack of all trades" go to person like the 50's ideal mother is wonderful, but to have her stuck in that pristine Barbie world or a man in her place is asking for dread and another cultural revolution.
What I look at is the way we structure our business culture to be pro workaholic and the vision that there is a single path to the top. The issue with this is a lack of redundancy to raise our children with. A "spare parent," given if it be a man or woman, that can cover for familial obligations ranging from the child being sick to Grandpa needing help with a drive to the store while his car is in the shop is a wonderful thing. However, this requires more flexible work hours, better on and off ramps for careers, and above all else an economy that supports families.
Feminism lies to women starting with Betty Friedan's seminal work. Woman can do everything a man can do, but can they do both the traditional man's work and the traditional woman's work? I have seen this on a personal level with many women I know, they set their expectations high and neglect themselves all for this pipe dream of "having it all." I see it with men too. These men neglect their bodies and over the years their personalities change and their bodies break down. Woe be to those that hit upon hard times with illness or some other catastrophe as it only gets worse.
This in part goes back to people that personify rugged individualism and espouse radical capitalism. The individual as the sine qua non and that women oscillate between homemakers with drudgery to superwoman. Until I see a woman that can fly, she is not much different than me. There are severe differences between male and female, but on the individual level it becomes more complex.
So in conclusion in my worldview, I reject the philosophy of feminism and portions of what it classically has espoused. Socially it if very much true women can do anything a man can do to a point, but this also means women cannot do what a men cannot do. That is to have a perfect balance between work and home.
Overall though, men lacking fully functional milk producing breasts can concede to that it is merely more difficult to nurse a child. Also, with the inability to give live birth men must also concede certain points to women, during pregnancy and recovering from pregnancy. After the birth of the child, a man or two men can raise the child void of women successfully.
There are some cultural modifications to family that Amerindians, classic European families, Asians, and on down the line that work within communities and families to raise their children. There is also the European socialism associated with daycare or corporate socialism within the states to provide daycare. The subject on proper childcare is gigantic, and to try and say "that is the way of things" lacks scientific rigor, or soft science rigor anyway, and void of analyzing effective cultural traditions.
My suppositions could be weak, attack them please as I would like to see more feminist intellectualism in action. You, sir or ma'am, have piqued my interest.
Oh please. Don't give me this "Men get put down just as much as women" bull☺☺☺☺. Guess who puts down Women? MEN. Guess who puts down men? MEN.
Don't be silly. Our society generally favors men, but on an individual level, women are quite as capable of sexism as men are. I'm not just talking about psychotic all-men-are-rapists feminazis, either; watch just about any chick flick and you'll see supposedly normal women making sexist comments about men, some of which, frankly, would be inappropriate if the roles were reversed.
For that matter, women are perfectly capable of anti-women sexism, too.
Divorce proceedings favor mothers, because in our law system, a mother has an innate higher ranking then a man when a child is born. If the 2 weren't married, the women has almost all rights to the child. This is done not because women are favored, but because it is the correct way it should be done.
Careful here. If you're admitting that there are "innate" differences between the sexes that render one better than the other at certain roles, you won't have a leg to stand on if some anti-feminist argues that men are innately better at something - say, military service - and so women should be discouraged from doing it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The problem is that many men I have met do know what feminism is, and the reason they and I reject it is that these theories are just that; theories. Nepotism, stereotypes, and other cultural mechanics also enter into part with these complex situations. Clinging to a single trend in the scope of history is asking for trouble like what we saw become of Marxist historical interpretation and philosophy. Today we see this with radical capitalism as a historical movement and economic philosophy to life.
Granted there is a natural reaction for people to not like people that tell them they are wrong and prove that they are wrong. However, in this case I side against intellectual feminism. It has, in the mainstream, become defined by what Limbaugh calls "feminazis." There is also liberal and conservative arguments against feminism in its predisposition on historical analysis.
As a minority, I believe that feminism and specific movements focus on specific minorities is flawed. I was once poor, and frankly I knew poor whites that were male that became troubled men. They could have used some of the special treatment that was available to me based on my birth and circumstances.
Polemicism frankly makes your argument look like an Edmund Burke or Ann Coulter style that has little intellectual rigor. Granted, I am no master at debate nor a polymath myself and still need improvement. It would be better if you could move onward to more substance than style.
Why? What are your statistics? Where is your data or philosophy to support this assertion?
Speaking as a father that is a simple layman that reads extensively, I can say that without a doubt that women do have the evolutionary advantage to nurse and take care of babies because of the external equipment. However, statistically "breast milk is best" is still out there in the research when you get into the nitty gritty data available to doctors. There is also research that shows that being a "good mother" is dependent upon your previous experiences, your own mother, and environment. Granted free will can change two of these factors and overtime adjust to change a "mediocre mother" to a good mother.
The same however is also with the father. To get to know how to comfort baby and so forth is reliant upon trial and error with the specific two individuals involved, namely parent and baby. Gay men have raised children, and so have gay women without much issue to the psychology and health of the child. So I don't buy how "Mom is best," especially if "breast milk is best" is scientifically still out there.
Let us move beyond the "baby stage" to whenever the child can walk talk and is autonomous, for a child to teenage years can be anyway. Frankly speaking with data, rich people make better parents than poor people. This is obviously connected to opportunity and culture that is associated with wealth. So speaking "scientifically," although these studies are more of a soft science than a hard science, then we should give children to the wealthier parent, no?
Women's advantages stop short of giving birth and having breasts in line of child care. As the child grows, the male will set in place specific socio-psychological or more mundanely cultural mandates upon the child. The male of the family reinforces cultural sexual identity. Granted I have no clue about this with gay couples, but my own personal experiences does equate this data. This ranges from my personal experiences as both son and later a father, to seeing how others raise their children.
For example, if a father calls his daughter "princess" and buys the child clothes and other feminine apparral. The child will be reinforced to be more feminine and if the child's genes and other external experiences reinforces this the child will be a "girly girl." But, there is a limit to this. Tom boys can be created a number of ways. The first is genetics, the second testosterone overexposure in the womb, and the third expression of those culturally or "free will" just systematizing to the child to be a "tom boy." The same goes with an effeminate female.
So the creation of this "ideal child" is complicated. For generations they have their own culture. They speak slightly differently than their adults in many ways from the obvious vernacular to the speech rate and pronunciation of words. So children are inculcated into micro and macro cultures from their own generation and cross referenced with other cultures like media.
So without going too far in depth with genetic expression and psycho social stuff that I've only begun to understand myself. I have come to the simple expression that with the various family experiments I see ranging from homosexuals to single parents; that with great certainty, I cannot use many means to vivisect a single "truth."
What I can say with some objectivity coupled with a sense of respect to traditional frameworks is that the two person household and economy is superior to today's two person income household. I say this after studying economics, history, and especially personal experience that division of labor within the family is great. Having a "jack of all trades" go to person like the 50's ideal mother is wonderful, but to have her stuck in that pristine Barbie world or a man in her place is asking for dread and another cultural revolution.
What I look at is the way we structure our business culture to be pro workaholic and the vision that there is a single path to the top. The issue with this is a lack of redundancy to raise our children with. A "spare parent," given if it be a man or woman, that can cover for familial obligations ranging from the child being sick to Grandpa needing help with a drive to the store while his car is in the shop is a wonderful thing. However, this requires more flexible work hours, better on and off ramps for careers, and above all else an economy that supports families.
Feminism lies to women starting with Betty Friedan's seminal work. Woman can do everything a man can do, but can they do both the traditional man's work and the traditional woman's work? I have seen this on a personal level with many women I know, they set their expectations high and neglect themselves all for this pipe dream of "having it all." I see it with men too. These men neglect their bodies and over the years their personalities change and their bodies break down. Woe be to those that hit upon hard times with illness or some other catastrophe as it only gets worse.
This in part goes back to people that personify rugged individualism and espouse radical capitalism. The individual as the sine qua non and that women oscillate between homemakers with drudgery to superwoman. Until I see a woman that can fly, she is not much different than me. There are severe differences between male and female, but on the individual level it becomes more complex.
So in conclusion in my worldview, I reject the philosophy of feminism and portions of what it classically has espoused. Socially it if very much true women can do anything a man can do to a point, but this also means women cannot do what a men cannot do. That is to have a perfect balance between work and home.
Overall though, men lacking fully functional milk producing breasts can concede to that it is merely more difficult to nurse a child. Also, with the inability to give live birth men must also concede certain points to women, during pregnancy and recovering from pregnancy. After the birth of the child, a man or two men can raise the child void of women successfully.
There are some cultural modifications to family that Amerindians, classic European families, Asians, and on down the line that work within communities and families to raise their children. There is also the European socialism associated with daycare or corporate socialism within the states to provide daycare. The subject on proper childcare is gigantic, and to try and say "that is the way of things" lacks scientific rigor, or soft science rigor anyway, and void of analyzing effective cultural traditions.
My suppositions could be weak, attack them please as I would like to see more feminist intellectualism in action. You, sir or ma'am, have piqued my interest.
You have some talking points, but lack any explanation to why you believe what you believe.
You can't speak from a strictly scientific fact driven point of view on something that is almost completely opinion and culturally based.
I don't need to show "scientific" proof to prove that a mother is innately a better caretaker then a father, and thus is given an advantage by the law in this matter. But if you would like something scientific that helps support why they are innately a better caretaker, look no further then the production of 2 critical hormones/neurotransmitters. Oxytocin and Prolactin. Women create both after child birth, and both are extremely important in caretaking. Men only create Oxytocin when the pleasure centers are flickering (during child bonding.) This innately makes women a better caretaker.
Again, I don't think you understand the difference between feminism and hyper-feminism. Feminists just want women to be treated with respect by men, and treated fairly in areas they should be treated fairly in (why can't women walk around topless??)
Hyper Feminists want everything to be equal or favored for the side of females. Regardless of what it is. These are the same women that storm around demanding that prostitution should be legalized. They are not connected to feminist's in any way, and are really just Neo-Nazi's going under the moniker of "Feminists".
As a feminist (I am a male by the way), my real problem with today's society is a few things. One, the lack of respect shown to the opposite sex by males. Two, the portrayal of females as mere sex objects by media tabloids, and the insane stress society (see. Males) puts on women to be "culturally accepted" (see. "American Beauty"). And finally, the acceptance of misogyny in American and some world culture.
Feminists are simply idealists who yearn for a culture where women and men can exist in near-equality, and where one gender is not held down by another.
Don't be silly. Our society generally favors men, but on an individual level, women are quite as capable of sexism as men are. I'm not just talking about psychotic all-men-are-rapists feminazis, either; watch just about any chick flick and you'll see supposedly normal women making sexist comments about men, some of which, frankly, would be inappropriate if the roles were reversed.
For that matter, women are perfectly capable of anti-women sexism, too.
Careful here. If you're admitting that there are "innate" differences between the sexes that render one better than the other at certain roles, you won't have a leg to stand on if some anti-feminist argues that men are innately better at something - say, military service - and so women should be discouraged from doing it.
I 100% agree that women are capable of sexism. Women are humans, but what you are talking about is not a women acting sexist, it's a media tabloid portraying a women as a sexist in a movie.
If you read my previous post, you will see that I agree that both genders are innately better then the other at certain things. I believe that everything sex's are INNATELY better at, one gender should be given a leg up in, but this DOES NOT count anything that is completely culture driven (see. "Women are better housemaids".)
Feminists are simply idealists who yearn for a culture where women and men can exist in near-equality, and where one gender is not held down by another.
Again I ask; If that's the case, why do feminist never oppose sexism against men? You can't pretend to be a champion of equality and then close your eyes on one side of the issues.
Again this odd belief that only women are at a loss when it simply isn't true.
What happens is that sexism against men is often more subtle and never generates as much outrage as it would were it done to women.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It is always easy to be tolerant and understanding...Until someone presents an opinion completely opposite to your own.
I just felt like putting my thoughts out here on equality in general because every time I hear that word it fills me with fear.
True equality is impossible. Period. End of story. There I said it.
Truely equal society = perfect communism, which as we know cannot possibly happen.
If you add up all the peices of one person every advantage and disadvantage then you would see what I mean. Cold cruel facts, at the end of the day some people are better than others. What some people do will work better than others. The truth is that these numbers may favor men or women.
Equality makes me sick, its just another word people use to opress other people. The only differance, is that it is used to opress those in power at the time.
Simply trying to be legally equal is far more reasonable, as it strives for equal legal protection. This is perfectly ok. Trying to be socially equal is absurd because people have differant views of "equal" What some may think equal may be thought of as terribly unfair by another group.
Equality only exists when it involves pure numbers and you can say 1 = 1 or 1+2 =3 Equality does not exist when you compare two men two women or one man and one woman. No matter how you measure it out it will never be equal.
Again I ask; If that's the case, why do feminist never oppose sexism against men? You can't pretend to be a champion of equality and then close your eyes on one side of the issues.
Again this odd belief that only women are at a loss when it simply isn't true.
What happens is that sexism against men is often more subtle and never generates as much outrage as it would were it done to women.
Why is it women's job to oppose male sexism? In most cases society opposes male sexism due to the simple fact that it's a male-dominated society. Women have their hands full picking themselves up from the ☺☺☺☺ society has put them through the past few millennia (not to mention the problems they face still), can you blame them for prioritizing?
--
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Listen to my M:tG flavor Podcast: Story Circle! (Newest episode is all about Innistrad previews.)
Feminists are simply idealists who yearn for a culture where women and men can exist in near-equality, and where one gender is not held down by another.
Some* feminists. Their unpopularity doesn't come from citizens not wanting equal rights, it comes from some of their radical leaders.
Again I ask; If that's the case, why do feminist never oppose sexism against men? You can't pretend to be a champion of equality and then close your eyes on one side of the issues.
Again this odd belief that only women are at a loss when it simply isn't true.
What happens is that sexism against men is often more subtle and never generates as much outrage as it would were it done to women.
I agree in principle, but you won't see me going out and fighting for every individual's rights, as it is neither my interest nor position to do so.
I feel that men and women will never be treated the same socially as long as the psychological differences and sexual desires between the two still exist. We all pretty much have the same rights, but you're almost always going to find a double standard in a social environment.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
You can't speak from a strictly scientific fact driven point of view on something that is almost completely opinion and culturally based.
I don't need to show "scientific" proof to prove that a mother is innately a better caretaker then a father, and thus is given an advantage by the law in this matter. But if you would like something scientific that helps support why they are innately a better caretaker, look no further then the production of 2 critical hormones/neurotransmitters. Oxytocin and Prolactin. Women create both after child birth, and both are extremely important in caretaking. Men only create Oxytocin when the pleasure centers are flickering (during child bonding.) This innately makes women a better caretaker.
In the case of child rearing, culture and the soft sciences out rank the pure hard sciences. Yes, the hard sciences do play a large part in the soft sciences, but there are just certain pieces to studies that are not probable to compute. This is why I was careful with my wording by speaking more towards the "soft" than "hard sciences."
Again, I don't think you understand the difference between feminism and hyper-feminism. Feminists just want women to be treated with respect by men, and treated fairly in areas they should be treated fairly in (why can't women walk around topless??)
Except in popular culture that "hyper feminism" is equated to the whole of feminism. Even then, I'm against solely focusing on one specific block of people based on a certain physical quality that is too broad to be truly effective.
Hyper Feminists want everything to be equal or favored for the side of females. Regardless of what it is. These are the same women that storm around demanding that prostitution should be legalized. They are not connected to feminist's in any way, and are really just Neo-Nazi's going under the moniker of "Feminists".
These are the ones that are popularized by the media and the "truer" feminists do not rally against this. There is no symbol for feminism that has become degraded to this perception. Furthermore, I also have issues with the literature surrounding feminism with some lies that are told to women, such as a woman "can have it all." Granted, there is some literature that speaks out against that in feminism, but I question whether that this would be better served to look at a large picture approach and then zoom in and out to specific spheres to do battle with mutual interests served.
As a minority man myself, I have grave issues with the various civil rights movements. I tend to remove race from culture to try and do see common trends. The more effective cultural changing programs that are effective typically are local and full throttle in inception.
As a feminist (I am a male by the way), my real problem with today's society is a few things. One, the lack of respect shown to the opposite sex by males. Two, the portrayal of females as mere sex objects by media tabloids, and the insane stress society (see. Males) puts on women to be "culturally accepted" (see. "American Beauty"). And finally, the acceptance of misogyny in American and some world culture.
As a minority that's spent sometime looking at the history of discrimination against various cultures. I frankly, even from personal experience, see that there is a bit of commonality between different "forms" of discrimination. Most of the discrimination is done out of fear or perception with a want for entertainment, power, or both.
The way to change people is one head or heart at a time through local programs and individual acts of engagement.
Feminists are simply idealists who yearn for a culture where women and men can exist in near-equality, and where one gender is not held down by another.
The outcome of focusing on women has degraded raising boys to men in certain aspects if you delve into the literature. One such example is that we have neglected the feelings of boys by ignoring their problems or encouraging "talking things out" without any back up to interpersonal problems on the part of adults.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
I never understood the evils of objectification. All you're doing is focusing on a particular aspect of another person (generally the physical aspect) for selfish purposes. I don't see how it's more loathsome than a woman who sometimes thinks about how a given man could support her lifestyle financially, be a good father to her kids, move furniture for her, etc.
My girlfriend is not thinking about my hopes and dreams when she thinks about me getting a better job. She is objectifying me as an ATM machine.
I don't look downly on feminists indivduals. As a whole i look down upon it...i view it as soemthing along the lines of a modern day workers union. Its all about creating problems now adays. You say that it solves problems? It really solves the problems it creates. Its the appendix in todays "human body" called society.
One arguement i get tired of hearing from feminists (since its a big thing at my college, some are hawt others are plain trolls and others look like your normal every day Jane) are the wage differences between men and women. I got an earful from one the other day about my wage difference and hers though we work the same dang job. The ultimate fallacy in her arguement is that she likes taking "personal days" with her girlfriend (yes shes lesbian, but i don't care) i work 40 hours for a part time job while im schedualed for 15. she works 15 while schedualed for 30. Still she expects to be paid the same for less work, yet she makes more per hour than i do! Something wrong there? I sure think so. People are so worries about her screaming discrimination that they won't do anything.
While this may be an isolated incident with the whole sexism thing, i just think people and feminists should actually see the underlying causes before going all "omg discrimination" all over the place. Though there are the people that do automatically dislike you for your dangly bits...or lack of em, there are many more that don't.
I see bigtime feminists, they tend to treat feminish their "job or business" instead of an actual idea. Like unions make PROFITS!! so do these feminists. Buy their book "why dangly bits are eviiiiil" for 32.95!!! While your at it reserve your 10,000 dollar seat for a feminist retreat!! At the lobbying level its all about business and creating problems. If theyre no problems, they're out a job and they wouldn't want that.
Fun fact: Many feminists are like alot of people who voted for obama. They voted for him because someone (oprah) told them to without actually knowing who he was. For a research paper. I asked tons of women if they support womens sufferage. I also asked them if they consider themselves feminists. over 80% of feminists didnt even know what the topic is or didnt support it. Pretty poor results for such a milestone in feminism. While under 50% of nonfeminists didnt support it or didnt know what it was.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you see someone playing a control deck, the following strategy is considered acceptable: 1) Slowly reach upward 2) Grab your opponent firmly by the throat 3) Squeeze 4) ???? 5) Profit...and a fountain of red Kool Aid!!!
Because we keep talking about the goal of feminism being the equality between the sexes.
My problem is that once we move beyond the realm of legal equality, in areas such as the right to vote, this goal becomes nebulous and undefined. Perhaps when we apply it to things like financial equality, such as when a woman is paid an unequal amount for doing exactly the same job and work as a male counterpart, this can be measured and combatted, and I don't think anyone would deny this is an inequality that is both unfair and unjust.
But then we get to applying the idea of equality, the word equality, to things that make one pause. For instance, that there are physical differences between men and women that make one better suited to a task than another.
I think that instead of an idea of equality between the sexes, what we should have is an idea of a mutual respect amongst sexes. The issue with the term equality is that we extrapolate the idea and apply it to areas in which the term "equality" doesn't really function. For instance, relationships invariably come up, and it's true, you cannot be "equal" in a relationship, the idea of "equality" doesn't even work in that situation. But what there can be is a mutual respect, and I think that's something that functions.
Sorry, but I don't consider it bad to enjoy images of attractive women. I can appreciate such images to satisfy innate desires, and still consider women to be equal. Go stare at images of men, I don't care.
If a woman decides she doesn't want to have such images of herself taken, thats fine it's her choice.
But men are not in the wrong here.
Just had to log in to reply
If a woman decides and understands what she's doing when she gets into a pornographic photoshoot, your argument would stand. I think you probably are smart enough to keep to porn-producers who have an ethical sense and treats the women with respect, but at the same time you're supporting an industry that makes it seem proffitable for other idiots to disrespect women and make pornographic material. I think watching porn, when done by many, is an act that some way will cause women to be treated bad.
The scary thing is if you're watching porn with unknown producers you really don't know if the women has a gun pointed at her behind the camera, or some dope as payment.
Just my opinion.:)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am petitioning for the removal of mythic rarity and boycotting overpriced singles. Sig this to join the cause for a more affordable Magic the Gathering.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Because human beings don't like to be thought of as objects most of the time.
--
Winner of the 2nd Design Survivor Contest
Creator of the Vorthos Card Contest
Winner of 12th and the 18th Short Story Contests
Creator of the Vs. Tournament.
--Runner of the Superhero Vs. Tounrament
--Runner of the Villian Vs. Tournament.
Then they shouldn't consent to be on said billboards or pornography. Its not like these things are created without consent (Okay, they are sometimes, but not the mainstream.)
I agree with the dogma presented in the first post on this subject, however, I would not identify myself as a feminist for a number of reasons. The most important of which being that I don't like societal labels; I stand for what I stand for and what its called shouldn't make a difference. In addition, I believe energies are better spent improving the rights of *everyone* than focusing on only 50 or so percent of the population. Of course, I'm not going to try to keep a feminist from doing his or her thing; I would just rather focus my own attentions on more universal pursuits.
The other large problem with the term feminist I have is the connotations that can be associated with it. While I agree with what the movement is really about, all too often 'feminist' is used in place of misandrist.
UUUJin-Gitaxias, Core AugurUUU
Modern
WWWHatebearsWWW
I'm not saying the rights shouldn't be balanced; rather that I don't see the point in focusing energies *exclusively* on one group. But then I'm not much of an activist to begin with, sooo...
And as for your argument against the objectivity...I'll always hold that freedom of choice (I don't mean abortion, here, I mean period) when not directly harming someone else should be held above the issue you're speaking of. Likewise, I don't believe that major league sports should be disbanded despite the fact that as a child I wasn't 'cool' because I didn't play as many sports as the other boys and was out of shape. One could argue that the sexual objectification is worse, in which case we'll have to simply agree to disagree on that point-I'd in turn argue that its only worse because society deems it that way, whereupon we'd reach a meta-meta argument.
As for when its used in the place of misandry? Well, stereotypes are there for a reason. In this case, its because for every 100 invocal majority feminists who actually know what it is to be a feminist, there is the one vocal minority who spots ideas about how men should have less rights than women simply because we're men. Which is in fact the opposite of the goal of feminists and other equal rights groups-equal rights.
EDIT: Before I get jumped on for it, I'm not saying that using women for advertisements and pornography is out-and-out okay, I'm just saying it shouldn't be a forced societal change-society would get to the point where its not neccessary, ideally, but something as major as outlawing it would evoke a major outcry.
UUUJin-Gitaxias, Core AugurUUU
Modern
WWWHatebearsWWW
Well, how precisely does this objectification occur? It's a really vague term maybe you could explain it for me
It's easy enough to discover.
For example, googling "definition objectification" gives this link as the second hit (after the dictionary definition).
And the definition given on that page is still incredibly vague and could mean any number of things.
Is modeling objectification? If not, where does it become objectification? We objectify everything in our world. Men are objectified right along with women.
Seems a lot like whining because they can't be as pretty as the prettiest women. What is wrong with enjoying looking at attractive women? What is wrong with women who are attractive wearing clothes that show it off?
Yes, we can't all be attractive, and some people will never be as skinny as others, no matter how hard they try. Their rights should be absolutely equal, however I'm not sure we should be making efforts to halt the rules of physical attraction. That would be a losing battle.
Your average macho idiot guy thinks feminism is the same thing as hyper feminism. Two completely different things.
Our society is horrible. Women are objectified by men, and consistently put down by men. Just look at the way people talk these days "*****es" "***** that" "***** this" you wouldn't catch me dead calling a woman or referring to women as "*****es".
I blame pop and urban culture.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=218820
I hate to make a generalization here, but in divorce cases where one party is at fault, it is generally the guy.
Yes, men are put down in society sometimes, but so is everyone. If a dude thinks he is being subjugated because of his sex or a similar issue, he should simply confront said subjugator about it.
In my opinion, Feminism is about equality, and protecting the rights and futures of women. Culture tends to be pretty oppressive towards women, something i think should change forever.
I strongly disagree. Feminism promotes a single group which has been Severely culturally and religiously oppressed for thousands of years. Women need the spiritual power to be able to stick up for themselves.
Yes, there are cases of feminism going to far, or getting too ridiculous, but so has every other similar group in the history of the human race.
Lets review that dictionary quote again
You are for equality, not feminism? That sound weird. You are for equality, but you disapprove of women sticking up for themselves and protecting they're rights and freedoms?
I have a feeling some people are going to get pretty pissed off because of this post. Not that that really bothers me.
Please help me Cause I'm breaking down,
this picture is frozen and I can't get out,
Please help me cause I can't get out,
This pictures frozen and I can't get out of here,
Believe me, I'm just as lost as you...
Oh please. Don't give me this "Men get put down just as much as women" bull☺☺☺☺. Guess who puts down Women? MEN. Guess who puts down men? MEN. You need to point the finger at the "Man's Man" of the world who put down anyone they deem "inferior" when in fact most of these men are complete idiots who don't even know what the word "Feminism" means.
They see a group of hyper feminist protesters on TV, and say "Feminists are evil!!! Women should just shut up and take it up the ass!!"
Divorce proceedings favor mothers, because in our law system, a mother has an innate higher ranking then a man when a child is born. If the 2 weren't married, the women has almost all rights to the child. This is done not because women are favored, but because it is the correct way it should be done.
I sure am "White-Knighting", if you call sticking up for what I believe in "White-Knighting".
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=218820
The problem is that many men I have met do know what feminism is, and the reason they and I reject it is that these theories are just that; theories. Nepotism, stereotypes, and other cultural mechanics also enter into part with these complex situations. Clinging to a single trend in the scope of history is asking for trouble like what we saw become of Marxist historical interpretation and philosophy. Today we see this with radical capitalism as a historical movement and economic philosophy to life.
Granted there is a natural reaction for people to not like people that tell them they are wrong and prove that they are wrong. However, in this case I side against intellectual feminism. It has, in the mainstream, become defined by what Limbaugh calls "feminazis." There is also liberal and conservative arguments against feminism in its predisposition on historical analysis.
As a minority, I believe that feminism and specific movements focus on specific minorities is flawed. I was once poor, and frankly I knew poor whites that were male that became troubled men. They could have used some of the special treatment that was available to me based on my birth and circumstances.
Polemicism frankly makes your argument look like an Edmund Burke or Ann Coulter style that has little intellectual rigor. Granted, I am no master at debate nor a polymath myself and still need improvement. It would be better if you could move onward to more substance than style.
Why? What are your statistics? Where is your data or philosophy to support this assertion?
Speaking as a father that is a simple layman that reads extensively, I can say that without a doubt that women do have the evolutionary advantage to nurse and take care of babies because of the external equipment. However, statistically "breast milk is best" is still out there in the research when you get into the nitty gritty data available to doctors. There is also research that shows that being a "good mother" is dependent upon your previous experiences, your own mother, and environment. Granted free will can change two of these factors and overtime adjust to change a "mediocre mother" to a good mother.
The same however is also with the father. To get to know how to comfort baby and so forth is reliant upon trial and error with the specific two individuals involved, namely parent and baby. Gay men have raised children, and so have gay women without much issue to the psychology and health of the child. So I don't buy how "Mom is best," especially if "breast milk is best" is scientifically still out there.
Let us move beyond the "baby stage" to whenever the child can walk talk and is autonomous, for a child to teenage years can be anyway. Frankly speaking with data, rich people make better parents than poor people. This is obviously connected to opportunity and culture that is associated with wealth. So speaking "scientifically," although these studies are more of a soft science than a hard science, then we should give children to the wealthier parent, no?
Women's advantages stop short of giving birth and having breasts in line of child care. As the child grows, the male will set in place specific socio-psychological or more mundanely cultural mandates upon the child. The male of the family reinforces cultural sexual identity. Granted I have no clue about this with gay couples, but my own personal experiences does equate this data. This ranges from my personal experiences as both son and later a father, to seeing how others raise their children.
For example, if a father calls his daughter "princess" and buys the child clothes and other feminine apparral. The child will be reinforced to be more feminine and if the child's genes and other external experiences reinforces this the child will be a "girly girl." But, there is a limit to this. Tom boys can be created a number of ways. The first is genetics, the second testosterone overexposure in the womb, and the third expression of those culturally or "free will" just systematizing to the child to be a "tom boy." The same goes with an effeminate female.
So the creation of this "ideal child" is complicated. For generations they have their own culture. They speak slightly differently than their adults in many ways from the obvious vernacular to the speech rate and pronunciation of words. So children are inculcated into micro and macro cultures from their own generation and cross referenced with other cultures like media.
So without going too far in depth with genetic expression and psycho social stuff that I've only begun to understand myself. I have come to the simple expression that with the various family experiments I see ranging from homosexuals to single parents; that with great certainty, I cannot use many means to vivisect a single "truth."
What I can say with some objectivity coupled with a sense of respect to traditional frameworks is that the two person household and economy is superior to today's two person income household. I say this after studying economics, history, and especially personal experience that division of labor within the family is great. Having a "jack of all trades" go to person like the 50's ideal mother is wonderful, but to have her stuck in that pristine Barbie world or a man in her place is asking for dread and another cultural revolution.
What I look at is the way we structure our business culture to be pro workaholic and the vision that there is a single path to the top. The issue with this is a lack of redundancy to raise our children with. A "spare parent," given if it be a man or woman, that can cover for familial obligations ranging from the child being sick to Grandpa needing help with a drive to the store while his car is in the shop is a wonderful thing. However, this requires more flexible work hours, better on and off ramps for careers, and above all else an economy that supports families.
Feminism lies to women starting with Betty Friedan's seminal work. Woman can do everything a man can do, but can they do both the traditional man's work and the traditional woman's work? I have seen this on a personal level with many women I know, they set their expectations high and neglect themselves all for this pipe dream of "having it all." I see it with men too. These men neglect their bodies and over the years their personalities change and their bodies break down. Woe be to those that hit upon hard times with illness or some other catastrophe as it only gets worse.
This in part goes back to people that personify rugged individualism and espouse radical capitalism. The individual as the sine qua non and that women oscillate between homemakers with drudgery to superwoman. Until I see a woman that can fly, she is not much different than me. There are severe differences between male and female, but on the individual level it becomes more complex.
So in conclusion in my worldview, I reject the philosophy of feminism and portions of what it classically has espoused. Socially it if very much true women can do anything a man can do to a point, but this also means women cannot do what a men cannot do. That is to have a perfect balance between work and home.
Overall though, men lacking fully functional milk producing breasts can concede to that it is merely more difficult to nurse a child. Also, with the inability to give live birth men must also concede certain points to women, during pregnancy and recovering from pregnancy. After the birth of the child, a man or two men can raise the child void of women successfully.
There are some cultural modifications to family that Amerindians, classic European families, Asians, and on down the line that work within communities and families to raise their children. There is also the European socialism associated with daycare or corporate socialism within the states to provide daycare. The subject on proper childcare is gigantic, and to try and say "that is the way of things" lacks scientific rigor, or soft science rigor anyway, and void of analyzing effective cultural traditions.
My suppositions could be weak, attack them please as I would like to see more feminist intellectualism in action. You, sir or ma'am, have piqued my interest.
You have some talking points, but lack any explanation to why you believe what you believe.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Don't be silly. Our society generally favors men, but on an individual level, women are quite as capable of sexism as men are. I'm not just talking about psychotic all-men-are-rapists feminazis, either; watch just about any chick flick and you'll see supposedly normal women making sexist comments about men, some of which, frankly, would be inappropriate if the roles were reversed.
For that matter, women are perfectly capable of anti-women sexism, too.
Careful here. If you're admitting that there are "innate" differences between the sexes that render one better than the other at certain roles, you won't have a leg to stand on if some anti-feminist argues that men are innately better at something - say, military service - and so women should be discouraged from doing it.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You can't speak from a strictly scientific fact driven point of view on something that is almost completely opinion and culturally based.
I don't need to show "scientific" proof to prove that a mother is innately a better caretaker then a father, and thus is given an advantage by the law in this matter. But if you would like something scientific that helps support why they are innately a better caretaker, look no further then the production of 2 critical hormones/neurotransmitters. Oxytocin and Prolactin. Women create both after child birth, and both are extremely important in caretaking. Men only create Oxytocin when the pleasure centers are flickering (during child bonding.) This innately makes women a better caretaker.
Again, I don't think you understand the difference between feminism and hyper-feminism. Feminists just want women to be treated with respect by men, and treated fairly in areas they should be treated fairly in (why can't women walk around topless??)
Hyper Feminists want everything to be equal or favored for the side of females. Regardless of what it is. These are the same women that storm around demanding that prostitution should be legalized. They are not connected to feminist's in any way, and are really just Neo-Nazi's going under the moniker of "Feminists".
As a feminist (I am a male by the way), my real problem with today's society is a few things. One, the lack of respect shown to the opposite sex by males. Two, the portrayal of females as mere sex objects by media tabloids, and the insane stress society (see. Males) puts on women to be "culturally accepted" (see. "American Beauty"). And finally, the acceptance of misogyny in American and some world culture.
Feminists are simply idealists who yearn for a culture where women and men can exist in near-equality, and where one gender is not held down by another.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=218820
I 100% agree that women are capable of sexism. Women are humans, but what you are talking about is not a women acting sexist, it's a media tabloid portraying a women as a sexist in a movie.
If you read my previous post, you will see that I agree that both genders are innately better then the other at certain things. I believe that everything sex's are INNATELY better at, one gender should be given a leg up in, but this DOES NOT count anything that is completely culture driven (see. "Women are better housemaids".)
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=218820
So you're a sexist?
Again I ask; If that's the case, why do feminist never oppose sexism against men? You can't pretend to be a champion of equality and then close your eyes on one side of the issues.
Again this odd belief that only women are at a loss when it simply isn't true.
What happens is that sexism against men is often more subtle and never generates as much outrage as it would were it done to women.
True equality is impossible. Period. End of story. There I said it.
Truely equal society = perfect communism, which as we know cannot possibly happen.
If you add up all the peices of one person every advantage and disadvantage then you would see what I mean. Cold cruel facts, at the end of the day some people are better than others. What some people do will work better than others. The truth is that these numbers may favor men or women.
Equality makes me sick, its just another word people use to opress other people. The only differance, is that it is used to opress those in power at the time.
Simply trying to be legally equal is far more reasonable, as it strives for equal legal protection. This is perfectly ok. Trying to be socially equal is absurd because people have differant views of "equal" What some may think equal may be thought of as terribly unfair by another group.
Equality only exists when it involves pure numbers and you can say 1 = 1 or 1+2 =3 Equality does not exist when you compare two men two women or one man and one woman. No matter how you measure it out it will never be equal.
Wizards in relation to modern.
"The bannings will continue until attendance improves."
Not sure if trolling or just very stupid.:fry:
Why is it women's job to oppose male sexism? In most cases society opposes male sexism due to the simple fact that it's a male-dominated society. Women have their hands full picking themselves up from the ☺☺☺☺ society has put them through the past few millennia (not to mention the problems they face still), can you blame them for prioritizing?
--
Winner of the 2nd Design Survivor Contest
Creator of the Vorthos Card Contest
Winner of 12th and the 18th Short Story Contests
Creator of the Vs. Tournament.
--Runner of the Superhero Vs. Tounrament
--Runner of the Villian Vs. Tournament.
Some* feminists. Their unpopularity doesn't come from citizens not wanting equal rights, it comes from some of their radical leaders.
I agree in principle, but you won't see me going out and fighting for every individual's rights, as it is neither my interest nor position to do so.
I feel that men and women will never be treated the same socially as long as the psychological differences and sexual desires between the two still exist. We all pretty much have the same rights, but you're almost always going to find a double standard in a social environment.
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
In the case of child rearing, culture and the soft sciences out rank the pure hard sciences. Yes, the hard sciences do play a large part in the soft sciences, but there are just certain pieces to studies that are not probable to compute. This is why I was careful with my wording by speaking more towards the "soft" than "hard sciences."
Except in popular culture that "hyper feminism" is equated to the whole of feminism. Even then, I'm against solely focusing on one specific block of people based on a certain physical quality that is too broad to be truly effective.
These are the ones that are popularized by the media and the "truer" feminists do not rally against this. There is no symbol for feminism that has become degraded to this perception. Furthermore, I also have issues with the literature surrounding feminism with some lies that are told to women, such as a woman "can have it all." Granted, there is some literature that speaks out against that in feminism, but I question whether that this would be better served to look at a large picture approach and then zoom in and out to specific spheres to do battle with mutual interests served.
As a minority man myself, I have grave issues with the various civil rights movements. I tend to remove race from culture to try and do see common trends. The more effective cultural changing programs that are effective typically are local and full throttle in inception.
As a minority that's spent sometime looking at the history of discrimination against various cultures. I frankly, even from personal experience, see that there is a bit of commonality between different "forms" of discrimination. Most of the discrimination is done out of fear or perception with a want for entertainment, power, or both.
The way to change people is one head or heart at a time through local programs and individual acts of engagement.
The outcome of focusing on women has degraded raising boys to men in certain aspects if you delve into the literature. One such example is that we have neglected the feelings of boys by ignoring their problems or encouraging "talking things out" without any back up to interpersonal problems on the part of adults.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Spam warning.
WURDelver
[/MANA]MANA]R[/MANA]GTron
WDeath and Taxes
WSoul Sisters
RWG Pod Combo
URSplinter Twin
URStorm
RBurn
One arguement i get tired of hearing from feminists (since its a big thing at my college, some are hawt others are plain trolls and others look like your normal every day Jane) are the wage differences between men and women. I got an earful from one the other day about my wage difference and hers though we work the same dang job. The ultimate fallacy in her arguement is that she likes taking "personal days" with her girlfriend (yes shes lesbian, but i don't care) i work 40 hours for a part time job while im schedualed for 15. she works 15 while schedualed for 30. Still she expects to be paid the same for less work, yet she makes more per hour than i do! Something wrong there? I sure think so. People are so worries about her screaming discrimination that they won't do anything.
While this may be an isolated incident with the whole sexism thing, i just think people and feminists should actually see the underlying causes before going all "omg discrimination" all over the place. Though there are the people that do automatically dislike you for your dangly bits...or lack of em, there are many more that don't.
I see bigtime feminists, they tend to treat feminish their "job or business" instead of an actual idea. Like unions make PROFITS!! so do these feminists. Buy their book "why dangly bits are eviiiiil" for 32.95!!! While your at it reserve your 10,000 dollar seat for a feminist retreat!! At the lobbying level its all about business and creating problems. If theyre no problems, they're out a job and they wouldn't want that.
Fun fact: Many feminists are like alot of people who voted for obama. They voted for him because someone (oprah) told them to without actually knowing who he was. For a research paper. I asked tons of women if they support womens sufferage. I also asked them if they consider themselves feminists. over 80% of feminists didnt even know what the topic is or didnt support it. Pretty poor results for such a milestone in feminism. While under 50% of nonfeminists didnt support it or didnt know what it was.
Not a fan or supporter of New Magic
Because we keep talking about the goal of feminism being the equality between the sexes.
My problem is that once we move beyond the realm of legal equality, in areas such as the right to vote, this goal becomes nebulous and undefined. Perhaps when we apply it to things like financial equality, such as when a woman is paid an unequal amount for doing exactly the same job and work as a male counterpart, this can be measured and combatted, and I don't think anyone would deny this is an inequality that is both unfair and unjust.
But then we get to applying the idea of equality, the word equality, to things that make one pause. For instance, that there are physical differences between men and women that make one better suited to a task than another.
I think that instead of an idea of equality between the sexes, what we should have is an idea of a mutual respect amongst sexes. The issue with the term equality is that we extrapolate the idea and apply it to areas in which the term "equality" doesn't really function. For instance, relationships invariably come up, and it's true, you cannot be "equal" in a relationship, the idea of "equality" doesn't even work in that situation. But what there can be is a mutual respect, and I think that's something that functions.
Just had to log in to reply
If a woman decides and understands what she's doing when she gets into a pornographic photoshoot, your argument would stand. I think you probably are smart enough to keep to porn-producers who have an ethical sense and treats the women with respect, but at the same time you're supporting an industry that makes it seem proffitable for other idiots to disrespect women and make pornographic material. I think watching porn, when done by many, is an act that some way will cause women to be treated bad.
The scary thing is if you're watching porn with unknown producers you really don't know if the women has a gun pointed at her behind the camera, or some dope as payment.
Just my opinion.:)