723 réponses à ce sujet

[Majestic Jazz]

As for my "problems" with feminism is that the fight isnt consistent. You have your I guess "normal" feminist who simply wants equal representation with men in the professional workforce like equal pay as well as in the social and media setting (like videogames).

Then you have the "hypocrite" feminist that only want equality if it benefits them. If they lose any benefits or advantages by being equal with men, then they dont want it. Sort of like this saying that in a sinking ship women and children should be saved first. All of a sudden the "being equal to men" stance goes out of the window.

Then finally you have the extreme feminist who does not want equality, but rather female control with men beneth them.

So which one is it? This was always where I become confused with the message/movement.

[Donk]

As for my "problems" with feminism is that the fight isnt consistent. You have your I guess "normal" feminist who simply wants equal representation with men in the professional workforce like equal pay as well as in the social and media setting (like videogames).

Then you have the "hypocrite" feminist that only want equality if it benefits them. If they lose any benefits or advantages by being equal with men, then they dont want it. Sort of like this saying that in a sinking ship women and children should be saved first. All of a sudden the "being equal to men" stance goes out of the window.

Then finally you have the extreme feminist who does not want equality, but rather female control with men beneth them.

So which one is it? This was always where I become confused with the message/movement.

I'd rather a woman beneath me tbh

[Majestic Jazz]

Children should always be saved first. Isn't that a biological impetus, to save a child's life over your own? I have no mothering skills at all (hate when babies try to grab at your chest or puke on you, or other gross stuff they do), but I couldn't let an infant or child drown. Otherwise, unless it's my loved one, every one for themselves.

My point was that there are many feminist that cry for equality so they can benefit in society the same way men do. But if this equality takes away some sort of "advantage" that women had by not being equal, then they are quiet about it.

Like women want female soldiers and marines to fight in infantry units cause it opens doors for women and gives female service members more career options [Advantage].

But you do not see women fighting to made it mandatory for all women to enroll in the selective service cause it would mean that women will now be available to be drafted into the military in a time of war and most women do not want to join the military at the same rate as men. [Disadvantage] So in this case being "unequal" to men serves as an advantage cause in a time of extreme war, women retain the option to join or not to join the miltary while men dont have that option as they could be called up for service.

[SardaukarElite]

As for my "problems" with feminism is that the fight isnt consistent.

 

And?

 

Feminism isn't a political party, it doesn't need to be consistent. People identify as feminists, or are identified as feminists - but there's no governing body which hands out feminist licenses that makes sure everyone is on the same page. A person's argument doesn't become flawed just because someone also interested in advocating for women's rights has a bad idea.

[Panda]

As for my "problems" with feminism is that the fight isnt consistent. You have your I guess "normal" feminist who simply wants equal representation with men in the professional workforce like equal pay as well as in the social and media setting (like videogames).

Then you have the "hypocrite" feminist that only want equality if it benefits them. If they lose any benefits or advantages by being equal with men, then they dont want it. Sort of like this saying that in a sinking ship women and children should be saved first. All of a sudden the "being equal to men" stance goes out of the window.

Then finally you have the extreme feminist who does not want equality, but rather female control with men beneth them.

So which one is it? This was always where I become confused with the message/movement.

 

Of course it's not consistent, tons of people from different cultures, different socio-economic positions, different ages and races with different thoughts. Different points to focus, different ideas on what is important and how things should be. I doubt any kind of movement is that consistent though unless it's located in small part of world and has clear leaders.

[WildOrchid]

I'll protect you.

 

[Ieldra]

I wasn't commenting on the quoted text. I'm commenting on every article I've read on the subject. If you have literature that refutes what most scientists are saying and what most universities are teaching, I'd be open to looking at it.

The confusion is rooted in different understandings and uses of the term "race".

 

I'm using this article as an example: http://www.newsweek....ing-race-283123

 

Quote: "There is no inherent relationship between intelligence, law- abidingness, or economic practices and race, just as there is no relationship between nose size, height, blood group, or skin color and any set of complex human behaviors."

 

This statement understands "race" as a concept that makes connections between physical characteristics and complex human behaviour. In this sense, "race" has no biological roots. I am not challenging that.

 

However, the fact remains that the visible physical markers that people use to identify "racial" groups do exist and have their roots in biology like everything else we are physically. That may be irrelevant for behaviour, but it certainly remains potentially physiologically significant, for instance when it comes to medicine. Examples have been given by others. 

 

So, "race" as a concept that makes value judgments, and scales human subpopulations on a hierarchy, that has been falsified. But if a doctor you contact on the phone asks you if you're black or white, that's not racism but asking for potentially useful information.

[maia0407]

As for my "problems" with feminism is that the fight isnt consistent. You have your I guess "normal" feminist who simply wants equal representation with men in the professional workforce like equal pay as well as in the social and media setting (like videogames).

Then you have the "hypocrite" feminist that only want equality if it benefits them. If they lose any benefits or advantages by being equal with men, then they dont want it. Sort of like this saying that in a sinking ship women and children should be saved first. All of a sudden the "being equal to men" stance goes out of the window.

Then finally you have the extreme feminist who does not want equality, but rather female control with men beneth them.

So which one is it? This was always where I become confused with the message/movement.

Feminists aren't some homogeneous group like so many want to paint it. There are individuals within the movement. For the most part, I'd say most agree that feminism is about equality. What I see from you and several others on these forums is misrepresentations of what feminists are actually saying. I don't know if it's a knee jerk reaction to feeling criticized that causes this misrepresentation or deliberate. I don't see many people (actually I've never met anyone) that claims to want men to be 'beneath them'. This just seems like another misrepresentation to justify your dislike of feminism.

[WildOrchid]

As for my "problems" with feminism is that the fight isnt consistent. You have your I guess "normal" feminist who simply wants equal representation with men in the professional workforce like equal pay as well as in the social and media setting (like videogames).

Then you have the "hypocrite" feminist that only want equality if it benefits them. If they lose any benefits or advantages by being equal with men, then they dont want it. Sort of like this saying that in a sinking ship women and children should be saved first. All of a sudden the "being equal to men" stance goes out of the window.

Then finally you have the extreme feminist who does not want equality, but rather female control with men beneth them.

So which one is it? This was always where I become confused with the message/movement.

 

Those so called feminists as I bolded are the reason why some people mock feminism, they're equally as bad as those MRA's. Feminism is supposed to be about equality (and of course support men as well), nothing more.

 

You should also know that there are always extremely stupid people.

[Dieb]

This whole "infants and women first" notion on sinking ships stems from the fact that those would be their mothers. It also was based on the simple reasoning that men often are physically stronger than women and can help to help others. It also, however, is grossly outdated and commonly misunderstood:

 

"[...] As a code of conduct, "women and children first" has no basis in maritime law, and according to University of Greenwich disaster evacuation expert Professor Ed Galea, in modern-day evacuations people will usually "help the most vulnerable to leave the scene first. It's not necessarily women, but is likely to be the injured, elderly and young children."Furthermore, the results of a 2012 Uppsala University study suggest that the application of "women and children first" may have, in practice, been the exception rather than the rule."

 

 

That whole argument is like saying male actors should wear at least so many female accessories on screen - there is no hypocrisy to it, since not every gender issue is also one of equality. Feminism has been degraded to a scheme with sinister intentions and where reason has no place. That is wrong.

 

Men and women are different. They are just not to be treated like lesser people for that. No sane feminist ever stated their belief as anything but that.

[Majestic Jazz]

And?

 

Feminism isn't a political party, it doesn't need to be consistent. People identify as feminists, or are identified as feminists - but there's no governing body which hands out feminist licenses that makes sure everyone is on the same page. A person's argument doesn't become flawed just because someone also interested in advocating for women's rights has a bad idea.

 

So it is okay for a movement that advocates for women's rights/equality to not be consistent but rather contradictory at times?

 

Feminist A: I want equality across the board.

 

Feminist B: I want equality only when it serves as an advantage to women.

 

 

Again, so which one is it? 

[Donk]

So it is okay for a movement that advocates for women's rights/equality to not be consistent but rather contradictory at times?

Feminist A: I want equality across the board.

Feminist B: I want equality only when it serves as an advantage to women.


Again, so which one is it?

Um.. Not every single "feminist" wants the same thing.

No doubt, there are "Feminazis" that exist. But most of them just want to get paid an equal wage to a man, want independence rather than be "owned", and to have freedom rather than the society of old's expectation to put on an apron and make a sandwich.

What I'm saying -- and what at least three people have told you already -- is that different people exist within the "feminist" label group. Look beyond the term.. What you are doing is tarring them with the same brush, or rather you expect them to believe and act the same way. They don't.

[Ieldra]

You really should read The Blank Slate, by Steven Pinker.

That looks interesting. Thanks for mentioning it.

[Majestic Jazz]

 

Men and women are different. They are just not to be treated like lesser people for that. No sane feminist ever stated their belief as anything but that.

 

True, but growing up I am always viewing conflicting stances on feminism.

 

I use the selective service example because that was a true story. I was in a college class discussing such issues and one day I randomly brought up the notion about women ages 18-25 in the United States like men should be required to enroll/sign up for the selective service. Boy, you should have seen the facial expressions of these "feminist" students when I brought this up. They looked at me like I told them to go take a bath with acid. 

 

As a male, I am all for women's rights because I have a mother, I have a wife, and I could have a daughter one day and I would want her to grow up in a society where she does not feel that she is at a disadvantage just because of her sex. So in that regards I am for such rights which is why I am also aligned with the democratic party as they typically take up such issues and why I am supporting Hilary Clinton. However, I am not a hypocrite and if you say you want equality, don't shun down equality when it doesn't benefit them.

 

Again, look at the selective service example. If the whole fight is to not be treated differently from men.....then why the look on their faces when I said women, like men should be required to do such a thing?

 

Makes me think of this:

 

 

Gif is from this video: 

 

 

Its like wanting to have the cake and eat it to.

[Nefla]

I feel like feminism was originally about women getting the same rights as men (the ability to vote, work outside the home, etc...) but now it's turned into something else. So many "feminists" are all about putting down men, vying for dominance, demanding women get equal or better treatment except when it benefits them (ex: child custody or the man always paying for dinner). Many of them will even try to dictate how other random women live their lives, saying they aren't allowed to be a stay at home mom or a secretary or a flight attendant (traditional female roles) or some kind of sexy "degrading" job such as a swimsuit model. I take "feminist" as an insult.

[Donk]

I feel like feminism was originally about women getting the same rights as men (the ability to vote, work outside the home, etc...) but now it's turned into something else. So many "feminists" are all about putting down men, vying for dominance, demanding women get equal or better treatment except when it benefits them (ex: child custody or the man always paying for dinner). Many of them will even try to dictate how other random women live their lives, saying they aren't allowed to be a stay at home mom or a secretary or a flight attendant (traditional female roles) or some kind of sexy "degrading" job such as a swimsuit model. I take "feminist" as an insult.

Yeah, but that's with just about any social political issue.

You have people that genuinely want there to be equality in (insert issue here) and then you have dickheads who take the label of (insert issue here) take advantage, twist it to their agenda and play the victim card.

[Dieb]

Again I say, not every gender issue is an issue of gender equality. That is not hypocritical, it is a reasonable selection.

 

Certain discrimination is necessary because of biological facts and inherent social structures. It's these in which women aren't treated equally, out of the tradition of not treating them equally, that need changing. Feminist women don't hate babies or strong men, they just hate doing the same exact desk job and getting paid less just because. In case you are still wondering, that is, without nuance, precisely  what's happening. There is no counter argument that doesn't employ a "because of the times" somewhere in it.

 

Regarding the sexy video game characters, speaking from the very simple opinion of a close friend of mine:

 

Women want purpose infinitely more than prude dresses. You'd be surprised how bland certain characters truly become once their cleavage is veiled.

[Panda]

True, but growing up I am always viewing conflicting stances on feminism.

 

I use the selective service example because that was a true story. I was in a college class discussing such issues and one day I randomly brought up the notion about women ages 18-25 in the United States like men should be required to enroll/sign up for the selective service. Boy, you should have seen the facial expressions of these "feminist" students when I brought this up. They looked at me like I told them to go take a bath with acid. 

 

As a male, I am all for women's rights because I have a mother, I have a wife, and I could have a daughter one day and I would want her to grow up in a society where she does not feel that she is at a disadvantage just because of her sex. So in that regards I am for such rights which is why I am also aligned with the democratic party as they typically take up such issues and why I am supporting Hilary Clinton. However, I am not a hypocrite and if you say you want equality, don't shun down equality when it doesn't benefit them.

 

Again, look at the selective service example. If the whole fight is to not be treated differently from men.....then why the look on their faces when I said women, like men should be required to do such a thing?

 

Makes me think of this:

 

 

Gif is from this video: 

 

 

Its like wanting to have the cake and eat it to.

 

Well my country has mandatory military service- for men. There has been arguments of making it mandatory for women as well and those are understable, it's unequal at the current system. Would I scream with joy if such thing was decided? No, I wouldn't be happy about it. I doubt anyone, but those who are already going for voluntarily service would be. It'd be quite big change in live after all. I guess in the end people would get used to it though, I think that Israel does have mandatory service for both genders though I'm not sure how it's received there.

 

I don't think this means that women don't want equality or want to oppress men though. If women claimed that mandatory service should remain while saying that women shouldn't have mandatory service then it would be like that. Since there is this unequality though, it can be argued that something should be done for it. One options could be having army with professional soldiers instead.

 

I feel like feminism was originally about women getting the same rights as men (the ability to vote, work outside the home, etc...) but now it's turned into something else. So many "feminists" are all about putting down men, vying for dominance, demanding women get equal or better treatment except when it benefits them (ex: child custody or the man always paying for dinner). Many of them will even try to dictate how other random women live their lives, saying they aren't allowed to be a stay at home mom or a secretary or a flight attendant (traditional female roles) or some kind of sexy "degrading" job such as a swimsuit model. I take "feminist" as an insult.

 

I don't think it has turned into something else, I'd rather say that some people like to abuse it. I haven't seen many of people like that though, usually feminist are reasonable people who are into equality.

[maia0407]

True, but growing up I am always viewing conflicting stances on feminism.

 

I use the selective service example because that was a true story. I was in a college class discussing such issues and one day I randomly brought up the notion about women ages 18-25 in the United States like men should be required to enroll/sign up for the selective service. Boy, you should have seen the facial expressions of these "feminist" students when I brought this up. They looked at me like I told them to go take a bath with acid. 

 

As a male, I am all for women's rights because I have a mother, I have a wife, and I could have a daughter one day and I would want her to grow up in a society where she does not feel that she is at a disadvantage just because of her sex. So in that regards I am for such rights which is why I am also aligned with the democratic party as they typically take up such issues and why I am supporting Hilary Clinton. However, I am not a hypocrite and if you say you want equality, don't shun down equality when it doesn't benefit them.

 

Again, look at the selective service example. If the whole fight is to not be treated differently from men.....then why the look on their faces when I said women, like men should be required to do such a thing?

 

Makes me think of this:

 

 

Gif is from this video: 

 

 

Its like wanting to have the cake and eat it to.

 

The video you posted is a perfect example of the disingenuous misrepresentations I was talking about. You honestly can't see the difference between how women are overwhelmingly depicted by male designers in video games and how individual women may or may not choose to dress themselves? It has to be spelled out for you?

 

This type of nonsense is what I'm talking about when I say that I can't take you seriously on this issue. You appear to be only interested in nitpicking at feminism so you can what? Keep half naked women in your video games?

[Nefla]

Yeah, but that's with just about any social political issue.

You have people that genuinely want there to be equality in (insert issue here) and then you have dickheads who take the label of (insert issue here) take advantage, twist it to their agenda and play the victim card.

Unfortunately the dickheads are loud they make it so that nobody with a legitimate issue is taken seriously because they're lumped in with the crazies.

[Donk]

Unfortunately the dickheads are loud they make it so that nobody with a legitimate issue is taken seriously because they're lumped in with the crazies.

Exactly. That's where the problem lies. What it takes is discernment.. Which from what I'm seeing here in this thread, a lot of people don't have.

[SardaukarElite]

So it is okay for a movement that advocates for women's rights/equality to not be consistent but rather contradictory at times?

 

Feminist A: I want equality across the board.

 

Feminist B: I want equality only when it serves as an advantage to women.

 

 

Again, so which one is it? 

 

 

Which one is what, they're both talking about what they want not what feminism is, and you made them up anyway. I would say that I'm a feminist because I believe that women are important, and deserve fair rights (I'm not a fan of equality as a concept) and recognition. Other people can offer other answers but they don't make mine wrong.

 

You keep going on and on about this inane contradiction but what does it change? You're holding up a view of feminism that you don't support (equality when it advantages women over men), that no one here is advocating, and saying that it's an issue when you're the only person making it an issue. Why?

[Dieb]

I was just going to say, we're really all shooting in the same direction. Nobody likes a hypocrite.

 

Actually you know what? The next time you meet a woman who claims she wants to be treated better than men because she's a woman, why don't you introduce her to the concept of feminism?

 

 

P.S.:

Tell her the very convincing straight man with a striking resemblance to 80s icon Rick Astley in a pimp suit sends her the kindest regards.

I understand it's hard to take anything I say seriously, I really do.

[Lady Artifice]

So it is okay for a movement that advocates for women's rights/equality to not be consistent but rather contradictory at times?

 

Feminist A: I want equality across the board.

 

Feminist B: I want equality only when it serves as an advantage to women.

 

 

Again, so which one is it? 

 

It's not about it being "okay," it's about it being normal. Hypocrisy is normal, and it can be found in people of all types and different belief systems. You're pointing out an extremely broad reality of human nature, and fixating on it's occurrence in a particular group.