#1  
Old 02-09-2013, 05:29 PM
Feminism

.

Last edited by SS-Block; 03-31-2014 at 05:24 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-09-2013, 06:42 PM
Feminism is stupid and useless, plain and simple. I'm for equality in every respects, not just exclusively to one gender.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-09-2013, 09:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SS-Block View Post
What does the word mean to you?
http://youtu.be/bmmHtBAbXs8?t=48s

the most retarded organization in the world, started by a bunch of stupid 18-20 year old chicks
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-09-2013, 10:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digifruitella View Post
http://youtu.be/bmmHtBAbXs8?t=48s

the most retarded organization in the world, started by a bunch of stupid 18-20 year old chicks
Right. Just like Tea Party wingnuts represent the overall cause of freedom, I guess?

Quote:
Originally Posted by oh-dae-su

Feminism is stupid and useless, plain and simple. I'm for equality in every respects, not just exclusively to one gender.
Contradiction ahoy! Feminism means what it means in the dictionary - advocation of equality.

To cite a nutjob or two in the feminist movement who actively believes in the matriarchal order supplanting the patriarchal, to somehow cast a questionable light on their social cause, is tantamount to the arguments made against Civil Rights because of the militant actions of a few Black Panthers.

Now of course, you may be asking, if there's a "feminism", why isn't there a "masculinism"? Good question. Actually, no, it's a ridiculous question. Look around you. Even on this site, a supposed neutral ground for moviegoing folks of all genders and persuasions the world over, and yet it's catered to us guys from word go. I know it's probably some kind of betrayal of my fellow bros and their ability to have their cake and eat it too, but I'm feeling combative today. Think of it this way - you think the JoBlo "Movie Hotties" adjunct was created for A) Tits and Ass!! B) Hugh Jackman's abs, C) TITS AND ASS!!! or D) A & C? If you guessed D, you're right! If you guessed Double D, you're doubly right! Case closed, court's adjourned, now let's all go get some Shawarma...
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-09-2013, 10:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SS-Block View Post
What does the word mean to you?
Socialism with panty liner.






However, I agree with your overall interpretation. There's feminists who are really just individualists, and should stop championing a collectivist paradigm and just be individualists; and there's feminazis who are just about the most irritating fucking thing in the world.

Last edited by Mr. Guiltless; 02-09-2013 at 10:57 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-09-2013, 10:56 PM
Interestingly, I just watched this vid today. Makes all the right points.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-LW...99BD84052549C6
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-10-2013, 12:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by syxxpac View Post
Right. Just like Tea Party wingnuts represent the overall cause of freedom, I guess?
You're a fan of FEMEN?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-10-2013, 12:44 AM
Feminism is generally defined as aiming to establish equality in terms of political, economic, and social status for women. In theory, it's a great idea: both sexes on equal footing, competing in all facets of life without any discrimination or prejudice.

In practice, though, it's terribly executed.

However, every now and again, I do get the feeling that, like most people who are extreme and focus their lives on a single cause, feminists would be much better overall to deal with if they had healthier, fully gratified sex lives.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-10-2013, 01:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by syxxpac View Post
Right. Just like Tea Party wingnuts represent the overall cause of freedom, I guess?



Contradiction ahoy! Feminism means what it means in the dictionary - advocation of equality.

To cite a nutjob or two in the feminist movement who actively believes in the matriarchal order supplanting the patriarchal, to somehow cast a questionable light on their social cause, is tantamount to the arguments made against Civil Rights because of the militant actions of a few Black Panthers.

Now of course, you may be asking, if there's a "feminism", why isn't there a "masculinism"? Good question. Actually, no, it's a ridiculous question. Look around you. Even on this site, a supposed neutral ground for moviegoing folks of all genders and persuasions the world over, and yet it's catered to us guys from word go. I know it's probably some kind of betrayal of my fellow bros and their ability to have their cake and eat it too, but I'm feeling combative today. Think of it this way - you think the JoBlo "Movie Hotties" adjunct was created for A) Tits and Ass!! B) Hugh Jackman's abs, C) TITS AND ASS!!! or D) A & C? If you guessed D, you're right! If you guessed Double D, you're doubly right! Case closed, court's adjourned, now let's all go get some Shawarma...
I agree.

It's a man's world and women are just living in it. Feminism makes perfect sense to me.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-10-2013, 01:29 AM
Of course when feminism comes up it almost inevitably focuses on the nutters, which is natural, squeaky wheels and all.

Feminism does not necessarily equate with just social, economic and political equality solely for women, but for all people. We are 51% of the population yet still get the shaft when it comes to being major players in say films in front of and behind the camera, or as CEOs in major companies. We still in this day and age ask whether movies centered on women can succeed, or if a comedy with only women can be funny? We're amazed when a woman reaches a level of power like Yahoo's CEO, Marissa Meyer. While her post is a feminist victory (a highly-qualified individual reaches the upper echelons of power in the highly male dominated tech world), the questioning of it, given that she was well within her pregnancy at the time is the type of experience only a woman can go through. While the people who pose the argument may say "A child needs to have contact and bond with its mother." and such a position would hinder that they are also the same people who may say that a child needs a father. But then if these two things are so valuable to the precious child we in this country claim are so precious, then why are we one of the few developed nations that don't have any sort of paid maternity leave for women and/or men? Paid maternity leave in this country would actually be a feminist victory as well AND would lead to the inevitable discussion of men's right for paid leave to be with their children after their born, to bond with them. And there you have an example of a feminist goal benefiting men as well as women.

The problem is a lot of times Feminism is viewed within the confines of first world nations where we have lots and lots of rights (although last year it seems certain lawmakers were in a tizzy to deprive women of loads of their's in this country). So then let us take the prism of feminism in countries less advanced.

Take for instance India where a woman and her male companion were assaulted on a bus by a gang of men. The woman was gang raped and then disemboweled with a metal bar when said men used it to rape her. They were thrown off the bus naked and left to die on the side of the road. The man survived the woman later died of her injuries. This occurred in a country where it is still seriously suggested by the police that female rape victims marry their rapists, that only proper women are safe from rape, and where rape victims are forced to submit to the "Two finger" rule in order to prove they were virgins when they were raped and therefore worthy of some form of justice... like marrying your rapist. And those are just the grievances I can come up with off the top of my head. A country that could use some feminism I feel.

Now to a modern country that is not the US. A woman in Ireland died from sepsis, when doctors refused to abort her miscarried fetus because it still had a heartbeat. The fetus later did finally die, but by then blood poisoning had entered the woman's system and she too expired, because as her doctor's told her they "were Catholic" and couldn't do an abortion. To note the woman was not Catholic and said so to her doctors, as did her husband who also pleaded for his wife's abortion. The woman was pleading for her right to live and was denied because her life was not as important as her doctor's faith and his faith was also more important than his oath and a woman's life was not as important as an inevitably dead fetus. Feminism and quite frankly a couple other -isms should've been in play here.


Now let's take it down a couple notches in severity, here's a story from my life:

A woman is bicycling down a street and something falls from her bike. I am with two of my male friends who notice this and one runs to grab the object and calls to the woman who ignores him and continues pedaling away. My other male friend calls out to her and it is obvious she can hear the both of them. I recognize whats happening and call out to her. She stops. My friend catches up to her and hands her the item she dropped. When my friend rejoins us he says "Why do girls always think they're getting hit on?"

Now, what was wrong with what my friend said?

Well for one thing he assumed that since a woman ignored him she was a stuck up bitch.

Now the reality is that since the age we started getting tits women have been receiving unwanted male attention for longer than we can remember. Chris Rock explained it best:

"Cause every woman in here, ever since you were 13 every guy you met has been trying to fuck you.

That's right. Women are offered dick every day. Every woman in here gets offered dick at least three times a week. Three times a day, shit!

That's right, every time a man's being nice to you... all he's doing is offering dick. That's all it is.

''Can l get that for you? = How about some dick?''

''Could l help you with that? = Could l help you to some dick?

''Do you need some dick?''


And a lot of times men aren't so subtle, and very vocal about it. Yelling at you on the street exactly what parts they like and explaining what they'd do to them. And before they they get into all that they start by calling out to you, sometimes as a "HEY!" or use animal sounds, as if the were calling a dog or cat. And when you ignore all these rude attempts to get your attention you get called a bitch, a slut, a lesbian, a frigid bitch, a bitch who needs some dick, etc... Or sometimes, you get stab or slashed in the face

To add insult to injury some men think its "nice" to be considered so attractive that men feel the need to yell it at you in public.

Having men understand why this is wrong and why women HATE it would be a feminist victory. And don't even think about mentioning the 1 or 2 women you've met who enjoy it or use it to validate their appearance. The problem with catcalls is that a "hey beautiful" can so easily segue into scary territory. That the most benign and innocent sounding compliment can easily digress into a life threatening situation. And we as women act the way we do because of that, even if we haven't had it happen to us.

What is feminism? Its a lot of different things to a lot of different people.

For me it means I have the same access to education, justice, avenues of success and advancement in career and life as anyone else. That when my legal rights are violated, I'm not the first person put on trial before my violator is even sought, that when I say something bothers me my menstrual cycle is not immediately considered the reason for it, or that I'm being absurd because it doesn't fit within the paradigm of your experiences and that I have a valid reason, that it is acknowledged that I have sovereignty over my own body and that unless I am a danger to myself and/or others because of mental illness, this sovereignty is assumed and respected. A couple other reasons, but those are the important ones.


But yeah, "Socialism with pantyliner"... and the so the march continues.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-10-2013, 03:45 AM
Okay, let's take it point-by-point:

"Feminism does not necessarily equate with just social, economic and political equality solely for women, but for all people."

Um, yes it does. It's in the term: FEM-inism. Who benefits from it the most? Women. Who are the foremost speakers on the topic? Women. Who are automatically given the most credence based almost entirely on anatomy? Women. Don't give me that line of "it benefits everybody" when the truth is women are the main beneficiaries of the movement. I'm not saying you're wrong in that everyone benefits (we do, in a way), but don't delude yourself or anyone else into thinking that it's not just about women (otherwise, there'd be no movements for gay rights, religious freedom, or for the rights of any other group). You're not the sole leaders for all who are oppressed into some Utopian freedom; the main demographic of feminism is women, pure and simple.

You're (excuse the term, but it's the best word for it) bitching about not being treated equally in the world? Open your eyes: you definitely have company in that boat. Say hello to gays, Middle-Easterners, minorities (blacks, Latinos, etc.), and the physically/mentally handicapped.

You want to have those high posts of feminist victories and not have society focus so much on it (questioning ability to perform in the face of pregnancy, hormones, and motherhood)? Then, as much as it sucks to hear, you have to have these first women prove that it can be done, period. Suffer the slings and arrows, show that a woman can handle what's thrown at her, and then STILL be able to do what she set out to. If you want to show that women can do it all, then (in every sense of the phrase) do it all!

Now I do agree with you on paid maternity leave, that should be a human right in the US (for women and men alike), but current circumstances say otherwise, and that's a terrible thing.

The fact is that men and women will never be equal; try as you might to prove otherwise.

By which I mean that there are some things, empirically, that men can and will always just be able to do better than women; and, conversely, there are some things that women can and will always just be able to do better than men. It's in our biological makeup.

Now when you throw religion into the mix, that's when things start to get ugly. As an atheist, I agree with you on most things here. But you must consider the evolution of the civilization you talk about and the basis on which their order was first established. For a lot of places, it's based on the teachings and rules of the predominant religion; and in a lot of religions, women just aren't seen as the dominating, ruling gender, but rather as the motherly, homemaking submissive....and surprise, even when women are victims of some of the more serious capital offenses, they're punished even moreso, based on crazy religious logic that doesn't make sense (stonings and "honor killings"). This is several generations of tradition and routine that have been in motion. You can't just disrupt that kind of system in a snap and establish a new, fair system that favors everyone. That's an effort that requires decades of attrition and perseverance.

...as far as your personal story goes, both you and your friend were in the wrong. Your friend (being one of many men) was wrong in thinking that she was a stuck up bitch being the only reason why she didn't respond to a male's calls (maybe she was also in a rush). I get your point: a girl (that is attractive, some aren't and don't get the same treatment) who gets called by a guy won't respond, yet she listened to you (at this point, I'm gathering you're a female). It's typical, but that's a reality here to stay.

Also, you are wrong in thinking that it can be stopped easily or, more importantly, that there's no reason for it. You seem smart enough to know how most societies hold intimacy with a woman to be one of the highest achievements for a man. That's been around since the primitive age of humans: a man acquires an object or skill in order to impress a woman, inducing a desire in the woman for that man. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. You see it today: some women flock to men with fame and fortune.

Even today, business marketing and fashion is centered around women being the most desirable object of want (men's hygiene products, cars, furniture, clothing, and even housing framed as "chick magnets"); short of that, we're led to believe that life just isn't as great if we're not putting forth an effort to attract a woman in some capacity.

Of course, a lot of men fail in this effort and never progress; and their frustration could, and does, build and lead to do some rather despicable and ulawful things. It's terrible, but it is what it is. It's easy to say that it could be prevented if someone did show them some type of love or affection prior, but it didn't happen. Woulda, coulda, shoulda...too little, too late.

You've listed some ambitious feminist goals, and I certainly hope some of those do get achieved; but I seriously doubt that they'll be done in anyone's lifetime here.

...now when I made my remark of extremists needing a healthy, sexual release, I'm simply referring to easing their tension. That's all. It can apply to men and women alike...

Also, as a side note, I consider gender equality will have moved forward when the word "women" is removed from the rule "women and children first." It's little things like that that also have to be changed as well, I would think.

Last edited by Exophrine; 02-10-2013 at 12:41 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-10-2013, 10:22 AM
Whenever feminism is brought up I think of those women in the movie PCU "This penis party has got to go!!"

I am friends with this big time feminist on facebook. I went to high school with her. She constantly floods my newsfeed with stupid articles from Jezebel. Super annoying.

Overall, I really dont have a problem with feminism but I do find it funny that these so called feminists expect me to pay for dinner on a first date.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-10-2013, 01:28 PM
Quote:
women are the main beneficiaries of the movement.
Absolutely, and there's nothing wrong with that. When I hear a black person speaking out against racism I realize this benefits them and other minorities more than me. If they told me that getting rid of racism would benefit everyone, I wouldn't say "Let's be honest, you really just want to benefit yourself".

This is a frustrating topic. As a man I've heard many other men say ignorant shit regarding equality of the sexes focusing mainly of our physical and biological differences. Some men seem to think that equality means they can punch a women in the face if you make them mad, because that's what they'd do to a man. "There bitch, how's being treated like an equal feel?"
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-10-2013, 02:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Guiltless View Post
Socialism with panty liner.






However, I agree with your overall interpretation. There's feminists who are really just individualists, and should stop championing a collectivist paradigm and just be individualists; and there's feminazis who are just about the most irritating fucking thing in the world.
This.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-10-2013, 02:35 PM
.

Last edited by SS-Block; 03-31-2014 at 05:17 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-10-2013, 03:06 PM
Yeah, the impoverished white male without a family support structure is a "minority" that somehow nobody talks about.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-10-2013, 04:47 PM
.

Last edited by SS-Block; 03-31-2014 at 05:17 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-10-2013, 05:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exophrine View Post
Okay, let's take it point-by-point:

"Feminism does not necessarily equate with just social, economic and political equality solely for women, but for all people."

Um, yes it does. It's in the term: FEM-inism. Who benefits from it the most? Women. Who are the foremost speakers on the topic? Women. Who are automatically given the most credence based almost entirely on anatomy? Women. Don't give me that line of "it benefits everybody" when the truth is women are the main beneficiaries of the movement. I'm not saying you're wrong in that everyone benefits (we do, in a way), but don't delude yourself or anyone else into thinking that it's not just about women (otherwise, there'd be no movements for gay rights, religious freedom, or for the rights of any other group). You're not the sole leaders for all who are oppressed into some Utopian freedom; the main demographic of feminism is women, pure and simple.
Let me give an example by what I mean. Let's look at education. In countries like Afghanistan a girl is shot in the face for wanting to go to school and get an education. The basis of all education is first to learn how to read. Why is it important for women to learn to read? First off you might say "So she can get an education and then a degree and advance herself out of poverty." And right there is your example of feminism benefiting only women, but you only covered one angle. When a woman or girl in one of these little villages is allowed to attend school and learns to read she teachers the people in her family to read as well. Its been observed and proven in countless studies of similar regions. This ends up economically benefiting the small villages these girls live in, that would include the men. There you have feminism benefiting not just women but an entire community. That is why there is such a fierce push to get young girls in those regions into school.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Exophrine View Post
You're (excuse the term, but it's the best word for it) bitching about not being treated equally in the world? Open your eyes: you definitely have company in that boat. Say hello to gays, Middle-Easterners, minorities (blacks, Latinos, etc.), and the physically/mentally handicapped.
And everyone of those demographics has females in it and their own specific brand of feminism that speaks to issues of that region. There are obviously many cases within those cultures where feminism overlaps with larger scale issues. Many LGBT issues overlap with feminist issues.

Not to mention the successes of feminism were successes for men as well. Since patriarchal society set certain gender specific roles for women they also set them for males as well. Once woman fought and and broke those gender molds men were free to question and break their's as well. Seriously, you have stay-at-home-dads who fight for their right to have the originally gender specific role and privileges held by women. How do you think that came about?

Gender stereotypes have a negative effect on both men and women. Feminism is the main weapon that has chipped away at it. Its helped blur the lines of what is defined as male and female. This is especially helpful to gay men whom straight males assume are effeminate and want to be women, creating the obvious allusion that "feminine" is a negative trait. But if feminists or pro-feminists control what the term means and how it should be viewed, that whole paradigm changes and once taught to young men, changes how they treat other boys/men they encounter whose sexual orientation is described as "girly" or effeminate".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exophrine View Post
You want to have those high posts of feminist victories and not have society focus so much on it (questioning ability to perform in the face of pregnancy, hormones, and motherhood)? Then, as much as it sucks to hear, you have to have these first women prove that it can be done, period. Suffer the slings and arrows, show that a woman can handle what's thrown at her, and then STILL be able to do what she set out to. If you want to show that women can do it all, then (in every sense of the phrase) do it all!
But we mostly have, the issue we're having is "Why are we STILL constantly being questioned whether we can?"

Steve Jobs ran Apple while being treated for pancreatic cancer, one of the most aggressive and hardest to beat cancers out there. He took a sabbatical for a while, but then came back and even when he got cancer AGAIN he was still doing keynote speeches, he was a little hazy in the last one, but come on, its cancer. He had scores of poisons running through his body while still managing Apple from the top tier and on the outside it went nearly unquestioned.

Melissa Meyer was pregnant and promoted, and heads exploded. And all she had running through her were hormones.

What Jobs went through was WAAAAAAY harder then what Meyer did, which was in the grand scheme of things, nothing. She did what women have been doing for eons: She got knocked up and carried a kid and even worked through maternity leave. Plus she's freaking rich, she can hire nannies to take care of the kid when some big business matters come up that require her undivided attention.

The fact is she did something that is no different than what other women have already done, and was financially in a waaaay better position to do it, but it left people aghast when it paired up with being a president and CEO.

What we would really like is to one day not have it be such a big deal when we do what you guys take for granted, like direct an action film, or any film for that matter, run a company, pick up a weapon, or hell, play a First Person Shooter! Do you really think we're a boring homogenous mass only interested in the mall, make-up, shoes and sex and the city?

Also, lets not be so flippant about the "By all means, do it all". We'd love to, just as soon as this little hindrance is taken out of the way called "Your Misconceptions" or outdated traditions. You have heard of a glass ceiling correct? When the people who hold the keys to promotion are the same ones left breathless at the notion that a pregnant woman was picked to be the president and CEO of company you have to admit, that might be a problem.

Or maybe, hopefully, a good way to shake their previous thinking. We can only wait and see.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exophrine View Post
Now I do agree with you on paid maternity leave, that should be a human right in the US (for women and men alike), but current circumstances say otherwise, and that's a terrible thing.

The fact is that men and women will never be equal; try as you might to prove otherwise.

By which I mean that there are some things, empirically, that men can and will always just be able to do better than women; and, conversely, there are some things that women can and will always just be able to do better than men. It's in our biological makeup.
Yeah, no duh. Not even arguing physicality and biology. But we have issues where physicality isn't the issue and yet, there's a low count of women. The math and science fields are known for their non-abundance of women professors, despite the fact that the myth of women biologically being bad at math was disproven and there are nearly equal numbers of men and women who are good at math. Part of the reason is women in this field are expected to accomplish tasks or goals within a very specific structure that is male preferential, and has yet to be adjusted given the huge social-gender shift.

We're not talking about being able to carry 150lb gear in Sub-Saharan heat, we're talking about setting a time structure that takes into account women's desire to raise a family and submit mathematical theorems for publication in order to qualify for tenure, and not feeling marginalized for being mommies and mathematicians.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exophrine View Post
Now when you throw religion into the mix, that's when things start to get ugly. As an atheist, I agree with you on most things here. But you must consider the evolution of the civilization you talk about and the basis on which their order was first established. For a lot of places, it's based on the teachings and rules of the predominant religion; and in a lot of religions, women just aren't seen as the dominating, ruling gender, but rather as the motherly, homemaking submissive....and surprise, even when women are victims of some of the more serious capital offenses, they're punished even moreso, based on crazy religious logic that doesn't make sense (stonings and "honor killings"). This is several generations of tradition and routine that have been in motion. You can't just disrupt that kind of system in a snap and establish a new, fair system that favors everyone. That's an effort that requires decades of attrition and perseverance.
Here's the thing though, honor killings aren't in any religious text. They're made up by oppressed societies who since they cannot vent their frustrations upward toward their actual oppressors, they direct them downward or laterally. You have no control of your future? Control your woman.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exophrine View Post
...as far as your personal story goes, both you and your friend were in the wrong. Your friend (being one of many men) was wrong in thinking that she was a stuck up bitch being the only reason why she didn't respond to a male's calls (maybe she was also in a rush). I get your point: a girl (that is attractive, some aren't and don't get the same treatment) who gets called by a guy won't respond, yet she listened to you (at this point, I'm gathering you're a female). It's typical, but that's a reality here to stay.

Also, you are wrong in thinking that it can be stopped easily or, more importantly, that there's no reason for it. You seem smart enough to know how most societies hold intimacy with a woman to be one of the highest achievements for a man. That's been around since the primitive age of humans: a man acquires an object or skill in order to impress a woman, inducing a desire in the woman for that man. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. You see it today: some women flock to men with fame and fortune.

You've listed some ambitious feminist goals, and I certainly hope some of those do get achieved; but I seriously doubt that they'll be done in anyone's lifetime here.
Never said it was gonna be stopped easily or quickly, but if consistent pressure is made against it and less excuses are made for certain behavior, that shit does eventually stop or dramatically decline over time. An ocean can grind away a mountain. It takes time but it does happen.

See that's the problem, you're once again focusing on feminism being a "just us" endgame and that its all about instant gratification. There are women who fought for the right to vote who never actually lived to vote themselves. They did it so that if not them, then the women who came after them would enjoy that right.

If every movement, that ever existed was all about the parties' engaged in said movement getting to enjoy the fruits of their labor while they were alive, nothing would ever have changed. What's the saying? You don't fight tyrants to win; you fight them because its the right thing to do.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Exophrine View Post
Even today, business marketing and fashion is centered around women being the most desirable object of want (men's hygiene products, cars, furniture, clothing, and even housing framed as "chick magnets"); short of that, we're led to believe that life just isn't as great if we're not putting forth an effort to attract a woman in some capacity.

Of course, a lot of men fail in this effort and never progress; and their frustration could, and does, build and lead to do some rather despicable and ulawful things. It's terrible, but it is what it is. It's easy to say that it could be prevented if someone did show them some type of love or affection prior, but it didn't happen. Woulda, coulda, shoulda...too little, too late.
I am assuming that one of the"unlawful things" you're alluding to is rape. Let's get something straight, when it comes to rape; I get to be a Debbie Downer in regards to whatever progress can be made eradicating that particular brand of awful. It is amazingly terrifying just the diversity of the how and where it occurs, and how many men when asked will cop to having raped a woman as long as you don't call it "rape".

I had a friend in high school who admitted to being raped by her friend where she used to live. HER FRIEND. A female martial arts team member was raped on New Year's Eve by her two male team mates after she got too drunk and asked said friends to help give her a ride home.

Seriously, what's the handbook say on how to avoid being raped by your friends?

It is because of that that me and lots of other women, while we do try our best to prevent being in "rapey" situations, we also put a lot of focus on the after; the law enforcement chapter of it all. Here is where we would like the focus to be made on finding the perpetrator and not blaming the victim first. That no matter what you wear you are not asking for it, and though it may be ammunition in the defense's arsenal it should not immediately be in the investigating detectives' or the judges.

That no woman, after being violated, should have to hear from someone of power who doesn't have close to an idea of what this other person went through that they should "Just get over it.", that they're "making this stuff up." and a list of other jaw droppers.

If you don't get shamed for having a bulging wallet in your back pocket, or wearing a really nice leather jacket after you get mugged, I or any female I know shouldn't have to hear about my cleavage provoking an attack. That's insulting to women not to mention men, because it assumes that every male's default setting is rapist.

That I believe is a very reasonable feminist goal.


And you know what? I'm willing to be a little selfish and ask to see this scenario end in my lifetime. Cause you know what, it ain't really that hard:

Crap Women in the Game Business Have to Deal With


Quote:
Originally Posted by Exophrine View Post
Also, as a side note, I consider gender equality will have moved forward when the word "women" is removed from the rule "women and children first." It's little things like that that also have to be changed as well, I would think.

The main problem with that is: Whose gonna lead the children where they need to go? Since women are usually with the children already its a lot quicker order then to say : "Gary, go and find every child and lead them to the life boats..." or whatever. However if a woman is childless and wants to help, she can stay behind and help the boys.

Last edited by electriclite; 02-10-2013 at 05:25 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-10-2013, 05:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SS-Block View Post
Depending on specific locations, that would more accurately read "majority". Take eastern Europe, for example.
Indeed. And why I put minority in quotes. While you are right, I meant that solely to show what a minority it indeed is in public discourse.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02-10-2013, 06:24 PM
I have nothing wrong with equality, I think some people just lose sight of the fact that it's a two way street.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 02-10-2013, 07:20 PM
Oh, man. You know what I love?

Men telling women how they should feel about sexism. I mean, am I right, or am I right?

It's almost, almost as enjoyable as whites telling minorities how to feel about racism, or straights telling gays how to feel about bigotry.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02-10-2013, 07:40 PM
.

Last edited by SS-Block; 03-31-2014 at 05:16 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-10-2013, 07:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SS-Block View Post
But being a minority doesn't guarantee a fair and honest insight into racism. If someone is playing the race card unfairly, its surely not a problem for anyone, irrespective of race, so including white people, to point out to them that their perceived victimisation was wrong.

The same would apply to the issue of feminism. There are some women who misinterpret and, or misuse the term feminism, and surely anyone, irrespective of gender, so including men, should be free to highlight their mistake.
Agree but we all have our unreasoned "enjoy"ments like Bradbird.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-10-2013, 07:52 PM

Black man: You don't understand racism 'cause you are white.

White man: No, YOU don't understand racism 'cause you're not white. I hear what they say about you when you leave the room.

Just sayin'.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-10-2013, 07:59 PM
Well myself being a woman
I think it is great we have had feminism to a point
Years ago women didnt have a say on waht they wanted
it was all to do with what men wanted

Women were suposed to look after there man and children
Women were not aloud to vote but after a out cry we were

I am glad we fought for our rights
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 02-10-2013, 09:22 PM
I'd like to apologize to everyone else reading this thread, I didn't mean to make giant posts like this. Feel free to skip past this...it's really long.

Quote:
Originally Posted by electriclite View Post
Let me give an example by what I mean. Let's look at education. In countries like Afghanistan a girl is shot in the face for wanting to go to school and get an education. The basis of all education is first to learn how to read. Why is it important for women to learn to read? First off you might say "So she can get an education and then a degree and advance herself out of poverty." And right there is your example of feminism benefiting only women, but you only covered one angle. When a woman or girl in one of these little villages is allowed to attend school and learns to read she teachers the people in her family to read as well. Its been observed and proven in countless studies of similar regions. This ends up economically benefiting the small villages these girls live in, that would include the men. There you have feminism benefiting not just women but an entire community. That is why there is such a fierce push to get young girls in those regions into school.
Great example of paying it forward. It can be applied to any good deed...

Quote:
Originally Posted by electriclite View Post
Not to mention the successes of feminism were successes for men as well. Since patriarchal society set certain gender specific roles for women they also set them for males as well. Once woman fought and and broke those gender molds men were free to question and break their's as well. Seriously, you have stay-at-home-dads who fight for their right to have the originally gender specific role and privileges held by women. How do you think that came about?
Well, when you have fathers preferring to stay at home while the mother's working, it's not about politics or the roles of gender anymore, is it? That's just called doing what you think is best for your children...

Quote:
Originally Posted by electriclite View Post
Gender stereotypes have a negative effect on both men and women. Feminism is the main weapon that has chipped away at it. Its helped blur the lines of what is defined as male and female.
Like I said...attrition and perseverance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by electriclite View Post
This is especially helpful to gay men whom straight males assume are effeminate and want to be women, creating the obvious allusion that "feminine" is a negative trait. But if feminists or pro-feminists control what the term means and how it should be viewed, that whole paradigm changes and once taught to young men, changes how they treat other boys/men they encounter whose sexual orientation is described as "girly" or effeminate".
The only problem I have is with "control what the term means"

You can't police language. You can't change what words mean by going "Hey! Don't use that word like that! Stop giving it that meaning!" Otherwise, you've lost focus and you're just coming off as obnoxious and annoying, and you end up turning people off to the point you're trying to make. Seeing the comment sections of those "Don't say gay" PSA's are enough to show that there's definitely a pushback and that they're ineffective. The NAACP had a whole funeral service for the word "nigger," and that word is still alive and well in American vernacular.

But that's a whole other conversation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by electriclite View Post
But we mostly have, the issue we're having is "Why are we STILL constantly being questioned whether we can?"
Because media likes to sensationalize and inflate seemingly smaller issues and turn them into borderline controversies? They need something to fill up their time with...unfortunately, this issue's fair game along with everything else they discuss. Objects in mirror may be closer than they appear...

Quote:
Originally Posted by electriclite View Post
Steve Jobs ran Apple while being treated for pancreatic cancer, one of the most aggressive and hardest to beat cancers out there. He took a sabbatical for a while, but then came back and even when he got cancer AGAIN he was still doing keynote speeches, he was a little hazy in the last one, but come on, its cancer. He had scores of poisons running through his body while still managing Apple from the top tier and on the outside it went nearly unquestioned.

Melissa Meyer was pregnant and promoted, and heads exploded. And all she had running through her were hormones.
I guess this is all a matter of perspective. I heard more about Jobs' health and ability to perform than Meyer's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by electriclite View Post
What Jobs went through was WAAAAAAY harder then what Meyer did, which was in the grand scheme of things, nothing. She did what women have been doing for eons: She got knocked up and carried a kid and even worked through maternity leave.
Wow, that's a first: hearing a woman downplay motherhood. I'm glad to hear that tone, and I hope it catches on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by electriclite View Post
The fact is she did something that is no different than what other women have already done, and was financially in a waaaay better position to do it, but it left people aghast when it paired up with being a president and CEO.
People just aren't used to it...that's all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by electriclite View Post
What we would really like is to one day not have it be such a big deal when we do what you guys take for granted, like direct an action film, or any film for that matter, run a company, pick up a weapon, or hell, play a First Person Shooter! Do you really think we're a boring homogenous mass only interested in the mall, make-up, shoes and sex and the city?
A lot of guys like to think so, and it's not exactly the result of any oppression. In my experience, I've seen more of that boring, homogeneous type than the awesome type of women you describe (I want more girls like that). They've had the option for years (decades even) to better things for themselves and women around them. The opportunity is there, but they don't act on it. They're grown women making their own choices, and that's the result. It's not the fault of men...at least not in the US. Other countries, feel free to tell another story.

Also, there are already some of what you'd call victories in film directing: Mary Harron (AMERICAN PSYCHO, THE NOTORIOUS BETTIE PAGE, I SHOT ANDY WARHOL) is a great director, Sofia Coppola (LOST IN TRANSLATION, VIRGIN SUICIDES, MARIE ANTOINETTE) has made some strides (though I'm sure being a Coppola has helped out too), and Kathryn Bigelow has been making films since the 80s (POINT BREAK, a personal favorite in action film, K19: THE WIDOWMAKER, ZERO DARK THIRTY, THE HURT LOCKER). As a member of JoBlo and a fellow moviegoer, I'd have expected you to know one of those, at least...also, there has been news of a film of rag-tag females to make an EXPENDABLES equivalent, so there's more women in action.

...as far as picking up weapons, women in the US military are now allowed in combat (according to last week), so stick that in the win column. Hey, at least it's progress, right? Women running companies? You've got Xerox, TJ Maxx, Hewlett Packard, DuPont, Kraft, PepsiCo, and IBM. I don't recall any huge stories about each of those promotions...how's that for not making a big deal?

As far as rape is concerned, I will not comment in detail. I will say, however, that we are pretty much in agreement, and that the sooner it's ended, the better. ...and yeah, I meant rape (among other heinous crimes like kidnapping, murder, assault, abuse, etc.) in that "unlawful things" umbrella.

Quote:
Originally Posted by electriclite View Post
The main problem with that is: Whose gonna lead the children where they need to go? Since women are usually with the children already its a lot quicker order then to say : "Gary, go and find every child and lead them to the life boats..." or whatever. However if a woman is childless and wants to help, she can stay behind and help the boys.
I don't think that people are suddenly going to stop caring about kids and stop leading them to safety in an emergency. As you suggest, we'd still have the same system, we just wouldn't say "women and children first" ...that adjustment shouldn't be that hard.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 02-11-2013, 12:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exophrine View Post
I'd like to apologize to everyone else reading this thread, I didn't mean to make giant posts like this. Feel free to skip past this...it's really long.


Great example of paying it forward. It can be applied to any good deed...
Yes, a feminist goal reached that allowed for a positive outcome that allowed its benefits to shared by a community.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Exophrine View Post
Well, when you have fathers preferring to stay at home while the mother's working, it's not about politics or the roles of gender anymore, is it? That's just called doing what you think is best for your children...

Yeah, now you call it "doing what's best for the kids". Sixty years ago, it was unheard of and any man who did that would catch hell from men and women for "assuming the woman's role", that it was unnatural. You have to acknowledge that we didn't get from point A to point B because it just magically happened that way.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Exophrine View Post
The only problem I have is with "control what the term means"

You can't police language. You can't change what words mean by going "Hey! Don't use that word like that! Stop giving it that meaning!" Otherwise, you've lost focus and you're just coming off as obnoxious and annoying, and you end up turning people off to the point you're trying to make. Seeing the comment sections of those "Don't say gay" PSA's are enough to show that there's definitely a pushback and that they're ineffective. The NAACP had a whole funeral service for the word "nigger," and that word is still alive and well in American vernacular.

But that's a whole other conversation.
The reality is language is organic and what it transitions into can sometimes be manipulated by those who have power over the word, even if it doesn't make sense, as long as no one questions it or does. Like once upon a time "gay" just meant "happy" then over time came to also mean "homosexual".

Take the derogatory term "pussy", I mean when applied to people who are considered weak. Naming a negative aspect after a female characteristic. First off let's look at exactly what a "pussy", "vagina", "cunt" actually does: Its elastic, it stretches, it PUSHES HUMAN BEINGS OUT OF IT, it shrinks back to its original state to make it optimal for pleasurable sex which eventually leads to more pushing of human beings out of it.

And this is what we use to describe weak people? How the fuck did that come about?

Ummm, nobody questioned it, because the only people who could were considered second class, or too delicate to hear such wording and were naturally left out of its inception.

Control might be a strong word. Manipulate or modify may be more of an accurate term. I slowly learned to stop using the word "gay" to describe things as "stupid" (Hey look, a word changed to mean something else. How bout that!) because it hurt the feelings of my gay friends. It wasn't the PSA's that did it. It was out of respect.

So maybe if a couple of your female friends or family members asked you not to use pussy to mean a "weakness" around them you too might find yourself moderating your usage of it. Or you could just take moment and consider why something feminine is considered an insult, and what pray-tell is so bad about being feminine?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exophrine View Post
Wow, that's a first: hearing a woman downplay motherhood. I'm glad to hear that tone, and I hope it catches on.
I'm not saying pregnancy and motherhood isn't tough, I'm saying, in my opinion, compared to fighting cancer and probable death, it doesn't come in first.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Exophrine View Post
A lot of guys like to think so, and it's not exactly the result of any oppression. In my experience, I've seen more of that boring, homogeneous type than the awesome type of women you describe (I want more girls like that). They've had the option for years (decades even) to better things for themselves and women around them. The opportunity is there, but they don't act on it. They're grown women making their own choices, and that's the result. It's not the fault of men...at least not in the US. Other countries, feel free to tell another story.
Good God man! Where do you live with all these boring chicks?

I don't believe its a matter of outright oppression. I think goes back to one of your other points about "people just aren't used to it." If a guy comes out of your area, with that reference of women coloring his expectations and works with other women its fair to say he may treat them in much the same manner. Experience does affect how we relate and/or react in future interactions.

Something I think colors a lot the behavior of those men the women in that gaming business link I provided mention.

Plus there's certain behavior women don't tolerate or conform to in largely male environments, which tends to immediately put them in an antagonistic position with their male peers. For instance, Facebook was run like frat house until Sheryl Sandberg arrived and started reading the riot act in that place.

But that doesn't change the fact that still, managers fall prey to gender bias when evaluating female employees' performance. Its been cited far too many times that managers will routinely describe women negatively as either "not as well liked by her peers," or "a bit aggressive" even though neither of those observations have anything to do with performance. They [managers] say this with no understanding that this is the penalty women face because of gender stereotypes,"

Tina Fey said it best: Bitches get stuff done.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exophrine View Post
Also, there are already some of what you'd call victories in film directing: Mary Harron (AMERICAN PSYCHO, THE NOTORIOUS BETTIE PAGE, I SHOT ANDY WARHOL) is a great director, Sofia Coppola (LOST IN TRANSLATION, VIRGIN SUICIDES, MARIE ANTOINETTE) has made some strides (though I'm sure being a Coppola has helped out too), and Kathryn Bigelow has been making films since the 80s (POINT BREAK, a personal favorite in action film, K19: THE WIDOWMAKER, ZERO DARK THIRTY, THE HURT LOCKER). As a member of JoBlo and a fellow moviegoer, I'd have expected you to know one of those, at least...also, there has been news of a film of rag-tag females to make an EXPENDABLES equivalent, so there's more women in action.
I am very well aware of those women, and I'm also far too well aware that they are a tiny estrogen island in a sea of male directors. It also helped that two of those women you mentioned had/have relationships with very powerful male directors.

I admit there have been great strides, but in the last ten years, the growth of women in films has not changed. Check out these stats from IndieWire:

Quote:

- 29.8% of filmmakers (directors, writers, producers, cinematographers and editors) were female.

- Women are more likely to be producers, and as the roles become more high profile and money becomes a factor, the number of women goes down. So women are more likely to be associate producers than producers.

- Women support women. Films directed by women feature more women in all roles. There is a 21% increase in women working on a narrative film when there is a female director and a 24% of women working on documentaries.

- Females direct more documentaries than narrative films - 34.5% vs 16.9%.

- 23.9% of the films in this study were directed by women. Note: Women made up only 4.4% of directors in the top 100 box office films each year from 2002 to 2012.

- Sundance makes a difference - 41.5% of the female directors across 1,100 top-grossing movies of the past ten years have been supported by Sundance Institute. [Ed.: Women and men participate in the institute's programs in almost equal numbers!]

Quote:
Almost half the women interviewed (43.1%) said that MONEY was the biggest problem. It's about taking women directors seriously, it's about taking women's visions seriously. It's about trusting women's visions and that is still a major problem.

- Almost 40% of the women said that "Male-dominated industry networking" is a barrier.

- Almost 20% (19.6%) say that balancing work and family is an issue.

- Getting stereotyped as a "women director" - 15.7%

- Not getting hired because they are women - 13.7%

Quote:
[I]n narrative film when looking at women directors over the last decade, only 41 women have made films in the top 100 released films every year across the decade, compared to 625 men. There are 15.24 male directors for each 1 female director. So that means many men make multiple films and few women make any films.
Big-ups to Katherine Bigelow and all, but her Oscar is not a mission accomplished banner.

Its funny, women will watch all types of movies made by men. But when it comes to women making films with women centered themes, the industry comes up with all these excuses as to why people won't wanna watch that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Exophrine View Post
...as far as picking up weapons, women in the US military are now allowed in combat (according to last week), so stick that in the win column. Hey, at least it's progress, right? Women running companies? You've got Xerox, TJ Maxx, Hewlett Packard, DuPont, Kraft, PepsiCo, and IBM. I don't recall any huge stories about each of those promotions...how's that for not making a big deal?
I admit progress, but you have to admit that progress didn't happen in a vacuum.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 02-11-2013, 02:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by electriclite View Post
Yeah, now you call it "doing what's best for the kids". Sixty years ago, it was unheard of and any man who did that would catch hell from men and women for "assuming the woman's role", that it was unnatural. You have to acknowledge that we didn't get from point A to point B because it just magically happened that way.
I agree, but you're missing one detail. The role of the strong woman was started way back in the late 50s with a TV program called THE DONNA REED SHOW (my parents sometimes watch oldie-time TV when I visit). In that program, Donna Reed was a stay-at-home mother that was the "man" of the house. She had a husband that worked, but when it came to giving guidance to their son and fulfilling the duties that the father/husband would normally do, she did. She tried to teach the son to fight (bullies beat him up), and she even talked about girls to him and stuff like that. My point here is that it wasn't that far-fetched an idea that didn't start with Mary Tyler Moore (though she really got it going).

Quote:
Originally Posted by electriclite View Post
The reality is language is organic and what it transitions into can sometimes be manipulated by those who have power over the word, even if it doesn't make sense, as long as no one questions it or does. Like once upon a time "gay" just meant "happy" then over time came to also mean "homosexual".

Take the derogatory term "pussy", I mean when applied to people who are considered weak. Naming a negative aspect after a female characteristic. First off let's look at exactly what a "pussy", "vagina", "cunt" actually does: Its elastic, it stretches, it PUSHES HUMAN BEINGS OUT OF IT, it shrinks back to its original state to make it optimal for pleasurable sex which eventually leads to more pushing of human beings out of it.

And this is what we use to describe weak people? How the fuck did that come about?

Control might be a strong word. Manipulate or modify may be more of an accurate term. I slowly learned to stop using the word "gay" to describe things as "stupid" (Hey look, a word changed to mean something else. How bout that!) because it hurt the feelings of my gay friends. It wasn't the PSA's that did it. It was out of respect.

So maybe if a couple of your female friends or family members asked you not to use pussy to mean a "weakness" around them you too might find yourself moderating your usage of it. Or you could just take moment and consider why something feminine is considered an insult, and what pray-tell is so bad about being feminine?
I'm not saying that language doesn't evolve over time. I understand that it changes, but that change up to now has mostly happened naturally, without the intervention of movements that aim to change it by force.

That's where my view comes from: you can't force it on people who don't want to change. They're the ones who have to choose it...however, I do acknowledge that a despicable wave has occurred where if a celebrity, comedian, or public figure says a word or makes a verbal slip, a simple public apology isn't enough...not anymore. They have to make a public statement, go to rehab, and even work with special interest groups of the people they've "offended" to "gain a better understanding," and all this other over-the-top bullshit that's completely unnecessary. All that effort for what? Forgiveness? Damage control? Recovering their public image? By that point, it's none of those things...those groups are just holding them hostage.

When it comes to certain words like "pussy," "queer," or "faggot," you're getting into words children used. Decades ago, at a young enough age in childhood, some kids (older adults now) didn't know anything about sex or what homosexuality was...most likely, they picked it up from adults (you know how some kids parrot older people, they want to be like them). I sincerely doubt that a 5-7 year-old that was calling a weaker kid a faggot or pussy was literally thinking about vaginas and homosexuals. To them it just meant weak, period. ...and yes, that's the excuse I'm giving them: ignorance, innocence. To them, it wasn't a word associated with being badass or cool, so it was a label for the weaker kids. They also used it because it was fun (didn't matter what it meant, adults used it and it was slightly taboo, and that made saying it fun), and they found it funny.

You also have to acknowledge that a lot of words now are being taken by groups to ONLY mean what they want them to mean. Personally, I don't think that's right...

If a friend doesn't want me to use a certain word, I just don't use it around them. They can't tell me not to use a word in every other part of my life, fuck that. I'll exercise my freedom of speech and say what I want, thanks.

What's so bad about being feminine? Well, nothing anymore...

Quote:
Originally Posted by electriclite View Post
I'm not saying pregnancy and motherhood isn't tough, I'm saying, in my opinion, compared to fighting cancer and probable death, it doesn't come in first.
I was just relieved because when I usually hear a woman speak of being a mother, they make it sound like the biggest achievement ever and raising the kid is the hardest job in the world. Really? THAT'S the biggest achievement? What about space travel, or intercontinental communication, or even the Industrial Revolution? None of that matters? Producing offspring trumps all that? Come on, you're proud of doing something that a dog can also do. It's not an achievement; it's only an achievement if you did after being diagnosed as infertile (THEN it's an achievement). ...and seriously? The hardest job in the world? I'd have thought that roofing in the middle of July as a balding ginger (redhead + freckles) would be a little bit harder (because, you know, they typically sunburn easily). Maybe slave labor or working in a sweatshop is a slightly harder job? No? Raising kids?

Quote:
Originally Posted by electriclite View Post
Good God man! Where do you live with all these boring chicks?
Don't ask...I plan on moving soon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by electriclite View Post
Tina Fey said it best: Bitches get stuff done.
Yeah, but they're also bitches...

Quote:
Originally Posted by electriclite View Post
I am very well aware of those women, and I'm also far too well aware that they are a tiny estrogen island in a sea of male directors. It also helped that two of those women you mentioned had/have relationships with very powerful male directors.
I do admit, it scared me when I found out a woman directed American Psycho. I was young, and to wrap my head around the ability of a woman to produce such a film...I was surprised. Yeah, if it were a guy directing, I wouldn't think twice about it, you got me there. But now I hope to see more women working in film.

Quote:
Originally Posted by electriclite View Post
Big-ups to Katherine Bigelow and all, but her Oscar is not a mission accomplished banner.
I never said it was...but still, over 30 years in the business.

Quote:
Originally Posted by electriclite View Post
Its funny, women will watch all types of movies made by men. But when it comes to women making films with women centered themes, the industry comes up with all these excuses as to why people won't wanna watch that.
Now I get to mention how Hollywood's current paradigm doesn't want to deviate from what they know will make money. What you're suggesting, producers have no idea. They're scared to produce anything today that's revolutionary in filmmaking. You know this bit, nothing new, only what's already successful in other mediums: comic books, bestselling novels, popular trends, old TV show remakes, remakes of other films...etc. Don't take risks, just make money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by electriclite View Post
I admit progress, but you have to admit that progress didn't happen in a vacuum.
Of course...keep on truckin'.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 02-12-2013, 05:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SS-Block View Post
There are some women who misinterpret and, or misuse the term feminism, and surely anyone, irrespective of gender, so including men, should be free to highlight their mistake.
Just because, in your mind, some people misuse the term "feminism" doesn't make the concept behind feminism invalid. Everyone in this thread is bitching about outliers and worst-case-scenario situations, which are nothing but red herrings to the topic. All you need to do is look at the nonsense behind the recent debate about contraception and rape to see that misogyny and sexual discrimination are alive and well.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 02-12-2013, 07:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preston_79 View Post
I agree.

It's a man's world and women are just living in it. Feminism makes perfect sense to me.
Ah so you think it is a mans world

Well l have to say l disgree with your statement
Women were brought into this world for other things

Look at who is our primeminster in Australia

She is a women preston

Alot of women could out do waht some of you men have brought forward
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 02-26-2013, 07:46 AM
I have nothing against women wanting the same rights as men, because they should be treated equally. However, some take that concept way too far, saying women should be allowed to walk around topless, or use their sexuality as a weapon. Such behavior is what I call "radical feminism", and I'm staunchly against it. I don't even like seeing other guys without their shirts on.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 02-26-2013, 12:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bondgirl View Post
Ah so you think it is a mans world

Well l have to say l disgree with your statement
Women were brought into this world for other things

Look at who is our primeminster in Australia

She is a women preston

Alot of women could out do waht some of you men have brought forward
You should read all of my comments. When I say it's a man's world I'm not implying that women can't have all that men have, just that they simply don't for the most part. Things are changing with the playing field leveling a bit with every passing year, but women still have a ways to go.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 02-26-2013, 12:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4 View Post
I have nothing against women wanting the same rights as men, because they should be treated equally. However,
Stop right there. This is the same as starting a sentence with "I'm not racist, but..." Everything else that comes after this phrase looks worse for you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4 View Post
However, some take that concept way too far, saying women should be allowed to walk around topless, or use their sexuality as a weapon. Such behavior is what I call "radical feminism", and I'm staunchly against it.
No one is seriously advocating for any of this, and it is nothing but a distraction from other, far more serious issues dealing with women's equality.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4 View Post
I don't even like seeing other guys without their shirts on.
So, what, are all guys supposed to wear shirts to the beach or to the pool? This sounds more like your problem with prudishness than a problem with feminism.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 02-26-2013, 05:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badbird View Post
Just because, in your mind, some people misuse the term "feminism" doesn't make the concept behind feminism invalid.
It all depends on how feminism is defined, and whether its correctly defined. In its correct definition of legal equality and equal individual freedoms, I agree, that hasn't been invalidated, nor can it be.

Quote:
Everyone in this thread is bitching about outliers and worst-case-scenario situations, which are nothing but red herrings to the topic.
And then there are those blinded to the fact that many prominent "feminists" are their own brand of sexist, that being a misandrist bigot, and their own brand of oppressive as they aim to replace patriarchy with matriarchy. This isn't exclusively an issue of the outliers, or on the fringes of this movement.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 02-26-2013, 06:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badbird View Post
Stop right there. This is the same as starting a sentence with "I'm not racist, but..." Everything else that comes after this phrase looks worse for you.
I don't generally care what a lot of people think, particularly the politically-correct crowd. I don't consider myself a racist, because I don't condemn people based on things they can't control. I do believe that everyone has some degree of racial concern though, when different issues are raised.

Quote:
No one is seriously advocating for any of this, and it is nothing but a distraction from other, far more serious issues dealing with women's equality.
I'd beg to differ. There's women to this day who advocate walking around topless, as if showing their breasts every day will gain them some kind of higher respect. Its crazy, but there's still those who believe it.

Quote:
So, what, are all guys supposed to wear shirts to the beach or to the pool? This sounds more like your problem with prudishness than a problem with feminism.
I find it interesting that whenever someone offers a viewpoint contrary to a "sexually liberated" society, they're deemed a prude. I've worn shirts at the swimming pool since I was a kid, and I'm 32 now. I have no desire to deal with other men walking around topless, either. Nudity of any kind is not meant for public display...period.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 02-26-2013, 06:55 PM
I was always under the impression that feminism, originally, started out as a stance of formally advocating equality for woman on an economic, political, and social level. Then, later on down the line, it became a stance that not only appealed to women's rights, but also minorities with a specific focus on woman of those particular groups. I don't get some of the blanket statements I'm reading which indicate feminism is a surrogate of socialism
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 02-26-2013, 07:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy Batty View Post
I don't get some of the blanket statements I'm reading which indicate feminism is a surrogate of socialism
Perhaps this will help with what people are referring to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_feminism
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 02-27-2013, 05:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4 View Post
I'd beg to differ. There's women to this day who advocate walking around topless, as if showing their breasts every day will gain them some kind of higher respect. Its crazy, but there's still those who believe it.
Yeah, and if there are people like that, you ignore them. That would be like me saying I'm anti-organized religion because look at those assholes at the Westburo Baptist Church.

Now, let's just say there is a small, but very vocal, group of women who advocate for the ability to go topless at any venue where a man can go topless (like a beach, or swimming pool, or mowing their yard, etc.), and that in order to create a society in which women are paid equally, promoted based on their skill and efforts - resulting in the shattering of the glass ceiling in both business and politics (which they are woefully underrepresented), and have access to heath care that doesn't slut-shame them, etc., we have to agree with that whole topless thing, even though only a tiny percentage would participate, I would say "go right ahead." Because to hold a tidal wave of equality back over something that amounts to a leaking faucet is stupid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4 View Post
I find it interesting that whenever someone offers a viewpoint contrary to a "sexually liberated" society, they're deemed a prude. I've worn shirts at the swimming pool since I was a kid, and I'm 32 now. I have no desire to deal with other men walking around topless, either. Nudity of any kind is not meant for public display...period.
Dude, say what you want, that's pretty freaking prudish. Your definition of nudity is pretty extreme if it includes guys not wearing shirts; that is way outside the mainstream.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 02-28-2013, 12:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4 View Post
Nudity of any kind is not meant for public display...period.
There are many cultures that would disagree. There are many people who wear little more than a loin cloth every day, and it's been like that for generations, probably centuries.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 02-28-2013, 12:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy Batty View Post
I was always under the impression that feminism, originally, started out as a stance of formally advocating equality for woman on an economic, political, and social level. Then, later on down the line, it became a stance that not only appealed to women's rights, but also minorities with a specific focus on woman of those particular groups. I don't get some of the blanket statements I'm reading which indicate feminism is a surrogate of socialism
The government was especially smart in backing feminism. In doing so, it created two new forms of tax livestock for it to fleece from: An additional parent in the workforce and the day care worker to look after unsupervised kids. Couple this with all of the recent reports of women being more unhappy today(because they now have to work whether they want to or not) and feminists calling for government to "solve" more problems of "equality", and you begin to see a pretty disturbingly(and stupid) vicious cycle.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump