|
Post by Blind Bandit on Apr 16, 2008 0:20:34 GMT -5
Because I have wanted to start this discussion for some time and the current discussion in the "favorite gender thread in the OGB" I thought this would a be fitting time to bring up this topic.
A brief description from Wikipedia
I will post my opnion on this after the debate has begin.
Everyone please remember to be respectful.
|
|
|
Post by spiritmage234 on Apr 17, 2008 5:44:40 GMT -5
Well, in my opinion, there are three types of feminists. 1) The sensable kind. The woman who fights for equal rights, and thinks that all sexes should be treated equally, and that women should be treated like crap by men, but, at the same time, men shouldn't be treated like crap either. 2) The kinda screwed up kind. The knid that thinks pornography - and sometimes even prostitution - is listed under "girl power" (Believe it or not, there are feminists who think like this. I read a paper about a feminist who thought this.). There are also those feminists who think that it is there right to be a stay-at-home wife/mom and please their man take care of their family, which is okay and all (so long as the man doesn't treat her like a slave). 3) Then there are the b!tchy kind: the feminazis. The woman who won't except help from any man, and when a gentleman opens a door for her, then she will automatically assume that the man thinks she's "weak" and can't do anything by herself. The kind of woman who might not even be a true feminist, but merely uses feminism as an excuse to discriminate against men or to commit androcide or something.
I agree more with the first type. I like being a girl (though sometimes it really sucks), but, in any culture, race, religion or whatever, I think all woman should be treated with respect, and rightfully, shouldn't be controlled by ANYONE. Women have contributed a lot to human civilization (much to the dismay of some of you sexist men out there), and, it seems that no matter what, we always had to lick mens' feet and worship them like gods. I'd go more into depth with womens' roles in societies such as third world countries and feminism in religious idealism, but stuff will be said, other debates will arise in one that is specifically toward feminism, and I will get warned for use of offensive language/etc.
So back on topic, yeah. Woman should be treated with respect, but feminism shouldn't be used as an excuse to be sexist toward men, whether your heterosexual or homosexual. Cuz, I like guys. And most guys are polite and will open a door for lady out of courtesy. Hell, everybody should be opening the door for everbody else! (What happened to that courtesy!?) TOPIC! Okay yeah. So, if I become the type of woman who is gonna end up a stay at home mom (Which I won't. I'm not letting four and up years of college go to waste.), that's fine. Many woman are proud that some of the household tasks they can do can only be "fully understood" by a woman, and some of us find it somewhat relaxing to do chore (I honestly like doing the laundry and washing dishes. I have Kenshin to thank for that, though). Like I said, so long as the husband doesn't ORDER his wife do all this stuff, forbide them from getting a job if they want to, or lock her in the house while he's at work.
And I really don't think "having the choice" of doing men on camera is classified as "girl power".
So those are my two crusty cents.
|
|
|
Post by admirality on Apr 17, 2008 6:54:32 GMT -5
I like the way u hav classified feminism spirit Mage ..... I agree with the first type... Both sexes shud be treated equally...
In some ways I consider myself as anti feminist.... The whole Both sexes are equal I don't agree with, yes they shud be treated equally but they r not equal... Men r women are designed completly differeently a man is superior in strength and size so when it comes to manual labour jobs of course a man will be hired/ paid more than a woman because women often arn't capable of that kinda work. But when it comes to other types of jobs e.g office job then pay shud be equal....
I mainly am against feminism coz it often does seem to be an excuse for women to be sexist towards men. I love men I often get on better with guys than girls so I don't like them being discriminated against.... I did get very annoyed when a teacher at school implied I was feminist just because I'm intelligent and independant does not make me a feminist...
I hav no problem with the man goes to work woman stays at home idea but I wudn't choose that for myself... But then again I don't like the idea of the woman is boss and the man stays at home.... I wud prefer even roles..... Some things that feminists hav done r for the better like getting women the vote I just don't like extreme feminism ...
|
|
|
Post by CountessRachel on Apr 17, 2008 11:35:18 GMT -5
I would not call this "kinda screwed up." At all. While I don't think prostitution/pornography is wholly empowering to women in this society, I do think it (prostitution) causes more problems being illegal than it would were it regulated by the government. When consented pornography/prostitution gets negative views, usually the negativity falls more towards the woman's side and it becomes the woman's fault for agreeing to do these things. And THAT goes to the whole double standard of "Women shouldn't be allowed to have as much sex as they'd like but men can." Which is a social inequality that I choose not to recognize. If the woman uses protection and makes sure she is a with a respectful partner, then I honestly don't see a problem. And while I don't believe a woman's place is in the home, I don't necessarily think it has to be in the workplace either. A woman's place is where both she and her family are equally happy. To call those ideas of feminism "kinda screwed up" leans more toward your "feminazi" definition. Along side equal human rights for women globally, I'm a feminist in the unreasonable standards of beauty in Western society and how women all over the world try to adhere to them. There's this subliminal pressure to look a certain way that's unhuman and unnatural. Women are far more likely to be self-conscious about their looks than men and are more likely to develop eating disorders because they "feel fat." I love this video because it really does put the media in perspective about how disillusioned a lot of women are when it comes to beauty: Dove Evolution
|
|
|
Post by spiritmage234 on Apr 17, 2008 11:57:31 GMT -5
Eh. I didn't mean to say "kinda screwed up". It was just only word that came up at 6:30 in the morning that made sense with what I was saying.
Annnnnnnnnnnnd I still can't think of a more appropriate synonym. Sorry. *shrugs*
|
|
Atmos
Casual Zuko
Tame the Flame
Posts: 946
|
Post by Atmos on Apr 21, 2008 18:40:54 GMT -5
Hmm...feminism...I don't really have a too specific opinion on the topic. I mean, I'm all for women obtaining equal rights just as I am for ethnic minorities or homosexuals obtaining equal rights. In a political and an employment standpoint, it shouldn't be about gender, race, sexuality, etc. It should just be about job performance. If a woman can perform a job just as well as any guy, their shoudn't be any differences in wage and opportunity.
The only thing thats annoy me is the misconception that feminism and anti-feminism is some sort of rat race to prove which gender is the "superior one."
scanning across the workforce and the concentration of one gender in certain jobs than others, it generally reflects the differences between a man and woman - the differences we can't change.
Taking it to a biological perspective there's the factor of "sexual dimorphism"
sexual dimorphism - The differences between male and female individuals of specific species that arise as a consequence of sexual maturation, including the secondary sex characteristics. [/i]
Among humans, sexual dimorphism is pretty low compared to many mammals and other animals but it's still significant. Physically males are generally (key word: generally) larger, have more muscle mass, deep voice (a sort of side effect of having a larger trachea for larger uptake of oxygen for the larger muscles). And since men would have a larger heart to circulate platelets and other clotting factors, men tend to heal faster and are more pain tolerant.
In terms of the female, they tend to convert more food into fat which would benefit in nurturing the infant. Women also tend have a stronger immunity, producing more white blood cells and antibodies (which some claim is a key contributor for the female's longer average lifespan).
In an evolutionary standpoint, this sexual dimorphism was ultimately advantageous as social nomadic creatures. Within the groups while the females nutured the children the males took charge in hunting and protection.
There's even significant psychological sexual dimorphism. Men are psychologically more hardy and impassive to cope with the mental stress of labor, hunting, and fighting while females are more sensitive and nurturing which further enfored the habits or tending to the kids.
And this is a fact - that men are generally this way and women are generally that way.
To me a stereotype would be that all men are this way and all women are that way, no expections.
Of course in the modern world where survival is no longer the daily worry of the average citizen and occupations in society are practically endless. But our sexual differences (physcial and psychological) are always going to show. In a society of free choice, odds are you are going to see more men in the labor-based occupations than women.
When it comes to a lifestyle between two partners, it's all about the choice but when it comes raising a family, I personally think it's very important (if not the most) to settle a lifestyle that's best for the children. If both partners can both have jobs while raising their kids, more power to them.
But I don't think a couple needs to have kids for one spouse to be a stay-at-home. If that's what makes them happy, then whatever. (and keep in mind now-a-days with good ol' internet, stay-at-home doesn't necessarily mean no-job).
....That's all I can whip up for now...
|
|
|
Post by 8leggdbutterfly on Apr 21, 2008 19:55:02 GMT -5
I agree with you completely; the standards are completely unreasonable, and to me it seems like a hopeless situation. Even other women sometimes look down on those who aren't pretty or skinny enough. And then there are those who still think pretty and intelligent can't go together. Advertisment companies are smart, and things won't ever change (at least not any time soon) because they make more money when women feel bad about themselves - and so think they have to buy all those products.
I'll consider myself a feminist until women really are treated - and believed - to be equal with men. Now, of course I realize this problem isn't nearly as big as it once was, especially in more developed countries, but I still don't think that it's a completely level playing field.
A big pet peeve of mine - and some have previously mentioned this - is women who advocate total female superiority, or women who expect to be treated equally, while at the same time expect to be treated with "chivalry" or given proper deference.
|
|
|
Post by spiritmage234 on Apr 22, 2008 4:52:21 GMT -5
In some ways I consider myself as anti feminist.... The whole Both sexes are equal I don't agree with, yes they shud be treated equally but they r not equal... Men r women are designed completly differeently a man is superior in strength and size so when it comes to manual labour jobs of course a man will be hired/ paid more than a woman because women often arn't capable of that kinda work. But when it comes to other types of jobs e.g office job then pay shud be equal.... Yeah. I think it is a fact of life, that in actuality, no one is created equal. Example, Two identical twins are born, one has two arms, the other has one. Are they equal? Neh. Okay. Semi-true, semi-bad example. How about this. Two dudes who were in the same peliminary courses at school. Same race, same sex. One has a higher I.Q., one isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. So the dude with the higher I.Q. gets into A.P. courses and an ivy league college. The other, well, doesn't. Are they created equal? So, depending on what the situation is, no one is equal. I mean, if everyone was, we'd all have the same ideology or whatever. Everybody's different and crap. But, if a guy gets a job in a firm and has high expectations and I.Q., and a woman has high expectations and I.Q. as well, in those two categories, they are equal, since the job at hand does not call for brawns which the guy [may] has more of. But then the woman doesn't get a job cause she's a woman. Then that's a little unfair.
|
|
|
Post by airbenderben on May 13, 2008 16:07:22 GMT -5
"Q,
Q need to write female dominance manifesto. Needs to be 250 and fifty pages. Chosen you Q to write it because your writing skills are off the chart and your penmenship is ilegible. Would write it myself but can't too long would end up as pamphlet.
-pysuedam."
That is what is written on this note I found on the floor today. Interesting to say the least, and how ever true it is. Should females dominate? I'm reminded of watching the news one day, there was a feminist rally, and women only get paid 70 cents of every dollar a man makes for the same job? Why do people say mankind instead of womankind? Why are females expected to take the man's last name after marriage ? I think of this as an analogy, there's a coin, and this coin, say it's a quarter. This coin, one side represents male dominance, the other side represents female dominance. A lot of people want the coin to stand on it's side, which is basically impossible, what if the coin was flipped completely? What if females were dominant? There's a word for this; matriarchy, and I say it's awesome.
Please share your thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by 2X the All-Powerful! on May 20, 2008 19:55:39 GMT -5
I have no issues with female-male equality. Female dominance over male, is another story. I know too many feminists who try to say women are better than dudes. C'mon, if dominance suddenly shifted to women and men were getting the 70 cents of every dollar a woman makes, then suddenly men would fight back and this would all go on again. It's stupid.
There's a movie called The Last Man on Earth (or Planet Earth, can't remember) about how women basically took over after releasing a Y-Chromosome bomb, killing the majority of men. It was pretty freaky.
|
|
|
Post by sgthydra on May 20, 2008 20:15:48 GMT -5
I have no issues with female-male equality. Female dominance over male, is another story. I know too many feminists who try to say women are better than dudes. C'mon, if dominance suddenly shifted to women and men were getting the 70 cents of every dollar a woman makes, then suddenly men would fight back and this would all go on again. It's stupid. There's a movie called The Last Man on Earth (or Planet Earth, can't remember) about how women basically took over after releasing a Y-Chromosome bomb, killing the majority of men. It was pretty freaky. Kic@$$ movie right there! That's kinda the extreme, and eventual goal, of feminism. "Feminism," in its true form, not the watered down "equal rights" front group, seeks the domination over men. Equal rights = Best Idea since the wheel. Feminism = Worst Idea Since Seperate But Equal. How can we have equal rights when we still divide ourselves by class, race, and gender? How can a black man and a white man be equal if society considers them to be different due to color of their skin? How can a man and a woman be considered equal when one is expected to crash and burn in a car accident (and gets higher insurence fees as a result) and the other is expected to stay at home? Equal rights requires complete and total unification of the human species! Tear down the walls of race and gender! Onward to a world where everyone is seen as a human with no other attachments towards that!
|
|
|
Post by wiiboy on May 20, 2008 20:16:07 GMT -5
Why do people say mankind instead of womankind? Why are females expected to take the man's last name after marriage ? Been like that for thousands of generations and mostly due to religious society seeing how in Christianity, Islam, and even Judaism there have been countless sexism. For example, look at 1 Timothy 2:11 and 2:12. I love using these verses at Snooty Sims because it pisses people off and makes people fight even a girl defends them. Sometimes the person (Hazel) called the girl a "dildolicker." LMAO, anyways. It was mainly religious society that influenced this male dominated society or at least managed to keep this up into our time. Switching this around could possibly be counted as blasphemy later on down the road. Which is one reason some religious bigots hate Hillary Clinton. Even though it seems like everyone hates her for some reason.
|
|
|
Post by 2X the All-Powerful! on May 20, 2008 21:51:57 GMT -5
^I do. GO RON PAUL.
It's funny, the Japanese have no issues with patriarchal society, because they find that everything works fine. Wonder why westerners aren't the same way.
|
|
|
Post by spiritmage234 on May 22, 2008 7:34:37 GMT -5
Well, don't get me wrong, and this is my own opinion, but having the idealogy of people who lived 2,000 years ago - or even a hundred years ago - seems a bit, archaic to me. I know it's religion and culture and all but... haven't we realized that a lot of sh!t guys can do women can do also? I think more than half of the world's empress/queen regents proved that.
I can't say this for all of the world - considering that a LOT of countries obtain 3,000 year old ways of living, but I have nothing against them (they aren't me) - but I can at least say this for the industrialized countries: we live in the now, and the now is an ever changing society were about 50 years ago, a black dude could never get the same job as a white dude, but they can now.
So yeah. I think a little of my idealogy about political correctness rests in this topic too: a lot of stuff that people concider with race and sex, should really be concidered with intelligence. I don't have to be a guy in order to be an engineer for NASA.
You have to be smart though.
And anyone can be smart.
And to be totally neutral, we should all be concidered HUMANkind; neither man nor womankind.
|
|
|
Post by 2X the All-Powerful! on May 22, 2008 18:32:36 GMT -5
people do say humankind, but mankind has become part of our vocabulary. Do we honestly have to change the very way people talk for the sake of equality? It's a little trivial.
My english teacher (who's a woman by the way) hates it when people turn in their essays and write "he/she" or "his or her", because for the sake of political correctness or pro-feminism the english language gets butchered, and I have to say I agree. As you say, we live in the now, so we should try to just live our lives instead of nitpicking every little infraction to people's feelings.
But, I'm just a cold, practical man, what do I know.
|
|