Aren't You?

neuro-praxis

No

The Corinthian wrote:

Actually, what is being pointed out is that the feminist wants to have as many toilets as possible, to improve the number of toilets held. This is not the same thing as ‘more toilets’ or even as ‘the same number of toilets’ - if it were the latter, then in the case where the feminist has two out of three of the toilets, they would feel compelled to redress this imbalance and sacrifice half of one of the toilets.

As such feminism seeks to maximize the interests of its constituent group, independent of whether this results in a situation which is equal or not.

I hear your point. I disagree, but I see what you are getting at.

Your difficulty seems to be that if the feminists have two toilets and the men only have one, they're not too bothered about this.

Now, personally, as a feminist, if I happened to be lucky enough to be in possession of two whole toilets all to myself (whereby toilets seem to represent some sort of national right) then I would certainly make an effort to redress to balance. This would stem from a desire to genuinely see equality between all toilet-ownership.

However, if I were to look around the rest of the world and see that in Ireland, women had two toilets while men had one, but in Asia, the men had sixteen toilets and the women had to eat their own crap to survive, I would probably put more effort into fighting for the rights of those women than I would to fight for the rights of the men who have to queue a bit here.

Does that make sense?

More important cause - bigger effort. Tis life.

The anti-feminists seem to be saying here, "Because (in on or two areas as opposed to dozens of areas for women) I am at a disadvantage in society, I will not fight for the severely disadvantaged and disenfranchised women of the world until the balance right here right now that affects me, is restored perfectly."

Talliesin

No

Megatron wrote:

Much like "Girl Power" It was more about belittling Men then empowing women.

"Girl Power" was a marketing campaign to sell pointless crap with no redeeming qualities.

seamus

neuro-praxis wrote:

The anti-feminists seem to be saying here, "Because (in on or two areas as opposed to dozens of areas for women) I am at a disadvantage in society, I will not fight for the severely disadvantaged and disenfranchised women of the world until the balance right here right now that affects me, is restored perfectly."

I don't think so. More like "Because I am now at a disadvantage in one or two areas due to feminism, I believe that the rest of the world should concentrate on equal human rights as opposed to women's rights to prevent the same disadvantage from appearing elsewhere".

neuro-praxis

No

Hello? Earth to Seamus? Are women not humans?

You ignored all of my stats.

It is clearly the case that women are at a distinct disadvantage throughout the world. Do you just want feminists to relabel themselves?!

Talliesin

No

neuro-praxis wrote:

The anti-feminists seem to be saying here, "Because (in on or two areas as opposed to dozens of areas for women) I am at a disadvantage in society, I will not fight for the severely disadvantaged and disenfranchised women of the world until the balance right here right now that affects me, is restored perfectly."

And then generally sit on their asses until a Feminist has at least started to do something about it.

I do think Feminism should be about liberation rather than equality, with equality being just a natural part of that "Why should unfree women want to be equal to unfree men" (well, because the unfree men still have it better, but still...).

Megatron

neuro-praxis wrote:

As children, girls are often undervalued, fed less, and given inadequate healthcare.

Parents in countries such as China and India sometimes use sex determination tests to find out if their fetus is a girl. Of 8000 fetuses aborted at a Bombay clinic, 7999 were female.

these 2 are more to do with Religious belifes than anything . while it does highlight the short comes in view of the women, this shouldn't be taken in as opressed women slant, it a religon.

neuro-praxis wrote:

Nearly half of all people living with HIV/AIDS are women and girls.

And ? nearly half , so the other half would be ?

neuro-praxis wrote:

510,000 children under the age of 15 died of HIV/AIDS in 1998. Today, almost 1.2 million children under the age of 15 are living with HIV/AIDS.

and
Every day 7000 young persons are infected with HIV/AIDS.

Not specific to Women , it's the HIV situation that is the problem here , don't see how it highlights Womens situation.

neuro-praxis wrote:

In most places in the world, work is segregated by sex. Women tend to be in clerical, sales and domestic services, and men in manufacturing and transport.

Where women do the same work as men, they are paid 30 to 40 percent less than men

And if asked some of the women would have no interest what so ever in such Male dominated roles, yes it is harder for women to make it in such roles though.

2nd part of the quote , not true as whole , Anyone in my role , would be paid the same as me , please don't make blanket statements.

neuro-praxis wrote:

Wars today affect civilians most, since they are civil wars, guerrilla actions and ethnic disputes over territory or government. 3 out of 4 fatalities of war are women and children.

* Over the past decade, armed conflict has killed 2 million children, disabled 4 to 5 million, left 12 million homeless and more than 1 million orphaned or separated from their parents.

* In times of conflict, women and children are sometimes sold into forced servitude and slavery.



* In the last decade there were about 300,000 child soldiers.

* There are approximately 250 million child labourers worldwide: Asia accounts for 153 million and Africa for 80 million.

again nothering to do with womens plight as such , it's just humanity being a general A-hole to each other. the other points are fair enough.

neuro-praxis wrote:

I hope that this has been less boring than informative.

I didn't find in boring , just a bit misleading tbh .... some of the "Facts" posted up there have nothing what so ever to do with how Women "speficly" ( spelling i know) have been opressed over other groups.

10/10 for effert

4/10 for using correct information

10/10 for trying to put across emotion on a topic while using misleading "Facts"

Fysh

Wicknight wrote:

But that is the point. Who says that a person who is a feminist doesn't also promote other causes.

It is like saying if a doctor is truely interested in curing sick people he shouldn't specialise in a certain field because he is ingoring all the other sick people who need his help. But it doesn't mean he is ignoring the other people, mearly that he is devoting his time to a certain cause (HIV for example).

People pick causes that are important to them. It is hypocritical and unfair of us to say that because a person picks a cause (women, black people, catholics, children, asylum seekers, cancer patients) that they therefore don't care about others not in that group.

No, it's not like your doctor analogy at all.

I haven't seen anyone actively espouse the notion that feminists have an anti-other groups agenda in this thread (except maybe Corinthian).

What has been said is that being focused on one specific inequality issue does not mean that all members of that group are definitely 100% against all other inequalities.

Feminism is a subset of the equality movement, but one does not have to be a member of every equality pressure group in order to be a feminist. It's like the old "joke" about mathematicians, physicists and statisticians who see a black sheep whilst travelling through scotland...(ie the pedantic conclusion being drawn being that "in scotland there is at least one field containing at least one sheep of which at least one half is black". No, I didn't laugh either).

neuro-praxis

No

Megatron, your post has not posed me any difficulties.

I offered the source from where I posted that information, and all that you did was selectively pick out the parts that you deem irrelevant, while ignoring all of the shocking, relevant information. I could have skewed it only for the women's angle, but then it wouldn't have been a proper quoting of the information provided.

The reason some of it is not related to women is because the particular site is concerned with the rights of the world's most disenfranchised - women and children.

Unbelievable response. 10/10 for effort? I hope I always get 10/10 for copying and pasting. 4/10 for correct information? Guh?

We are not on the same wavelength whatsoever.

seamus

neuro-praxis wrote:

Hello? Earth to Seamus? Are women not humans?

We've come full circle.

You ignored all of my stats.

Actually, I read them all, but then I took my lunch and forgot to address them. Tbh, while I've no doubt about the validities of the stats, many of them don't tell the full story or take account of other circumstances. For example, you gave a stat about how many Men are in top-level positions. That doesn't real give any information. I don't see anything saying that women went for these positions and were refused, or that women wanted to be in these positions, but were unable. For all we know, this is the way it's always going to be, no matter what we do. To parphrase a major airline when asked why only 2% of their pilots are female - "They don't apply for the course". That stat about x amount of women having AIDS in a certain area, doesn't give it in a global context - perhaps the amount is comparable with the entire planet.

Stuff like:

* Girls represent nearly 60% of the children not in school.

Is misleading. How are we defining "children". Many countries tradition has girls married off and looking after kids before 16. That's not an equality issue, it's a tradition one.

Again, I'm not poo-pooing your stats, but most of them are issues either unrelated to genuine discrimination, or would be just as easily satisfied by campaigning for universal rights.

neuro-praxis

No

seamus wrote:

Stuff like:Is misleading. How are we defining "children". Many countries tradition has girls married off and looking after kids before 16. That's not an equality issue, it's a tradition one.

Again, I'm not poo-pooing your stats, but most of them are issues either unrelated to genuine discrimination, or would be just as easily satisfied by campaigning for universal rights.

Argh!

So "marrying off" young women is just tradition? They don't have a choice. That is clearly blatantly an equality issue. Are you saying that women doing the cooking and the cleaning and the child-rearing, at the expense of educationa nd careers, for the last thousands of years, is purely tradition?

Most of them are unrelated to genuine discrimination?

DOES NOT COMPUTE
DOES NOT COMPUTE



/me wonders if it is possible to disagree more strongly. Unlikely.

Zombrex

No

Fysh wrote:

What has been said is that being focused on one specific inequality issue does not mean that all members of that group are definitely 100% against all other inequalities.

Feminism is a subset of the equality movement, but one does not have to be a member of every equality pressure group in order to be a feminist.

Wasn't that the point I was making

And quite a few people are claiming that feminist don't care or even work against the rights of males.

Talliesin

No

Megatron wrote:

neuro-praxis wrote:

Nearly half of all people living with HIV/AIDS are women and girls.

And ? nearly half , so the other half would be ?

Unfortunately that statistic on its own doesn't show the bigger picture. When combined with the fact that not long ago the majority of those infected with HIV or living with AIDS were mainly men it shows that the rate of infection is greater in women and girls.

The effects of AIDS affecting a child or a bread-winning man is very heavily gendered in many countries as well.

bonkey

Evil Phil wrote:

the traditional male image, that of the *strong*, isolated male who's emotional range is limited to lust and anger has become little more than a cliche.

Just as a matter of interest....

When was it ever any more than a cliché?

jc

Talliesin

No

Fysh wrote:

Feminism is a subset of the equality movement

Feminism is a liberation movement that got lost from sight in the smoke and mirrors of equality.

Nevyn

No

Any female who votes or believes women should have the right to vote and have self determination over thier own lives and bodies is a feminist.
Any male that thinks like wise is profeminist.


And I don’t believe in equality. No two random people can be equal but they are entitled to the same individual rights and opportunities.

the_syco

What Religion has caused:

Women are often denied voice or power over the most fundamental human decisions, such as whether and when to bear children, to get an education, or to go to work.

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]While women in Nigeria enjoy 53% literacy, in Morocco 34%, and in Palestine 77%, their participation in politics and the economy lag far behind.

[/font][/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Historically women have been denied the knowledge, the means, and the freedom to act in their own and their children's best interests.

[/font][/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]=-=

[/font][/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Parents in countries such as China and India sometimes use sex determination tests to find out if their fetus is a girl. Of 8000 fetuses aborted at a Bombay clinic, 7999 were female.

In China, which was doing a 1 child policy only (and may be still doing it), and therefore if you got a son, the family name was carried on, but if you got a girl, the famliy named died.

[/font][/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Nearly half of all people living with HIV/AIDS are women and girls.

So.... in other words... MORE THAN HALF of all [/font][/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]people living with HIV/AIDS are men, and boys... Odd the way the feminists leave that one out.

[/font][/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Every day 7000 young persons are infected with HIV/AIDS.

And since more men have aids, more proberly die from it. If more women were dying from it, the feminist would have said so.

[/font][/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Worldwide, women's work in the home is not counted as work.

Never liked this one myself. They should get some money for it, but who would pay for it? The men? And how much should they get? Equal to the men? And then who would pay?

[/font][/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In the U.K., Italy, Germany, and France women are paid 75% of men's wages, whereas in Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, and Australia women earn 90% of men's wages.

Do women in [/font][/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, and Australia get 9 month holidays every so often, and do they do "family hours", ie: the man works the same long hours overtime, to get a promotion, but the women still only works 9-5?

[/font][/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In most places in the world, work is segregated by sex. Women tend to be in clerical, sales and domestic services, and men in manufacturing and transport.

I'd like to see a woman carry a big box. Women, by nature, are small and weak, therefore can't always lift as much as men. In [/font][/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]manufacturing, I do believe you have to carry stuff.

[/font][/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

Women occupy only 2% of senior management positions in business.

Aye, but only now. To get there, they had to do long hours, and not take any 9-month breaks, to raise their kids. Also, most of those women wait till they're high up on the business ladder before having kids. You want equal rights, equal pay? Try working equal time. Give me a good reason why I'd promote a woman who has went missing fo a few months, over a man who has stayed at the company?

*Note* I know two "senior" women. One, has no kids, the other only had a child recently, after getting promoted to a high position.

And thats 2% of the world, no doubt, including the countries where religion says women can't work.

[/font][/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In times of conflict, women and children are sometimes sold into forced servitude and slavery.

And the men are shot, and the boys are made into child soldiers.
[/font][/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
=-=

All quotes taken from [/font][/font] http://learningpartnership.org/facts/human.phtml, [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]a [/font]Women's human rights website.

For the feminists: if I found a pro-male rights website, would you believe everything they said?

Fysh

Talliesin wrote:

Feminism is a liberation movement that got lost from sight in the smoke and mirrors of equality.

No, it's specifically a women's liberation movement. I make the specific point only to emphasise the fact that, while it is a laudable cause and one which I support (outside of certain so-called radical feminists like Greer), it's not an all-encompassing cause. Nor should it be required to be, given its goals.

And Wicknight, I'm not sure what's happened over the last page or two. I thought we were coming from opposite angles over what bases it covers, but from your last post it doesn't look that way.

Neuro-praxis; the arranged marriage issue you mention is very much a women's rights issue and having had a good friend in school who was forced to miss out on university because her mother wanted her to go through with her arranged marriage (her father encouraged her to go to college, but was shouted down by the family, oddly), I loathe the notion. I suspect the point being made is that its origin lies in tradition and religion, two subjects that are often difficult to encourage frank discussion and liberal thinking in.

neuro-praxis

No

the_syco: you appear to have *extreme* problems with women. You think that by (incorrectly) assigning all human rights abuses to "religion" that in some way this makes them ok? *boggle*

If you showed me a site that dealt with human rights abuses of men, you bet your ass I'd take it seriously.

Evil Phil

No

bonkey wrote:

Just as a matter of interest....

When was it ever any more than a cliché?

jc

For previous generations of men in our society. It's still more than a cliché in several cultures I've visited.

Evil Phil

No

the_syco wrote:

Aye, but only now. To get there, they had to do long hours, and not take any 9-month breaks, to raise their kids. Also, most of those women wait till they're high up on the business ladder before having kids. You want equal rights, equal pay? Try working equal time. Give me a good reason why I'd promote a woman who has went missing fo a few months, over a man who has stayed at the company?

Actually paternity leave is, I believe, one of the issues the father's rights movement are fighting for. Should we get as much? I don't know, we don't carry the child so maybe not before birth but after birth? Yes, we should get the same. We don't but this is not the fault of feminism.

Talliesin

No

Fysh wrote:

No, it's specifically a women's liberation movement. I make the specific point only to emphasise the fact that, while it is a laudable cause and one which I support (outside of certain so-called radical feminists like Greer), it's not an all-encompassing cause. Nor should it be required to be, given its goals.

This is strange. First you say you're okay with Feminism, but not radical feminism, then you say your support for feminism only goes so far because it's not an all-encompassing cause.
Why not support radical feminism then?

Fysh

Talliesin wrote:

This is strange. First you say you're okay with Feminism, but not radical feminism, then you say your support for feminism only goes so far because it's not an all-encompassing cause.
Why not support radical feminism then?

Not quite, or at least not that's not what I have been trying to convey.

I have no problem with feminism and support the ideal it represents. So far so good.

I do not believe that by being profeminist I am automatically supporting all causes looking for equal rights for a given group. Nor do I personally believe that being feminist or profeminist should involve automatically supporting all equal rights causes - while such causes may share many common factors, the choice to support them should be down to the individual. The reason I mention this was not as a criticism to the feminist movement, but as a response to the apparent insistence of the OP that being feminist/profeminist was to be pro-equal rights for everyone.

I don't support what I consider to be radical feminism (note that I may be using the term differently to the accepted interpretation) because what experience of it I have has been to actively target men not only as being to blame but as being unable to make any contribution to the emancipation of women and the promotion of a world with equal rights between the sexes. This I find a deeply offensive notion, on a par with a man suggesting that a woman's rightful place is in the kitchen.

Hopefully that's cleared that up.

Evil Phil

No

At the risk of being pedantic. Should feminism be successful in obtaining equal rights for women then there will also be equal rights for men by default. As one group, the women, will be equal to the other group, the men.

Am I wrong? Maybe, I don't know ...

<edit>
As far as I can see where feminism has had success in the employment laws the laws have been changed to prevent sexual discrimination, harrasment and gender bias for everybody, not just women i.e. Equal Rights.

Quantum

No

Evil Phil wrote:

At the risk of being pedantic. Should feminism be successful in obtaining equal rights for women then there will also be equal rights for men by default. As one group, the women, will be equal to the other group, the men.

Am I wrong? Maybe, I don't know ..

Of course you are right.

The problem is that so many man... and women... have no concept of the meaning of the words they use in these kinds of dicussions. They toss around the word feminism with no regard to it's actual meaning and then in their confusion they reach out in desparation for the 'radical feminism' tag.

Some men are afraid of women - period. They also think that equal rights for women means swopping them being in charge with women being in charge - an irrational response but a true one imho.
They also believe feminism means women getting preferential treatment.

Words do matter - and unless everyone understands and agrees with what they mean - then all discussion and argument is pointless and fruitless.

The Corinthian

Talliesin wrote:

No, Feminism is wanting to have 1.5 toilets, but women who want to have as many toilets as possible have a vested interest in supporting that cause while they are relatively deficient in toilets.

That may be the ideal, but in reality when you have any movement that is specifically designed to represent one specific group, that’s not what happens. What happens is that movement is by its nature partisan and represents one side of the equality debate.

Wicknight wrote:

But that is the point. Who says that a person who is a feminist doesn't also promote other causes.

No one is saying that. The only proviso I included is whereby there may be an ideological, or otherwise, conflict of interests.

And quite a few people are claiming that feminist don't care or even work against the rights of males.

No, people are claiming that Feminism doesn’t care about or can even oppose the rights of males. Many feminists will care, but not because they’re feminists.

neuro-praxis wrote:

Your difficulty seems to be that if the feminists have two toilets and the men only have one, they're not too bothered about this.

I’ve no problem with this as long as you don’t claim it’s about equality. Feminism is about the representation of women’s rights in Society, which is a good thing but not to be confused with equality.

The anti-feminists seem to be saying here, "Because (in on or two areas as opposed to dozens of areas for women) I am at a disadvantage in society, I will not fight for the severely disadvantaged and disenfranchised women of the world until the balance right here right now that affects me, is restored perfectly."

That’s a ridiculous assertion, because you are essentially arguing that because women are downtrodden around the World, other inequalities should be ignored.

neuro-praxis

No

The Corinthian wrote:

That’s a ridiculous assertion, because you are essentially arguing that because women are downtrodden around the World, other inequalities should be ignored.

No, I'm not arguing that. I don't feel that any inequalities *should* be ignored - only that if I were in a situation where I had to choose between eradicating, say, the images in our media that portray men as weak and worthless, and putting a stop to enforced marriages of young girls, I know which I would choose initially.

You've got to choose your priorities. And undoubtedly lots of people here would choose the former, and that is up to them.

simu

No

I'm a "feminist" in that I believe women should be given the same rights and opportunities as men. The thing is that there are all sorts of versions of feminism out there that have extremely varied and possibly contradictory aims and beliefs so that two people calling themselves feminists could have completely opposite views. Maybe it's time for a "what sort of feminist are YOU" thread.

Talliesin

No

Fysh wrote:

I don't support what I consider to be radical feminism (note that I may be using the term differently to the accepted interpretation) because what experience of it I have has been to actively target men not only as being to blame but as being unable to make any contribution to the emancipation of women and the promotion of a world with equal rights between the sexes.

That would be quite in contrast to some Radical Feminists. Andrea Dworkin in particular (who I just learned passed last month while trying to quickly trying to google up a quote ). Saying that women's liberation should be lead by women is not the same as saying men cannot contribute.

nesf

No

A question for the feminists.

I'm a guy, and I've been called a chauvanistic pig a few times by various women for the following:

1) Holding doors open for women.
2) Offering a woman my seat on a bus/train
3) "Shielding" a woman on a particularily rough dance floor in a metal club
4) For holding the "I would never hit a woman except in extreme self defense" view of the world.
5) Apologising for raising my voice to woman after an argument.
6) Offering to help a woman lift something that was heavy.
7) Offering to pay for a meal, or drinks to a woman.
8) Offering to walk a female friend home after a club/pub if she would otherwise be alone.
9) For being very protective of female friends, expecially if their boyfriend is hitting them, or a guy is hassling them.
10)Offering to take bags off a woman if we're walking home after a day's shopping.

I could list more, but I think you get the idea.

The above is a result of my upbringing, my mother and father beat certain values and habits into me.

Some women have said that the above is just good manners and that there is nothing wrong with the above. Others tell me I'm a chauvanistic pig with values from 50 years ago.

To the feminists here, is postive discrimination a bad thing? I don't look at women any differently when I'm working with them, but I still hold to a lot of older traditions in certain respects.

I'm not a stranger to discrimination, I've had to go through it myself, but are the above examples wrong? Some of them are a bit too much, but some I would consider common courtesty.

The whole no hitting women is something that has been hardwired into my brain, but essentially it is a very sexist thing. I don't think I could hit a woman even if it was a case of self defense. I'd have no qualms of hitting a guy in self defense.

Is that wrong?

simu

No

nesf wrote:

A question for the feminists.

I'm a guy, and I've been called a chauvanistic pig a few times by various women for the following:

1) Holding doors open for women.
2) Offering a woman my seat on a bus/train
3) "Shielding" a woman on a particularily rough dance floor in a metal club
4) For holding the "I would never hit a woman except in extreme self defense" view of the world.
5) Apologising for raising my voice to woman after an argument.
6) Offering to help a woman lift something that was heavy.
7) Offering to pay for a meal, or drinks to a woman.
8) Offering to walk a female friend home after a club/pub if she would otherwise be alone.
9) For being very protective of female friends, expecially if their boyfriend is hitting them, or a guy is hassling them.
10)Offering to take bags off a woman if we're walking home after a day's shopping.

It depends on how it's done. If you acted in a very condescending manner, I would get annoyed but if it was clear that you were just trying to be nice and helpful, it would be silly to take offense and plain nasty to call you names.

the_syco

neuro-praxis wrote:

the_syco: you appear to have *extreme* problems with women. You think that by (incorrectly) assigning all human rights abuses to "religion" that in some way this makes them ok? *boggle*

NO, just feminists. And no, it doesn't make them "ok", but I'd like to hear how your going to change them. Unless WW3 happens in those countries, its unlikely. I say WW3, because WW2 helped women get into the workplace (most of the men were fighting), etc.

=-=

Equal = after birth, both parents get to look after the kid, and get time off (not including their holidays) to do so.

Feminism = Woman getting X amount of months off work to look after the kid.

=-=

Saying that women's liberation should be lead by women is not the same as saying men cannot contribute.

Like the freedom of catholics in Ireland, where some of the noted few were prostants. Just because we are seen as "the enemy", doesn't mean some of us can't help.

=-=

neuro-praxis, I selectivly picked at those quotes, as I believed the rest to be true. I'm more equalityist (make-ee-up-ee-word) than macho (or i it masculinist?), as I argue for male rights, but I don't try to crush feminist rights all the time. There are some rights which women have I don't like, but sh|t happens. I just argue against the ones that put males in the "bad" half.

neuro-praxis

No

nesf: I would not be offended in the least by even one of the things you mentioned above, and would never dream of calling you or others like you a chauvinistic pig. Having said that, it would be wrong of any woman to demand any of those actions from a man, although many of them just amount to good manners (I always offer my seat on public transport if there is someone who may need it, I always hold doors open, I always offer to pay, etc.).

As long as you don't feel that women *have* to accept anything you offer them, then I think your attitude towards women as displayed in your post is very respectful.

I struggle with the overt sexism as displayed in this thread...referring to paternity leave as "a nine month holiday" for example, is bang out of order. But being polite? Why, that's a refreshing change.

nesf

No

Yeah theres a big difference between offering and forcing.


But, on the flip side. I do personally view men and women as being fundamentally different on a general level. Men are generally stronger with women, women generally are better carers than men etc. None of these things filter down to a individual level, there are very strong women and very caring guys, but on a general level there are fundamental differences between the sexes.

I'm against negative discrimination in any form, I'm very much someone who feels that discriminating against any group is wrong and that every situation should be taken on an individual by individual basis. But people don't think like that most of the time.

True equality between the sexes is impossible, but trying to stamp out negative discrimination based on sex is a worthy goal. But it exists on both sides of the divide.

I don't think it's a case of making women and men equal. I think it's a case of people being judged for their own merits and as individuals and not because of whatever sex/religion/disablity/whatever they have inherited or believe in.

*gets off soapbox and carrys it to another thread*

elvenscout742

No

Well, while I personally am sick of women (mostly unable to word it properly) saying they are more intelligent than I am simply because of their gender, I do advocate equal rights for those who aren't sexist chauvinists like some of the women I know.

So, in short, yes.

nesf

No

elvenscout742 wrote:

Well, while I personally am sick of women (mostly unable to word it properly) saying they are more intelligent than I am simply because of their gender, I do advocate equal rights for those who aren't sexist chauvinists like some of the women I know.

So, in short, yes.

No, I agree, them being more intelligent than you has nothing to do with them being women.

Evil Phil

No

I wonder what the vote count would be if the poll was anonymous.

The Corinthian

neuro-praxis wrote:

No, I'm not arguing that. I don't feel that any inequalities *should* be ignored - only that if I were in a situation where I had to choose between eradicating, say, the images in our media that portray men as weak and worthless, and putting a stop to enforced marriages of young girls, I know which I would choose initially.

I’d go for the former, seeing as it’s on my own doorstep rather than in some far off Third World toilet. But then again, as a man, perhaps I’d have different priorities to you, which is to a degree my point.

Ultimately you cannot say that a movement that concerns itself exclusively with representing one side of the equality debate is about equality. It’s about representing that one side of the equality debate, but it makes no pretence that it represents the other.

In a company that exploits it’s labour force, a trade union could argue that it is simply seeking equality of rights. Of course, this aim only exists in practical terms so long as the labour force is being exploited, after which the trade union would simply be representing it’s members and not attempting to be fair or equitable.

Feminism is essentially the same thing and in doing so it competently represents it’s constituency - women. It does not represent men, or attempt to redress inequities that would act against the constituency it represents. This is not to say that women that are feminists cannot also support true equality, sometimes against women’s interests, but this is not because they are feminists.

So please do not confuse equality and Feminism, as they are not the same thing.

Talliesin wrote:

Saying that women's liberation should be lead by women is not the same as saying men cannot contribute.

You don’t find that a movement that people here are claming is about equality arguing that women should lead it is just a tad ironic?

The Corinthian

Evil Phil wrote:

I wonder what the vote count would be if the poll was anonymous.

Personally, the problem I have with the poll is that it contains an inaccuracy:

"Are you a believer in the advocacy of equal rights for women; i.e., a feminist?"

I would certainly advocate equal rights for women, but I do not believe that this is what Feminism is about. As I’ve repeatedly said, Feminism is about representing only one side of the equality debate. And after all, if you’re being sued, you’re hardly going to take the word of the plaintiff’s advocate that they’re being fair and equitable, are you?

Zombrex

No

I think the problem is that "equal" actual doesn't mean anything really because the status of people in the world is constantly changing. Nothing is static so who do you use to measure equality? Problems also arises when "equal" isn't necessarily good enough.

Because men have bad systems in place for cancer screening should women stop calling for more screening for things like breast cancer because they now have an unequal system? A lot of people seem to say yes, or that they should turn there attention to bringing up the masculine issues which have been ignored by men.

The question is do you measure the success of a feminist issue when it has irradicated the problem ("no one dies of breast cancer") or when it has reached the same level as men ("the same number of women die of breast cancer as men from testicular cancer so we are equal and we should stop")??

To me a better definition of a feminist is someone who is interested in womens issues. The idea that that a woman shouldn't be treated any differently by society than a man comes from that.

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

I think the problem is that "equal" actual doesn't mean anything really because the status of people in the world is constantly changing. Nothing is static so who do you use to measure equality?

We’re not really discussing equality as much as we are discussing motivations towards equality. As you pointed out the status of people is constantly changing. Thus if your motivation is equality, this would mean that you will constantly be attempting to seek that balance, sometimes in favour of one side and some times in favour of another.

If, on the other hand, you are seeking to favour only one side, then you are not motivated by equality, but by a need to serve the interests of that side.

In theory, were Feminism to achieve all it’s goals and win equal rights in those areas that women were at a disadvantage, would it then turn to sacrifice rights where women were at an advantage in the interests of equality? If not, you cannot say that the primary motivation of Feminism is equality.

Problems also arises when "equal" isn't necessarily good enough.

Because men have bad systems in place for cancer screening should women stop calling for more screening for things like breast cancer because they now have an unequal system? A lot of people seem to say yes, or that they should turn there attention to bringing up the masculine issues which have been ignored by men.

If the screening for cancer is much worse for men than women, then certainly the emphasis should be placed on where the greater problem lies - that is what one would do if one were attempting to seek true equality. However, this does not mean that in doing so all other problems should be ignored or that we can only deal with one issue at a time.

To me a better definition of a feminist is someone who is interested in womens issues. The idea that that a woman shouldn't be treated any differently by society than a man comes from that.

The problem with that definition is that you are asking someone to be partisan, to represent the interests of one group, and then expecting them to be impartial, and seek equality. You cannot be both advocate and judge at the same time.

Catsmokinpot

No

their should be a "yes but" in that poll

im all for equal rights but.... women are taking it too far

they're all like "ooh we can do anything you can do bla bla bla", i still don't see many women in the armed services, or mining or infact any dangerous jobs. men risk more, they have shorter lives. and aswell as that there's all this divorce sh1te. now yes in the past you had very little rights but now its turned around and the man gets nothing and the woman gets half his stuff if he doesn't sign a prenup.

women have dirt cheap car insurance, men get ripped the fuk off just because i have a set of balls, not considering that i might just be a careful driver.
women get in free to night clubs on special nights, men get ripped the fuk off just because i have a set of balls.
women's clothes are dirt fukin cheap, men get ripped the fuk off
and that's only a few aspects i find wrong about the whole thing

then women say to me we deserve it! why? i didn't persecute you! no you don't you deserve to be equal..... or are women just going to pick the things they like about feminism and stick with them?

Quantum

No

nesf wrote:

I do personally view men and women as being fundamentally different on a general level. Men are generally stronger with women, women generally are better carers than men etc. None of these things filter down to a individual level, there are very strong women and very caring guys, but on a general level there are fundamental differences between the sexes.

I suggest that you are confusing two concepts. Equality and equivalence.

What feminism wants is equality, where women are treated with the same respect and have the same rights in law and society as men. They don't want to BE men. There's a hell of a difference.

True equality between the sexes is impossible . .

I don't believe or accept that for one second.

I don't think it's a case of making women and men equal.

Here we go again.
It is indeed about equality, where women are treated with the same respect and have the same rights in law and society as men. That is equality and that is exactly what it is all about.

Quantum

No

Wow... I just read the thread posts since my last post..... and I have to laugh. So many posts are from people . . men . . who cannot seem to get their heads around what the word feminism means, and who seem to occupy a sad little word where they feel they are being oppressed by womens demands for equality and services. The result is a discussion where neither side, and in fact not even those on the same side, can have any real exchange of views when they are talking about different concepts in every post.

My two cents.

Glipmac

Rabies wrote:

Back to the kitchen woman!!!!!
the (weaker) opposite sex.

the (weaker) opposite sex
i would not say that if i were you...

Talliesin

No

nesf wrote:

Men are generally stronger with women, women generally are better carers than men etc.

The only times we know a quality is stronger in one sex than another is when one simply can't do it (women are better at having babies than men, men are better at getting women pregnant) or if it goes counter to what society's concepts of gender would suggest (e.g. we know women tend to be better snipers than men, not just because in practice more women will have expert or sharp-shooter level marksmanship than men, but because this is despite sniping generally being considered a masculine rather than feminine task).

There really aren't that many traits, skills, etc. that we can say for sure one sex is better at than the other.

Nevyn

No

ah yes the kitchen...........
Where all the knives are.

Catsmokinpot

No

Quantum wrote:

What feminism wants is equality, where women are treated with the same respect and have the same rights in law and society as men. They don't want to BE men. There's a hell of a difference.

they dont want to be men but they want equality? im sorry but doesnt equality mean that all is equal?im not talking about grafting penises on to the lot of them. im talking about getting all of that and then still complaining

Quantum wrote:

I don't believe or accept that for one second.

physically - on average men are stronger FACT
mentally - men and women think differently FACT
emotionally - women are stronger 28 out of 30 days FACT
women have vaginas men dont FACT

on those alone we will never be equal

their is no doubt in the world that women are different to men and we will never be completely equal it will always be a battle

Quantum wrote:

Here we go again.
It is indeed about equality, where women are treated with the same respect and have the same rights in law and society as men. That is equality and that is exactly what it is all about.

arent women allowed to vote? dont they have the same rights in law as men? they get all this and they still complain! thats what im browned off about

Talliesin

No

Quantum wrote:

It is indeed about equality, where women are treated with the same respect and have the same rights in law and society as men. That is equality and that is exactly what it is all about.

Why bother? Or as some Feminists have put it:

"Why would women want to be equal to unfree men?" - Emma Goldman

"A commitment to sexual equality with males is a commitment to becoming the rich instead of the poor, the rapist instead of the raped, the murderer instead of the murdered." - Andrea Dworkin

"Equality is a profoundly conservative aim it means that you establish the case that men exist in as the desideratum and you demand to share it – well sod that." - Germaine Greer

"The cry of equality pulls everyone down." - Iris Murdoch

(Yes Emma Goldman predated second-wave Feminism so it's a perhaps dubious categorisation)

The Corinthian

Quantum wrote:

Wow... I just read the thread posts since my last post..... and I have to laugh. So many posts are from people . . men . . who cannot seem to get their heads around what the word feminism means, and who seem to occupy a sad little word where they feel they are being oppressed by womens demands for equality and services. The result is a discussion where neither side, and in fact not even those on the same side, can have any real exchange of views when they are talking about different concepts in every post.

Ironically you will also find quite a few feminists and pro-feminists who seem unwilling to challenge their own preconceived notions of Feminism and are labouring under the misapprehension that the purpose of Feminism is equality.

It’s not. The purpose of Feminism is to represent the rights of women. If this results in equality, all well and good, but it would be an altruistic and incidental by-product of this representation.

Talliesin wrote:

we know women tend to be better snipers than men

How do we know this?

the_syco

Quantum wrote:

have the same rights in law and society as men

If a woman claims rape, the man gets named and shamed. Nothing wrong with that. But, later, if she admits she made it up, she is not named.

Men are generally stronger with women, women generally are better carers than men etc.

Men are generally stonger than women, as its gentic. Women are generally better carers than men, as a male carer is generally seen as weak, or a "pussy".