Feminism Thread

[Ashmada]

The problem is, and I think you'd acknowledge, that women had virtually no collective "power" until, at best, 150 years ago.

Right?

And back then, when women had no collective power, we had things like men being expected to bring home the bacon, be emotionally strong, etc. etc. that you consider to be oppressive towards men.

As far as I can make it, there are 2 currents in contemporary feminism (which has strayed quite a bit from historical feminism):
- Egalitarians, who'd really like to see gender equality in all matters.
- Retributionists (not sure that's a real word), who'd really like to see the situation reversed. Women were oppressed historically, so let's blame all men for all inequalities (even those who are powerless to address them or would otherwise like to see them disappear), regardless of who suffers from them or who perpetuates them.

As an egalitarian, I can't help but think the latter group's effort is self-serving, bigoted and ultimately counter-productive.
They're antagonising potential allies (egalitarian men), a course of action which can only be explained by a desire to selectively retain the inequalities that favour them (custody, alimony,...).

I mean, "there is no misandry" sits on the same level as "racism against whites is impossible".
I've not personally been a victim of the former, but I have been beaten up by 3 older children of arabian descent, as a white child (8yo) in a western country, nearly lost an eye. Their racial motivation was quite clear from their discourse.
Any individual from any group you can define can be bigoted against another group, and at the core bigotry starts when you assign the actions (or words) of the individual to a whole ethnicity/gender/whatever... had I chosen to blame all arabs for the actions of those 3 assholes, I'd be a racist; just like them.
Hypocritical cunts like Adria Richards comfort me in my decision not to do so.


Take the aforementionned custody and alimony: yes, their origin lies in times where women had little rights and obviously cannot be blamed on women... feminists obviously didn't create those systems, but the most hardcore, retributionist kind do seem to (want to) perpetuate them (as do mysogynists).
But anyway, the point isn't to assign blame, it's to underline that in today's western societies, they make little sense and should be done away with.
In itself, that's hardly mysogynistic and hardly incompatible with issues like salarial equality.
Instead of automatically labelling those disadvantaged fathers "evil spawns of the patriarchy", why not make them allies in the fight against gender inequality in all its forms?

[Ksandra]

For a while now I've always talked about how a lot of the current wave of feminism pisses me off, and how I think men's rights are often overlooked (thankfully getting better in certain areas I was really pissed off at aka parental rights). This is not to say I don't want women's rights just that I think very differently of what that phrase means.

I think what we should strive for is equal opportunity and equal exposure. Too many are obsessed with the numbers. "There aren't as many female ceos as males! We must fix this misogyny!" kind of thing. What I think is important is that women have the equal amount of opportunity and exposure to the training/knowledge/etc. that would take to do the job.

That training/knowledge/etc. needs to be general neutral obviously. I read a research on why so few girls head for the sciences in college, and it wasn't because they didn't do as well as boys in the subjects in school, but because they didn't find the subject interesting at all. I think there needs to be ways to find a balance in interest, as the opportunities are certainly there. However, once that's done, if a man can do the job better than the woman, he should be hired regardless of whatever kind of male/female quota the company is trying to achieve.

It's kinda what I was saying in that military thread. I am all for women having the opportunity to be in the military. I am all for making sure they have access to the same kind of training (or w/e would benefit them best) as the men. However, once it comes down to the test, that needs to be the same test for both. Especially in jobs where lives are on the line. We should not be lowering standards in roles such as these unless we were like desperate for numbers. (But then the overall test should be lowered for both sexes anyway.)

I honestly love being a woman, I wouldn't change it for anything. I think it's almost deconstructive to be in this mindset of perceived inferiority until we are exactly like men. I don't want to be a man. As Chari pointed out, women have a lot of advantages that men will probably never have. The whole bonding I've gotten to have with my daughter (pregnancy/breastfeeding) has been amazing. That should be celebrated. I'm for men having some advantages, too.

Added to that, I don't like the mindset of "pull someone down, to raise you up" mentality most people have about anything. Or even the whole "wait to catch up." I think there are many things that could improve both the lives of women and men. And I don't think we should put a holding on helping men if the opportunity arises if one feels women are further behind.

[thetruepandagod]

[Charismatic]

Is that like a Scotsman?

I can't help but wonder if hey was making that same joke... I hope so anyway.

[Ashmada]

I think what we should strive for is equal opportunity and equal exposure. Too many are obsessed with the numbers. "There aren't as many female ceos as males! We must fix this misogyny!" kind of thing. What I think is important is that women have the equal amount of opportunity and exposure to the training/knowledge/etc. that would take to do the job.

Yeah, and a lulzy part of the article linked on the previous page was when the author mentionned there were less female politicians, CEOs, comedians, mathematicians and tech professionals than males.
Politicans and CEOs, ok, that can be an indicator of some form of glass ceiling. Those are positions of power, afterall. But the rest of that list was just lulz.
The author can't even envision inclination as an explanation; no, it's either "males are more adept at those things" or "females are actively hindered in those pursuits".
Anyone who's taken a math or IT class knows that most women just don't give a fuck about those subjects. They're not being kept out of the classroom and it's not a question of ability, they just have little interest for those things.

[Kuya]

Also going to quote one of the comments that I found particularly interesting with in response to this piece (mostly part four). I could edit this into one of my other posts but I don't feel that its actually closely-related-enough for me to want to do that.
I simply want to share this comment.

I agree with almost everythinghe said, and he sort of answered his concern. MRA is infested with sexists.

Now, what i don't get is why you seem to focus so much on feminism rather than discuss men's issues and convince other men that they should consider these things problems rather than privileges.

[Charismatic]

I do both, thank you very much.

And Kuya, if you feel okay with calling people out when they are "intellectually dishonest" (your words, remember?) why can't I do the same?

[Kuya]

Fair enough.

[Ksandra]

Anyone who's taken a math or IT class knows that most women just don't give a fuck about those subjects. They're not being kept out of the classroom and it's not a question of ability, they just have little interest for those things.

yes, and I actually do consider that a problem, and where I think too few pay attention to. I am one of those women who never found science interesting, and I don't have the answer in how we make it more appealing to both men and women, but that's where we should be looking for a solution.

[Churchill]

Well, there's too much here and there with everyones slightly differing opinions about what feminism is. I don't think feminism as a western institution has helped women or men.

I am glad that women 'gon women and in that regard they are enjoyable to be around and easy to make tick at the right pace.

[Churchill]

Register to see the NSFW content

[hey]

I can't help but wonder if hey was making that same joke... I hope so anyway.

Of course i was.

[Churchill]

SO TRUE

[Kuya]

lol

[ronin sparthos]

yes, and I actually do consider that a problem, and where I think too few pay attention to. I am one of those women who never found science interesting, and I don't have the answer in how we make it more appealing to both men and women, but that's where we should be looking for a solution.

I think the goal is simply to get women into the field who are interested via greater opportunity. Many women become discouraged or abandon getting into STEM careers because as a minority it becomes difficult to be the trailblazer when you're the only person of the gender sitting around a sea of males. Not everyone has that pioneering spirit.

The reality however is that you're never alone and you're most certainly not the only individual interested in the topic. How you bring those people scattered across the country/world together into a visible mass is how you develop interest in the field amongst other females who may not be interested yet. It's sorta like how NDT became a face for black scientists and has no doubt influenced many individuals of color to get into those fields.

It wasn't like he was the first, he just makes it visible.

[Kuya]

http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2...-jihad/100487/

God bless these feminists

[Kuya]

Spoiler: show

He doesn't seem to like feminism.

[Qalbert]

SO TRUE

wouldn't have pegged him as being into that

[Charismatic]

Didn't watch this video til now, love it.
Subscribed to her.

[Not Kuno]

You're the man now, dog. I knew you'd love her video. Especially since I actually read that really long story you posted up above before. All her shit is pretty good but that video just hones in on how completely hypocritical modern feminism is. Anyway, looks like me and Chari p. much agree on all the important things in life.