Poll: Are you a feminist?

[Epona]

Males aren't considered disposable they're (incorrectly) considered more equipped to do everything better (from being a soldier to working in a mine to working as a teacher) than women.

Besides who are you saying men are considered disposable by when society is mostly dominated by men?

See, this is what's wrong with feminism. They mistake being treated equally and being equal. There's plenty of biological differences that can account for many discrepancies, but feminists always try to attribute it completely to culture.

It's incorrect to think that men are better soldiers and miners?? Are you on acid?

And while it can be argued that women are technically more important in terms of survival of the species, it's idiotic to argue that now when we face the problem of overpopulation and massive food shortages in the coming centuries. Despite your self-proclaimed feminism OP, I bet you'd have no problem being told that in the event of a crisis situation, we should default back to 1850s ideals and save all the women first. And that's the problem with feminism in the real world (ie, outside of dictionary definitions that you rely on for defense): the majority of feminists themselves are just blatant opportunists.

There are no feminists in foxholes.

 

[Hjalmar Fryklund]

Accepted. I would also like draw your attention to this particular paragraph:

However, the health argument works both ways, seeing as circumcising a baby is a bit like painting letters on a balloon, when you blow it up the minor mistakes and such gets amplified.

You can keep that in mind next time somebody brings up the health argument when babies are concerned.

Babies should never be circumcised, exactly because of health reasons (excessive bleeding, complications while growing up, infections, to name a couple of them).

Yes, sometimes babies die from the procedure. Think about the brutality involved in circumcision. A baby just born, extremely sensitive to touch and can be given no painkiller is cut in one of the most sensitive parts of the body.

How can anyone not cringe just thinking about it.

Especially important is that a baby has much less blood in them (even in comparison to 5 year olds) which can lead to fatal blood loss, or if the baby survives, potential iron deficiency to name one health risk.

Now for a more disgusting matter.

There are some orthodox Jewish groups that essentially mandates that the mohel (the circumciser) shall cut around the prepuce and then suck off the circumcised skin flap of the baby boy by mouth! Imagine the risk of infection, not to mention the potential cover for paedophiles!

 

[Epona]

Accepted. I would also like draw your attention to this particular paragraph:

However, the health argument works both ways, seeing as circumcising a baby is a bit like painting letters on a balloon, when you blow it up the minor mistakes and such gets amplified.

You can keep that in mind next time somebody brings up the health argument when babies are concerned.

Babies should never be circumcised, exactly because of health reasons (excessive bleeding, complications while growing up, infections, to name a couple of them).

Yes, sometimes babies die from the procedure. Think about the brutality involved in circumcision. A baby just born, extremely sensitive to touch and can be given no painkiller is cut in one of the most sensitive parts of the body.

How can anyone not cringe just thinking about it.

Especially important is that a baby has much less blood in them (even in comparison to 5 year olds) which can lead to fatal blood loss, or if the baby survives, potential iron deficiency to name one health risk.

Now for a more disgusting matter.

There are some orthodox Jewish groups that essentially mandates that the mohel (the circumciser) shall cut around the prepuce and then suck off the circumcised skin flap of the baby boy by mouth! Imagine the risk of infection, not to mention the potential cover for paedophiles!

That's horrible. What the hell is wrong with those people?

 

[Hjalmar Fryklund]

Especially important is that a baby has much less blood in them (even in comparison to 5 year olds) which can lead to fatal blood loss, or if the baby survives, potential iron deficiency to name one health risk.

Now for a more disgusting matter.

There are some orthodox Jewish groups that essentially mandates that the mohel (the circumciser) shall cut around the prepuce and then suck off the circumcised skin flap of the baby boy by mouth! Imagine the risk of infection, not to mention the potential cover for paedophiles!

That's horrible. What the hell is wrong with those people?

I am not sure I want to know quite frankly. Maybe it is time we get back on-topic again.

 

[Epona]

Especially important is that a baby has much less blood in them (even in comparison to 5 year olds) which can lead to fatal blood loss, or if the baby survives, potential iron deficiency to name one health risk.

Now for a more disgusting matter.

There are some orthodox Jewish groups that essentially mandates that the mohel (the circumciser) shall cut around the prepuce and then suck off the circumcised skin flap of the baby boy by mouth! Imagine the risk of infection, not to mention the potential cover for paedophiles!

That's horrible. What the hell is wrong with those people?

I am not sure I want to know quite frankly. Maybe it is time we get back on-topic again.

I am about done here I think. Not much more to say really.

 

[Jonluw]

I don't identify as feminist because the word holds lots of different connotations depending on whom you ask, and I believe I shouldn't have to specify that I want the sexes to be equal. It should be the default position.

Wow, what an asinine response. It's not that way, so what does it matter how things should be? Believing in equal rights is, quite sadly, not the default.

"I shouldn't have to specify that I'm not a racist, because there shouldn't be racism, so instead I identify as a racist."

Really?
Really?
That's how you interpret what I said, and you call my post asinine?

Way to misrepresent my stance there.

I didn't say I identify as a misogynist because I believe calling myself feminist is a flawed approach, did I?
If someone asks me about what I think about women's rights, I'll say I think men and women should be equal. I will not, however, say "I'm feminist", for the reasons outlined above.

It's a bit like how you, I imagine, don't go around toting that you're an anti-racist, but if someone asks you what you think about racism, you'll say that you think the races should be equal.

And as a matter of fact, believing women and men should be equal is the default in my area and peer group.

This is not something I'll waste time discussing with you.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

MY suggestion would be, that if it's a health risk to babies, let's leave it til they're damned 18 and then they can make the decision for themselves.

"Hey, it's your 18th birthday, would you like me to invite the rabbi around to chew your foreskin off? Or shall we just go with the bottle of tequila and a stripper?"

I imagine there'd be fewer people taking this up.

However, given the option of an anaestethic and a qualified doctor removing the foreskin in a simple procedure, perhaps they would, but it'd be that man's choice, not a parent letting someone strip flesh from their baby's body with no painkillers or medical reason.

As I'm back late from the party, I'm happy to take onboard that feminists probably brought on both partners in a relationship having to work, but I do still feel capitalism saw an advantage and lept on it.

Seriously, back in the 50s, we all managed to get by as families with just the man working, now it's both adults working, sometimes 2 jobs just to get by. I'm not condemning the woman to a life as a mother and housewife, I have no problem with stay at home dads, I just think it's shitty that we've accepted so readily to throw away the benefits of a stay at home parent for more corporate profits.

I do of course realise it's partly our own lust and envy, without wishing to sound all Biblical about it, that we feel we NEED 2 cars, a huge TV, a kitchen full of all the white goods, etc. That second hand is somehow shameful, and that you have to have an iphone or you're no-one, but still, I can't help but feel that not being able to support a family on one income is a step backwards for society, whoever's at home and whoever's out at work.

 

[B00b13Dr46oN]

Like most of the above, I consider myself a humanist - not a feminist. I'm with Morgan Freeman on this issue - the first step is to stop talking about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2d2SzRZvsQ

 

[The_Echo]

In the strictest sense, no, I am not a feminist.

Personally, I think that modern feminism has very little necessity. It seems to me and my admittedly limited viewpoint on world events that men and women are equal, and if there is a give to one side, there is a take on the other to balance it out.

As far as I've seen or known, feminism today seems to just be a group of horribly vocal, oversensitive people that want to make big deals out of not-very-big deals. Actual valid issues seem few and far between.

 

[Aslyn]

I want to see a world in which a woman with the same qualifications as a man gets paid the same wage. Where a man can get paternal leave to care for his children, and where there is an equal chance of a politician/CEO/police officer/member of the military/cook/nurse being male or female.

Well, technically it would have to be a 52% chance of being female since 52% of the population is female. But you get the idea.

Exactly this. I know this post is a thousand miles long and has apparently veered into a debate on circumcision, but I will post on the original topic. I do consider myself a feminist. I have been active in that I have campaigned for the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment), and spoken up for women's rights in my fairly conservative church.

Although, to be fair, there's a vast amount of sexism directed at men too. The pay difference (and other issues) makes my blood boil, but so does mother preference in custody cases, lack of paternal leave, and the automatic labeling of men who enjoy children as pedophiles.

 

[viking97]

no, one because there is disagreement between what the word actually MEANS means, and two because the FEM part implies that gender inequality is entirely against women.

 

[rbstewart7263]

I want to see a world in which a woman with the same qualifications as a man gets paid the same wage. Where a man can get paternal leave to care for his children, and where there is an equal chance of a politician/CEO/police officer/member of the military/cook/nurse being male or female.

Well, technically it would have to be a 52% chance of being female since 52% of the population is female. But you get the idea.

Exactly this. I know this post is a thousand miles long and has apparently veered into a debate on circumcision, but I will post on the original topic. I do consider myself a feminist. I have been active in that I have campaigned for the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment), and spoken up for women's rights in my fairly conservative church.

Although, to be fair, there's a vast amount of sexism directed at men too. The pay difference (and other issues) makes my blood boil, but so does mother preference in custody cases, lack of paternal leave, and the automatic labeling of men who enjoy children as pedophiles.

I just want to say that means a lot most people I know won't acknowledge both sides but only there own respective side.

 

[Naeras]

The amount they take compared to men IS the context.

I'll rephrase my question, why do you suppose women are more depressed than men in 2012?

Wait, I thought we were discussing whether or not women were more depressed now than before? Because this is an entirely different question. Ah, well.
I don't really have any idea where the differences in depressions stem from. If I were to guess I'd say biological differences, although I'm not familiar with the differences in male and female brain chemistry yet, so I can't say for sure.

I added to that post after you quoted it:

Holy shit, I just realized that the article I linked earlier specifically says that anti-depressant use is up 400% since 1988 (which is 24 years ago). So there you go, usage is up by 400%.

The article says that usage has increased by 400%, regardless of gender. It doesn't say anything about how much it has increased for women compared to men. It definitely shows that society is more prone to depression, but it doesn't say anything about whether this is specific to women.

And even then, the numbers are from 1988. Things might be different in the states compared to how it is here in Europe, but I can't remember any significant changes in gender roles since 1988, so I can't see how you could relate those things.

Also, older people use antidepressants more than young people, according to the article. Doesn't fit well with the "mothers and grandmonthers didn't use as many antidepressants"-argument. =/

 

[Volkov]

No. I do support equality of sexes, but that does not make me a feminist. That said, very frequently my views are aligned with the more sensible parts of that movement.

It's such a meaningless term though, that it doesn't make sense to use it without more precise definition. Same reason I don't belong to a political ideology, even though frequently in specific cases I align with some more than with others. But in a nutshell, I just don't see how one can be an ideologue, of any kind, and still view reality without a bias. Since the basic point of an ideology is to form an opinion about an issue based on something other than the issue.

 

[Frankster]

snippy

Sorry for late reply but just to say cheers for the positive message

I do like the sound of "a person who just looks at situations and utilizes your own logic and experiences to determine what action the situation requires" a hella lot more then I do the labels "feminist", "mysoginist" or w/e in between.

 

[Darkmantle]

I want to see a world in which a woman with the same qualifications as a man gets paid the same wage. Where a man can get paternal leave to care for his children, and where there is an equal chance of a politician/CEO/police officer/member of the military/cook/nurse being male or female.

Well, technically it would have to be a 52% chance of being female since 52% of the population is female. But you get the idea.

Exactly this. I know this post is a thousand miles long and has apparently veered into a debate on circumcision, but I will post on the original topic. I do consider myself a feminist. I have been active in that I have campaigned for the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment), and spoken up for women's rights in my fairly conservative church.

Although, to be fair, there's a vast amount of sexism directed at men too. The pay difference (and other issues) makes my blood boil, but so does mother preference in custody cases, lack of paternal leave, and the automatic labeling of men who enjoy children as pedophiles.

Yeah, basically this. Just because I'm not a feminist doesn't mean I'm misogynist, but at the same time being a feminist doesn't make you misandrist either.

Also, I have no idea how those two posters got into circumcision, honestly it sounds like they should start their own thread about to deal with their issues about it.

 

[the Dept of Science]

Modern feminism would have us believe that men imprisoned women and raped them constantly until the feminist movement came along.

...No.

What you are probably referring to is a vocal minority that are bringing bad press on all of the the feminists that are trying to get the serious stuff done.

"Modern Feminism" is what's known as Third Wave Feminism [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-wave_feminism] and claims nothing even resembling your claim.

Serious stuff done? Anything to help men gain equality listed in that serious stuff?

Feminism is equal rights for women. So that would be a major non-sequitur.

Equality for only one group = oxymoron.

You're assuming that a feminist can not also advocate equal rights for men at the same time.

I already asked if there was anything on the list to help men gain equality.

There does not need to be. Men's rights aren't somehow a "response" or counterargument to women's rights. They tend to be in different areas. The issue of, say, conscription during times of war, only affects men. The Beauty Myth mainly concerns women. Being against the beauty myth isn't denying any of men's rights.
Most feminist's are presumably against discrimination on the basis of age or race, but you aren't complaining that these feminists must be racist or ageist on the grounds that they aren't explicitly dealing with the issues of minorities or the elderly. Maybe they are socialist, capitalist, environmentalist, white supremacist, masculist or misandrist as well. However, saying describing someone as a feminist is merely stating their views on one issue, namely that there are certain ways in which society oppresses women or deny's them certain rights.

I understand your argument (and no I'm not the guy you replied to) but look at this thread. I have brought up a very real issue, domestic violence against men, with all kind of supporting evidence and several self-proclaimed feminists keep trying to suppress it, and call me sexist, and a crying baby for bringing it up.

This is the problem I have with many feminists. The suppression of real issues men face, or the re-framing of these issues to somehow make women the victim. I've already given you a suppression example, so take conscription.

Men are sent over seas and forced to fight and die for cause they probably don't want any part of. I believe the is was Mortai Gravesend who turned it around saying that it was because the patriarchy thinks women are incompetent. Oh look, the women are the victims again. If that's what he believes, shouldn't he be advocating for women to be in the draft as well as men, or to do away with the draft for EVERYONE? You would think right?

I have nothing but respect for those feminists who live up to your ideal, but I've met few who do, or even try.

These are certain empirical claims about how those that strongly identify as feminists tend to act, rather than what feminism is. The question "are you a feminist?" could really be asking two things: Do you believe that women should have equal rights? and Do you identify yourself with the modern image of a feminist, approve of their current goals and methods for achieving "equality"?
I took this poll to be asking the first question, so I proudly answered yes, and hope that everyone agrees with me to that extent. The second question is obviously more contentious, and I wouldn't be able to answer it simply yes or no. There are some methods and goals that I agree with, some that I don't.

Personally I believe that whenever feminism is being discussed, men's rights are somewhat irrelevant, to the same extent as the rights of, say, minorities, the disabled or LGBT people. People always seem to bring up men's rights in response to feminism, which suggests that they are somehow opposed. Instead of being People Against Genital Mutilation, it somehow becomes FGM vs. MGM. It's like an old person creating a thread about healthcare discrimination, then a young person replying that they feel demonised by the media and struggle with finding employment.

 

[Ramzal]

I am not a feminist, but I will not stop someone from being one. However; I am slightly against it. Why? Because I believe women get larger amounts of latitude than we men do. Don't believe me? Watch this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlFAd4YdQks

I've grown in a house where my mother used to hit my brother over the head with a frying pain, double handed hold on it, but she never faced any penalty for it. (And this is simply from him asking what does "Jerk off" mean.) And the one time her hit her back after -she- stole his wallet, he spent the night in jail.

I've been attacked by a woman who attacked me with a glass bottle in the street, fought back and expressed that I did on these forums and was practically called out for my "behavior" for defending myself.

Women want the same pay for a job that a male gets? Fine. However, there needs to be a check in balance that men matter too both in world society and the law.

 

[Moth_Monk]

When it comes to messing with body parts, the question is: Do the benefits outweigh the negatives? If the answer is yes then I would say that it is acceptable.

Holy SHIT! I can honestly say I did not expect you to come back from your research in support male genital mutilation (ie, circumcision).

So, just to be certain, is that what you are saying?

No I wasn't saying that at all. I just meant in more general medical procedures where the body is "tampered with" doctors will always have to weigh up the pros and cons. As regards to circumcision it looks like their are a lot of drawbacks so I certainly don't support it.

 

[Moth_Monk]

Males aren't considered disposable they're (incorrectly) considered more equipped to do everything better (from being a soldier to working in a mine to working as a teacher) than women.

Besides who are you saying men are considered disposable by when society is mostly dominated by men?

See, this is what's wrong with feminism. They mistake being treated equally and being equal. There's plenty of biological differences that can account for many discrepancies, but feminists always try to attribute it completely to culture.

It's incorrect to think that men are better soldiers and miners?? Are you on acid?

And while it can be argued that women are technically more important in terms of survival of the species, it's idiotic to argue that now when we face the problem of overpopulation and massive food shortages in the coming centuries. Despite your self-proclaimed feminism OP, I bet you'd have no problem being told that in the event of a crisis situation, we should default back to 1850s ideals and save all the women first. And that's the problem with feminism in the real world (ie, outside of dictionary definitions that you rely on for defense): the majority of feminists themselves are just blatant opportunists.

What you "bet" about me is baseless. Secondly, I think that only a minority of feminists would NOT confuse the two terms. To my understanding it has always been about how people are treated. It's incorrect to think everything can be put down to nurture, a lot about a person is inherited (e.g. you can be born predisposed to certain diseases or you can be born potentially more intelligent than others). According to your generalisation, how would homosexual feminists argue the nature/nurture argument?