Poll: Are you a feminist?

[Hjalmar Fryklund]

Thanks for the links I shall give them a read. As for intentions, I always thought that was what morality was about: The intention behind the action. Otherwise how would we differentiate between accidents and things done on purpose?

Morality of action, intention and character are different beasts, though linked with each other.

CAPTCHA: of course

 

[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 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 or white supremacist 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.

This is all of waste of your time, they admit that they are only interested in "equality" for women. That is not in dispute at this point.

Fair enough, so long as they don't claim they are about equality for all.

Just like men's rights movements are seeking equality for men.

Each one of these schools of thought focuses on the needs of one group of people. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are against other groups, they most likely support them. It's generally just a better use of one person's time and energy if they focus on one group. Naomi Wolf or Germane Greer (presumably) support racial equality as well, they just aren't putting books out about it because that's not their area of expertise. If feminism is anti-man, then the civil rights movement is anti-white.

Well, as long as this idea that feminism is about equality for all dies, I am happy.

Take The Beauty Myth as an example. International bestseller, on Times 100 Greatest Non-Fiction Books, one of the most influential feminist books of all time.
The thesis of the book is that our current notions of beauty means that women are held back in their romantic and career aspirations by their looks. Furthermore, to compensate women are far more prone to eating disorders and a perceived reliance on expensive cosmetic products and surgeries.
This is definitely a feminist idea, that women should be free to live without a constant pressure to be physically attractive (y'know, like men do). I ask, how is this idea anti-men?
It doesn't deny us any of our rights. There's no right to deny women work based on their appearance. Wolf acknowledges that some men are affected by the same things (some men suffer eating disorders as well). However, it really is a woman's issue. It barely even occurred to me that there even was a problem, because I'm pretty sure I've never been denied anything significant due to my looks.

I don't know who you are debating here? I don't even care about this Beauty myth but I will say that men face something similar, a good salary.

Men chase pretty women, women chase rich men. It isn't true in all cases.

So, what was the point of you post exactly? I never said the Beauty myth was anti-male, I never said a damn thing about it and I am not interested in talking about it further.

I'm simply giving an example of a feminist idea that isn't anti-men, merely pro-equality. Feminist ideas can be equality for all. It's just that certain issues effect certain groups.

 

[Keoul]

snip

What are you referring to by "you do this to every group then?", If you mean recognize that the group can be split up into smaller groups of people with different opinions on the matter then yes.

 

[Hjalmar Fryklund]

I have heard a few things over the years about the reasoning behind circumcision:

- It was for religious reasons (Jewish)
- It was because women liked circumcised penises
- It was for health reasons

None of those reasons justify strapping a baby down and cutting him with no painkiller!

Muslim boys get circumcised too, though usually when they are around 11-14.

As for health reasons, circumcised penises run lower risks of infections and certain diseases (I may be remembering this incorrectly though), assuming the men live in a hot climate (deserts, near the equator and so forth).

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.

 

[Epona]

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 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 or white supremacist 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.

This is all of waste of your time, they admit that they are only interested in "equality" for women. That is not in dispute at this point.

Fair enough, so long as they don't claim they are about equality for all.

Just like men's rights movements are seeking equality for men.

Each one of these schools of thought focuses on the needs of one group of people. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are against other groups, they most likely support them. It's generally just a better use of one person's time and energy if they focus on one group. Naomi Wolf or Germane Greer (presumably) support racial equality as well, they just aren't putting books out about it because that's not their area of expertise. If feminism is anti-man, then the civil rights movement is anti-white.

Well, as long as this idea that feminism is about equality for all dies, I am happy.

Take The Beauty Myth as an example. International bestseller, on Times 100 Greatest Non-Fiction Books, one of the most influential feminist books of all time.
The thesis of the book is that our current notions of beauty means that women are held back in their romantic and career aspirations by their looks. Furthermore, to compensate women are far more prone to eating disorders and a perceived reliance on expensive cosmetic products and surgeries.
This is definitely a feminist idea, that women should be free to live without a constant pressure to be physically attractive (y'know, like men do). I ask, how is this idea anti-men?
It doesn't deny us any of our rights. There's no right to deny women work based on their appearance. Wolf acknowledges that some men are affected by the same things (some men suffer eating disorders as well). However, it really is a woman's issue. It barely even occurred to me that there even was a problem, because I'm pretty sure I've never been denied anything significant due to my looks.

I don't know who you are debating here? I don't even care about this Beauty myth but I will say that men face something similar, a good salary.

Men chase pretty women, women chase rich men. It isn't true in all cases.

So, what was the point of you post exactly? I never said the Beauty myth was anti-male, I never said a damn thing about it and I am not interested in talking about it further.

I'm simply giving an example of a feminist idea that isn't anti-men, merely pro-equality. Feminist ideas can be equality for all. It's just that certain issues effect certain groups.

No one said otherwise. There are issues that affect only women but then there are issues like DV that affect both men and women yet feminists ignore DV against men. Genital mutilation is another area where paths cross but feminists show their bias.

 

[Epona]

I have heard a few things over the years about the reasoning behind circumcision:

- It was for religious reasons (Jewish)
- It was because women liked circumcised penises
- It was for health reasons

None of those reasons justify strapping a baby down and cutting him with no painkiller!

Muslim boys get circumcised too, though usually when they are around 11-14.

As for health reasons, circumcised penises run lower risks of infections and certain diseases (I may be remembering this incorrectly though), assuming the men live in a hot climate (deserts, near the equator and so forth).

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 think it's ok to cite health reasons (which are not necessary) as a justification for genital mutilation? What if the same were said about female genital mutilation? That it could prevent infections? Would that be ok too?

 

[Hjalmar Fryklund]

I have heard a few things over the years about the reasoning behind circumcision:

- It was for religious reasons (Jewish)
- It was because women liked circumcised penises
- It was for health reasons

None of those reasons justify strapping a baby down and cutting him with no painkiller!

Muslim boys get circumcised too, though usually when they are around 11-14.

As for health reasons, circumcised penises run lower risks of infections and certain diseases (I may be remembering this incorrectly though), assuming the men live in a hot climate (deserts, near the equator and so forth).

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 think it's ok to cite health reasons (which are not necessary) as a justification for genital mutilation? What if the same were said about female genital mutilation? That it could prevent infections? Would that be ok too?

Did I say that I thought it was okay?

 

[Epona]

I have heard a few things over the years about the reasoning behind circumcision:

- It was for religious reasons (Jewish)
- It was because women liked circumcised penises
- It was for health reasons

None of those reasons justify strapping a baby down and cutting him with no painkiller!

Muslim boys get circumcised too, though usually when they are around 11-14.

As for health reasons, circumcised penises run lower risks of infections and certain diseases (I may be remembering this incorrectly though), assuming the men live in a hot climate (deserts, near the equator and so forth).

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 think it's ok to cite health reasons (which are not necessary) as a justification for genital mutilation? What if the same were said about female genital mutilation? That it could prevent infections? Would that be ok too?

Did I say that I thought it was okay?

You seemed to be justifying it. If not, then I apologize for misunderstanding.

 

[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.

 

[the_bearpelt]

Everyone who believe in the equal rights of men and women is a feminist. This is fact.
For more info: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnJxqRLg9x0&list=UU7Edgk9RxP7Fm7vjQ1d-cDA&index=9&feature=plcp

No, feminists are only concerned with the rights of women, mens rights aren't their problem.

Feminism: "the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men. " http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/feminism?s=t&ld=1032 (These are sourced from actual, published dictionaries. Therefore they are official.)
Also, point?

 

[the Dept of Science]

I'm going to suggest an alternate take on the genital mutilation double standard that doesn't have a gender slant.
Male genital mutilation has been normalised in western countries. It's been practised in religious communities in our respective countries for far longer than any of us have been alive. Chances are know men that have been circumsised and they seem to act and behave like normal people when we meet them. Outside of the context of discussions like this, I've never heard it being referred to as "genital mutilation".
Female genital mutilation on the other hand, most of us had never heard about it until recently. It's something that originates from "uncivilized" countries, y'know, where they still practice voodoo and unprotected AIDS sex. We see women on the news talking about their terrible experiences of the procedure. It is always referred to as "genital mutilation".

 

[Epona]

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?

 

[Epona]

Everyone who believe in the equal rights of men and women is a feminist. This is fact.
For more info: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnJxqRLg9x0&list=UU7Edgk9RxP7Fm7vjQ1d-cDA&index=9&feature=plcp

No, feminists are only concerned with the rights of women, mens rights aren't their problem.

Feminism: "the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men. " http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/feminism?s=t&ld=1032 (These are sourced from actual, published dictionaries. Therefore they are official.)
Also, point?

The point is that feminism is sold as this Equality for all movement. It's not.

 

[Epona]

I'm going to suggest an alternate take on the genital mutilation double standard that doesn't have a gender slant.
Male genital mutilation has been normalised in western countries. It's been practised in religious communities in our respective countries for far longer than any of us have been alive. Chances are know men that have been circumsised and they seem to act and behave like normal people when we meet them. Outside of the context of discussions like this, I've never heard it being referred to as "genital mutilation".
Female genital mutilation on the other hand, most of us had never heard about it until recently. It's something that originates from "uncivilized" countries, y'know, where they still practice voodoo and unprotected AIDS sex. We see women on the news talking about their terrible experiences of the procedure. It is always referred to as "genital mutilation".

I am not seeing the point here. Are you saying that male genital mutilation is ok because it's practiced in civilized countries?

What if we started female genital mutilation here in the US, would it then become ok too?

 

[Hjalmar Fryklund]

Did I say that I thought it was okay?

You seemed to be justifying it. If not, then I apologize for misunderstanding.

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).

 

[ryuksapple]

According to those definitions, yes I would be a feminist. As for advocacy, nothing really in particular. If somebody's being a sexist ass, I'll call them on it but that's about as far as it goes. As a guy, I can't say I'm often a victim of sexism and as much as I like to think I'm dedicated to causes that don't directly affect me, they do tend to take a back seat.

 

[the_bearpelt]

There is literally nothing passive-aggressive about my posts and I doubt you know what that term means. And Abuse against Men is not uncommon. I have already posted multiple studies, including stats Canada who studies from about 2003 onward have found the rates to be equal. The evidence is stacking up that women can be just as violent as men, and someday, you're going to have to accept that people are people, and their genitals do not make them more likely to abused or less likely to be a victim.

I want to help the male victims of DV, of which there are more and more every year. That in no way makes me sexist, or means that I hate women.

but you can't accept that, it just doesn't fit with you preconceptions does it?

Do you need to see some real life victims before you give up your crusade?


This is not a bullshit issue. Stop minimizing others suffering. How many studies? How many testimonies? How much evidence will you need to see that men are frequent victims of domestic violence? What will it take?

Tell me, I will do my best to provide.

While this is actually somewhat off-topic, I do agree with you. Men are sometimes abused, not only by other men but also by women. It's largely unrecognized and under-reported. I will say that women abusing men happens far less frequently than men abusing women (or women abusing women, possibly). But it is still a real problem. Abuse is a real problem, no matter who commits it and who suffers.

 

[Epona]

Did I say that I thought it was okay?

You seemed to be justifying it. If not, then I apologize for misunderstanding.

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.

 

[rainbowunicorns]

I support the negative rights of all people; such as property rights and the complete ownership of one's body (i.e.: those that impose no obligation on others).
I don't support the creating of positive rights for any people; such as affirmative action (i.e.: those that impose obligations on others).

If "feminist" means more than the right to own and protect one's self and one's property, then I can't support it. To give one person or group such positive rights infringes on the rights of others.

 

[inquisiti0n]

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.