Poll: Are you a feminist?

[lunavixen]

Will you stand up for mens rights?

Do you want equality where selective service is concerned?
Do you want men to be treated equally in family court?
Do you want raped men to be treated with the same sympathy that raped women are?
Do you want advertisers to stop treating men like they are completely incompetent?
Do you want male victims of domestic violence to have shelters to go to and do you want society to take male victims of DV seriously?

If you will only stand up for womens rights, then you do not hold the belief you claim to hold.

Of course I do want all of those support services available to men as well, as a part of my university course I covered the lack of support services for men who were/are victims of assault and domestic violence, I also helped my friend with her thesis on DV issues in same sex relationships.

Men in family situations, like single dads and males in divorce are treated unfairly with child custody, and it shouldn't be that way, the children deserve equal time with their parents unless their is a specific reason for awarding custody to one parent or another.

Sexual assault carries so much stigma with it it's a very difficult subject to breach, even sexual assault on women, and it is so much harder for male victims, the victims of sexual assault are actually more likely to know their attacker than not, especially in smaller communities. Poeple don't like feeling weak and vulnerable, and that is exactly what happens to victims of sexual assault, regardless of gender. Women merely recieve more media attention in matters of sexual assault and domestic violence because of the

The general viewpoint is/was that if a man hits another man, they are working out their male aggression or settling a grudge, but if a man hits a woman it's assault, less attention again is paid when a woman hits a man. I'm not saying this is my viewpoint, but it is one that has been held by the general populace in the past and still holds somewhat true today (even if it only a thought in the back of peoples minds).

I have spent five years at least studying this kind of thing (high school and uni, and i'm still doing some studies on it now), I am by no means ignorant/apathetic or unsupportive of the lack of support services available for men, I led a small group to try and change that in the town I went to uni in, but we were unsuccessful, the people just didn't want to hear it.

 

[Phasmal]

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.

What I don't understand is why this is a valid position to take.
Hear me out.
I often see people say `I don't support feminism because of [insert terrible experience with women here]`.
But I know damn right I would get chewed out if I said I don't support men having rights because my dad was domestically violent.
And yeah, he was, and nobody did a damn thing about it. Does this mean I don't support police dealing with domestic violence because they didn't help us? Of course not. It means I want those things even more.

I am a feminist and I want things to be equal.
And yes that means males being assaulted should be taken seriously.
The attitude of women hitting being `not serious` is one I want changed. Why would I not want that?

 

[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.

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?

Certainly not baseless, as you did say earlier how it's justifiable, that even within the context of feminism, for women to be seen as more valuable then men. Regardless, there's no way for me to conclusively know so let's not dwell on that further.

Secondly, it's an overwhelming majority of feminist are utterly and hopelessly confused by those two terms. Most feminists are afraid and threatened by the subject of evolutionary psychology (which isn't to say that EP doesn't have its own problems). They fail to recognize the obvious biological differences between men and women. How many feminists understand that male intellectual variance is far greater than female intellectual variance?

Anything that doesn't comprise of 50% women is automatically sexist (though they're conspicuously silent whenever men are under-represented). They note that 90% of CEOs are men, while simultaneously knowing that 90% of the homeless are men, yet they can't put 2 and 2 together. They fail to consider how difference in behaviour can affect, let's say, salary and job position. They mock the idea that men and women naturally gravitate towards different fields of study, yet have no evidence to match the caliber of their unwarranted confidence in their beliefs. They run around yelling about 1 in 4 women being raped while fuming over negative stereotypes involving women and mathematics.


I could go on but I don't have all day. You get the idea. Are these misconceptions an inherent part of feminism? Not really. It's simply what feminism has devolved into. That's what makes it all the more laughable and inane to try to define feminism and its real world applications by using Oxford's dictionary.

 

[Doitpow]

@moopig66: You forgot the most important part for any story Michael Bay is involved in: Huuge Explosions.


ON topic:
I shall just leave this here:
http://thefemitheist.blogspot.de/2012/04/allow-me-to-introduce-myself.html

wow. My mind is actually blown. That is impressive in it's ignorance and pure hate.

maybe it's written by the same nice lady father_time linked to.

the one that the only mercy she can give men is to kill them quickly :/

You kids who don't recognise satire are so adorable

Yep, what a great satire, really.

A hate-filled piece of writing about violently assaulting and mutilating ca. 50% of earth's population.
What a great satire.
I bet, if I was to write a piece on how we should keep all women in cages as sex slaves and continue to explain how that would make the world a better place, you would enjoy that just as much.
If you had taken but a minute to read some of her other "work", you would recognize her as the hateful being she is.

Maybe satire is pushing it a little bit.
Trolling then.
Either way, it's a fantastic way to get hundreds on thousands of views in a few months.

 

[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.

What I don't understand is why this is a valid position to take.
Hear me out.
I often see people say `I don't support feminism because of [insert terrible experience with women here]`.
But I know damn right I would get chewed out if I said I don't support men having rights because my dad was domestically violent.
And yeah, he was, and nobody did a damn thing about it. Does this mean I don't support police dealing with domestic violence because they didn't help us? Of course not. It means I want those things even more.

I am a feminist and I want things to be equal.
And yes that means males being assaulted should be taken seriously.
The attitude of women hitting being `not serious` is one I want changed. Why would I not want that?

My point was that women get away with more, have more ground to stand on or even get emotional backing even if they are initially in the wrong. I gave personal examples of women getting just that. I did not say "This happened to me so women suck." I support human rights as a basic. Not womens rights or mens rights. That's my stance and if that's hard to figure out, I don't know what to tell you.

Edit: You not understanding doesn't make my opinion any less valid. Nor does it make yours anymore or less. It is simply that you do not understand.

 

[gazumped]

A lot of people seem to be saying that men's rights aren't a feminist issue. Of course they are. Any unequal rights between men and women are a result of gender roles, which is something that feminists try to break down.

Men aren't allowed custody of their children because women win by default? A result of women being seen as child rearers while the men don't have to have anything to do with them: a sexist notion that feminists should address.

Men aren't allowed to hit women or speak up when women hit men? A result of men being seen as stronger than women: a sexist notion that feminists should address.

Even if a woman doesn't even like men very much, she ought to be breaking down these stereotypes for the sake of women as well as men.

Circumcision Removes the Most Sensitive Parts of the Penis
A sensitivity study of the adult penis in circumcised and uncircumcised men shows that the uncircumcised penis is significantly more sensitive. The most sensitive location on the circumcised penis is the circumcision scar on the ventral surface. Five locations on the uncircumcised penis that are routinely removed at circumcision are significantly more sensitive than the most sensitive location on the circumcised penis.
In addition, the glans (head) of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The tip of the foreskin is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis, and it is significantly more sensitive than the most sensitive area of the circumcised penis. Circumcision removes the most sensitive parts of the penis.
This study presents the first extensive testing of fine touch pressure thresholds of the adult penis. The monofiliment testing instruments are calibrated and have been used to test female genital sensitivity.

http://www.circumcision.org/studies.htm

http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_lost.html

Plenty more links for your Googling pleasure.

I don't agree with circumcision but the sensitivity issue is panicked about more than necessary, I think. Having been in relationships with uncircumcised guys and a circumcised guy, the latter didn't suffer from pain or uncomfortable over stimulation (which also lead to premature ejaculation problems in one of the former) and generally seemed to enjoy himself a lot more, so lessening the sensitivity can be a blessing in some cases.
While I don't think this is a reason to go around cutting up babies, trying to compare a man with not too much sexual sensitivity to a woman with no sexual sensitivity at all is perhaps not the most reliable argument.

 

[Something Amyss]

Google?...
gender quotas in france (put any eu name here)
gender quotas in politics...

you will find articles about forcing 50/50 in board rooms but nothing about hiring quotas since that is not news

So you don't have any evidence yourself? Kinda figured.

The problem with telling someone to google is that you don't put forth a convincing argument, and they may actually look at the sources involved. Most of which, in this case, are people bitching about it with no real background. If you want an endless circle jerk, that's fine. If you want to provide evidence to compell someone to believe you, it's utter crap.

 

[Epona]

Will you stand up for mens rights?

Do you want equality where selective service is concerned?
Do you want men to be treated equally in family court?
Do you want raped men to be treated with the same sympathy that raped women are?
Do you want advertisers to stop treating men like they are completely incompetent?
Do you want male victims of domestic violence to have shelters to go to and do you want society to take male victims of DV seriously?

If you will only stand up for womens rights, then you do not hold the belief you claim to hold.

Of course I do want all of those support services available to men as well, as a part of my university course I covered the lack of support services for men who were/are victims of assault and domestic violence, I also helped my friend with her thesis on DV issues in same sex relationships.

Men in family situations, like single dads and males in divorce are treated unfairly with child custody, and it shouldn't be that way, the children deserve equal time with their parents unless their is a specific reason for awarding custody to one parent or another.

Sexual assault carries so much stigma with it it's a very difficult subject to breach, even sexual assault on women, and it is so much harder for male victims, the victims of sexual assault are actually more likely to know their attacker than not, especially in smaller communities. Poeple don't like feeling weak and vulnerable, and that is exactly what happens to victims of sexual assault, regardless of gender. Women merely recieve more media attention in matters of sexual assault and domestic violence because of the

The general viewpoint is/was that if a man hits another man, they are working out their male aggression or settling a grudge, but if a man hits a woman it's assault, less attention again is paid when a woman hits a man. I'm not saying this is my viewpoint, but it is one that has been held by the general populace in the past and still holds somewhat true today (even if it only a thought in the back of peoples minds).

I have spent five years at least studying this kind of thing (high school and uni, and i'm still doing some studies on it now), I am by no means ignorant/apathetic or unsupportive of the lack of support services available for men, I led a small group to try and change that in the town I went to uni in, but we were unsuccessful, the people just didn't want to hear it.

Great answer, I didn't expect that.

You're right, people don't want to hear it. Men are just supposed to take whatever come to them and whatever comes to them is always less important than if the same had happened to a woman. Rape, genital mutilation, domestic violence, losing everyone you love in divorce court, etc...

 

[Epona]

A lot of people seem to be saying that men's rights aren't a feminist issue. Of course they are. Any unequal rights between men and women are a result of gender roles, which is something that feminists try to break down.

Men aren't allowed custody of their children because women win by default? A result of women being seen as child rearers while the men don't have to have anything to do with them: a sexist notion that feminists should address.

Men aren't allowed to hit women or speak up when women hit men? A result of men being seen as stronger than women: a sexist notion that feminists should address.

Even if a woman doesn't even like men very much, she ought to be breaking down these stereotypes for the sake of women as well as men.

Circumcision Removes the Most Sensitive Parts of the Penis
A sensitivity study of the adult penis in circumcised and uncircumcised men shows that the uncircumcised penis is significantly more sensitive. The most sensitive location on the circumcised penis is the circumcision scar on the ventral surface. Five locations on the uncircumcised penis that are routinely removed at circumcision are significantly more sensitive than the most sensitive location on the circumcised penis.
In addition, the glans (head) of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The tip of the foreskin is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis, and it is significantly more sensitive than the most sensitive area of the circumcised penis. Circumcision removes the most sensitive parts of the penis.
This study presents the first extensive testing of fine touch pressure thresholds of the adult penis. The monofiliment testing instruments are calibrated and have been used to test female genital sensitivity.

http://www.circumcision.org/studies.htm

http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_lost.html

Plenty more links for your Googling pleasure.

I don't agree with circumcision but the sensitivity issue is panicked about more than necessary, I think. Having been in relationships with uncircumcised guys and a circumcised guy, the latter didn't suffer from pain or uncomfortable over stimulation (which also lead to premature ejaculation problems in one of the former) and generally seemed to enjoy himself a lot more, so lessening the sensitivity can be a blessing in some cases.
While I don't think this is a reason to go around cutting up babies, trying to compare a man with not too much sexual sensitivity to a woman with no sexual sensitivity at all is perhaps not the most reliable argument.

So, male genital mutilation isn't as bad as female genital mutilation? You only downplay ALL genital mutilation.

 

[everythingbeeps]

Once upon a time I wouldn't have said so, but with this recent obnoxious GOP attack on women, it's kind of hard not to be.

 

[Moth_Monk]

Certainly not baseless, as you did say earlier how it's justifiable, that even within the context of feminism, for women to be seen as more valuable then men.

Which post of mine are you referring to? Perhaps you simply misunderstood what I meant.

Secondly, it's an overwhelming majority of feminist are utterly and hopelessly confused by those two terms.

I'm not going to deny that the things you've listed are a problem. But I don't think it's a problem that is restricted to feminists. Rather, I think that society on the whole has the same reluctance to accept those points; men and women, regardless of their position. The reason for it, I think, is because everyone likes to believe they have full, true freedom and don't like the idea of genetic/social conditioning.

 

[Moth_Monk]

Well I have my "On Fire" badge so I'm finished with this discussion.

/flies away

 

[Phasmal]

My point was that women get away with more, have more ground to stand on or even get emotional backing even if they are initially in the wrong. I gave personal examples of women getting just that. I did not say "This happened to me so women suck." I support human rights as a basic. Not womens rights or mens rights. That's my stance and if that's hard to figure out, I don't know what to tell you.

Edit: You not understanding doesn't make my opinion any less valid. Nor does it make yours anymore or less. It is simply that you do not understand.

Pardon me, I seem to have misread there.
I'm all for equality and still call myself a feminist because that's what I believe it is.
So, yeah. Sorry, some crossed wires there.

 

[Something Amyss]

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.

But do you actively bring it up in discussion? Do you artificially denote extremism within other contexts?

If this topic was about men, would you separate men into "normal" and "rapists?" If it were about the KKK, would you point out there are members who "merely" believe whites are superior to contrast the dudes who like to kill the "inferior" members of the human race? If it were about left-handers, would you offer the connotation that there are extremists in their ranks? If you brought up black people, would you point out the angry black man vs the "just like us" blacks?

There is very little point in treating extremism as a subfaction. They exist in all walks of life, and they hardly represent the whole.

 

[Seneschal]

schnipped

What a weird video. She does seem to genuinly believe there's a male conspirace against women, her jokes are both badly timed and fucking weird, her arguments are based on kids shows (which is just stupid) and she lacks any evidence whatsoever for what's she's saying.

Actually, that video quite neatly incapasitated why I don't like feminism, it's full of whiny women seing sexism everywhere where there are none with completly baseless arguments without any suggestions on how to improve the situiation.

I know not all feminists are like this, but it is a worrying amoun of them.

Captcha: The Queen of England obviously lives in North Korea, why do you ask?

A conspiracy would imply some kind of meticulously planned plot; the straw feminist is no such thing, but is instead a thoughtless and insensitive way to get the audience to sympathise with the heroes by making the villain a mockery of an easily-misinterpreted ideology. Presenting feminists as sexists in a fictional world where genders are already equal is tantamount to justifying nazis in a fictional world where Jews are all murderous demon-possessed monsters - yes, it makes sense in that fictional context; no, it DOESN'T make sense in the real world. Anti-semitism isn't noble, and feminism isn't about castrating men. The only reason such fictional depictions exist is because a male-dominated society, unwilling to let privileges be fairly and equally distributed, self-justifies its fears by demonizing feminism.

I don't know where you got the impression that she's "a whiny woman seeing sexism everywhere". Straw-feminists in fiction are all blatant caricatures, and they seriously damage people's capacity to have a frank and reasoned dialogue on sexism. The fact that they appear in cartoons is actually more disturbing, and well-worth noting.

Straw-feminists and "feminazis" are mostly fictional, blown out of proportion and not representative of the struggle for gender equality. Judging the feminist struggle on them is like basing your opinion of ALL men on a single wife-beater. The fact that the trope is so omnipresent, and even worse, believed to be true in the real world for all feminists just shows how far we are from equality.

 

[Something Amyss]

My point was that women get away with more, have more ground to stand on or even get emotional backing even if they are initially in the wrong.

In your experience and speaking only in the case of violence. And only from one side of the coin.

Phasmal may have apologised, but there's something seriously wrong with taking that and trying to turn it into a larger point.

 

[Phasmal]

My point was that women get away with more, have more ground to stand on or even get emotional backing even if they are initially in the wrong.

In your experience and speaking only in the case of violence. And only from one side of the coin.

Phasmal may have apologised, but there's something seriously wrong with taking that and trying to turn it into a larger point.

I apologised for misreading. I still think using anecdotal evidence is messed up, because there will be people who have had the opposite experience.
But on this site, honestly, I'm just happy if people are willing to say they are in favour of equal rights. =P

 

[Flight]

I identify as a feminist, and I have ever since my senior year of high school. The sexes need to be equal, and I believe it's been far too long in coming.

 

[Ramzal]

My point was that women get away with more, have more ground to stand on or even get emotional backing even if they are initially in the wrong.

In your experience and speaking only in the case of violence. And only from one side of the coin.

Phasmal may have apologised, but there's something seriously wrong with taking that and trying to turn it into a larger point.

Did you seriously miss the link I put up with how people deal with a woman abusing a man both verbally and physically in public? Or are you selective arguing right now? Because over 100 people walked by and didn't do a thing and some even encouraged those actions. I used both personal AND experimental examples.

Let me link it -again-.

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

This shows both physical and verbal abuse in public. You really want to say I am simply just using my own experience here? After watching this. You still want to say that women don't have more leverage as far as abuse or conflict goes?

It's as if you're trying to set it up as "If you aren't a feminist, then you don't want equality" or "If you don't agree with me then you are wrong." Which is at best, a giant circle jerk.

 

[Dasick]

Sorry for snip.

A conspiracy would imply some kind of meticulously planned plot; the straw feminist is no such thing, but is instead a thoughtless and insensitive way to get the audience to sympathise with the heroes by making the villain a mockery of an easily-misinterpreted ideology. Presenting feminists as sexists in a fictional world where genders are already equal is tantamount to justifying nazis in a fictional world where Jews are all murderous demon-possessed monsters - yes, it makes sense in that fictional context; no, it DOESN'T make sense in the real world. Anti-semitism isn't noble, and feminism isn't about castrating men. The only reason such fictional depictions exist is because a male-dominated society, unwilling to let privileges be fairly and equally distributed, self-justifies its fears by demonizing feminism.

It's funny that you(she) mention(s) a "fictional world where genders are already equal". Because in her "Tropes vs Women" videos she is arguing that even in the fictional worlds, there still exists a wedge between the genders (as seen by the use of tropes). So which is it?

I don't know where you got the impression that she's "a whiny woman seeing sexism everywhere". Straw-feminists in fiction are all blatant caricatures, and they seriously damage people's capacity to have a frank and reasoned dialogue on sexism. The fact that they appear in cartoons is actually more disturbing, and well-worth noting.

Single-dimension villains are a result of bad writing. Sure, it says something about something else that a feminazi is an instantly recognizable and acceptable target, but eliminating the stereotype will only shift the perception of who is an acceptable target.

In my opinion, the real solution is demanding better writing. And I agree with you in a sense; shitty writing in children's shows is a really horrible thing for our society. (I personally believe cartoons to be the ultimate test of one's writing ability; we have far too many people failing)

Straw-feminists and "feminazis" are mostly fictional, blown out of proportion and not representative of the struggle for gender equality. Judging the feminist struggle on them is like basing your opinion of ALL men on a single wife-beater. The fact that the trope is so omnipresent, and even worse, believed to be true in the real world for all feminists just shows how far we are from equality.

Have you never heard a woman say something along the lines of "all men are pigs" based on something her boyfriend/husband did? It's not really "feminism"(as some perceive it) or reverse-sexism or any other form of "ism"s. It's just a result of human nature. We tend to simplify things, and exaggerate them based on our emotions.