Poll: Are you a feminist?

[Epona]

While I agree that hiring lesser-qualified minority groups to grant them status is putting the cart before the horse, you have to at least recognize that there are fewer 'qualified' candidates for those positions because of the unequal manner in which we educate and prepare people for life.

There may be more 'qualified' white male candidates for Job A because white men are more likely to be privileged with the training and opportunity for Job A than other groups. Suggesting that the playing field is totally level is to suggest that there's more white men in these positions because being a white man somehow makes you more competent, which we know to be false.

So I feel the anger is a bit misdirected. While people rail against 'affirmative action', they rarely qualify that anger by suggesting comprehensive change to the systems that make such programs needed. Most just stop at the anger.

Of course. The real question is, where does an actual difference in opportunity following those demographic lines exist? That's where the effort needs to be placed, and that's also why affirmative action as it is actually practiced is ridiculous, sexist, and racist, and also *maintains* the idea that those people aren't as capable, because they're not being held to the same standard.

I will say that the criticisms of such programs are undermined somewhat by being conjured largely, I've found, from individuals to whom the program gives no benefit. As in, white people.

Speaking as a white guy, I don't bother to speak out against them. I instead endeavor to do my part to make this world one in which those programs will not be a necessity. Whining about them focuses the conversation on a symptom and not the disease. In fact all it does is reinforce the idea that minority groups have, that we white folks are always trying to keep them down, to maintain our comfortable majority and position of privilege. I feel effort is better spent ignoring things like affirmative action and instead focusing efforts on making them obsolete.

In other words, sit back and take the discrimination like a man?

See, that's how we got here. People sitting back and not protesting.

I have bolded the parts of my post you apparently missed.

I saw the bolded parts, you could do both. You do not discriminate AND protest when you are discriminated against.

I have limited time and energy. I figure, arguing against affirmative action is a waste of time; it's complaining about a symptom and frankly, I sound like an entitled little jerk when I whine about discrimination, being that I'm a white heterosexual cisgendered middle class American. It's like... I'm complaining?

Nah, no thanks. My time and energy are much better spent on trying to do my part to make the world into one where affirmative action would be unnecessary. No sense in wasting it hacking away at symptoms that, honestly, don't always misfire anyway. People seem to confuse the words "can" and "do" when it comes to affirmative action. It can create a situation where a lesser qualified candidate gets the position. It doesn't always, however, and in fact has most likely prevented a qualified candidate from being denied because of X, Y or Z.

You don't seem to understand that "trying to do my part to make the world into one where affirmative action would be unnecessary" is a complete waste of time by itself because people who benefit from AA will always claim it is necessary.

If you think that those who benefit from AA are just going to say "ok, things are equal now" then you are smoking something that you aren't sharing with the rest of the thread. It's like feminism, no matter how many advantages women get, they will never say "we are equal enough".

Right now we have people saying that women have taken over the workforce (Maria Shriver said 3 years ago that "it's a womans world now", link below and I saw a Time magazine cover a month or two ago saying similar) and women are still whining about equal pay.

It has been shown countless times that women get paid less because they take more time off work, work less overtime, are not as mobile and just generally choose less risky and less demanding jobs. That won't matter though because women still protest and because of that, things will change in their favor. Next thing you know cashiers at Wal Mart will be making more than stockers who do heavy lifting because Wal Mart is tired of getting sued and they know men are less likely to protest. I hate to say it but it's the squeaky wheel that gets the oil.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maria-shriver/a-womans-nation_b_187244.html

 

[Epona]

In my opinion, nobody should be feminist. Everyone should be an equalist. Fighting for equal rights, the word femenist suggests that one is more for the rights of women in general.
Of course the rights of women are less, unfortunately, that those of males. But that does not mean you should fight only for the rights of one group, but try and fight for all. And those who are discriminated against should be the ones we fight for each time. Everyone should have equal rights, genders, colors, sexuality... It's only when you break the laws of your society that your rights are taken away, like the freedom of a rapist or a murderer. But it's not a crime to be a woman, black, gay and so forth.

That's my opinion, anyways.

Oh really? What rights do males have that females do not?

 

[itsthesheppy]

While I agree that hiring lesser-qualified minority groups to grant them status is putting the cart before the horse, you have to at least recognize that there are fewer 'qualified' candidates for those positions because of the unequal manner in which we educate and prepare people for life.

There may be more 'qualified' white male candidates for Job A because white men are more likely to be privileged with the training and opportunity for Job A than other groups. Suggesting that the playing field is totally level is to suggest that there's more white men in these positions because being a white man somehow makes you more competent, which we know to be false.

So I feel the anger is a bit misdirected. While people rail against 'affirmative action', they rarely qualify that anger by suggesting comprehensive change to the systems that make such programs needed. Most just stop at the anger.

Of course. The real question is, where does an actual difference in opportunity following those demographic lines exist? That's where the effort needs to be placed, and that's also why affirmative action as it is actually practiced is ridiculous, sexist, and racist, and also *maintains* the idea that those people aren't as capable, because they're not being held to the same standard.

I will say that the criticisms of such programs are undermined somewhat by being conjured largely, I've found, from individuals to whom the program gives no benefit. As in, white people.

Speaking as a white guy, I don't bother to speak out against them. I instead endeavor to do my part to make this world one in which those programs will not be a necessity. Whining about them focuses the conversation on a symptom and not the disease. In fact all it does is reinforce the idea that minority groups have, that we white folks are always trying to keep them down, to maintain our comfortable majority and position of privilege. I feel effort is better spent ignoring things like affirmative action and instead focusing efforts on making them obsolete.

In other words, sit back and take the discrimination like a man?

See, that's how we got here. People sitting back and not protesting.

I have bolded the parts of my post you apparently missed.

I saw the bolded parts, you could do both. You do not discriminate AND protest when you are discriminated against.

I have limited time and energy. I figure, arguing against affirmative action is a waste of time; it's complaining about a symptom and frankly, I sound like an entitled little jerk when I whine about discrimination, being that I'm a white heterosexual cisgendered middle class American. It's like... I'm complaining?

Nah, no thanks. My time and energy are much better spent on trying to do my part to make the world into one where affirmative action would be unnecessary. No sense in wasting it hacking away at symptoms that, honestly, don't always misfire anyway. People seem to confuse the words "can" and "do" when it comes to affirmative action. It can create a situation where a lesser qualified candidate gets the position. It doesn't always, however, and in fact has most likely prevented a qualified candidate from being denied because of X, Y or Z.

You don't seem to understand that "trying to do my part to make the world into one where affirmative action would be unnecessary" is a complete waste of time by itself because people who benefit from AA will always claim it is necessary.

If you think that those who benefit from AA are just going to say "ok, things are equal now" then you are smoking something that you aren't sharing with the rest of the thread. It's like feminism, no matter how many advantages women get, they will never say "we are equal enough".

Right now we have people saying that women have taken over the workforce (Maria Shriver said 3 years ago that "it's a womans world now", link below and I saw a Time magazine cover a month or two ago saying similar) and women are still whining about equal pay.

It has been shown countless times that women get paid less because they take more time off work, work less overtime, are not as mobile and just generally choose less risky and less demanding jobs. That won't matter though because women still protest and because of that, things will change in their favor. Next thing you know cashiers at Wal Mart will be making more than stockers who do heavy lifting because Wal Mart is tired of getting sued and they know men are less likely to protest. I hate to say it but it's the squeaky wheel that gets the oil.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maria-shriver/a-womans-nation_b_187244.html

Okay, you make a lot of claims here.

1) People benefiting from AA will always want it and never want to give it up. (I'm assuming you mean, here, that this is even if we remake the world into one where true equality has been reached. You and I will be long dead but whatever.)

2) That women are completely equal to men now in every way and are in fact unfairly whining for more considerations.

3) That women are paid less for completely justifiable means and there is no unfair pay practices in the workforce.

We're gonna need some citations here, just so I know you're not just making things up as you go.

 

[ZexionSephiroth]

In my opinion, nobody should be feminist. Everyone should be an equalist. Fighting for equal rights, the word femenist suggests that one is more for the rights of women in general.
Of course the rights of women are less, unfortunately, that those of males. But that does not mean you should fight only for the rights of one group, but try and fight for all. And those who are discriminated against should be the ones we fight for each time. Everyone should have equal rights, genders, colors, sexuality... It's only when you break the laws of your society that your rights are taken away, like the freedom of a rapist or a murderer. But it's not a crime to be a woman, black, gay and so forth.

That's my opinion, anyways.

Equal-ism probably does exist, and feminism is probably a subset of it.

Anyways, People are lazy, they try not to think harder than they need to to understand an issue. So its probably not a stretch of logic that they argue for women's rights under the banner of Feminism because going under the banner of equal-ism would put a little bit of extra mental thinking to get behind it. Not to mention Full on equal-ism sounds like its trying to do so much at once.

Working example: a friend walks in and invites you to an "Equalist rally", one thing that goes through your head is: "Who's rights are we fighting for this time?" and thus a conversation ensues that wastes time and energy, only to end up at "[X]'s right's today, from what that guy said about the issue, it sounds just, might as well go". And if you hadn't heard of equal-ism before the thought train would increase to: "Sounds like a big task to solve all the world's inequalities- shouldn't we focus on the most pressing at the moment?- Hey, can you tell me which people are currently under privileged?- which ones are we fighting for this time?- HEY! LISTEN!- how do you expect to solve even one problem if your mission statement is so loosely defined?- HEY! LISTEN! HEY! LISTEN!"

Ouch, Right? I bet that hurt to read.

Let's try that scenario again with Feminism.

Person 1: "Hey bud, want to go to a feminism Rally?"
Person 2 (internal): "feminism, fighting for women's equality, sound like a just cause."
Person 2: "Sure, Why not."

Much simpler.

...

Now if only I could go straight back to idealism after that line of thought. But I'd need some coffee first.

 

[DevilWithaHalo]

"Patriarchy" when used in the context of feminism is a specific term [http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/t/tobias-feminisim.html] that refers to (I'm oversimplifying here) a society that has gender roles that disproportionately place power in the hands of men and privileges stereotypically male things over stereotypically female things.

So an example of patriarchy at work (again I'm massively over-simplifying here) is the whole "men are the breadwinners, women are the homemakers" norm (note: exceptions to a norm can and do exist but tend to be regarded as exceptions). Fallout from this norm includes the glass ceiling, women being underpaid, men being more likely to lose custody battles, and "stay at home dads" being stigmatized.

I expected this reply, and it still confuses me to this day. I accept the premise that stereotypical gender roles can have the sociological influence of either being desirable or undesirable given the contextual societies they derive from. As an example, being the bread winner in a capitalist society gives one greater freedoms given how the structure is set up and the lack of a "biological clock" seems to influence men in a greater degree to pursue monetary interests. But to couple that with a "negative" regarding custody in the same breath seems... out of place to me. Men are consistently pushed in society to maintain a working family structure and often stigmatized for their failures to do so even if beyond their control (considering the opposition to controlling their female partners).

Now you described it as a fallout, and under a certain perspective, I suppose I can reason that. Men are unfairly punished from a legal sense in their failures to maintain a workable home structure, that appears to be controlled primarily by females. I suppose that's where I disconnect. Your statement that women are homemakers isn't supported solely by a patriarchy based system; it's perpetuated by feminism in it's current form. Women are capable of maintaining their own family autonomously from male influence, so it's easier to throw the failures back on the male when they actually have little to do with the problem itself.

More to the point, where feminism is attempting to tear down a system they claim is a patriarchy and harmful to both genders, they still aren't doing anything about the parts of the system they claim is harmful to men. Nor can I currently fathom the resulting changes that would take place that assist men after the feminists have reached the point of satisfaction (if ever). It's easy to say that I should help their cause because it will help me, but I fail to see how it does so, nor do they offer me explanations in support of the statement.

The gender stereotypes are more often than not, supported by their own gender more than the opposing gender. It might be because we're inherently competing against each other, but a woman will call another woman a slut before a man does and I would presume that a man will stigmatize other men for choosing to be a family man over a career man then a woman. So how does feminism address this? It doesn't; in fact it's at odds with itself over certain things (such as what a woman can/should do with her own body).

I'm not saying I'm only supporting causes that service my needs, but to state that feminism serves both men and women is looking at the issue through rose colored glasses. Feminism is about assisting women. Men may benefit indirectly (maybe, still looking into it), but it's still about women.

 

[Epona]

While I agree that hiring lesser-qualified minority groups to grant them status is putting the cart before the horse, you have to at least recognize that there are fewer 'qualified' candidates for those positions because of the unequal manner in which we educate and prepare people for life.

There may be more 'qualified' white male candidates for Job A because white men are more likely to be privileged with the training and opportunity for Job A than other groups. Suggesting that the playing field is totally level is to suggest that there's more white men in these positions because being a white man somehow makes you more competent, which we know to be false.

So I feel the anger is a bit misdirected. While people rail against 'affirmative action', they rarely qualify that anger by suggesting comprehensive change to the systems that make such programs needed. Most just stop at the anger.

Of course. The real question is, where does an actual difference in opportunity following those demographic lines exist? That's where the effort needs to be placed, and that's also why affirmative action as it is actually practiced is ridiculous, sexist, and racist, and also *maintains* the idea that those people aren't as capable, because they're not being held to the same standard.

I will say that the criticisms of such programs are undermined somewhat by being conjured largely, I've found, from individuals to whom the program gives no benefit. As in, white people.

Speaking as a white guy, I don't bother to speak out against them. I instead endeavor to do my part to make this world one in which those programs will not be a necessity. Whining about them focuses the conversation on a symptom and not the disease. In fact all it does is reinforce the idea that minority groups have, that we white folks are always trying to keep them down, to maintain our comfortable majority and position of privilege. I feel effort is better spent ignoring things like affirmative action and instead focusing efforts on making them obsolete.

In other words, sit back and take the discrimination like a man?

See, that's how we got here. People sitting back and not protesting.

I have bolded the parts of my post you apparently missed.

I saw the bolded parts, you could do both. You do not discriminate AND protest when you are discriminated against.

I have limited time and energy. I figure, arguing against affirmative action is a waste of time; it's complaining about a symptom and frankly, I sound like an entitled little jerk when I whine about discrimination, being that I'm a white heterosexual cisgendered middle class American. It's like... I'm complaining?

Nah, no thanks. My time and energy are much better spent on trying to do my part to make the world into one where affirmative action would be unnecessary. No sense in wasting it hacking away at symptoms that, honestly, don't always misfire anyway. People seem to confuse the words "can" and "do" when it comes to affirmative action. It can create a situation where a lesser qualified candidate gets the position. It doesn't always, however, and in fact has most likely prevented a qualified candidate from being denied because of X, Y or Z.

You don't seem to understand that "trying to do my part to make the world into one where affirmative action would be unnecessary" is a complete waste of time by itself because people who benefit from AA will always claim it is necessary.

If you think that those who benefit from AA are just going to say "ok, things are equal now" then you are smoking something that you aren't sharing with the rest of the thread. It's like feminism, no matter how many advantages women get, they will never say "we are equal enough".

Right now we have people saying that women have taken over the workforce (Maria Shriver said 3 years ago that "it's a womans world now", link below and I saw a Time magazine cover a month or two ago saying similar) and women are still whining about equal pay.

It has been shown countless times that women get paid less because they take more time off work, work less overtime, are not as mobile and just generally choose less risky and less demanding jobs. That won't matter though because women still protest and because of that, things will change in their favor. Next thing you know cashiers at Wal Mart will be making more than stockers who do heavy lifting because Wal Mart is tired of getting sued and they know men are less likely to protest. I hate to say it but it's the squeaky wheel that gets the oil.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maria-shriver/a-womans-nation_b_187244.html

Okay, you make a lot of claims here.

1) People benefiting from AA will always want it and never want to give it up. (I'm assuming you mean, here, that this is even if we remake the world into one where true equality has been reached. You and I will be long dead but whatever.)

2) That women are completely equal to men now in every way and are in fact unfairly whining for more considerations.

3) That women are paid less for completely justifiable means and there is no unfair pay practices in the workforce.

We're gonna need some citations here, just so I know you're not just making things up as you go.

1) Things will never be perfectly equal and for that reason, it will be said that AA, feminism, etc... will always be needed. Even questioning of those things will mean that they are still needed.

2) Strawman

3) Strawman

No citations, you can do your own research or not. I really don't care. My real point here is that if you don't protest, don't expect anything to change and indeed, if you don't protest while your opponents do, you will lose by default.

Most people refer to programs like AA, Title IX and such as reverse discrimination. If you don't want to protest discrimination, then don't but you aren't on the moral high ground.

 

[itsthesheppy]

No citations, you can do your own research or not.

Nah, it really doesn't work that way. You're the one making the claims, I'm the one not believing you. I'm asking for evidence. If you have none to provide, that's the end of the conversation. I'm not going to do your homework for you. Sorry.

 

[Epona]

No citations, you can do your own research or not.

Nah, it really doesn't work that way. You're the one making the claims, I'm the one not believing you. I'm asking for evidence. If you have none to provide, that's the end of the conversation. I'm not going to do your homework for you. Sorry.

Nah, see I never made the claims you said I did. Hence the STRAWMAN. I think we're done if you aren't going to debate honestly. Just go back to being a tool and don't protest discrimination when it happens to you.

 

[DevilWithaHalo]

Of course the rights of women are less, unfortunately, that those of males.

Oh really? What rights do males have that females do not?

Something to do with our penises? I kid. The first wave of Feminism pretty much insured that there were equal rights provided to men and women as granted under the law. Now we aren't so much arguing about "rights" as we are "opportunities", which 2nd wave Feminism also pretty much nipped in the bud. Currently 3rd wave Feminism is attempting to insure equal "treatment" according to society, which has little to nothing to do with actual rights.

In fact, I can't think of a single thing men have the right or opportunity to do that women don't (not counting religious things because that's your personal belief). Even the US military is opening up combat positions (on a trail-test basis IIRC). Anyone have something?

 

[Epona]

Of course the rights of women are less, unfortunately, that those of males.

Oh really? What rights do males have that females do not?

Something to do with our penises? I kid. The first wave of Feminism pretty much insured that there were equal rights provided to men and women as granted under the law. Now we aren't so much arguing about "rights" as we are "opportunities", which 2nd wave Feminism also pretty much nipped in the bud. Currently 3rd wave Feminism is attempting to insure equal "treatment" according to society, which has little to nothing to do with actual rights.

In fact, I can't think of a single thing men have the right or opportunity to do that women don't (not counting religious things because that's your personal belief). Even the US military is opening up combat positions (on a trail-test basis IIRC). Anyone have something?

Women have more rights than men do actually. For example, men have only one reproductive right, to have sex or not to and sometimes that right is ignored. Men who are raped by women are often not taken seriously. As mentioned earlier, even boys who are raped by adult women are on the hook for child support if the rape produces a baby.

Reproductive rights for women include: abortion, adoption and legal abandonment in some states. Men simply have no reproductive rights after conception and in the case of rape, not even then.

 

[Cheesepower5]

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...

exactly, women are victimised and treated like they are weak and need protecting and in some cases overly so, men are expected to stay silent and endure, the male victims of DV assault and sexual assault are often not seen or payed attention to, and it shouldn't be like that, even before I started doing my studies on this in late high school and uni I knew there was such a differential in the treatment, but until I started studying Criminology, I never knew just how substantial that difference is.

That is, IMO, is the perfect example of why feminism is still important. Patriarchy screws everyone over.

You do realize we just objectively don't live in a patriarchy anymore, right?

Sexism still exists, but men no longer have total power of society.

Please elaborate on your revolutionary new definition for the word "patriarchy" used in the context of a feminism thread.

Google it? Assets are not passed from father to son, men and women alike govern the lands and women aren't considered chattel.

Unless you want to argue other-wise, then who's the good damned feminist?

 

[Kahunaburger]

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...

exactly, women are victimised and treated like they are weak and need protecting and in some cases overly so, men are expected to stay silent and endure, the male victims of DV assault and sexual assault are often not seen or payed attention to, and it shouldn't be like that, even before I started doing my studies on this in late high school and uni I knew there was such a differential in the treatment, but until I started studying Criminology, I never knew just how substantial that difference is.

That is, IMO, is the perfect example of why feminism is still important. Patriarchy screws everyone over.

You do realize we just objectively don't live in a patriarchy anymore, right?

Sexism still exists, but men no longer have total power of society.

Please elaborate on your revolutionary new definition for the word "patriarchy" used in the context of a feminism thread.

Google it? Assets are not passed from father to son, men and women alike govern the lands and women aren't considered chattel.

Unless you want to argue other-wise, then who's the good damned feminist?

You must get really confused when ppl call the Higgs Boson the "God Particle."

 

[Cheesepower5]

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...

exactly, women are victimised and treated like they are weak and need protecting and in some cases overly so, men are expected to stay silent and endure, the male victims of DV assault and sexual assault are often not seen or payed attention to, and it shouldn't be like that, even before I started doing my studies on this in late high school and uni I knew there was such a differential in the treatment, but until I started studying Criminology, I never knew just how substantial that difference is.

That is, IMO, is the perfect example of why feminism is still important. Patriarchy screws everyone over.

You do realize we just objectively don't live in a patriarchy anymore, right?

Sexism still exists, but men no longer have total power of society.

Please elaborate on your revolutionary new definition for the word "patriarchy" used in the context of a feminism thread.

Google it? Assets are not passed from father to son, men and women alike govern the lands and women aren't considered chattel.

Unless you want to argue other-wise, then who's the good damned feminist?

You must get really confused when ppl call the Higgs Boson the "God Particle."

Not confused, no. Although I do find the term to be a bit of an eyebrow raiser. What does that have to do with it?

 

[Caligulove]

Do I agree with the points and think things should be different, and women treated equally as they should be? yes, but I don't define myself as a feminist or highlight as a particularly worthy-of-mention trait of mine.

 

[Kahunaburger]

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...

exactly, women are victimised and treated like they are weak and need protecting and in some cases overly so, men are expected to stay silent and endure, the male victims of DV assault and sexual assault are often not seen or payed attention to, and it shouldn't be like that, even before I started doing my studies on this in late high school and uni I knew there was such a differential in the treatment, but until I started studying Criminology, I never knew just how substantial that difference is.

That is, IMO, is the perfect example of why feminism is still important. Patriarchy screws everyone over.

You do realize we just objectively don't live in a patriarchy anymore, right?

Sexism still exists, but men no longer have total power of society.

Please elaborate on your revolutionary new definition for the word "patriarchy" used in the context of a feminism thread.

Google it? Assets are not passed from father to son, men and women alike govern the lands and women aren't considered chattel.

Unless you want to argue other-wise, then who's the good damned feminist?

You must get really confused when ppl call the Higgs Boson the "God Particle."

Not confused, no. Although I do find the term to be a bit of an eyebrow raiser. What does that have to do with it?

Randomly picking a dictionary definition is a pretty ineffective way of learning the meaning of a term you're unfamiliar with. This is equally true if you're discussing physics or philosophy.

 

[Schadrach]

Oh really? What rights do males have that females do not?

The option to serve in certain military roles? Though that one is slowly changing.

 

[Epona]

Oh really? What rights do males have that females do not?

The option to serve in certain military roles? Though that one is slowly changing.

To go along with that, women should also have to sign up for Selective Service and they should be drafted in equal numbers. Equality works both ways.

I read something the other day about Title IX being used to restrict the number of men who get into college for science.

Quotas limiting the number of male students in science may be imposed by the Education Department in 2013. The White House has promised that ?new guidelines will also be issued to grant-receiving universities and colleges? spelling out ?Title IX rules in the science, technology, engineering and math fields.? These guidelines will likely echo existing Title IX guidelines that restrict men?s percentage of intercollegiate athletes to their percentage in overall student bodies, thus reducing the overall number of intercollegiate athletes.

http://www.openmarket.org/2012/07/10/quotas-limiting-male-science-enrollment-the-new-liberal-war-on-science/

Just another example of anti-male discrimination but men won't protest and feminists aren't interested in fighting discrimination against males.

 

[Vault101]

To go along with that, women should also have to sign up for Selective Service and they should be drafted in equal numbers. Equality works both ways.

.

I dont belive anyone should be drafted..regardless of gender

but seriously, what is that? a passive agressive statment...I mean come on

 

[PrototypeC]

This makes me think of that horrible Feminist Frequency thing, against my will. I was trying to forget about it... it just makes me irritated. Yuck.

Feminist means a very simple thing... equality. That's all it has ever meant. The way people twist that word into something ugly all the time kind of bothers me, but I haven't the experience to dispute them. I'm not a woman, I'm not an active activist, I don't have any strong causes I support. I just wouldn't choose or not choose to hire a person based on the M or F in the gender field of an application (in Canada employers can't put a "gender" box on applications for this reason). That's all.

Most feminists don't identify as such, because they don't like the people who use that word as a shield. How many of you don't think of the sexes as equal? You think of one as better than the other, or that one gender shouldn't be allowed to do certain jobs (construction, plumbing, military, etc.)? You're not a feminist. Easy. If you do believe that they are, for all intents and purposes, equal and that employment opportunities and societal expectations should be personal rather than gender-based, then you are a classical feminist. That word can mean just about anything, most of it negative, but it's still the category I fall under when I look at it the way it was intended.

Just... please... don't back out and say you're "not a feminist" just because you don't like some of the more unpleasant people that identify as such. "I'm not a feminist, but I believe in equality" doesn't make any sense. You're still a feminist, by definition, because you believe in the equality of the sexes. I understand; I wouldn't want to be grouped together with some of those people either, but it's in the name of reaching a goal of changing the way we think of gender and eliminating prejudice.

 

[Epona]

To go along with that, women should also have to sign up for Selective Service and they should be drafted in equal numbers. Equality works both ways.

.

I dont belive anyone should be drafted..regardless of gender

but seriously, what is that? a passive agressive statment...I mean come on

Ok, then males shouldn't have to register with Selective Service either. Sound good?

Feminist means a very simple thing... equality.

Sorry, that's incorrect. Feminists are only interested in fighting for womens rights. There is no equality when you only fight for the rights of one group.