Poll: Are you a feminist?

[Josue Rodriguez]

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.

Yeah pretty much this. I'm not an activist but I believe women should have equal opportunity and rights as men and visa versa. Pretty simply really.

That's quite a feminist thing to say. Just saying.

 

[MrMan999]

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.

We haven't actually drafted anyone in the US in a long time, even though we maintain all the process necessary to. We also haven't charged anyone for draft dodging in a long time either. Instead it's tied to federal student aid and voter registration.

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.

I don't see a source saying exactly what they're going to do in there, just sites speculating using other sites speculating as evidence. I would not be surprised if they did put such a quota on men in the majors in which men routinely outnumber and outperform women. I would be shocked, however, if a quota were put on women in parts of education where women outnumber and outperform men. After all, the point of a law requiring anti-discrimination in education is to benefit only women, right? There seemed to be an awful lot who felt that way about that boy on a girls' field hockey team in NY recently.

A lot of people are very happy being called a, "gamer" because it brings a sense of pride, a sense of community. It means that we share a hobby or a belief. Would you really like to be judged based on some racist, sexist, homophobic, screechy 13-year-old kid from Utah who won't stop running his mouth? Would you like to be judged based on some kid from Korea who just stopped eating and drinking until he died because he couldn't pull himself away from his game for ten minutes? I sure wouldn't.

I thought instead we were supposed to be judged on vast hordes of internet trolls who will attack targets because it sounds entertaining, and what they do if you specifically go out of your way to piss them off.

People like Mary Daly are the screechy 13-year-old kids of us feminists. They besmirch the name. Technically, they are against the very idea of gender equality, which is what the term is all about. This does not make me feel any less strongly about the equality of the sexes, and sure, I'd like to back out and mumble excuses about how I don't want to be associated with X person. However, gender equality is too important.

Yet Daly was considered very influential, and Solanas practically created radical feminism (she didn't self identify as feminists, and the reasons she didn't resonated with some feminists and radical feminism was the result). Isn't it a bit disingenuous to claim people who were influential within a movement as not really being part of it?

Yes, even more important than the respect of video games as a medium.

Speaking of which, one thing I've had trouble with: One of the core arguments from gamers is the whole violence in media doesn't cause actual violence thing. How do the feminists in the audience manage to hold that view and "rape culture" at the same time without contradiction? It seems like the entire concept of rape culture is explicitly contradictory, unless rape is "magic" somehow.

Don't get me wrong, I don't only associate feminism with people like Mary Daly, Erin Pizzey is a very respectable feminist.

It's worth noting that neither Pizzey nor Solanas self-identified as feminist, but for practically opposite reasons. Both have been claimed by feminists from time to time as well.

Pizzey was also practically thrown out of her own movement (she founded the first women's refuge, and was a big part of the early domestic violence shelter movement) once the "feminists" got involved (these would be the predecessors of the trans-exclusive radical feminists who are often in charge of DV shelters today). In no small part because she wanted to help male victims too.

Wasn't the SCUMM Manifesto Satire?

 

[Darkmantle]

snip

Wasn't the SCUMM Manifesto Satire?

You would think, but then she ran off and shot her male publisher and got thrown in the loony bin for a bit, so judging by her mental state, it was totally legit.

and she is praised as a great feminist Icon.

now that's sick.



here, I just copy pasted from the SCUM wikipedia page

""Various critics and scholars have analyzed the Manifesto and Solanas's statements regarding it. Prof. Dana Heller said the author had an "anarchic social vision"[37] and the Manifesto had "near-utopian theories"[38] and a "utopian vision of a world in which mechanization and systems of mass (re)production would render work, sexual intercourse, and the money system obsolete."[39] According to Village Voice reviewer B. Ruby Rich, "SCUM was an uncompromising global vision",[9] in the Manifesto criticizing men for many faults including war and not curing disease; many but not all points were "quite accurate"""

Emphasis mine.

EDIT: other fun bits

Atkinson (according to Rich) calling Solanas the "'first outstanding champion of women's rights'

and is also "credited with beginning the antipornography movement

 

[Darkmantle]

snip

Pizzey was also practically thrown out of her own movement (she founded the first women's refuge, and was a big part of the early domestic violence shelter movement) once the "feminists" got involved (these would be the predecessors of the trans-exclusive radical feminists who are often in charge of DV shelters today). In no small part because she wanted to help male victims too.

That's basically why I'll never Identify as a feminist. A woman who should be a feminist icon is tossed out because she wanted to help everybody, while the lady who wrote the SCUM manifesto is praised by many.

Feminism would really have to sort itself out before I take part in it.

 

[Kahunaburger]

snip

Wasn't the SCUMM Manifesto Satire?

You would think, but then she ran off and shot her male publisher and got thrown in the loony bin for a bit, so judging by her mental state, it was totally legit.

and she is praised as a great feminist Icon.

now that's sick.



here, I just copy pasted from the SCUM wikipedia page

""Various critics and scholars have analyzed the Manifesto and Solanas's statements regarding it. Prof. Dana Heller said the author had an "anarchic social vision"[37] and the Manifesto had "near-utopian theories"[38] and a "utopian vision of a world in which mechanization and systems of mass (re)production would render work, sexual intercourse, and the money system obsolete."[39] According to Village Voice reviewer B. Ruby Rich, "SCUM was an uncompromising global vision",[9] in the Manifesto criticizing men for many faults including war and not curing disease; many but not all points were "quite accurate"""

Emphasis mine.

EDIT: other fun bits

Atkinson (according to Rich) calling Solanas the "'first outstanding champion of women's rights'

and is also "credited with beginning the antipornography movement

BRB, grabbing info about the Taliban and unironically citing it as representative of the men's rights movement.

 

[Darkmantle]

snip

Wasn't the SCUMM Manifesto Satire?

You would think, but then she ran off and shot her male publisher and got thrown in the loony bin for a bit, so judging by her mental state, it was totally legit.

and she is praised as a great feminist Icon.

now that's sick.



here, I just copy pasted from the SCUM wikipedia page

""Various critics and scholars have analyzed the Manifesto and Solanas's statements regarding it. Prof. Dana Heller said the author had an "anarchic social vision"[37] and the Manifesto had "near-utopian theories"[38] and a "utopian vision of a world in which mechanization and systems of mass (re)production would render work, sexual intercourse, and the money system obsolete."[39] According to Village Voice reviewer B. Ruby Rich, "SCUM was an uncompromising global vision",[9] in the Manifesto criticizing men for many faults including war and not curing disease; many but not all points were "quite accurate"""

Emphasis mine.

EDIT: other fun bits

Atkinson (according to Rich) calling Solanas the "'first outstanding champion of women's rights'

and is also "credited with beginning the antipornography movement

BRB, grabbing info about the Taliban and unironically citing it as representative of the men's rights movement.

Hardly the same. Now if you called the Taliban a "parody" or "satire" I would also be forced to bring up some facts about them showing that no really, they are serious. Even if you think it was silly, it wasn't satire to her or (obviously) the people who took her as an idol. Trying to make it out as a joke, that she was in on, is just dishonest.

reading comprehension is a good skill though.

just sayin.

 

[ShadowStar42]

Valerie Solanas has to do with Feminism, and no amount of no-True-Scotsman fallacies will change that.
You want another reason? Ok, one reason would be that I don't hear many feminist leaders denouncing people like Mary Daly, and as such I have to ask, "why not?" . If people like her are against mainstream Feminism's messages, why not publicly denounce them? A second reason would be that the word has a gender bias. If it was to be changed to something more gender neutral, then I would be behind it.

It's not a 'No True Scotsman' argument, I didn't claim she wasn't a feminist I claimed that your argument is invalid because there are terrible people in any group you may choose to associate with. I can use the exact same argument for your 'second' reason which is really just the same as the first reason but how about I give you another angle from which it is stupid.

You don't hear feminist leaders publicly denounce Mary Daly for three reasons.

1) For the same reason they don't denounce you, she's simply not relevant enough for anyone to talk about.

2) Because the time that she was relevant was almost 40 years ago, and at that time while her ideas were wrong headed they were important to building the framework for feminism. In times of extreme crisis sometimes extreme voices are necessary.

3) Because you're not paying attention. Just a quick search of Mary Daly shows a number of feminist magazines and blogs feel that while she should be respected as one of the early voices of the movement, her ideas were too extreme for our modern time.

So far as your third 'argument', well I'll say that when people get down to linguistic debates it's generally because they don't have anything more relevant to say and refuse the admit they're wrong. Still though I'll explain. The reason Feminists are called such is simply provenance, when the movement started is was pretty much all about women, because women were so far behind they needed loud and dedicated advocates to even hope for some level of equality. Now, even though things are much more egalitarian (although certainly not yet equal) we respect our origins by keeping the name they chose.

 

[ks1234]

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

You don't hear feminist leaders publicly denounce Mary Daly for three reasons.

1) For the same reason they don't denounce you, she's simply not relevant enough for anyone to talk about.

2) Because the time that she was relevant was almost 40 years ago, and at that time while her ideas were wrong headed they were important to building the framework for feminism. In times of extreme crisis sometimes extreme voices are necessary.

Bigotry and sexism is never "necessary".

3) Because you're not paying attention. Just a quick search of Mary Daly shows a number of feminist magazines and blogs feel that while she should be respected as one of the early voices of the movement, her ideas were too extreme for our modern time.

So do they denounce her ideas?

So far as your third 'argument', well I'll say that when people get down to linguistic debates it's generally because they don't have anything more relevant to say and refuse the admit they're wrong.

Really and how do you know that?

Still though I'll explain. The reason Feminists are called such is simply provenance, when the movement started is was pretty much all about women, because women were so far behind they needed loud and dedicated advocates to even hope for some level of equality. Now, even though things are much more egalitarian (although certainly not yet equal) we respect our origins by keeping the name they chose.

Appealing to tradition isn't a justifiable reason.

 

[Gamer_152]

I'd describe myself more as a gender equalist than a feminist, not because of the silly delusions about feminism a lot of people carry, but because the idea of bringing about equal rights through advocating women's rights seems to ignore the concept that there may be situations where men's rights suffer as well.

Now I do believe women in general have a much tougher time in society than men in general, but that's not to say the male population is completely devoid of problems. There are certain unfair social expectations of men just as there are of women (not that I'm saying they are as extreme), domestic abuse against men is a big problem but is commonly not taken seriously, men get on average more time in prison than women for the same crimes, and so on. Gender equality is obviously an important goal and I think right now more probably needs to be done for the women's side, but you can't bring about proper equality without a focus on all social groups involved.

 

[rawrmonsta]

Ive spent a pretty long time pondering over this topic and have shifted my position a fair few times over. But the conclusion I come to is that feminism is exactly what it says it is "Equal rights FOR WOMEN" Which isn't a bad thing but its not what we need.

The problem I see here isn't that feminism is bad or their motives selfish like some seem to think its a lack of counter argument from the male side. Feminism has come so far and done so much for women bringing them fairness in many areas, but the lack of male response (or at least male response that's taken seriously) is very minimal. As a result feminism oversteps and often pushes change at the expense of men. With no male response of equal influence to discuss and make the changes balanced we get feminine leaning changes which naturally slightly favor women.

This you tube series explains it very well and in depth (be warned, Its very long. like 3 hours long): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFtGwBsKgKs

Do I identify as a feminist? no. Not because I disagree with the movement or their intentions but because I feel that "Equality" wont ever be reached by a group pushing in favor of one sex or the other and If I were to give my support to either side of this argument it would be the male side. Simply for the fact that they need the support and its their voices that are not being heard causing a lot of the confusion and anger surrounding this issue.

If the feminist groups and the MRA groups would get off their high horses and work together on issues instead of lobbing hate at each other we could actually make some progress.

I will say though that the extremist views pushed by the more radical of both movements both shock and disgust me. Especially the Patriarchal theory crowd pushing their twisted ideals onto university students.

 

[VondeVon]

By the dictionary definition I suppose I am. Sadly, I've been conditioned to regard the term as negative. How depressing.

The thing about being a feminist is that once you become one - ie, once you've been exposed to the reality of gender inequality and can no longer cruise along on invalid assumptions - it's very difficult to stop without either a lobotomy or actively being a douchebag enough to filter out what you see.

 

[The_Critic]

I have a great way to answer this.

 

[Ramzal]

I do have a question about feminism. How does the overall idea of feminism view the subject of infidelity caused by the female in a relationship against her male partner? Or even cheating on her male partner with a female?

Just a random wonder. *Jumps on google to look through this.*

 

[Epona]

I do have a question about feminism. How does the overall idea of feminism view the subject of infidelity caused by the female in a relationship against her male partner? Or even cheating on her male partner with a female?

Just a random wonder. *Jumps on google to look through this.*

From what I have seen over time, if a woman cheats on a man, it means HE isn't satisfying her. If a man cheats on a woman, he's a cheating scumbag.

So, no matter what, it's always his fault.

 

[Steinar Valsson]

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

Women are not drafted to the military, women get generally the upper hand in hild custody rights, home abuce of men is taken less seriously, circumcision is ok with boys and statistically women get leaner prison sentences then males for the same offence (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/).

Women have more visable and pressing issues, but men still have some.

(On top of what I have, read the responses you have)

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.

I see your point, but the example could be:

Hey, should we go protest that women get less paid for the same job as theyr male counterparts?
(this guy over explains things...)

I would not consider myself a feminist, but I do not see the point of making men and women unequal.
Same salory for the same work should be a given thing and the same rights in general.

Although there is one thing I disagree with. In some places, the physical test for women firefighters has been made easier for the women. I don't care what gender the firefighter is, as long as he/she can pass the test needed. It's a fact that by average, men are stronger and faster then women. The gap is closing in, but it's still there. One has to only look at world records to see it and the only reason is testosterone. The hormone that makes a person a male. The same hormone gives better space perception and can lead to the whole argument of who's the better driver. I'm not saying men are, I'm just saying that we have an evolutionary advantage and that's just the way it is. But that has been changing over time.

 

[userwhoquitthesite]

No, because despite that oh-so-pretty definition, saying you are a feminist lumps you in with the wrong sort of people. Feminism as it exists today is not an "equal rights" movement, it is a "female empowerment" movement that seeks to replace our male-dominated societal viewpoint with a female-dominated one. This is not a goal I can support, both because I find gender inequality wrong, but also because I am a man, and I am gifted with self preservation.

furthermore, the movement is all too often built upon bad logic or falsehoods presented as fact. Perceived problems far outnumber the actual ones.

So no, before I ramble on any more, I'm not a feminist, and the sooner this damn fad goes away, the better

 

[Epona]

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

Women are not drafted to the military, women get generally the upper hand in hild custody rights, home abuce of men is taken less seriously, circumcision is ok with boys and statistically women get leaner prison sentences then males for the same offence (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/).

Women have more visable and pressing issues, but men still have some.

(On top of what I have, read the responses you have)

After what you listed about men getting the short end of the stick, what could be more pressing for women?

 

[annoyinglizardvoice]

I believe in equality pure and simple.

 

[rawrmonsta]

I believe in equality pure and simple.

Everyone wants equality, the difference in the definition of equality is where all the confusion comes in.

If you view equality as financial power and worker rights within a vacuum then your more in line with feminists.

If you view equality as equality of opportunity and quality of life then your more in line with the MRA's.

Each sex is fighting for the ability to get what the other sex has, the trouble is viewing "equality" as financial success and positions of authority is going to put women in the "oppressed" group every time. And because we spend so much time viewing it that way, when men start advocating for child custody rights or equal treatment in courts its not viewed as a "power" problem.

But I challenge that view. A form of "Power" is having control over your own life, losing your kids and/or being forced to pay child support for a family you have little/no contact with isn't powerful. Being funneled into hazardous jobs because society places no value in unemployed men isn't being powerful. Being cast as the oppressor even in situations where your at equal or more disadvantage is not being powerful.

But most of all being told you cant have an opinion and your say doesn't matter because your "white male and privileged" Is not powerful. That, my fellow escapists is discrimination pure and simple.