Poll: Do you consider yourself a feminist?

[Unia]

Female, yes. The moment a potential employer starts to question me about plans to have kids I see red. There was a news article not long ago about a gynecologist outright telling a woman it would be high time to have kids. She was in to get a refill on her birth control prescription.

Would I be happier if men had to deal with this sort of flak? Maybe. I would prefer a society where personal decisions stay personal.

 

[NeutralDrow]

This ties into the affirmative action debate, though. In which case I'll point out that pro-women sexism certainly can lead to equality. It simply can't end up as equality if continued indefinitely; in other words, it works by forcing change on the status quo, but if it becomes the status quo, then you need to start re-evaluating. Like the Buddhists say, once the raft carries you across the river, you don't need the raft any more.

Ah, pro-woman sexism applied to affirmative action when women are at a disadvantage, yes, could lead to equality, in the manner you describe.

However, if the sexism is already pro-woman, one cannot rectify it solely by using pro-woman sexism.

For instance, a woman will receive a substantially lighter sentence than a man would when committing the same crime under the same circumstances. How could one apply pro-woman sexism to that situation to result in equality?

It couldn't.

Of course, without further information, I could speculate that the problem with that isn't the woman's punishment being too light, but the man's punishment being too harsh. Depends on the crime, naturally. And if one considers, say, poorer black society in America, where the problems afflicting black men related to jail time definitely can be considered a feminist issue, not to mention the dominant cultural ideal of "family structure" works against...sorry, lost my train of thought.

I haven't been paying attention to your particular argument (the first page made my head hurt, frankly, so I didn't see 2, 3, or 4), it's just something I noticed. Whether affirmative action works is another debate, but this just seemed a question of definition.

Yeah, I admit I do tend to write lots. :/

Eh? No, I meant reading the responses on the first page (especially all the inane "I support gender egalitarianism but feminism is badwrong by reason of guilt by association" posts EDIT: which still haven't stopped by page 6) led me to just respond to the OP without reading the rest of the thread. Not a slam against your writing. I was just trying to say I didn't read anything of yours but the one post, and wasn't trying to start another fight.

 

[AlphaLackey]

I personally would say no, I am not a Feminist, as Feminists tend to want -more- rights than men, with less responsibilities. See: Selective service registration

Until -everyone- has to register, I will still call the system biased against men.

.. and until feminists advocate for affirmative action to correct that inequality with the same vigor they advocate for affirmative action to correct other inequalities, they are not interested in true equality.

Incidentally, no less a feminist than Hilary Clinton once went on public record saying that women were the primary victims of war. As opposed to the war dead, 99%+ of which have been male, who got off lucky by merely dying, getting maimed or living a life of shell-shocked misery. Can you imagine a woman with that attitude as Commander in Chief of a massive military such as America has?

(full quote: "Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today's warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children." -- Hilary Clinton, San Salvador, El Salvador, 17 November 1998)

 

[NeutralDrow]

...wait a second.

(full quote: "Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today's warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children." -- Hilary Clinton, San Salvador, El Salvador, 17 November 1998)

And what exactly is wrong with that statement?

 

[b3nn3tt]

Good point, but then they're actually being judged on their suitability for the job, which is really how it should be anyway. The black agent isn't being denied a job because they're black, it's because they would absolutely not be right for the job. This is why I find it incredibly annoying whenever I hear a study of someone being denied a job, or something, and then playing some kind of 'I'm being discriminated against just because I'm X' card. No, you just aren't a good choice

Precisly, I have read (though I can't remember where so take this with a couple shakes of salt) that some sevices (fire department, paramedics, ect) were planning to lower the physical requrements for women.
That is to say that a man would be expected to be abe to lift an unconciouss person where a woman in the same position would not.
Now I can't confirm if there's any truth to this (or even if there is, if they scrapped it or not) but if it is true it makes me think that those in charge of those requirments are monkies, and not particularly well trained ones either.

When I hear stories like that, I like to imagine that it's just a single isolated case that the media blows out of proportion. That's a much nicer thought than imagining that it's actually the norm for standards to be lowered like that

I think that a bigger problem, and one that I think is actually far more commonm, is people being hired simply to fill quotas. This applies to women and people of varying races; employers are supposed to hire various amounts of people for their staff. This is awful, because it means that someone could be ideal for the job, but not get it because there's already enough people in that quota

 

[b3nn3tt]

Well one of the major reasons behind it is the fear that women will need maternity leave, a lot of women who actually get the high up positions have passed menopause or aren't married.

I haven't seen that indicated in any of the sources I've read but I can kind of see the logic there, that's one of those issues that really needs debate. I mean, it's a toss up between women's right to conceive and their responsibility to the employer and you can't steam roll that one way or another, it needs consideration and some kind of accord from both parties.

I've said in other threads of this nature, and I'll say it again here, that I think the best solution to this is to allow men the same time off work for paternity leave as women get for maternity leave. This means that men and women are equally likely to take time off for the birth of a child, and it has the added benefit that men will be able to properly bond with their child for the first year of its life, something that is currently quite difficult when they are out working all the time

 

[AlphaLackey]

It couldn't.

Of course, without further information, I could speculate that the problem with that isn't the woman's punishment being too light, but the man's punishment being too harsh. Depends on the crime, naturally. And if one considers, say, poorer black society in America, where the problems afflicting black men related to jail time definitely can be considered a feminist issue, not to mention the dominant cultural ideal of "family structure" works against...sorry, lost my train of thought.

At least you're providing one, and a cogent one at that, which is appreciated.

With regards to your speculation, let me give you a specific example:

In the case of Cameo Patch, a 29-year old female teacher charged with felony unlawful sexual conduct with a 16 or 17 year old, she could have received up to 10 years; instead, she was sentenced to no jail time. Judge Mark Kouris, in his sentencing notes, stated "If this was a 29-year-old male and a 17-year-old female, I would be inclined to order some incarceration."

.. now, it's pretty clear that this is pro-female leniency, based on the tired old "slut/stud dichotomy" (which I vehemently oppose, by the way). Could you imagine if this were a case of pro-male sexism, and the judge in question went on public record admitting being sexist? There would be dire political consequences for his actions. Instead.. nothing.

Until feminism seeks to address inequity such as this, it is not strictly a policy seeking equality.

Eh? No, I meant reading the responses on the first page (especially all the inane "I support gender egalitarianism but feminism is badwrong by reason of guilt by association" posts) led me to just respond to the OP without reading the rest of the thread. Not a slam against your writing.

Ooooh, I thought you meant pages 1-4 of my argument. My bad.

 

[AlphaLackey]

...wait a second.

(full quote: "Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today's warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children." -- Hilary Clinton, San Salvador, El Salvador, 17 November 1998)

And what exactly is wrong with that statement?

It is patently inaccurate? It is sexist in that it says a man dying is less of a tragedy than a woman living life as a widow?

This is not saying "women are untouched by the tragedy of war". It is saying that women are the primary victims of war. War affects them more as widows than it affects the men who get blown to smithereens or who come home fractured with shell-shock and missing their entrails.

If you really think that's the case, then let's stop letting men off so easy, and hold a few all-female drafts to correct this historical inequity.

I've said in other threads of this nature, and I'll say it again here, that I think the best solution to this is to allow men the same time off work for paternity leave as women get for maternity leave. This means that men and women are equally likely to take time off for the birth of a child, and it has the added benefit that men will be able to properly bond with their child for the first year of its life, something that is currently quite difficult when they are out working all the time

This is how it is in Canada, mostly; both parents get a combined 50 weeks between them, with the provision that the woman gets at least 15, which is because women bear the biological burden of birth, naturally. I have a very strong bond with my daughter because of this, in fact, as I was able to use that time to start my own business out of home while being able to be around my daughter during her formative years. So obviously, I approve of your idea

 

[NeutralDrow]

It couldn't.

Of course, without further information, I could speculate that the problem with that isn't the woman's punishment being too light, but the man's punishment being too harsh. Depends on the crime, naturally. And if one considers, say, poorer black society in America, where the problems afflicting black men related to jail time definitely can be considered a feminist issue, not to mention the dominant cultural ideal of "family structure" works against...sorry, lost my train of thought.

At least you're providing one, and a cogent one at that, which is appreciated.

With regards to your speculation, let me give you a specific example:

snip

Yeah, that does sound like a case where I'd actually argue that to be an ideal punishment (and 10 years incarceration for a man to be unduly harsh), assuming it's a simple case of consensual statutory...but I have odd priorities.

Until feminism seeks to address inequity such as this, it is not strictly a policy seeking equality.

Feminism does. Feminists often don't, sadly.

At least, western, liberal, white feminists most often don't.

...wait a second.

(full quote: "Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today's warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children." -- Hilary Clinton, San Salvador, El Salvador, 17 November 1998)

And what exactly is wrong with that statement?

It is patently inaccurate? It is sexist in that it says a man dying is less of a tragedy than a woman living life as a widow?

This is not saying "women are untouched by the tragedy of war". It is saying that women are the primary victims of war. War affects them more as widows than it affects the men who get blown to smithereens or who come home fractured with shell-shock and missing their entrails.

...yes? I'm pretty sure she's justified in focusing on civilians, who especially in the past century have been the most frequent victims of war. I hate to sound callous, but yes, a individual soldier is numerically less of a victim than the family they leave behind (at best being an emotional and economic loss, at worst being a liability)...and that's assuming the family they left behind hasn't been a target of attack, or become refugees in the meantime (and considering she's speaking in El Salvador, then rather recently out of a civil war with 75,000 total dead, four-fifths of whom were civilians...).

You might be justified in getting offended at the implications for drafted or press-ganged male soldiers, but getting offended at someone for calling attention to disproportionately female non-combatant victims of war because you believe they're insulting the soldiers who die in the fighting is, I'm pretty sure, altogether missing the point.

If you really think that's the case, then let's stop letting men off so easy, and hold a few all-female drafts to correct this historical inequity.

I guess making them soldiers will by definition stop them from being civilian casualties. Doesn't address the problem, though.

 

[Colour Scientist]

I voted no, mostly because trying to pretend like there are not unavoidable differences that should and can be dealt with respectfully, is out and out stupid.

It's very easy to shout for equality but that wouldn't actually be fair without accepting some of those differences.

Feminism doesn't necessarily mean that either, there are those, essentialists, who believe that their are ingrained, biological differences but that that there should still be equality.

Say, Margaret Thatcher, as an example. She provided a huge problem for this group because was more of a man that any male who was given power. The solution given for this, and it actually applies to a good proportion of women in power, was that in order to succeed in this type of society you have to abandon your femininity and act more like a man. But I stress I'm NOT BLAMING MEN for this.

Equality doesn't just mean equality in the eyes of the law, there's an entire set of discourse and ideals that reinforce the acceptance of gender stereotypes (both male and female) which needs to be changed.

 

[b3nn3tt]

I've said in other threads of this nature, and I'll say it again here, that I think the best solution to this is to allow men the same time off work for paternity leave as women get for maternity leave. This means that men and women are equally likely to take time off for the birth of a child, and it has the added benefit that men will be able to properly bond with their child for the first year of its life, something that is currently quite difficult when they are out working all the time

This is how it is in Canada, mostly; both parents get a combined 50 weeks between them, with the provision that the woman gets at least 15, which is because women bear the biological burden of birth, naturally. I have a very strong bond with my daughter because of this, in fact, as I was able to use that time to start my own business out of home while being able to be around my daughter during her formative years. So obviously, I approve of your idea

I quite like the idea of splitting the time off actually, I think that that could also be a perfectly viable option. Either way, it means that employers can't deny a woman a job because she might get pregnant, as pregnancy would also affect male employees as well

And I think that the bonding with a child should be the primary factor anyway. Attachment is formed very early in a child's life, and if men are at work throughout this period, they will have a far weaker bond with their child than the mother

 

[AlphaLackey]

Yeah, that does sound like a case where I'd actually argue that to be an ideal punishment (and 10 years incarceration for a man to be unduly harsh), assuming it's a simple case of consensual statutory...but I have odd priorities.

The thing that bugs

Until feminism seeks to address inequity such as this, it is not strictly a policy seeking equality.

Feminism does. Feminists often don't, sadly.

At least, western, liberal, white feminists most often don't.

That's a completely fair statement. I hope I've been clear: on a global scale, there is much work that needs to be done, and that focusing on elevating the status of women in nations where they are still seen as property is an entirely realistic idea. When I object to "feminism", I'm speaking of feminism in the modern, Western world, and when I object to "feminists", I specifically mean feminist political action groups such as the NOW and like-minded individuals.

If your notion of feminism is "women working for true equality", and that's how you work/act, who am I to quibble over nomenclature?

...wait a second.

...yes? I'm pretty sure she's justified in focusing on civilians, who especially in the past century have been the most frequent victims of war.

Have they? I would think the military deaths in World Wars I and II are greater than all civilian deaths in all the history of warfare. Especially World War I, which was fought almost entirely in trenches where they just kept pouring in bucket after bucket of young men. If you were to specify post-Vietnam warfare, I'd still want to see some numbers, but it wouldn't surprise me if you were correct.

You might be justified in getting offended at the implications for drafted or press-ganged male soldiers, but getting offended at someone for calling attention to disproportionately female non-combatant victims of war because you believe they're insulting the soldiers who die in the fighting is, I'm pretty sure, altogether missing the point.

"Women have always borne a heavy burden of war because of ABC" would qualify as drawing attention to the non-combatant victims. I would have absolutely zero problem whatsoever with that statement. But to specifically say that "women [as non-combatants] have always had it worse than men [as combatants]"? I mean, every November 11th, who do we honor? The soldiers that went off to die, or the spouses that stayed behind?

If you really think that's the case, then let's stop letting men off so easy, and hold a few all-female drafts to correct this historical inequity.

I guess making them soldiers will by definition stop them from being civilian casualties. Doesn't address the problem, though.

Admittedly, that's a "Modest Proposal" solution on my part. The idea is that, if it were an area where women were statistically underrepresented in a positive light, feminists would have absolutely no problem advocating for that drastic an affirmative action.

I mean, if due entirely to sexism, 20% of those eligible for a management position were women, and only 1% of those who got it were women, feminists would have no problem insisting on affirmative action until that 1% became 20% (well, probably would be 51%, but I'm giving them some benefit of the doubt).

Now, replace "a management position" with "the death penalty", and instead the NOW starts holding candlelight vigils for the women "eligible" for that "position", as they did with Andrea Yates.

 

[NeutralDrow]

Have they? I would think the military deaths in World Wars I and II are greater than all civilian deaths in all the history of warfare. Especially World War I, which was fought almost entirely in trenches where they just kept pouring in bucket after bucket of young men. If you were to specify post-Vietnam warfare, I'd still want to see some numbers, but it wouldn't surprise me if you were correct.

Nope. Combined death toll for both world wars is about 32 million military dead versus 39 million civilians (and that's using the lower projected brackets for both; it could be 35 million military versus 56 million civilians). Most of that comes from World War 2, admittedly, with between 22 and 25 million military dead versus between 32 and 49 million civilians (with WWI, it was roughly 10 million versus 7 million).

I'd almost say that more civilian dead in those wars than total dead from all wars beforehand put together...but the Mongols killed an asston of people, so I'm not sure.

"Women have always borne a heavy burden of war because of ABC" would qualify as drawing attention to the non-combatant victims. I would have absolutely zero problem whatsoever with that statement. But to specifically say that "women [as non-combatants] have always had it worse than men [as combatants]"? I mean, every November 11th, who do we honor? The soldiers that went off to die, or the spouses that stayed behind?

I still don't see how you reached that interpretation, but at least I see what interpretation you reached. That makes more sense, now.

 

[AlphaLackey]

Nope. Combined death toll for both world wars is about 32 million military dead versus 39 million civilians (and that's using the lower projected brackets for both; it could be 35 million military versus 56 million civilians). Most of that comes from World War 2, admittedly, with between 22 and 25 million military dead versus between 32 and 49 million civilians (with WWI, it was roughly 10 million versus 7 million).

I stand corrected. It doesn't surprise me to see World War II being so skewed towards the non-combatants, given the intense fire-bombing of cities and the horrors of the concentration camps.

I'd almost say that more civilian dead in those wars than total dead from all wars beforehand put together...but the Mongols killed an asston of people, so I'm not sure.

Once we start going THAT far back, I would hope we'd see some normalization for the total world population, which was substantially smaller back then -- of course, we would also need to consider the much greater brutality on non-combatants, especially females, although the casual way Homer discusses dashing the male infants on the rocks (to ensure the end of the bloodline) during the sacking of Troy is especially chilling.

I still don't see how you reached that interpretation, but at least I see what interpretation you reached. That makes more sense, now.

It's really the combination of two things: the use of the word "primary" (as in, greater) and the implication that all non-combatants were women. Certainly the majority were, but nowhere near as great a majority as the 99.9%+ majority of male combatants. Some feminists will casually group women and children together in such situations, and yes, based on the figures you've provided, there is at least a reasonable argument that non-combatants suffer a heavier burden than combatants, but of course a division strictly on gender lines (as Hillary Clinton has done) I still hold to be inaccurate.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Now, I want to clarify feminism is not an general term. Many people see it as a negative term to descibe angry women who hate men but in a vast majority of cases this is not so. The word has become so associated with "man hating" and bra burning that even most women will shy away from the label.

Hells yes I am a feminist!

And to those of you who think that means I'm a bra-burning man-hater, really, have you seen me in other threads? I am a proponent of casual sex, kinky sex, sexy outfits (usually involving a bra), and hot sexy fun with all genders.

Feminism is about equal rights. If you think women are currently equal to men in society, you are wrong. We are STILL trying to get those rights that men take for granted every day. Do the laws say we're equal? Sure. Do people treat us that way? No. Feminism means that we want to be treated as if we are equal with men. Not better than - equal to.

Or, to put it another way...

I want to have the right to be a US Marine, and if I choose to become a Marine, to be given the same rights and risks as male marines are. The same goes if I want to be a video game designer, a physicist, or a stay-at-home mom.

I want the right to choose without anyone - male or female - telling me I'm not supposed to do what I choose to do with my life.

And yes, I want the right to be a stay at home mom IF I CHOOSE, and not be ridiculed for it. Feminism is about rights and freedom, not specific lifestyle choices.

I don't burn bras - I buy my bras from Victoria's Secret. In fact, I support the new Wonder Woman's "Boobalicious Duds," as the Escapist put it, because the right to wear sexy clothes (like bras) it in and of itself empowering. It will only be pandering or sexist if the writing on the show turns out to suck... but I digress.

I'm a feminist, and proud of it.