The Myth of the Angry Feminist

[Gigano]

One have to wonder just why they'd adopt a term that limits the struggle for equal recognition of worth and rights to take place along the line of gender.

Surely non-discrimination along lines of race or sexuality are equally important, so why would any woman use a term that signal that she's merely concerned what discrimination afflict her and her womanly brethren, rather than commit completely and utterly to the cause of acceptance of all harmless plurality?

Just saying you want equality for a particular group - which you belong to - is a bit too limited in scope for my taste.

 

[funguy2121]

snipped

Nailed it. I should take a writing course from you. I don't ever see a thread on here that even mentions women's place in society/games/anything wherein a healthy helpin' of hate isn't heaped upon all things vaginal.

 

[kouriichi]

You know what the truth really is?
Women want to be treated the equally, but differently.

I have no bad blood with females, or feminists. But there are times when i just cant stand them.

If you find me sexist, im sorry, but i believe what Ive been been subject too.

Tasteless example:

If your a guy, you can make a joke about his d*ck being tiny. He will laugh it off, and say something insulting back. If you say something about a womans vagina being loose, your going to be sued for sexual harassment. ((end tasteless example))

Theres a double standard in place that you can never get around.

"You cant hit a women". Why? They want to be treated equally. Doesn't that mean i can slug one in the jaw like any man? ((not that i ever would))
"You cant say that to a woman". Why? I can say that to a man.
"You cant ask a woman that". I can ask a man that. ((Seriously. Whats the big deal about how much you weight?))

I have no problem with women wanting to be equal. In fact, i all for it. I think its great they want to move society forward as a whole.

But that means they're going to have to give up benefits. Im not going to hold the door open for a woman, because i wouldn't do it for a man. If she complains about it, to bad. Your equal. No special rules.

 

[Korolev]

Women have had a hard time for most of humanity's history - hell, Women only got the right to vote after World War I in the US. In Switzerland, they only got the right to vote during the 60's-70's (no joke, look it up). For decades, during the 40's and the 50's, a man could involuntarily commit his wife to a nut-house simply because she refused to do what he said (again, no joke, look it up!).

The fact that women are human and thus, deserved to be treated as humans, is actually a very recent thing, even in the West. During the 40's, in the USA no less, it was actually considered illegal for a married women to work - as a result, a lot of wives and husbands pretended to be unmarried.

You read up about the harsh lives most women have had, even ones alive today, and it's not at all odd that some feminists would go a little off the rails at some points - women have been horribly oppressed for most of history.

Imagine if someone told you that you couldn't work in this job, simply because of your sex. Or that you couldn't go to school. Or that you couldn't act on your dreams or hopes or ideals, or leave a bad relationship, merely because you had two X chromosomes instead of an X and a Y Chromosome.

There are a few feminist who are a little... unhinged. In particular I remember a feminist who stated that "E = MC^2" was a "sexist" equation because apparently the speed of light was masculine - I'm not making that up. Her name was Luce Irigaray, and she was one of the craziest philosophers who ever lived.

Look - sexism is a major part of society. You'd be a fool not to see that. And those who do genuinely fight for equal rights (which is the vast majority of feminists) have my utter respect, and are far better people than I could ever be.

But there are a few feminist who give the majority a bad name - you know the types I'm talking about. The academic revolutionary types who, instead of actually doing meaningful work like campaigning for better working rights for women and improved conditions and sexual freedom, instead go the easy route and pick apart fairy tales for "sexist language", as if that would make a real bit of difference. In my opinion the few bad feminists are the ones who don't actually want to do any genuine, hard, thankless work, and instead focus more on making big splashes in academic circles with rather nutty, slightly far-fetched claims of sexism - like claiming that Physics was sexist because fluid dynamics was poorly understood (the implication being that somehow fluidity had feminine qualities, which is a bit batty).

But I stress that they do not make up the majority and the feminist movement has moved far away from that time. The most radical feminists were a product of the 60's and 70's, where women's rights were just coming into being and many women were very justifiably bitter about the way they were treated. But those days are over, and even in their hey-day, the crazy feminists were an extremely small minority who gained attention only because of how crazy they were. Do not smear the name of feminism with the actions of a very few bad apples.

 

[Harker067]

"hairy legged, angry, man-hating lesbian."

1. Hairy Legged. There is nothing wrong with having hairy legs.
2. Angry. If you aren't angry, then you aren't paying attention. This ties into the assertion some are making that women are equal so we no longer need feminism. Sadly, women aren't equal. I could go on in detail about it, but it would take too much time. Society is better off for women than it was in 1965...but we all still have a long way to go.
3. Man-hating. I went to a women's college and there were a lot of lesbians. Some of the male graduate students would claim these lesbians were man-hating. News flash: Not being interested in sleeping with you does not equal man-hating. The feminists I knew? Not man-hating. Sometimes man-indifferent, but not man-hating. On the other hand, the non-feminist heterosexual women I was in the Army with? The ones who were regularly dating guys that treated them like crap? They hated men. A lot.
4. Lesbian. Most feminists aren't lesbian. And if we go back to the second wave, the feminist power structure of NOW marginalized and disrespected lesbians.

I just want to add to your point 2 as I like your points.

I think being passionately opposed to something is often characterized as you being angry.

In fact just look at this post >.> are people here angry or passionate about their point of view?

 

[The Small Cheese]

I think it's sort of like religion. I mean, I know a bunch of Christians and most of them are good upstanding people. But there are a handful that are just straight up insane and should probably be put in a nice padded room for their safety as well as that of others. Basically the same for Feminism as far as I've seen (through interactions). Most of them are basically good upstanding people who are just asking for something completely reasonable, but then you get that same handful who are just insane.

In short, there are always extremists in every group who colour the perception of the others who view the group from the outside.

I couldn't put it better myself; I was mentally drawing the same parallels as you. The extremists are almost always given more attention than the moderates (read: those who actually try to improve the world with their view)

The only issue that feminism raises is that it helps females and only females. When women/womyn/girls were openly discriminated against, it was more than necessary to have that distinction, but nowadays, most develloped nations only have sexism as an unconscious subtext (which certainly should be defeated).

The idea of exclusively helping one group gives rise to the "Us vs. Them" mentality, which distances the diverse nature of society. In my humble opinion, the accentuation of the differences, disagreements, and the viewing of others as "with us or against us" using the Us VS Them mentality is the real cause of most political, patriotic, and religious evils of the past and present.

To answer SuperMse's post, I'm certain we can accept that most feminists subscribe to the Christina Hoff Sommers style of feminism, that is, it is possible to support womens/womyns rights without hatred of men. It is simply more profitable for the media to show those who do hate men. In this sense, feminism is similar to religion and politics; the bad are shown more often than the good.

 

[Light 086]

So no, as far as I can see, Women lead better lives than men. What with them not killing themselves, making better lifestyle choices, having less mental illness, better health, being paid less because they work in better conditions and the whole "not being labelled as sex offenders" thing.

Reading this and thinking back, I can't help but remember that I was passed for a raise in a company in which I worked for about 2.5 yrs. A guy who has the same position as me and has been there for 8 months, gets paid more than me. Yet when they are short people I always get called in on mandatory overtime while he doesn't. So where the hell do you get that we live better lives?

As for lifestyle choices and suicide/murder (whichever you meant), that depends on the person not gender. Women kill and commit suicide as well as men. As for the less pay and easy job, that is bullshit as I've already explained. I do more work, have longer hours, and still get paid less than the other guy.

 

[Continuity]

snip..

Seriously, and please believe me I'm not trying to troll when I say this, every feminist I have ever heard discuss feminism or have discussed feminism with myself has come across as at least slightly angry, slightly crazy, usually lesbian/butch (but certainly not always), and always always always wanting more rights than men in some way.

N.B. I'm referring strictly to my own experience here, which includes politicians, radio 4 (women's hour... Seriously, men don't get a men's hour, this almost proves my point right off the bat) , and internet forums. So I'm not making a blanket statement about all feminists, only all feminists in my personal experience.

If I could pack anyone on earth into a rocket and fire them into the sun it would be Harriet Harman...

 

[Korolev]

You see there are two types of feminists:

The vast majority are those who want, simply, a better deal. An equal deal. Where a women will be respected for her work, where a capable women will be paid just as much as a capable man (and no, the salaries are not equal, and never have been), where a women will have the right to determine who she lives with and how she lives. Where a women will get a fair deal in court, and won't have to feel like a second class citizen, and live the life she wants, for herself. These types of feminists (which include men, since men can be feminist), make up the vast, vast, vast majority of feminists. I would say they make up 95% of all feminists, and they are just the sort of people we need to make the world a better place.

But then there's the other 5% - the unhinged types who see sexism literally in every single aspect of society. EVERY ASPECT. Even in maths - not the hiring practices of mathematical institutions (which are actually sexist), but in the basic theory of mathematics itself. You know like how equations are "masculine" because apparently they equate masculinity with "right and wrong", and in a feminist world, maths would have no right and wrong, but instead be more tolerant or some other such bollocks. These types of feminists are closely linked with the radical communists of the 60's, who saw all aspects of "Western" culture to be evil and destined to be overthrown. For all their talk of how "black/white" views were sexist, they themselves saw the world in completely black/white terms: That the current society was sexist in every way and needed to be completely re-worked in every aspect, that there were ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCES AT ALL between men and women except in the reproductive department, and that absolutely EVERY SINGLE aspect of human behaviour WAS TOTALLY UTTERLY AND ONLY caused by society, and thus, all of society was sexist. I stress, again and again, that these people were a minority. They got attention simply due to volume and provocative statements. They NEVER spoke for the majority of feminists during their time, and they definitely don't now-a-days. No feminist these days would call E=MC^2 a sexist equation, because, frankly, they'd be rightfully laughed out of the room, by other feminists themselves.

As for the whole "man-hating" thing - there were a few feminists who thought that the way sex was practised was a part of the "male culture" and thus, sex itself was sexist and that all men were sexist. I stress that these people were in the minority then and are now. There are two camps of feminism (and I am aware that I am vastly oversimplifying things): Sex positive feminists and Sex Negative Feminists. Sex positive feminists are the ones who believe that an individual woman has the right to live out her sex life in the way she wants, and that if a woman wants to have a lot of sex, it's her right to want that and she shouldn't feel ashamed. She has the right to wear what she wants. Sex-positive feminists aren't advocating that all women have a lot of sex, but only that if a woman WANTS TO, SHE SHOULD HAVE THE CHOICE. Sex-positive feminists recognize that some women really like sex and should have that as a positive part of their lives if that's what they want. All they ask is that the social stigma of sleeping with multiple men be erased in the same way that men who sleep with a lot of women don't have a stigma attached to them. I like sex-positive feminists. They are libertarian at heart.

Then you've got the Sex-Negative Feminists. I typically don't like these people. They are the over-bearing fussy types who believe they have a right to tell women how to live their lives, they believe that they are the ones who will "open the eyes" of their fellow women. How they can call themselves feminists when they look down on so many of their fellow women puzzles me greatly. These are the types who are more inclined to see sexism at the very fundamental level of absolutely all of societies activities.

But I stress that both camps really only want one thing: Equality. Yes, there are misandrists in the feminist movement, but they are small. There are a LOT MORE misogynists in the "Men's Right's" camp, which seems to be to be populated mostly by whinging cry-babies who don't like the fact that their wives or girlfriend's left them, or that their daughter will not obey their command.

 

[Escapefromwhatever]

I can't respond to everyone, so I'm just going to put up a few notes:

There are many types of feminists- liberal feminists, feminist historians, ecofeminists, even feminist bioethicists. So while the basics of it is still equality, arguing that my definition of feminism is wrong is uninformed. There are multiple types of feminism each with its own definition of the movement. It has evolved. That is also why it is still called feminism even if it is not always about women anymore- it stemmed from the feminist frame of mind. So those people who are arguing for it to be called "equalism," you're really just describing what many modern feminists follow and putting a fancy new name on it. Personally, I think that wanting to honor the movement's history by calling it feminism isn't that big of a deal. It's just semantics at this point. It's not a proper impetus to label feminists as feminazis, even if there are a few people who act in that way. This type of comparison reminds me a lot of Glenn Beck. In this way, I'm going to defend the viewpoint that the "angry feminist" is a myth, because it portrays all or nearly all feminists as acting in that way. Though there may be a few that do, they're not the best sample by which to measure the movement as a whole. In reality, people like Lisa Foiles, Greg Tito, or Bob Chipman are just as likely to be feminists (sorry for using you as examples, guys. You're just a diverse group that I can reference and have people know what I'm talking about) as that aggressive caricature of a lesbian one may have seen on Family Guy or South Park (Flame shield up: I'm a fan of South Park, but admittedly not Family Guy).

Also, women still aren't equal to men. They still face sexual harassment, a higher chance to get raped, lower pay, and more. There is still a reason for feminism to exist, if only to make women and men equal in the face of the law, at least. And feminism is not about raising women like men. Concerning only the feminist focus on women, rather than it's more humanist groups, it is about letting women be who they want to be, even if they wish to follow the old stereotypes, without being harassed for doing so. It is about making them socially and legally equal so that they can do whatever they wish.

EDIT: after re-reading this post, I just realized that it can be misinterpreted as being anti-lesbian. I myself am actually bisexual and am currently dating another woman. By "angry caricature of a lesbian," I mean the typical man-hating "dyke" stereotype. There are many types of lesbians, so not only is that a bad portrayal of lesbians, but even women who would fall into that stereotype usually don't hate men.

 

[Korolev]

You see there are two types of feminists:

The vast majority are those who want, simply, a better deal. An equal deal. Where a women will be respected for her work, where a capable women will be paid just as much as a capable man (and no, the salaries are not equal, and never have been), where a women will have the right to determine who she lives with and how she lives. Where a women will get a fair deal in court, and won't have to feel like a second class citizen, and live the life she wants, for herself. These types of feminists (which include men, since men can be feminist), make up the vast, vast, vast majority of feminists. I would say they make up 95% of all feminists, and they are just the sort of people we need to make the world a better place.

But then there's the other 5% - the unhinged types who see sexism literally in every single aspect of society. EVERY ASPECT. Even in maths - not the hiring practices of mathematical institutions (which are actually sexist), but in the basic theory of mathematics itself. You know like how equations are "masculine" because apparently they equate masculinity with "right and wrong", and in a feminist world, maths would have no right and wrong, but instead be more tolerant or some other such bollocks. These types of feminists are closely linked with the radical communists of the 60's, who saw all aspects of "Western" culture to be evil and destined to be overthrown. For all their talk of how "black/white" views were sexist, they themselves saw the world in completely black/white terms: That the current society was sexist in every way and needed to be completely re-worked in every aspect, that there were ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCES AT ALL between men and women except in the reproductive department, and that absolutely EVERY SINGLE aspect of human behaviour WAS TOTALLY UTTERLY AND ONLY caused by society, and thus, all of society was sexist. I stress, again and again, that these people were a minority. They got attention simply due to volume and provocative statements. They NEVER spoke for the majority of feminists during their time, and they definitely don't now-a-days. No feminist these days would call E=MC^2 a sexist equation, because, frankly, they'd be rightfully laughed out of the room, by other feminists themselves.

As for the whole "man-hating" thing - there were a few feminists who thought that the way sex was practised was a part of the "male culture" and thus, sex itself was sexist and that all men were sexist. I stress that these people were in the minority then and are now. There are two camps of feminism (and I am aware that I am vastly oversimplifying things): Sex positive feminists and Sex Negative Feminists. Sex positive feminists are the ones who believe that an individual woman has the right to live out her sex life in the way she wants, and that if a woman wants to have a lot of sex, it's her right to want that and she shouldn't feel ashamed. She has the right to wear what she wants. Sex-positive feminists aren't advocating that all women have a lot of sex, but only that if a woman WANTS TO, SHE SHOULD HAVE THE CHOICE. Sex-positive feminists recognize that some women really like sex and should have that as a positive part of their lives if that's what they want. All they ask is that the social stigma of sleeping with multiple men be erased in the same way that men who sleep with a lot of women don't have a stigma attached to them. I like sex-positive feminists. They are libertarian at heart.

Then you've got the Sex-Negative Feminists. I typically don't like these people. They are the over-bearing fussy types who believe they have a right to tell women how to live their lives, they believe that they are the ones who will "open the eyes" of their fellow women. How they can call themselves feminists when they look down on so many of their fellow women puzzles me greatly. These are the types who are more inclined to see sexism at the very fundamental level of absolutely all of societies activities.

But I stress that both camps really only want one thing: Equality. Yes, there are misandrists in the feminist movement, but they are small. There are a LOT MORE misogynists in the "Men's Right's" camp, which seems to be to be populated mostly by whinging cry-babies who don't like the fact that their wives or girlfriend's left them, or that their daughter will not obey their command.

 

[Flatfrog]

Just saying you want equality for a particular group - which you belong to - is a bit too limited in scope for my taste.

Lots of people have been saying this kind of thing, and it's just silly. Obviously any feminist is likely to also be in favour of racial equality and against any kind of discrimination. That just happens not to be the thing they specialise in campaigning about.

I think feminism does have a specific issue which makes it different from these other campaigns, though: most other civil liberties issues are to do with the treatment of minorities. Sexism isn't about that, and this gives it a slightly different flavour. It's also built into the culture more deeply and insidiously than racism - and I know that people from the US might disagree, but this little bit of simple satire (that I've linked to before) might give you pause for thought on that score.

[link]http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/purity.html[/link]

 

[Esseff]

Some of you are fucked up.

I think fundamentally we can agree that things between men and women are not equal, but it's different all over the globe - some women have it MORE equal than other women. It leaves a lot to be desired.

If you're one of the people saying "boy, women have it hard /sarcasm" you need to step outside for a few hours. Things everywhere are far from perfect... but instead of taking the position of "you think you have it tough, I have it worse" we should be looking for ways to make improvements on each, no?

 

[jamesworkshop]

Alright, guys, I was just looking at this thread [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.270981-Poll-Do-you-consider-yourself-a-feminist], and I'm about to go Super Saiyan as a result. There are tons of people questioning the OP's definition of feminism and further perpetrating that feminists are angry, crazy women who want more rights than men.

This is contradictory to the core values of feminism. Feminism, at a basic level, is and has always been about EQUALITY between men and women. It was prompted by women feeling left out when men had more rights than them- i.e. right to vote, right to own property, right to be an individual citizen as a daughter or in marriage, etc. Just read Mary Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Women and you'll know what I'm talking about. But another aspect of feminism, especially more recently, has been the liberation of men from gender expectations as well as pushing for equal rights for any group that is departmentalized against, with the logic that if they are not helped, then women will not receive aid either. In this way, it has taken a much more humanist approach. Every single feminist I have met, and I have met a few unsavory feminists, has gone by this philosophy, and has never believed that women should have more rights than men. Do you really have so much daily interaction with feminists that you can claim otherwise, or just a few flimsy anecdotes? Have you ever actually studied feminist theory? Please stop going by a tired old stereotype perpetrated by the media and actually look at the feminist movement as a whole before you judge it. At least give it the courtesy of a Google search [http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Feminism].

1792
A Vindication of the Rights of Women

1792 come on you can't just ignore 220 years of writting from many more feminists than just a single one thats been dead and burried for so long nothing in the orginal work even exists in law or culture of our times.
Feminist books from the 70's are so out of date already to be largely worthless and tons of living feminist writter don't agree on any of the specifics.

Feminism as a movement is soo polarised they are about 4 basic schools of feminist thought
Liberal feminism
Socialist/Marxist Feminism
Multicultural/Women-of-Color Feminism
Radical Feminism

 

[zaly]

I agree with what other people have brought up - that I agree with the "supposed" definition of feminism - that men and women should be treated equally. I also agree with what people are suggesting that feminism probably shouldn't be called feminism if only to clarify its true meaning.
The problem I have with "feminism" is that some peoples idea of feminism isnt equality for men and women, but that women are better than men, and should get the advantages that men get, but not the disadvantages, and also not give up the advantages to being a woman.
Take this example: I've heard cases of companies boardrooms (even political cabinets) being accused of sexism because there are no women getting the jobs. And in these cases they've been pressured to automatically give one of the jobs to a woman, regardless of whether or not that in a male dominated industry, they are the best person qualified for the job. (I do agree that if the woman was the better qualified and a better person for the job - then yes of course she should get the job)
Isn't this the opposite of what feminism should be? A woman automatically getting a position simply to have a "token female" is what feminism should be fighting against! Shouldn't the best people for the job get the job - regardless of gender?
This does mean that in areas where there simply isn't as many women in particular fields(e.g. politicians) - that the entire top level of important people (I'm sure theres a proper name for them ) - may end up being male. And in other fields, there will be companies made entirely of women, because they are the best qualified for the jobs.
So yes - I agree men and women should be treated equal - but equal has to actually mean equal- you can't have it both ways.
I'll stop now I appear to have gone on a bit - also looking back I'm not even sure my example has anything to do with my initial point - but its an example nonetheless

 

[Korolev]

Oh jeez - sorry for the double post.

I would just like to sign off by talking about the sexism that I have personally seen (not experienced, because I am male). I grew up in quite a few different countries - Western, Asian and even a Muslim-Majority nation (malaysia). And I have to say that while women's rights are better in the West, that's only a very recent thing and in reality, there's a lot of sexism still in Western society.

Case in Point:

1) A man sleeps with a lot of women. He is seen as a rich playboy living "da dream". A women sleeps with a lot of men - she is seen as a slut, an evil man-using prostitute. Double-standards much, eh? This idea that sex somehow "pollutes" a women is sexist - it's telling a woman, "NO, you CAN'T live the way you want to, you CAN'T have an active sex life".

2) Violence against women occurs much more frequently than violence against men (done by women). Not only that, for a good while most of society never had a problem with it. A woman would be seen with a black eye and it was just assumed that she deserved it. That wasn't right. And in many cultures that is still seen as justified and perfectly acceptable.

3) Women can't fight on the frontlines in a war. I admit that in the olden days of yore, when fighting was done by burly men with burly swords, that kinda made sense. But in the age of the gun, the attack helicopter, computer controlled missiles and bombs, it doesn't make sense. A woman can hold a gun and shoot just as well as a man. During the Soviet Union's War with Nazi Germany, women fought a LOT, sometimes in the harshest battles. If they could hold their own THEN (and the Germany soldiers actually were quite fearful of the female Red Army soldiers), then they can hold their own now-a-days, what with our fancy digital weapons. Haven't you see that famous image of soviet soldiers raising the Soviet Flag over the burned out remains of the Reichstag? One of those soldiers in the picture was a woman. It is sexist to assume that women need "protection". If a woman wants to fight in front-line combat, I feel she should be given the chance.

4) There is still a lack of women in politics - you know this to be true. Many men still just can't bring themselves to vote for or work under a women. I've had many men privately tell me this. They claim they aren't sexist, but their actions prove otherwise.

Feminism CAN go off the rails, just like any philosophy. But just as the few nut-bag Libertarians who want to bomb federal buildings in the name of "state's-rights" don't invalidate libertarianism as a philosophy, the few nut-bag feminists (both male and female) don't invalidate feminism.

And remember - if there is a backlash, it's kind of our fault. Oppression results in anger, naturally.

 

[Continuity]

Also, women still aren't equal to men. They still face sexual harassment, a higher chance to get raped, lower pay, and more. There is still a reason for feminism to exist, if only to make women and men equal in the face of the law, at least. And feminism is not about raising women like men. Concerning only the feminist focus on women, rather than it's more humanist groups, it is about letting women be who they want to be, even if they wish to follow the old stereotypes, without being harassed for doing so. It is about making them socially and legally equal so that they can do whatever they wish.

News flash: women are not equal to men, they are different in fundamental ways. Now i'm not making any sort of value judgement when I say that but you have to be very careful when you throw around statements like "women still aren't equal to men".

Sexual harassment and a higher chance to be raped... do you seriously think this is something that can be fixed by social engineering? Men (not all obviously) rape women, men sexually harass women, these are (lamentable admittedly) hard coded facts of our species:- They will never change.

Lower pay? This is the real myth. People get paid according to their merits, men are often more confident and authoritative, that is a merit!! Also women often take career breaks etc for children, this is going to skew the stats. Its perfectly right that women should end up being paid less if they work less... all that time they're not at work they're not contributing to their company and they're not acquiring work skills.

 

[Kebabco]

Feminism in its modern form stand for female privilege, not equality. Hell, it even has the word of the privileged party in its name ffs!!! Also female privilege in our current society is quite extensive with all the government agencies promoting female wellfare, judge's leniency in sentencing females and the way reduces government benefits men get because they live less long.

 

[Eldarion]

Oh jeez - sorry for the double post.

I would just like to sign off by talking about the sexism that I have personally seen (not experienced, because I am male).

Guys experience sexism too dude. It kinda throws off your entire argument about equality by not acknowledging that. There is a societal pressure on guys to be masculine. Guys that display feminine qualities are often mercilessly made fun of. Try cross dressing sometime. Then tell me sexism doesn't go both ways.

1) A man sleeps with a lot of women. He is seen as a rich playboy living "da dream". A women sleeps with a lot of men - she is seen as a slut, an evil man-using prostitute. Double-standards much, eh? This idea that sex somehow "pollutes" a women is sexist - it's telling a woman, "NO, you CAN'T live the way you want to, you CAN'T have an active sex life".

This one is correct as far as I can tell, its a double standard that needs to go.

2) Violence against women occurs much more frequently than violence against men (done by women). Not only that, for a good while most of society never had a problem with it. A woman would be seen with a black eye and it was just assumed that she deserved it. That wasn't right. And in many cultures that is still seen as justified and perfectly acceptable.

I think your making a gross over-generalization here. Most people I know certainly aren't like that.

3) Women can't fight on the frontlines in a war. I admit that in the olden days of yore, when fighting was done by burly men with burly swords, that kinda made sense. But in the age of the gun, the attack helicopter, computer controlled missiles and bombs, it doesn't make sense. A woman can hold a gun and shoot just as well as a man. During the Soviet Union's War with Nazi Germany, women fought a LOT, sometimes in the harshest battles. If they could hold their own THEN (and the Germany soldiers actually were quite fearful of the female Red Army soldiers), then they can hold their own now-a-days, what with our fancy digital weapons. Haven't you see that famous image of soviet soldiers raising the Soviet Flag over the burned out remains of the Reichstag? One of those soldiers in the picture was a woman. It is sexist to assume that women need "protection". If a woman wants to fight in front-line combat, I feel she should be given the chance.

I agree, a woman should be allowed to serve in the military, but only if she can meet the same physical requirements as the male soldiers. I lived on military bases most of my life, there is a lot more to warfare than you seem to think. There is still rigorous physical activity that one must be conditioned for.



I'm enjoying the topic to be quite honest.