| (Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) | |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1427 Joined: 1 Jul 2009     | |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1816 Joined: 20 Nov 2008     |
Because we're talking about comparing individual people, not averages. No one disputes that men, on average, are better than women at certain things, and vice versa. That's utterly irrelevant, however, when we're comparing individual people. All that matters then is that person's particular abilities, not the probability distribution across their entire gender.
I agree, but trying to push all men (or all women) into the same mold is every bit as daft. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 2217 Joined: 28 Nov 2007     | I think the problem is that like with racial politics people tend to confuse "equality" with "prosperity". Having the same doors potentially open and nobody holding you back is equality. However people feel that it's not equality unless you see as many, or even more people of a given race/gender/creed/culture in positions of power, control, and authority as any other group. I say "more" because when you get down to it a lot of equal rights movements also seem to embrace an attitude that more power than the other groups is nessicary to repair disparities caused from a time period before equality existed. The problem I have with feminism, and various "minority rights" movements is that equality exists, but the people involved oftentimes do not want to embrace those oppertunities. Also prosperity is an issue as to say a feminist being "equal" ofentimes is them actually trying to say "being in charge". All things being equal the vast majority of any group is going to wind up being a normal "go nowhere" cog in the machine. That's life. That's where most people wind up even without anyone holding them back. Plus if you consider that the big "real" civil liberties victories were in like the 1960s it's been less than 50 years, with the current lifespans that isn't very long socially speaking. One problem with ANY social revolution is that people tend to think that once they "win" things are going to change radically and instant prosperity is going to fall intot he hands of the victors. That is not the case. All a social revolution does typically is open (or close) doors. Right now I see a problem with modern feminism being that women believe they should be able to have everything, without sacrificing anything to get it. While at the same time griping at men and claiming they should sacrifice a lot of their fundemental "masculine" identity for their benefit. Basically the other side should give something up, so I don't have to. I for one disagree with the entire modern "meterosexual" movement even if others do not. A good example of this is that women for example think they should be able to succeed without having to give up fundemental parts of the female identity like bearing and raising children. Demanding specific benefits and the linke, and railing against companies that don't bend over backwards to accomodate such things. Sure women could choose NOT to have children (we aren't animals who can't control our own sexual impulses) but feel they shouldn't have to, since it's part of the fundemental female identity. At the same time they are however quick to say that men should be willing to sacrifice a lot of their defining characteristics and identity for their benefit. In general I think we've got a pretty fair compromise going on right now. Women can pretty much go as far as men, but that DOES oftentimes mean having to make desicians at a certain point like not having children. It's their choice, and one they can ultimatly make. Guys can go as far as they have previously, but likewise in order to function HAVE wound up having to sacrifice a lot of dominant machismo due to sexual harassment policies and such. I don't think men should have to give up any more really (so to speak), and women should realize that part of being equal does mean sometimes having to make sacrifices. The choice between career or family might not be a "nice" one, but I don't think it's all that unfair since guys have to settle down into a rut pretty solidly too if they want to reach the top. A lot of guys operating at a high level can't exactly take the time to be good fathers either, which has been a problem for a VERY long time. The career or family choice has been part of the human experience on all levels for a very long time. Very few people truely get to "have it all" and represent an exception rather than the rule. Basically I think "Gender wars" like most conflicts over "Racism" exist mostly for political reasons. In reality there aren't many issues unless people tend to create them, and in a century or so I imagine things will settle down a lot. I mean cripes, it's only been 50 years nobody should have expected an instant utopia for any group. As far as "male feminists" go, they do exist. You'll find the occasional book and such talking about the historical benefits of matriarchal societies and such. It's just that you don't see that many people agreeing with them. Plus let's be honest, there are plenty of guys who are into the whole gender submission thing and come home to get dragged around on leashes or whatever. No it's not mainstream, but they are out there... and truthfully given how things are pretty well balanced right now, this is probably a good thing. If you saw this kind of thing become more common (in any context) you'd wind up with sexism, just in the opposite direction which would be just as wrong. The Drow might be fun to read about in D&D, for example, but I don't think many sane people would find that an appealing way to live. :P |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1046 Joined: 3 Mar 2009    |
Sorry, but neither I nor my dictionary know what "blanko" means. Can you explain, please? Just because I'm curious, can I ask you some specific examples for gender roles you think need to be maintained? |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1427 Joined: 1 Jul 2009 |
That's a language fail on my part, "blanko" as in blanc, without substance. As for the gender roles, it seems I was ninja'd:
Actually, the "feminist man of the year" award was given to a man who wrote a book about domestic violence. He based his book on a study that quite clearly stated women are more likely to use physical violence in a relationship than men. However the book that won him the award said "90 of all domestic violence in the western world is committed by men". I found that rather... odd, having read the original study. He was given the prize by Finland's green party's women. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1046 Joined: 3 Mar 2009 |
It's certainly not without substance. Just because some people are there and loud doesn't mean they represent the majority view or even close. The Westboro Baptist church gets more attention in the US/UK media (or this forum) than the Eastern Orthodox Church, but the former has (I think) under 200 congregationalists and the latter over 200 million. I know who I think better represents Christianity. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1427 Joined: 1 Jul 2009 |
Looking at the numbers is odd there. There are most certainly less than 200 million feminists who speak out, and certainly more than 200 angry tank feminists. I of course speak from a society that breeds angry feminists, we have a bit too many of them here. They even managed to sack the ceo of Audi Finland because of what he said in an interview. |
Pulitzer Laureate  Posts: 996 Joined: 21 Feb 2009     | I would argue the very word feminist is harmful to the cause, as it implies female dominance, in my mind's ear. I prefer mutual co-operation. I'm sure others would agree, unconsciously or otherwise. An 'equalist' movement, however is just super, but i don't want to have to give up stuff just because of the past I had no control over. |
Red Guard  Posts: 5253 Joined: 14 Oct 2007   |
Which is why you dissolve the moulds and let individuals make up their own mind.
That's oxymoronic.
Marxist? You mean it's going for wholesome equality?
I'd love to see where you pulled that number from. Here's the deal, in hypothetical format. A village owns 100kg of gold. There are five men and five women in it. Male 1 has 30kg, male 2 2kg, male 3 2kg, male 4 3kg and male 5 3kg. Female 1 has 50kg and female 2 has 10kg. Is that equal? Seriously? What about the next village over? Feminism isn't just about equal pay for equal work. It's about the underpinning social expectations which cause the difference in connotation between 'slut' and 'stud' and see one in three women subjected to violence globally.
The forced androgyny that many feminist groups implore is as restrictive as the gender roles and white picket fence of our current culture. What I'm arguing for is a dissolution of the concept that the only way to be masculine is to be stereotypically manly. That same expectation which says that men must work, can't cry, etc. You ask what we've sacrificed? Time, effort, sometimes lives, the singular work load of a house wife. Now as a demographic we carry both the far greater proportion of primary carers and are stepping up to the plate in workforces the world over. We see women working full time while doing most if not all of the housework. How many men can you say do that? Whining about how it's "Such a sacrifice!" is bullshit. It's clearly not occurred to you that there are benefits for men in that move. Perhaps you should take a second look at my OP.
|
Copy Clerk Posts: 77 Joined: 1 Apr 2009     |
Hrm. Labyrinth, I was just about to say something about that slut/stud comparison, and the one in three statistic, and the fairness of sacrifice. But then you went and edited in that piece by Clarke, and I got hit by a fairly serious case of perspective. Hrm. First, a confession: When I first saw that poem(?), even after reading all the way through, I assumed that D.A. Clarke was a man's name. I don't mean to make any kind of point by this, it's just something I realized while typing and I figured it would be relevant to the discussion one way or another. Anyway, it occurs to me now that I really don't have any kind of insight into the other half of this debate, since I pretty clearly fall into the "privileged" side of things. So far as it's possible to put people into these cute little male/female boxes, anyway. But I think it might be helpful for all of us to step back and consider where our own perspectives lie, rather than try to pretend we're actually unbiased. Labyrinth, if this is not too personal of a question, could you maybe lay out how much of Clarke's description applies to you? (Rather than people you've spoken to or articles you've read, that is). While the piece is certainly eye-opening, it's also more than a little radical--I can't imagine that all of these hardships are shared by all women, everywhere. And if they are...well, I'd like to know. Either way, it might lead to a more informed discussion. I'll get back to the original topic later, promise. Oh, and on a lighter note:
Win. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1427 Joined: 1 Jul 2009 |
And by that you mean "allow them to think what YOU want them to think". That's how we all think.
Ooh, a fancy word. Anyway, feminism has declared a war on men and masculinity. It's not socially acceptable to be a man anymore. Are you a man? Have you been called a "chauvinistic pig who's worse than Hitler" just because you have said that you want to get married someday? I have. I know the paradox in my comment, but the two haven't yet existed at the same time.
I mean it stands for the oppression of someone's rights, violent means of achieving goals and lying to the public. Marxism =/= equality.
I can give you the source, but it's in Finnish, so you might have a hard time decrypting it. (after looking into it, it actually says women use 60% of all money used. My bad, sorry.) Your example is, sorry, daft. That 100 kg of gold hasn't just materialised out of thin air, nor is it going to sustain them forever without continuous work, y'know. Only a misguided socialist thinks the amount of wealth in the world is so static and the wrong people always have it. I trust you're not a misguided socialist? The women can get just as much as they like, but only if they play by the same rules as the men. Don't try to tell me women can't achieve financial independence, in this day and age it is very much possible. Don't think the men don't have to work for it, they just don't make it into a public outrage that they might actually have to, *gasp*, get up and work.
Oh my, you went there. Did you know 70% of all violence is directed at men? Or that 99,9% of people who die in wars are men? Why isn't there a public outrage, a grand movement to help those who get beaten up the most, men? Well, of course because they are men, they're not allowed to complain. If you are issuing a global problem, understand that what applies in Sweden or Germany is meaningless in the Middle east. Trying to ignore cultural or national differences is a bit like trying to drive a car with wheels from a shopping trolley. There is only one group other than western women that cares about them, is western men.
And whatever problems they might have, must be ignored, because only women are allowed to complain...
Yet, men are not socially allowed to be fathers or homemakers, for example, when parents go to court for custody, 9 out of 10 the woman gets it. Why? Take a guess. "Most, if not all of the housework", yeah right. I'll agree with that once it's clearly not the man's job anymore to take care of the car, do the heavy lifting, renovating and most of the paying. Who uses the money in a family: the woman often has the access to two bank accounts, her own, and the man's. That's just sort of how it goes. And how about airliners? Men are not allowed to travel next to a child? Why? Because ALL MEN ARE MURDERING PEDOPHILES, NO EXCEPTIONS!
OK, so it's okay for me to get shot because I'm a man? I truly see the equality in that. That... whatever it is, poetry I guess, is so full of hate and blind generalisations I can't believe someone actually buys that. |
Red Guard Posts: 5253 Joined: 14 Oct 2007 |
If a man wants to wear a skirt, that's his choice and he isn't less of a man for it. If a man wants to fight bears and drink beer he's no less a man for it. If a man wants to be a home-dad he's no less a man for it. Replace all those "men" with "women" and see my point. I've yet to be called a chauvanistic pig but I have been accused of being a bulldyke with poor hygiene who wants to castrate every male she meets, murder babies and create an Amazonian society which replicates through artificial insemination. I don't know what kind of Marxist philosophy you've read (I'm guessing none, actually) but I'm pretty sure that one of his major gripes with Capitalism was that it promoted inequality while he thought a better world would be a communist one in which, get this, everyone was equal. The whole idea was that everyone got what they needed and everyone did the work that they needed to do, whether they had a vagina, a penis, or both. You're taking my allegory out of context. My point is that wealth distribution in terms of generalised numbers such as stating that women use 60% of all money fails to take into account the fact that most of the 60% is used by a very small percentile of the women in the US. I imagine that even if they represent that much spending power, they don't represent that much earning power. Show me otherwise. If you count the military forces alone it probably is about 99% of people who die being male. I'm all for women going into the military, it's not for me, but I support any woman who wants to do it. Did you know that in Australia we can't be fighter pilots? Interesting that, hey. If you factor in civilian death the percentage is probably lower. How about the use of rape as a weapon in war? Just look at places like Darfur. You seem to have a wonderful habit of missing my point. I'm stating that men should have every right to express themselves emotionally. To be fair, I've yet to see a man who hesitates to complain.
You must've missed the part where I stated very clearly that I encourage men to enter the home as primary carers. I think it's very sexist and very flawed that they're barred from doing so due to social expectations and that women are favoured in custody regardless of capacity. Why? Because it continues to state that the job of a woman is to be in the home as a mother, even if she works, that's her primary role. Fuck that. Edit: This is a good read for anyone wondering what it is housewives do all day.
It is personal. I'll answer as much as I feel comfortable with. I tend to avoid going out alone beyond about 9pm. This is even as someone who wears steel-capped boots, is very unconcerned about fighting dirty and has spent a fair amount of time in big concerts getting pushed around. I am however about 165cm tall and while I don't know my weight, I understand very well that I'm far from the strongest. In a similar vein I avoid public transport late at night because I don't own a car. If I did, I'd probably check. I'm one of the unfortunate statistics in terms of sexual assault but I'd rather not go into it because it's not something I want to recall too much and I'm sick of being told that my feminism is a result of that. I see women exploited and degraded in porn and media. If we're heroes we're always exposing the optimal amount of flesh or the prize for an even greater hero. Anyone would think that the male audience were threatened by a woman who could beat them up and isn't portrayed as someone who can be slept with or is prancing around for their enjoyment. I've never had an abortion but it's a possibility. I hope I never do. They're not on my list of most pleasant things ever though I do intend that it be open as an option should the issue arise. I'd dearly love to be able to strip down to shorts on a really hot day but aside from being shut away for indecent exposure of nipples (and probably of the aforementioned aerodynamically curvaceous figure too) I burn like dry gum leaves on a hot day under a magnifying glass. As for shaving my legs, yeah, I do that. Mostly if I'm going to wear anything other than my usual pants. Having never been employed I've never faced sexual harassment in a workplace but I've been at concerts where it's happened and other events. All too often have I had it implied that possessing a vagina is dirty. Just look at the cultural approach to menstruation to indicate that. We are the unclean after all. I trust my doctor as he's never done anyone in my family wrong. I don't doubt that I've had people pass judgement on how I look. Fuck knows it happens enough from my parents. The other half of it is that I tend not to care what other people think about how I look. I've never been in court nor had a speeding ticket. My only interractions with police to date have been at protests or at airports. It's not often that a 17-year-old gets strip searched and I never have been. I do hog the couch, but my father hogs the remote. Playboy can burn. In terms of general privilege I'm well off. I come from a stable family in a middle-class area with a good education. I'm not going to be a sweat-shop worker and will go to university though I intend to work my way through it. This isn't a result of being female, it's a result of my background. I hope it helps. Now if you'd be so kind, how much of that privilege do you get? |
Paperboy  Posts: 40 Joined: 25 Nov 2009     |
Wisdom. Pure and simple. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 3336 Joined: 23 Dec 2007     | To put it bluntly Labyrinth, fuck you. I support feminism, I support women's equality, but the day you conflate me with a rapist, through proxy, poem, verse or otherwise is the day you lost every damn ounce of respect I had for you. And that is what your miserable poem did. It cries to the heavens 'ALL MEN ARE VIOLENT PIGS!'. Well, believe that if you will. I will retreat to my mountain lair, and damned be both sides of this discussion! |
Anonymous Source Posts: 7 Joined: 30 Nov 2009 | Valeria Solanus- Part of the "extreme fringe" ,but she is looked up to by many. Following the extreme is almost(if not as bad) as being extreme making it not such a small minority in feminism. |
Anonymous Source Posts: 7 Joined: 30 Nov 2009 |
Slut and stud. Anthropology has the reason why it was and is currently bad for one and good for the other. In the past something around %85 of women reproduced compared to around %30 of men. Men used to have to compete or straight up kill one another for a woman while ultimately all the woman had to do was exist to gain the attention of a male. victory via competition. Obviously if real equality sets in, this will not be the case anymore and slut/stud won't matter. But for that, women will need to sign up for the draft at 18 and account for half of the on the job deaths instead the pathetic small percentage it is now. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1816 Joined: 20 Nov 2008 | This is why you should never try to make a point through verse. ITT topic, men horribly misinterpret a poem and rage over it:
No, it doesn't. I don't see any line in that poem that suggests it's alright for men to be shot, that all men are rapists, or that they're violent pigs. As far as I can tell, the poem isn't about hatred. It's about the fear and discrimination women face every day that men don't and probably never can truly understand. As a man, I really can't say much more than that. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1816 Joined: 20 Nov 2008 |
EDIT: got confused by the broken quote. sorry for missing this before. Well, I'm not about to go back through the thread and dig for whatever example you were replying to. suffice it to say that people of both genders are judged on the basis of their gender, rather than their individual merits, more often than they should be.
I've supported extending the draft to women and allowing them to serve on the front lines for some time. The on-the-job deaths statistic will probably never be equal, because the jobs that involve a serious risk of death are those same physically-demanding jobs that men, on the average, are so much better qualified for. |
Beat Writer  Posts: 214 Joined: 1 Sep 2009   | Wow, i gotta say I like the way you put it but a lot of criticism of guys that are "feminists" are either considered gay or lazy, so its kind of like a double edged sword. I don't think anyone should be held back unless they a mentally unstable (IE murderous psycho) my mother is a femenist and i think she is a good example of one, she sticks up for herself and works at a very high level for a moron of a boss. She does think things are unfair but she isn't going to crush the system to bring about change. Me I feel that you should get into positions based on how skilled you are and whiter or not people get along with you, I know aww look how naive he is its so cute, but sadly this is how I am. I not really sure if a male feminist can really be done, since there are the types of feminists out there that would look at a guy and asume that he is against them simple because he has a penis. I think that is what the idea is currently of feminists and I think thats where you need to start.
careful with your wording there, its thoughts like that that put us where we are today, Ie men are big and strong so this task goes to them. You can't really say that if you want there to be equality for everyone, that means everyone must fit into every demographic. |
Red Guard Posts: 5253 Joined: 14 Oct 2007 |
I have no idea where the hell you got that idea from. I'm not calling any individual male a rapist. I'm saying that women don't have the confidence in our own safety that we deserve, that males have. Did you know that abuse happens most when the victim knows the perpetrator or that one in six women and one in 33 men is sexually assaulted in their life? Getting snatched by a stranger off the street is a lower proportion. We're scared because there's a likelihood we deal with that the people we meet are potentially dangerous. The reason for not going out at night is because we're taught that it invites attackers who can't control their own urges. We're taught stranger danger because it makes trusting the people close to us easier. I don't think that all men are violent pigs, I know too many of them who are kind, caring, intelligent and rational for that. I just think that enough are to mean that a change needs to happen. This is just one facet of that and I can't help but feel that if you actually cared to read what I'm saying instead of straw-manning it to hell and back you'd get a better feel for the ideas behind it. |
Beat Writer Posts: 214 Joined: 1 Sep 2009 |
Ennh I can't really agree with you on this because if I feared everyone I met then I would never be able to leave my house, no I'm a guy but same thing goes for my twin sister, you have to prepare for the worst and hope for the best. yes the numbers are swayed to one side, but i doubt that will change and I won't go into it, but you can't say that enough are mean, cuz I have to say I've been assaulted by a lot more women than men in my 20 year life, most of them older than me and always with words. |
Red Guard Posts: 5253 Joined: 14 Oct 2007 |
We're not scared of everyone, but we're scared enough to stay home, to worry about being alone late at night, avoid public transport after dark. We're taught to alter our behaviour because we're at risk. |
Beat Writer Posts: 214 Joined: 1 Sep 2009 |
I must say I have been told this as well, I might not get raped but robbed stabbed killed an so on, I know 1 guy that got jumped by a guy with a K-bar (massive knife), the guy didn't want anything but to test out his new knife, that guy now has a large scar on his arm from where he wrapped the knife up. So claiming to be scared "more" really isn't a good excuse for me, now if you have a good chance of getting killed everytime you walked home then yes i'd say you have reason to worry but, you have a 1 in (number of people in large cities) chance of having it happen to you. its like playing the lotto without wanting to win. |
Red Guard Posts: 5253 Joined: 14 Oct 2007 |
If we're having a scared-off, add the concern about robbery to the aforementioned fear of sexual assault. |
Beat Writer Posts: 214 Joined: 1 Sep 2009 |
Wasn't trying for a scare off, I felt i needed examples to clarify my position. I guess I'm just saying that everyone does have an equal chance of things happening to them. and about the sexual assault part its true while women have the highest number, it is also true that men are less likely to report a sexual assault if it happens so i'd say the stats are a little flawed. I also think we are getting way of topic. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1816 Joined: 20 Nov 2008 |
I didn't say anything about people having to fit demographics. i simply said that the demographics explain the statistical difference in on-the-job deaths. |
Beat Writer Posts: 214 Joined: 1 Sep 2009 |
This is true but still if you are saying that men are better sued to those jobs then its like moving in reverse because there are others that will say that men are better suit for this area and this and so on. I'm not trying to pick a fight I'm just saying that's what i got from your post. (side note: tone of voice really makes a huge difference) |
Red Guard Posts: 5253 Joined: 14 Oct 2007 |
Juuuust a bit. Anyhow! Back to the point, ey? |
Beat Writer Posts: 214 Joined: 1 Sep 2009 |
yes yes, for you at least I need to get to class, and i still like my naive system of you get what you earn (even if that will never work in thousands of years). |
Copy Clerk  Posts: 96 Joined: 4 Sep 2009    | "We need male feminists" ...Who is we? |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1408 Joined: 20 Oct 2009    |
Ha ha. Go to pages 1, 2, 3 or 4 to see where your traditionalist/misogynist/chauvinist bretheren have already made these arguments and, just as yourself, without a shred of evidence. Here's a bit of an overview. Women do not own 60%, or even 40%, of the wealth in this country. That simply isn't factual. Many of us, the OP included, have pointed out that discrimination does indeed work both ways and that it is men who sometimes get the short end of the stick, say in the majority of custody battles, for example. Women, however, are discriminated against far more often. The point has already been ceded by a few of us that a big reason women make less for doing the same work is crappy women - women who hold the position without really pulling their weight. It is not the biggest reason, however. I have already opined on this thread that the most important things to be done about women's rights involve locking down all the crappy women out there (gossipers, workplace sluts, harridans and otherwise triflin' bitches). The accusation that the "consept" of feminism is to "discriminate men" and "vanish gender" needs to be backed up. But of course you can't, because you suffer from a fundamental misunderstanding of feminism. You've listened to too much Republican Radio or watched too much Fox News or were taught by your parents that to ever question the belief set handed to you shows weakness, when in fact I believe none are worth a damn unless they can stand a faith test here and there. Feminists just want to define themselves, and their womanhood, in their own way, and they want equal rights. Demonizing feminism like you are is the same as demonizing women. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1368 Joined: 3 Apr 2009   |
Women do deserve to feel safe on a night out, unfortunatly there are some bastards out there that you need to keep away from. I dont see anyway of really stopping this problem, there will always be, for x, y and z reasons male rapists. The best women can do is make sure they have a a few guy's around in the crowd with them, thats what i find happens in practise. Or at least go out with a large group of female friends who can look out for each other. Just don't go out alone, even guys walking alone are at risk from being mugged or assulted. It's happend twice to one of my friends. Guy's when alone, run the risk of being robbed or assulted, women run the risk of being raped, and then maybe robbed. Both males and females are at risk when alone on a lonely road at night. The trick is just to be with friends and do go alone, like in a horrer movie.
Now, i think this is on topic, and what you wanted to debate about. I think the problem your going to face here is that men, in general, don't want wear skirts (unless your scottish, in which case thats fine) and men in general also don't want to be stay-at-home dad's. I think most men want to be go to work, earn money and "bring home the bacon". This feature of male behaviour is, i reakon, evolutionary and well as cultural. Now just because something is natural does not make it right let me make that clear. However if something is "natural" it becomes virtually impossible to eradicate. I think it is best just to make sure that those men who want to stay at home and wear skirts have the legal rights to do so, should they wish to. The molds which Spitfire was talking about before, dont need to be broken for males because the men are happy with them. So long as some are free to break these moles should they wish to, i'm cool with that. On a side note, the rise of metrosexualty could be relivent here, and it's most evident in fashion, with men wearing cardigans, really low cut top's, tight jeans, spending obbsesive amounts of time doing hair, and even i remember reading about "male corsets" which are like vest's, only really tight so they help men lose weight. If men want to act more feminine then they are free to do so, personally none of that is for me that's not just who i am. However the opitunity is there. Admitidly i do privatly look down upon other men who act "metrosexual", but that is only a private matter of my conscience, and not something i feel i should shout and sing about. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1408 Joined: 20 Oct 2009 | Ladies and Gentleman, I do believe Bagodix has found himself a new screen name :) |
PROBATION  Posts: 1541 Joined: 10 Mar 2009    | Feminism is not about equality, just want to throw that out first. Sexism is a lie, the woman is not being obressed by any way. The leaders of this movement just complain more. OT: I would like those kind of words to vanish completly. Think about it, no frames for what a man is or what a women is. Perfect... User was put on probation for: Sexuality in Mass Effect. (7 days) |
Beat Writer Posts: 166 Joined: 11 Sep 2009  | The thing that bugs me about the term "Feminist" is that it's too gender specific, especially since feminists are trying to change the way we see genders... or something. I always preferred the term "equalist" (and if that term gets picked up, I want to be credited for it). Um... but that's just what I think anyway. |
| (Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) | |
Reply to Thread
|
|
Not registered? Sign up for a free account! |
"Same mold" as in diminishing all gender roles/etc. That's insanity as long as the Y-cromosome still exists.
That "small minority" is a bit of a blanko argument, they are there and they are very loud.