Feminism Ad Nauseum

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT
 

Cowpoo:

Gethsemani:

Cowpoo:

Yet women enjoy vaginal orgasms more than clitoral, thus, they are going to look for means of achieving it!

I take it you've experienced both then and are in a position to judge which is "better"?

I take it you haven't :D

I'm sorry but I've never heard that a clitoral orgasm would be better.

Vaginal penetration is instinctual, not forced by society.

I'll take that as a no and actually I haven't but it is beside the point. The fact that only a third, or less, of women can achieve an orgasm through vaginal penetration means that it can't be more enjoyable, since most of us don't get it at all.

Obviously it is instinctual on some level since it is the only way for humans to reproduce as a species. My point was that the clitoris might well serve an evolutionary purpose because stimulating it would make women aroused and thus more likely to engage in intercourse, as well as making the act of penetration easier.

Cowpoo:

No, when a woman labels men as oppressive vaginal rapists (because that's almost literally what she said), she's pretty immature and deserves to be called a feminazi (not anything to do with nazism, just the added negative conotation).

1. Who and where?

2. Moreover, how does this suddenly invalidate Feminism, which is a very broad and diverse school of thought?

3. I take issue with that equivalency in any serious discussion. The NSDAP and its ideological underpinnings became an institution which was responsible for the deaths of millions of people. Such an attitude is disrespectful to history and it shows a fundamental lack of respect for women's rights.

Still Life:

Cowpoo:

No, when a woman labels men as oppressive vaginal rapists (because that's almost literally what she said), she's pretty immature and deserves to be called a feminazi (not anything to do with nazism, just the added negative conotation).

1. Who and where?

2. Moreover, how does this suddenly invalidate Feminism, which is a very broad and diverse school of thought?

3. I take issue with that equivalency in any serious discussion. The NSDAP and its ideological underpinnings became an institution which was responsible for the deaths of millions of people. Such an attitude is disrespectful to history and it shows a fundamental lack of respect for women's rights.

1. This thread, a few pages back.
2. It doesn't? It invalidates the 'feminists' that make such claims. Wanting equal pay for the same job and having the same rights for women is OK.

3. Did you just go Godwin on me, because I called bullshit on a stupid claim? :D :D :D

Edit: You asked what a feminazi is:
http://uic.edu/orgs/cwluherstory/CWLUArchive/vaginalmyth.html

And a normal feminist (at least by the couple of paragraphs):
http://www.realislam.com/muslim_women.htm

Cowpoo:

1. This thread, a few pages back.
2. It doesn't? It invalidates the 'feminists' that make such claims. Wanting equal pay for the same job and having the same rights for women is OK.

3. Did you just go Godwin on me, because I called bullshit on a stupid claim? :D :D :D

I have noticed no such quote. At least not of the nature you describe.

Perhaps it's more pertinent to call it Becks law considering the frequency of such labels wherever Feminism is brought up.

Still Life:

Cowpoo:

1. This thread, a few pages back.
2. It doesn't? It invalidates the 'feminists' that make such claims. Wanting equal pay for the same job and having the same rights for women is OK.

3. Did you just go Godwin on me, because I called bullshit on a stupid claim? :D :D :D

I have noticed no such quote. At least not of the nature you describe.

Perhaps it's more pertinent to call it Becks law considering the frequency of such labels wherever Feminism is brought up.

Well...notice it better I guess.

Cowpoo:
Well...notice it better I guess.

You could back up your claim by, you know, linking to it.

1) Find the quote that so offends you.
2) Click on the post number/date/time line above it.
3) Copy the URL from the address bar.
4) Paste the URL into your reply.
5) ?
6) Profit!

It's a little effort, sure, but the reward of being right is way better than the cost of everyone thinking you're just making shit up.

Cowpoo:

Well...notice it better I guess.

There is no quote here stating that 'men are vaginal rapists'. However, the onus is on you to present that information rather than nebulously saying 'oh, it's a couple of pages back'.

On those links you provided:

Neither invalidate feminism in any way, and only contribute to the development of feminist ideas. While I personally didn't agree on every major point presented in both of those blogs, I see the value they can potentially have in helping women self-determine their own sexuality.

PercyBoleyn:
Depends on the parents.

Do you think there might be other ways you can learn about acceptable gender roles besides your parents?

PercyBoleyn:
To say that women were discriminated against is to ignore the fact that most men also didn't own property.

No it's not.

You can be perfectly aware of the fact that most men did not own property and still note that it was legally impossible for women to own property because they were women. Not because they were serfs, not because they were poor, but because they were women.

You can also note that at every particular level of society, along every particular axis of discrimination possible, women were still considered inferior. You are ignoring this by trying to claim that the mere existence of other forms of discrimination renders this blindingly obvious form of discrimination non-existent.

I don't know what you stand to gain from this argument, but it's pathetic.

PercyBoleyn:
Where?

Read again.

PercyBoleyn:
Really? Because I'd prefer being considered property to dying. Ten million men died during WW1, how many women died?

Clearly you didn't get it last time, so we'll come back to this later.

PercyBoleyn:
And you think the peasants/lower classes that made up most armies were considered any more intelligent?

YES!

The fact that an upper class woman with some degree of home education may on occasion have been considered superior on to a working class man does not mean that there was no discrimination against women.

This is getting incredibly stupid.

PercyBoleyn:
Source?

Paul Broca, 1861, concluded that the smaller brains of women meant they had considerably reduced intelligence. Gustave Le Bon went a step further and claimed that women's brains resembled those of gorillas and that they were less evolved form of humanity. In 1871, Professor Edward Clarke at Harvard University suggested that learning caused women's brains to physically expand which in turn caused their wombs to shrink and made them infertile. Joseph Leconte, a notable early evolutionist, argued that women lacked the rational capacity to engage in anything requiring emotional detatchment. Hardarker, 1882, argued that since men conserved more energy from food they are able to expend more energy on cognition and are therefore more intelligent. Even Darwin claimed that women possess inferior intelligence because they are not adapted to performing complex tasks.

This is not something anyone should have to provide a source for.

PercyBoleyn:
What is oppressive about considering women hysterical bitches in heat?

The fact that society regards that as quite a negative and maligned image.

PercyBoleyn:
I don't remember saying "emotionally invincible". In fact, by changing that little phrase you've changed the meaning of the entire sentence.

You claimed society views men as "emotionless", that's not actually true. Society does not expect that men will behave robotically. It does, however, view men as possessing the emotional fortitude and necessary detachment to remain psychologically functional in warfare, for example, or to adopt a scientific rational position. I corrected this.

If you call someone "emotional", you are not complimenting them, you are not suggesting they are insightful or socially useful, you are insulting them and discrediting anything they say, you are suggesting that they are motivated by purely internal and non-instrumental pressures.

Everything you have said society views men as is a positive. That doesn't mean that being held to this standard is good for individual men, but seriously.. are you honestly going to tell me that society does this because hates men and considers them useless? That the reason men fight in wars is because society doesn't like them and wants them all to die so that the superior female race can keep living?

Because this is getting fucking stupid. I should not even have to argue this point.

PercyBoleyn:
So what's the problem again?

Let's save this one up again.

PercyBoleyn:
No, I claimed they were equally oppressed. There's a difference.

Oppressed by whom?

PercyBoleyn:
So were men. Except, instead of having all of their needs taken care of at the expense of a couple of rights, they died by the fucking millions. How many men do you think have actually managed to "take advantage" of this supposed priviledge you keep talking about? Because if they weren't dying in wars or dying on fields they were dying because some lord woke up with his cock in a knot. Men seem to have done a lot of dying throughout history, what about women?

What about women? What about those whose bodies are (often literally) the territory on which wars are fought.

Men have been allowed to fight and to die because they are considered capable of doing so, because they are considered capable of enduring, emotionally and physically, the ravages of war, because they are effective, because the mere idea of allowing women to die in such a way is laughable. Women can't do that, they'd be hysterical and weak and stupid.

So, you're fighting your war and when you capture a city or town, what do you do? You rape the local women. What do you think happened when the Russians took Berlin, or when the Japanese took invaded China? It's still going on today, organized rape as a method of humiliation has never stopped happening.

Why do you rape those women? Not because you hate them, as women they are accorded no political allegiance which you can take offence to, you rape them because they are your enemies possessions. The mere existence of women in war is reduced to a symbol of communal or national pride.

Wars have been fought over women for centuries, but that's not because women are valuable, it's because women are possessions, and if not personal possessions then possessions of the state. That's why they can't fight, not because they're special and valuable and more intelligent than the dirty male underclass, but because they are weak, because they are naturally docile and compliant, because ultimately they are not really people. They are like children.

So now.. what's the problem with masculinity. It should be fucking obvious, shouldn't it? The problem of masculinity is that it obligates men to die. That it places the emphasis on men to fight each other and to die to prove that they are men, to prove that they can defend the possessions which secure their masculinity and make them men. The problem of masculinity is that it doesn't benefit men, it privileges them, it allows them to garner the rewards of being seen as automatically stronger, tougher and more capable than women, but at the cost of having to live up to impossible standards which get many people killed.

Do you see the deal now?

PercyBoleyn:
I wasn't talking about higher education.

Well, I was, and you were responding to me.

PercyBoleyn:
Good thing I've experienced it firsthand then.

I'd never have guessed.

PercyBoleyn:
Like?

Imagine you have not been in paid employment for 10 years because you have been raising children. You have missed out on significant career advancement and you now have a large gap in your CV which any employer is likely to be justifiably skeptical of.

If a divorce court did not account for the fact that you have actually worked, that you have performed unpaid domestic labour for a large section of your life, that you have contributed significantly to your marriage in non-financial ways, they would be punishing you for taking on primary childcare responsibilities.

Does that sound fair?

PercyBoleyn:
Funny how as a male you'd have to quit your job to be the primary caregiver.

You would as a female as well.

Or do you think children are self-sufficient at 52 weeks?

PercyBoleyn:
Tell me, as a feminist, did you ever consider that sexism goes both ways and that in the 21st century, men are just as discriminated against as women?

As one of your fellow XY Chromosome Bearers, I can pretty much assure you that no, no we're not. Nobody's been threatening to stick an ultrasound probe in me for any reason lately, for one thing.

PercyBoleyn:

But it is quite true. Feminists are too busy finding sexism where there isn't any to bother acknowledging that the world has changed and that their beliefs need to follow suit as well.

With the sheer amount of sexism in our society, I'm willing to forgive them the occasional false positive.

arbane:

PercyBoleyn:
Tell me, as a feminist, did you ever consider that sexism goes both ways and that in the 21st century, men are just as discriminated against as women?

As one of your fellow XY Chromosome Bearers, I can pretty much assure you that no, no we're not. Nobody's been threatening to stick an ultrasound probe in me for any reason lately, for one thing.

PercyBoleyn:

But it is quite true. Feminists are too busy finding sexism where there isn't any to bother acknowledging that the world has changed and that their beliefs need to follow suit as well.

With the sheer amount of sexism in our society, I'm willing to forgive them the occasional false positive.

What SHEER AMOUNT? What ultrasound probe?

Are you trolling us, you naughty troll, you? :D

Cowpoo:

You're really pussywhipped. Discussion with you is moot.

Who's getting upset here?

On the other matter, I have simply asked you to prove your allegation that someone here has described men universally as 'vaginal rapists'. Even Katatori-Kun has called you out on this.

Your response is to ignore the question.

Cowpoo:

arbane:

With the sheer amount of sexism in our society, I'm willing to forgive them the occasional false positive.

What SHEER AMOUNT? What ultrasound probe?

Are you trolling us, you naughty troll, you? :D

I am dead serious. This is a VERY sexist society. It's been a lot WORSE, like back when women couldn't legally sign contracts as 'everybody knew' they were too stupid to be legally competent, but it could still be a lot better.

Sheer amount: Well, how many female presidents have we had? What's the current M/F ratio in Congress?

(It's 446 men, 93 women. 17% is actually higher than I expected, but a helluva long way from equal representation.) How common are women CEOs?

And please don't say it's because 'women just can't handle such rarifed positions'. That's what they said about women being doctors or scientists 80 years ago. I say we give it a shot and see what happens.

And then there was this flap, which really brought the He-man Womanhater's Club out of the woodwork. :-P

If you're serious, go read some feminist blags. Edumacate yourself.

Here's your ultrasound probe. Wear it in good health. (Yet another advantage to being a man: no lawmaker expects you to give up control of your body if someone else's penis enters it.)

Cowpoo:
You're really pussywhipped. Discussion with you is moot.

9_9

Projection: Not just for movie theaters any more.

Feminism definitely has a place in our society as one of the many opposing voices to the kyriarchy/traditionalism which still dominates our culture. In theory, feminism is a perfect movement, but in practice it has a couple flaws that really bug me.
Occasionally, feminist groups side with traditionalist/kyriarchal forces when it will maintain an advantage for women. Such is the case with NOW opposing legislation to give those accused of rape anonymity until a guilty verdict(beyond a reasonable doubt)is declared. Also, efforts to delete alimony and reform/delete child support are often stymied by feminist organizations. Feminism has done very little to devalue women's lives as well. In order to achieve true equality, society must care just as little when a women dies as a man dying. This can be seen all over the media when telling casualty numbers. ex. 50 people died, 24 were women! This implies women's lives are more important than the lives of men(and they are, according to kyriarchy/traditionalism).

These arguments often get caught up in some sort of oppression Olympics which is meaningless. Oppression is often not bad at all and being oppressed is better for the individual. The oppressor more often than not is the one that endures the majority of the suffering.(men have endured the overwhelming majority of human suffering over all time)
Feminism is probably still a good force in our society, but it could be so much better with a big dose of self-sacrifice.

Kittynugget:

Oppression is often not bad at all and being oppressed is better for the individual. The oppressor more often than not is the one that endures the majority of the suffering.(men have endured the overwhelming majority of human suffering over all time)

Oppression -- Noun

1. Prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control.

2. The state of being subject to such treatment or control.

3. Mental pressure or distress.

Even funnier still, you engage with the same 'oppression gymnastics' you decry.

Kittynugget:
These arguments often get caught up in some sort of oppression Olympics which is meaningless. Oppression is often not bad at all and being oppressed is better for the individual. The oppressor more often than not is the one that endures the majority of the suffering.(men have endured the overwhelming majority of human suffering over all time)

...

You state (quite rightly) that the Oppression Olympics is bullshit, and then your response is to invent the Oppressor Olympics?

"I'm much worse off than you, because I'm more of an oppressor"

WTF?

Kittynugget:

These arguments often get caught up in some sort of oppression Olympics which is meaningless. Oppression is often not bad at all and being oppressed is better for the individual. The oppressor more often than not is the one that endures the majority of the suffering.(men have endured the overwhelming majority of human suffering over all time)
Feminism is probably still a good force in our society, but it could be so much better with a big dose of self-sacrifice.

Apart from what Still Life and thaluikhain already said about you engaging in "oppression olympics", I'd also like to ask you if you realize that this is the exact same argument used to justify The white man's burden? "It might be bad for you, the oppressed, but it is I who oppress who suffer more because I must do all the unpleasant decisions and sacrifices to help you."

Sure, men have suffered a lot throughout history, no one is denying that. In fact, if you read a few of Evilthecat's replies to Percy Boleyn in this thread you'll realize he already adressed this issue.

arbane:
(Yet another advantage to being a man: no lawmaker expects you to give up control of your body if someone else's penis enters it.)

Well, it's not exactly a bed of roses for you either if you're into that sort of thing, mind - although obviously this problem and the ultrasound probage is not of identical magnitude.

arbane:
Sheer amount: Well, how many female presidents have we had? What's the current M/F ratio in Congress?

(It's 446 men, 93 women. 17% is actually higher than I expected, but a helluva long way from equal representation.) How common are women CEOs?

I've always been confused by these kinds of statements. Are you under the impression that equal representation is required for equality? Having a Black president hasn't seemed to alleviate all the negativity between Blacks and all other races; I fail to see how the issues feminism decries would be suddenly solved by half of congress being female and having a female president.

However, I would give some credence to that idea considering feminism isn't attacking any female dominated industries at all. We can point out the lack of female CEO's to further the argument, but not the lack of males in the healthcare industry. Perhaps it's just because they don't hold as many positions of power, and that's where the fault lies.

I'm just highly suspect of the lack of representation being a good indication that there is some dubious discrimination in play. Besides, I would have voted for Hilary, she ran the country fairly well the last time she was in office. ;)

DevilWithaHalo:
I've always been confused by these kinds of statements. Are you under the impression that equal representation is required for equality? Having a Black president hasn't seemed to alleviate all the negativity between Blacks and all other races; I fail to see how the issues feminism decries would be suddenly solved by half of congress being female and having a female president.

Firstly, who said they'd be suddenly solved, as opposed to there being a change if representation was more equal?

Secondly, the US had to become much less racist (and admittedly, suffer Bush) for them to accept a black president. The fact that it took this long to have a black president, and never has had a female one points to something going on there.

DevilWithaHalo:

However, I would give some credence to that idea considering feminism isn't attacking any female dominated industries at all. We can point out the lack of female CEO's to further the argument, but not the lack of males in the healthcare industry.

Sure you can. I've seen studies saying that once a job is seen as 'women's work' (like being a nurse), men flee it in droves.

arbane:

Sure you can. I've seen studies saying that once a job is seen as 'women's work' (like being a nurse), men flee it in droves.

Like having a role in your child's life? [/facetious] ;)

arbane:

DevilWithaHalo:

However, I would give some credence to that idea considering feminism isn't attacking any female dominated industries at all. We can point out the lack of female CEO's to further the argument, but not the lack of males in the healthcare industry.

Sure you can. I've seen studies saying that once a job is seen as 'women's work' (like being a nurse), men flee it in droves.

I can tell you that here in Sweden the lack of male nurses isn't for a lack of trying. The swedish nurses' union has done a lot to try and get more men interested in nursing, but the problems seem to be mainly that a) the pay isn't good enough and b) it isn't considered a "job for men" and is associated with the feminine traits of empathy and caring. The men who do become nurses also tend to go into ambulance, psychiatric, emergency and intensive care, where it is considered to be less feminine traits involved and more masculine traits like quick decision making and working well under pressure.

Or, if you want to be really blunt about it: Men do not want to be associated with a job that is seen as feminine. Several studies have shown that many men consider the nursing role to be a very real threat to their gender identity. Make of that what you will.

evilthecat:
Do you think there might be other ways you can learn about acceptable gender roles besides your parents?

Don't know.

evilthecat:
You can be perfectly aware of the fact that most men did not own property and still note that it was legally impossible for women to own property because they were women. Not because they were serfs, not because they were poor, but because they were women.

So?

evilthecat:
You can also note that at every particular level of society, along every particular axis of discrimination possible, women were still considered inferior.

That's why they died by the millions and had a hard time going up the social ladder right?

evilthecat:
You are ignoring this by trying to claim that the mere existence of other forms of discrimination renders this blindingly obvious form of discrimination non-existent.

No, I'm pointing out that discrimination went both ways and that women weren't the only ones that had it worse.

evilthecat:
YES!

Prove it?

evilthecat:
The fact that an upper class woman with some degree of home education may on occasion have been considered superior on to a working class man does not mean that there was no discrimination against women.

I'm not saying there was no discrimination against women, I'm saying both genders had it equally bad. Maybe you should avoid using strawmans next time you reply?

evilthecat:
Paul Broca, 1861, concluded that the smaller brains of women meant they had considerably reduced intelligence. Gustave Le Bon went a step further and claimed that women's brains resembled those of gorillas and that they were less evolved form of humanity. In 1871, Professor Edward Clarke at Harvard University suggested that learning caused women's brains to physically expand which in turn caused their wombs to shrink and made them infertile. Joseph Leconte, a notable early evolutionist, argued that women lacked the rational capacity to engage in anything requiring emotional detatchment. Hardarker, 1882, argued that since men conserved more energy from food they are able to expend more energy on cognition and are therefore more intelligent. Even Darwin claimed that women possess inferior intelligence because they are not adapted to performing complex tasks.

Source?

evilthecat:
This is not something anyone should have to provide a source for.

Why?

evilthecat:
The fact that society regards that as quite a negative and maligned image.

I'm guessing you think stereotypes can be positive as well.

evilthecat:
You claimed society views men as "emotionless", that's not actually true.

Well, actually, yes it is. Showing emotion as a man is considered a sign of weakness. You'd think society's obsession with painting the "alpha male" as the superior form of male would have made this quite obvious.

evilthecat:
. It does, however, view men as possessing the emotional fortitude and necessary detachment to remain psychologically functional in warfare, for example, or to adopt a scientific rational position. I corrected this.

Proof?

evilthecat:
If you call someone "emotional", you are not complimenting them, you are not suggesting they are insightful or socially useful, you are insulting them and discrediting anything they say, you are suggesting that they are motivated by purely internal and non-instrumental pressures.

How so?

evilthecat:
Everything you have said society views men as is a positive.

How incredibly arrogant of you. It takes real skill to handwave men's issues like that. Do you think most men are capable of living up to society's supposedly "positive" view? What happens if they don't? Stereotypes are never positive and the fact that you're suggesting they are shows that you're a bit clueless on the subject.

evilthecat:
That doesn't mean that being held to this standard is good for individual men, but seriously.. are you honestly going to tell me that society does this because hates men and considers them useless? That the reason men fight in wars is because society doesn't like them and wants them all to die so that the superior female race can keep living?

Please stop using strawman's.

evilthecat:
Oppressed by whom?

Society.

evilthecat:
What about women? What about those whose bodies are (often literally) the territory on which wars are fought.

That's why female casaulties during wars were often similar to male casaulties. Yep.

evilthecat:
Men have been allowed to fight and to die because they are considered capable of doing so, because they are considered capable of enduring, emotionally and physically, the ravages of war, because they are effective.

The majority of men are not capable of enduring the horrors of war which makes society's preconcieved notions hurt males as a whole, not just emotionally but physically as well.

evilthecat:
because the mere idea of allowing women to die in such a way is laughable. Women can't do that, they'd be hysterical and weak and stupid.

Is that why women are so actively campaigning for the draft to include them as well?

evilthecat:
Why do you rape those women? Not because you hate them, as women they are accorded no political allegiance which you can take offence to, you rape them because they are your enemies possessions. The mere existence of women in war is reduced to a symbol of communal or national pride.

Source?

evilthecat:
Wars have been fought over women for centuries, but that's not because women are valuable, it's because women are possessions, and if not personal possessions then possessions of the state. That's why they can't fight, not because they're special and valuable and more intelligent than the dirty male underclass, but because they are weak, because they are naturally docile and compliant, because ultimately they are not really people. They are like children.

Aha, source?

evilthecat:
So now.. what's the problem with masculinity. It should be fucking obvious, shouldn't it? The problem of masculinity is that it obligates men to die. That it places the emphasis on men to fight each other and to die to prove that they are men, to prove that they can defend the possessions which secure their masculinity and make them men.

This is getting a bit boring for me. I mean, on one hand you purposefully misinterpret masculinity, on the other hand you make wild claims about women without backing them up.

evilthecat:
Well, I was, and you were responding to me.

Yes, and I was pointing out that whilst there are a lot of men in higher education there are virtually none in lower.

evilthecat:
Imagine you have not been in paid employment for 10 years because you have been raising children.

Source?

evilthecat:
You have missed out on significant career advancement and you now have a large gap in your CV which any employer is likely to be justifiably skeptical of.

Then don't have kids. Alternatively change society so paternity leaves become acceptable.

evilthecat:
Does that sound fair?

Does it sound fair to you that men are basically excluded from the child rearing process whether they want to or not?

evilthecat:
You would as a female as well.

Maternity leaves are a wonderful thing are they not?

arbane:

Cowpoo:

arbane:

With the sheer amount of sexism in our society, I'm willing to forgive them the occasional false positive.

What SHEER AMOUNT? What ultrasound probe?

Are you trolling us, you naughty troll, you? :D

I am dead serious. This is a VERY sexist society. It's been a lot WORSE, like back when women couldn't legally sign contracts as 'everybody knew' they were too stupid to be legally competent, but it could still be a lot better.

Sheer amount: Well, how many female presidents have we had? What's the current M/F ratio in Congress?

(It's 446 men, 93 women. 17% is actually higher than I expected, but a helluva long way from equal representation.) How common are women CEOs?

And please don't say it's because 'women just can't handle such rarifed positions'. That's what they said about women being doctors or scientists 80 years ago. I say we give it a shot and see what happens.

And then there was this flap, which really brought the He-man Womanhater's Club out of the woodwork. :-P

If you're serious, go read some feminist blags. Edumacate yourself.

Here's your ultrasound probe. Wear it in good health. (Yet another advantage to being a man: no lawmaker expects you to give up control of your body if someone else's penis enters it.)

Cowpoo:
You're really pussywhipped. Discussion with you is moot.

9_9

Projection: Not just for movie theaters any more.

Well I don't know who WE is, but we've only had 2 presidents overall.

The US had as many as were voted for. Women have equal voting rights, afaik.

I don't know...maybe women don't want to go into politics? Just like men don't want to be nurses?

And have those women gotten into politics due to feminist groups helping them? Or because they worked hard?

Here's your ultrasound probe: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/0223/Abortion-wars-Virginia-retreats-on-invasive-probe-in-ultrasound-bill-video

When a law doesn't pass in one state. Can you consider western society to be oppressive to women? Seriously?

Like as in ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?!

Cowpoo:
When a law doesn't pass in one state. Can you consider western society to be oppressive to women? Seriously?

Like as in ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?!

The one in Pennsylvania did pass. Governor Corbett responded to criticism of the fact that it requires not only the ultrasound but for the screen to be placed right in front of the woman's face, forcing her to look at it in a move just two steps shy of A Clockwork Orange by saying, "You can just close your eyes."

Pardon me for saying so, but that's kind of a douchebaggy thing to do and say to women.

DrVornoff:

Cowpoo:
When a law doesn't pass in one state. Can you consider western society to be oppressive to women? Seriously?

Like as in ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?!

The one in Pennsylvania did pass. Governor Corbett responded to criticism of the fact that it requires not only the ultrasound but for the screen to be placed right in front of the woman's face, forcing her to look at it in a move just two steps shy of A Clockwork Orange by saying, "You can just close your eyes."

Pardon me for saying so, but that's kind of a douchebaggy thing to do and say to women.

Didn't find anything of that sort. There's even less info on PA to have this law than there is on Virginia. Please post a link. I actually think THIS IS THE STUFF WOMEN'S RIGHTS BE FIGHTING.
Not maternal leave horseshit or the number of female politicians in the senate.

thaluikhain:
Firstly, who said they'd be suddenly solved, as opposed to there being a change if representation was more equal?

I've seen my share of statements indicating that equal representation was necessary for equality. I'm simply questioning the idea.

thaluikhain:
Secondly, the US had to become much less racist (and admittedly, suffer Bush) for them to accept a black president. The fact that it took this long to have a black president, and never has had a female one points to something going on there.

Strangely the two democratic candidates at the same had to be the newest demographics eh? The status quo often perpetuates itself; I'm not calling the NBA racist on the grounds that it's currently dominated by Black players. It's merely a statement to make in contrast to the idea that representation would solve the problem.

arbane:
Sure you can. I've seen studies saying that once a job is seen as 'women's work' (like being a nurse), men flee it in droves.

So what is feminism doing to address this particular issue?

DevilWithaHalo:

arbane:
Sure you can. I've seen studies saying that once a job is seen as 'women's work' (like being a nurse), men flee it in droves.

So what is feminism doing to address this particular issue?

Breaking down the restrictive gender binary tends to be a (if not the) big part of feminism. As with anything feminists try to do, though, the only people who tend to care tend to be those who want to see whatever they are doing at least stopped.

thaluikhain:

DevilWithaHalo:

arbane:
Sure you can. I've seen studies saying that once a job is seen as 'women's work' (like being a nurse), men flee it in droves.

So what is feminism doing to address this particular issue?

Breaking down the restrictive gender binary tends to be a (if not the) big part of feminism. As with anything feminists try to do, though, the only people who tend to care tend to be those who want to see whatever they are doing at least stopped.

This is quite the political statement, but like all political statements, not an answer. I'll ask again; what is Feminism doing to address the issue of fields being dominated by women?

Cowpoo:
Didn't find anything of that sort. There's even less info on PA to have this law than there is on Virginia. Please post a link. I actually think THIS IS THE STUFF WOMEN'S RIGHTS BE FIGHTING.
Not maternal leave horseshit or the number of female politicians in the senate.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/03/dems-hammer-pa-governor-over-ultrasound-comments.php

Double checking, I had thought the bill already passed but I must amend that. It passed the House, but it seems that it's being delayed in the Senate and has been since about mid-March since the medical community of the state has been fighting tooth and nail against it. I can find no reports that the state Republicans or Corbett have given up on it however.

The main difference between this bill and Virginia's is that it does not specify a specific type of ultrasound procedure. The VA one explicitly says that it has to be a transvaginal probe. The bill also requires that even if the woman were to close here eyes, and I'm not making this up, the doctor is legally required to point the ultrasound monitor directly at her face, give her two signed copies of the ultrasound images, and tell her the number of heartbeats per minute and if that's normal for a fetus of that age or not. The cherry on top comes from the fact that the woman must then wait 24 hours before she can go to the abortion provider, where she must turn in all the signed paperwork plus the ultrasound images, and the abortion doctor is legally required to remind her of the age of the fetus.

If you would like to read the text of the bill, here it is in full. They've titled it, not kidding, the Women's Right to Know Act.

DevilWithaHalo:

thaluikhain:

DevilWithaHalo:

So what is feminism doing to address this particular issue?

Breaking down the restrictive gender binary tends to be a (if not the) big part of feminism. As with anything feminists try to do, though, the only people who tend to care tend to be those who want to see whatever they are doing at least stopped.

This is quite the political statement, but like all political statements, not an answer. I'll ask again; what is Feminism doing to address the issue of fields being dominated by women?

Hiring male strippers.

Seriously, what exactly should they BE doing about this, do you think? Or is this just a long drawn-out question-beg aiming at 'proving' that feminism is all about Female Supremacy?

First of all, before I jump into this, I want to bring up a very important issue: neither gender can ever be, ever has been, or ever will be, better equipped to understand gender politics, discrimination, or anything related to that than the other. Announcing your gender in this discussion adds nothing to it, so I won't be doing that.

Now then, onto the issue at hand. First of all, PercyBoleyn's original statement does have a point, it's just that he horribly misunderstands what the definition of feminism is (he thinks it means misandry). The issue is that he considers people like this feminists. While yes, they do claim to be feminists, any dictionary can prove otherwise. Therefore, I would argue against him, ordinarily. After all, it's not like a word's inherent meaning can be changed to suit the beliefs of a particular group, right?

evilthecat:

PercyBoleyn:
It's quite sad, isn't it? A word's inherent meaning is changed to suit the beliefs of a particular group.

No, because it happens all the time. It's how language actually works, particularly in an academic setting.

...

So, apparently, the widespread misuse of the word feminism can change the meaning, so while I disagree with nearly all of what PercyBoleyn has said, I have to say that his initial statement was exactly as justified as calling the United States a patriarchy, if only because these people call themselves feminists. And with nobody really having the right to dispute that, they kind of are, in a roundabout way. A group is defined by it's membership, and the membership is defined by it's most vocal participants.

I recommend abandoning feminism, retreating to egalitarianism and making the last stand for sanity there. It is a mighty fortress and has never fallen to the forces of prejudice, as they don't know it exists and cannot pronounce it's name.

Cowpoo:

Not maternal leave horseshit or the number of female politicians in the senate.

You don't think maternal leave is important? Given that men still can't give birth, I'd say it's kind of a big deal, and the US doesn't have enough of it.

Snfinity:

I recommend abandoning feminism, retreating to egalitarianism and making the last stand for sanity there. It is a mighty fortress and has never fallen to the forces of prejudice, as they don't know it exists and cannot pronounce it's name.

Hee.

But I don't think feminism should be abandoned to Rush Limbaugh on one side and Andrea Dworkin on the other - it's a perfectly good idea, and it seems like a shame to lose it to the cranks.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked