She was f**kin rockin too. Friendly, smart and kinky.
She was f**kin rockin too. Friendly, smart and kinky.
I believe Males and Females should be equal.
I do not believe they should be the same.
The expression "different but equal" is so lost in today's society that I can't even comment on it without getting bothered by it. Right now, where I live(which is North Carolina, USA), women seem to have a lot more power and rights than men do. If a man doesn't have a job he's considered a deadbeat, but if a woman doesn't she's called independent. If a man isn't dating someone, he's labeled a loser, but if a woman doesn't she's labeled strong. If a woman wants to wait until marriage to have sex, it's okay and she's encouraged to do so. If a man does, the woman in the relationship will think he's not attracted to her or all of her friends will tell her that he's just gay.
A lot of times I think guys will feel very oppressed because of this.
But at the same time, there's still things that women "aren't allowed" to do because they're considered boys-hobbies. Like stand-up comedy and "fighting" sports like boxing and ultimate fighting. There are plenty of women in these fields of work, but not a lot of successful ones. Honestly, I don't see anything wrong with that.
Women aren't allowed to be funny or tough. Men aren't allowed to be emotional or be lazy. Isn't that equal enough?
The question i'm asking you Rocketsurgeon is how do the issues of preconceptions with physical traits connect with issues such as gender? Because preconceptions about physical features and how it effects human equality is a different subject which encompasses race, religion and also culture, much like the debate of gender equality. I'm wondering where you are going with your point. Apologies for sounding crass.
Last edited by Drudgery; 2011-01-01 at 12:33 AM.
However, with Women they are allowed to be funny and tough. Especially tough ( it's a turn on for some). For men though it has been a paradox. They are allowed to be emotional and "lazy" but if they do they aren't considered "good enough". Where as women who are funny and/ or tough will still be in high regard.
Hard for me to think of anything at the moment. Guess what I'm trying to say is seeing men be emotional or have some R&R time apparently turns people the wrong way now. Where as a woman do stand-up or take on tough play styles will not have affect what-so-ever on how we respond to it as a whole.
(Okay I'm seriously thinking of something but it's encyrpted)
•What is it? What does it mean to you? What was it historically, and has it changed to be something different in the current world?
Feminism is a movement meant to gain, then defend, women's rights. So far, even our constitution does not even acknowledge men's and women's equal rights and the right of defending them. The Equal Rights Amendment did not pass and who knows when it will be. I think in more recent decades, feminism is now more about defending women's rights than about gaining them, but I believe there is still more work to be done to provide women's rights especially to the lower and middle working class.
•Do you identify as a feminist? Why, or why not?
I do, because I believe their main goal is one that will better the lives of women, and therefore men, in the US and hopefully that will extend to other countries.
•Does it still have a place in the current world, or has its time passed?
If we do not even uphold mens and womens equal rights in the constitution, then I would say yes, it still has a place.
2. Women's rights and gender equality
•How do you view these concepts? What do they mean, both literally, and to you?
Women's rights: the right for a woman to choose and do as she thinks is best for her and those she influences without having to endure ridicule, shame, backlash, judgement, etc. Example: the right of a woman to choose to have a career or to stay at home, the right of a woman to have children, or not have children, the right of a woman to act as she wishes, etc. Feminism mainly deals with the rights of women, but the overall goal is and should be gender equality. Much in the same way that government has enforced laws that help/support and close the gap between caucasians and minorities, feminism is a movement to encourage government to help/support women so the the playing field can be evened.
•Do these concepts differ from feminism?
Feminism is generally focused on one side of the equation (women), but it is meant to equal the playing field so that the result is equality for all people regardless of race, gender, age, disability, you name it. We need movements that target the stereotypes and inequalities towards men more directly as well. We also need more awareness of discrimination based on disability, age, sexual orientation, race, religion, beliefs, differences in looks and action, etc. All of which I'm very much pro. So I'm feminist, plus much more.
•Are these movements/battles still necessary in the current world, or has their time passed?
Just as awareness of discrimination of disability is important, so is feminism, etc.
3. The contemporary world
•Are such concepts as the above outmoded in the current world? Or are they still equally important? More important than ever?
•Is the concept of fighting for "gender" equality outdated? Is the "gender" concept itself outdated? Should we really be focusing on human equality?
I think it is becoming more and more apparent that many don't really fall into strict categories of male and female, which should simply reaffirm to us all the futility of trying to establish strict gender roles that sweep you into one or the other. All people should be able to establish for themselves who they are, what they want to be and what they want to do. So yes, maybe the gender concept is outdated. I certainly wouldn't mind if it was to become an obsolete concept so that we could each define ourselves by our character/accomplishments/abilities and not by our biology. For example: being a mother could be a very fulfilling task, not because of the biology that allows it to happen, but because of the ability to be a good parent, the accomplishment of birthing and raising a happy healthy child, etc.
•Anything else I've missed that you feel is relevant to the general topic!
The feminism I know and believe in does not discriminate or demonize men. Sadly, this is not the feminism we see and hear about it the every day media. Feminism is still a "dirty word" and as we can see by many of the comments on this forum, it is largely a misunderstood movement and idea, since many here seem to think feminism and equality as incompatible. Feminism is simply one branch of the tree of equality.
Last few ideas:
You can be feminist and male, or a SAHM, or a teenager, or a child, or LGBT. This movement is not about women, it's about supporting women and women's rights. And anyone can be a part.
Thank you Jill, I enjoyed your post. You've brought alot of coherence to a topic which was diverging offtopic.
When you say, "The feminism I know and believe in..." does this suggest that feminism has evolved or similar to Christianity, its intepretations differ amongst those that regard themselves as feminists?
Something that sometimes strike me is women, and men for that sake, moaning about them wanting to be like the opposite sex, like 100% the same, when in fact, from the very foundation, we are very, very different. This has been proven through history (or else my teacher lied ).
I am in no way saying that women should just be in the kitchen and men should just be working, because that shit is really stupid. I am just saying that for instance women shouldn't moan about not being as strong as men, and men shouldn't moan about not being as sensitive as women, and actually, the other way around too. From nature, the female human is more based on emotions, intuition, compassion and so on, while men are based on more focused, practical and honourable fashions. This doesn't mean every single female is like this, don't wanna call it stereotype, but this norm, and the same with men. We see a ton of women who are more like how we would picture "men" - Without being lesbian, this has nothing to do with sexuality, that's a whole other discussion - and vice versa.
^Hope that wasn't too much bullshit, I'm tired and it might be a bit incoherent, but felt like I wanted to state this opinion If there's anything wrong with my post, please let me know and I'll edit it, I feel this is a thread walking on thin ice, so just want to be sure
Equality is a fantasy. Blame it all on free will. As long as there is one person who refuses to acknowledge this concept of equality, then of course we will never be equal. We can't force people to change their minds. That's the reason we end up going to war.
And tbh, and no offense to those of you who feel quite strongly about this topic, I personally think bringing up stuff like this is about as sexist as anyone can get. Focusing on one gender's "rights" (or lack thereof) over the other. Why don't people say men's rights? Because they have it all? Nah, I don't think so. Besides, I've seen people, both men and women, treated like crap regardless of their gender. What about their rights? Imo there are no women's rights or men's rights, there are only human rights because regardless of gender we all can agree we're all human. If you want to fight for a good cause, then I will suggest focusing on this because believe it or not we have fellow human beings being treated like animals and it's not merely because of their gender. Don't you think their rights should be fought for too?
I personally think the feminist movement has achieved most of what it has set out to achieve. Women are now allowed to vote, they've joined the work force and are getting paid equal wages, and they have more opportunities open to them; now the remaining problems (again, in my opinion) can all be blamed on free will and on the individuals who choose to abuse their wives or pay their female employees less than the males or think that women are only meant to stay home and take care of kids. No amount of educated discourse or even heated argumentation can change the minds of these people. Sad to say this since it is a noble cause, but frankly, change comes from within. It is all just matter of choice. If we could all just choose to see eye to eye and embrace equality then the world would be a much better place.
Plenty of guys, if randomly polled "Do you see yourself as a typical guy?" would immediately respond "Yeah". If someone says, "I'm a pretty normal person", you intuitively understand something about them. These concepts are absolutely real and an important part of how we reference ourselves, and others, relative to an underlying standard.
Of course, like any concept — including "special", "unique", and "different" — it's going to shift in applicability and meaning from time to time, place to place, culture to culture. But once you've established your reference frame, the concept's perfectly applicable.
At any rate, you're loading far too much meaning onto a word which was used as shorthand in an understood cultural context. The average, everyday male who does not wish to be perceived as significantly different from the norm in my society is indeed expected to feel extraordinarily paranoid about sexual contact with another male.
You can argue about unique snowflakes all you want, but at any given point in time up to this point, there is a set of standards — written or implicit — governing what a "proper" member of each sex is supposed to do and not do. Those who follow the rules are "normal" and very clearly identified as such. Those who don't are quickly stigmatized as ... well, many colorful things.
You're appling and oranging me, basically. You're arguing "Every person is a unique snowflake with special traits that make them totally different from the other snowflakes". Yes, we know. I agree with you, of course, but that's pretty much taken as fact in my society at this point — very ingrained concept, sounds nice, everyone likes hearing it.
In practice, I'm arguing that you're allowed to be a unique snowflake within certain very well-understood limits. Someone who falls within those limits is "normal", "average", "typical", and probably very relieved to hear it. Someone who doesn't is "weird", "different", "abnormal", "freaky", etc etc. The concepts may be anathema to you, but their existence is very real and most people struggle very much to be identified as falling within the boundaries.
These are normal, or typical, people, because from my observations humans typically strive to be safely considered as fitting in with the generally-expected norms and behaviors of their chosen social network, be it tribal, regional, national, etc. You can say, "I don't like the existence of this concept, it shouldn't be used, society should move past it". Well, okay. But I still used the word legitimately in the context of what I was writing to communicate my message.
"These concepts are absolutely real"
They're not absolutely anything.
Okay, I don't know what to tell you. The males that skrump's associate interacts with are disturbed to know the girl has a penis (or whatever). That should make the cultural context clear. I'm also not aware off the top of my head of very many cultures where it's considered "okay" for a guy to be in that situation, without receiving a bucket of social stigma. Hence, the typical guy is encouraged to feel extraordinarily anxietal and self-conscious about it — which is why they do, as skrump anecdotally reported.
You're going off on a tangent about how it's impossible to take an entire gender and identify a "type specimen". I'm saying that there are sets of expectations which characterize a "normal" individual, and that the majority of individuals strive to fit these expectations. Hence, why normal people are... normal (ie, the majority and average expected specimen). And someone who does that ends up roughly representing a "typical" individual.
I'm not talking about what's actually going on inside them. In fact, my whole point is that their external behavior requirements, in order to remain congruent with expectations and not become "abnormal" (which is very frightening until you're forced to get over it, or... killed), completely dominate their individual reactions which may or may not have been totally different without cultural pressures forming their reactions in one specific direction.
And yes, I guess this is a Westernized/Americocentric perspective on "typical". Since skrump's anecdotal men comply with that typicality in the specific sense I'm concerned with (contact with a, for lack of a more tactful term, shemale is taboo and cause for crisis), I don't see what was inappropriate about my use.
Again, it seems like you're stripping away the context of what I said in order to discuss an issue which seems important to you (the inaccuracy of the concept of gender type specimens), but I don't think we're really arguing about the same thing and I'm not sure it's very productive. Perhaps we're just of totally different perspectives, though.
EDIT: And disregard, you guys already settled it.
I find "feminist" to be a rather problematic word.
Equality is a universal concept, you either care about it for everyone, or you don't care about it. It can't be compartmentalized, you can't champion equality for solely one group, that's inimical to the whole idea of equality.
Advocating for particular groups tempts one into becoming a lobbyist for privilege. As such, you end up with people who self-label as feminists and yet are perfectly willing to promote gender stereotypes and roles that they perceive as beneficial towards them. This, in turn, sullies the image and credibility of the movement, impairing its ability to fulfill its original purpose.
I find the easiest way to determine whether someone truly believes in gender equality or not is whether they think hitting women is inherently worse than hitting men.
If they say its worse then I can safely disregard their views on gender entirely. I've found it works on most people so I consider it to be highly effective. It's a great way to distinguish between whether a 'feminist' actually cares about equality or whether they are just an advocate for feminine privileges.
As long as one is seen as worse, then its clear that in their mind one gender is more readily seen as a victim that needs additional protection and the other as an aggressor that doesn't deserve protection. This, in turn, has a huge impact on how all other gender issues are perceived.
From this we get ideas like "women and children first", reports on how "no innocent women and children were harmed" (men can't be innocent?).
Of course you will then have people who argue that, in general men are stronger than women.
This is true... with 'in general' being the key qualifier.
You know whats a better indicator of strength, though?
That being the case, there is absolutely no reason to involve gender at all. Involving gender is like judging the temperature by ice cream sales instead of just looking at the thermometer. Sure the two are correlated, but not to the degree that you could justifiably replace one with the other.
If the issue is hitting someone weaker than yourself, then why not just say so?
Why not just say "it's wrong to hit someone significantly weaker than yourself" or "it's wrong to hit someone not capable of defending themselves"?
It's far more universal and doesn't rely on stereotypes and generalizations. It affords protection to all those who deserve it instead of a small subset.
If a much stronger women beats up a much weaker man, who's the social stigma on?
Saying its an issue of strength is a complete lie.
It's the expectation of strength - its gender perception.
The rule doesn't exist because men are stronger but, rather, because men are expected to be stronger. The rule is improperly applied to cases that are in direct opposition to expectations such that men are not seen as victims even when they're the weaker one being victimized.
It just shows you that this 'logic' isn't the real reason, it's a flimsy rationalization for their sexism.
Likewise, what of training? Training plays a huge role is deciding how one sided a fight will be and gender isn't a reliable indicator of it at all. Someone I doubt a guy would be as willing to espouse his ideas of women being the weaker sex if the opponent in the argument was a female soldier or a female mma fighter.
Last edited by Rukari; 2011-01-01 at 10:33 AM.
A Quick Guide to Fanboy Logic:
Negative Actions of Enemy Faction? - Representative of the Whole, Due to their Nature*
Negative Actions of Own Faction? - Representative of Individuals involved only, Due to Circumstance*
Alignment of either Faction?*
-Start with conclusion
-Interpret and rationalize lore through the lens of this assumption to confirm
Enemy Faction Advantages and Victories? - Blizzard favoritism
Own Faction Advantages and Victories? - Reaffirms superiority
Feminism to me is Women gaining Mens Rights/ETC while keeping perks as a women. Equality is the better word I think. Or perhaps it isn't the promotion of womens rights, but the removal of many mens rights. Bleh, something like that. Fuck Dolls House. Book got me thinking too hard about Feminism and Bias.
huh....So the overall turn out is either
A. Feminism seems to have a hold on responsibility for the species they speak up for
B. Society favors women too much
C. Women are allowed to get away with punishment even though they could be the ones causing the most pain
D. Due to ( B ) Men find themselves unable to fix or build themselves as they are expected to be something they arent
D(2). When do become what they are sought to be they are ridiculed for being what they should've been before