Feminism, women's rights, and the current world

[Jill]

I'm not familiar with how to split up quotes to reply, so my replies are in red:

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.

While I agree that equality is a universal concept, championing one group does NOT mean that you are ignoring the other groups that are oppressed. I am feminist yes, but I'm also against bulling LGBT, child abuse, emotional abuse, violence, etc. You cannot dismiss a movement simply because it focuses on one aspect, that would be unfair. Just because the women's rights movement has a title that I can claim doesn't mean that I'm not against all forms of oppression. Feminism is one aspect of equality, it does not claim to directly defend against any type of oppression, therefore is cannot be judged for not fixing the worlds many oppression problems. I am feminist, and I care about equality for everyone. Just because I am feminist does not mean I do not champion other causes and many MANY feminist I know out there also champion other causes. Basically, it's like saying if you belong to say the French Club at school that you can't belong to the German or English Club or any other language club because OBVIOUSLY the only thing you care about is French. (Caps is for emphasis not shouting).

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 will not deny that there are many feminists, in the middle and upper classes especially, that claim feminism and yet oppress other women in the lower and middle working class. This is a big problem within feminism and has allowed to come to pass because in the past feminists did not recognize the plights of women who were poor, or women of color/different ethnicities. It was mainly white women who wanted a little extra pin money and independence from their husbands that went marching through the streets to get the vote and jobs. That ignorance of the other women has cost us, because many believe that feminism is only about certain women instead of all. But I can say that feminism is trying to make strides in the right direction. We have done better in the field of writing. Much literature taught in college is by women who were not priveleged or were women of color. Basically, we are working on it, and we hope you do not condemn the movement entirely because of a mistake we're trying to correct.

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.

I am feminist and I believe that hitting with the intent to hurt/injure/humiliate/or violate another is equally wrong, regardless of the gender of the person hitting and the person being hit. So, I guess I do believe in gender equality. Fancy that, feminists actually believe in true gender equality. :P I think what some people might get hung up on is because generally women are a. more likely to be physically abused, therefore the law wants to really come down hard on those who abuse so it can be stopped and b. women are generally weaker and therefore easier to injure. I don't think people are intending to say that hitting a woman is actually worse fundamentally, but that is usually has much more detrimental affects for the woman in the long run. A person who is easier to hit is probably much more likely to be hit. (Ever heard of bullying in school? Who is it that gets abused most? Those who are muscular and big or those who are not, regardless of gender) When us girls and boys grow up, men are almost always taller and stronger and therefore more likely to hit than to be hit. So, to end, NO, hitting women is not fundamentally worse than hitting men, but it sure happens a whole lot more and women are usually more injured when hit than men are because of size/strength.

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?).

I believe it perfectly right to give those who are oppressed additional protection. I understand that some people may be misunderstood and seen as more of an aggressor than they really are, but in the cases that mean most to feminists: domestic abuse, I'm sorry, but the abuser does not need or deserve protection from abuse and the abusee does need additional protection. To deny this would be to compound the oppression of the already oppressed and allow the oppressors to go scott-free. If we are talking only about men hitting women versus women hitting men, then yes, I would say as a feminist each situation should be judged individually and the oppressor should be stopped and the oppressed should be protected. You do know that there are many cases that rule in the favor of the oppressed male. Women have kids taken away all the time and put into foster care because of abuse or given to the father. I have not actually known any ONE woman who has been able to use her so-called feminist privelege to continually and devastatingly abuse another and get away with it. BUT, I have heard of many men who have. Hey, I've gotta side with the facts.

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?

Strength.
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?
The man.
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.

There is oh so many more factors involved in abuse than simply "who has the most strength". It also depends on who has the power, who has the blackmail, who has been isolated from help/friends/family, who has been brainwashed to believe they deserve the abuse, who has threatened to injure for trivial cause, you name it. Judging by gender and gender alone, I agree, is wrong, but so is judging by strength alone too. Or by training. Each situation should be judged individually taking into account all factors.

Feminism has never had the platform: women are feminists so that they can do whatever they want. just because people see it that way just goes to show the skewed view that has been portrayed through media and those opposed to feminism and women's rights. I do not believe that women are justified whatever they do, and I don't know any other reputable feminists who do. Feminism actually now is more about providing basic rights to the women that still do not have such rights, which mainly does not include me as a woman because I have enough money to pay for an abortion if I wanted one, I am not stuck in an abusive relationship, I am not so poor that I can't afford a decent education, I am not a single mother trying to make ends meet, I am not a teenage mother who has been kicked out her parents home for being a slut, but I feel for those who experience these things and I fight for their right to health and happiness.

In answer to an earlier question by someone else, the feminism I know and believe in is the feminist principles that started from the very beginning of the movement: belief in women's rights: belief in the need to secure rights and opportunities for women equal to those of men, or a commitment to securing these and the movement committed to securing and defending rights and opportunities for women that are equal to those of men. This goal has not changed since the beginning. It is the various sub feminist movements that have veered off in different directions. But, feminism really has not changed its stance. It has been interpreted differently, producing people who believe all kinds of weird and erroneus things as mentioned by many on this board. It still doesn't change the core goal of the movement.

---------- Post added 2011-01-01 at 01:14 PM ----------

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.

What rights can you list specifically that men have that women somehow don't deserve?

What perks do women have?

What men's rights have been taken away because of feminism?

[Rukari]

There is oh so many more factors involved in abuse than simply "who has the most strength". It also depends on who has the power, who has the blackmail, who has been isolated from help/friends/family, who has been brainwashed to believe they deserve the abuse, who has threatened to injure for trivial cause, you name it. Judging by gender and gender alone, I agree, is wrong, but so is judging by strength alone too. Or by training. Each situation should be judged individually taking into account all factors.

You're treating is as solely a matter of domestic abuse, which it is not.

The idea that men hitting women is especially wrong applies to all scenarios, from little kids to adults, including ones outside a relationship between the participants.
When that video surfaced of the guy at the bar punching Snooki in the face, the newscast specifically referred to it being 'offensive' and there was an uproar about what a terrible person the guy was. A man hitting a woman is regarded socially offensive, something that needs to be specifically condemned, while any other form of gender on gender violence is normal.

Men hitting men is "boys will be boys", and women hitting men is regarded as socially acceptable, there's even girls' t-shirts that say "Boys suck, throw rocks at them"
A man makes a lewd remark to a woman and she slaps him.
A woman makes a lewd remark to a man and he slaps her.

The reaction to the first is likely that the guy will be laughed at for being hilariously turned down, the reaction to the second would be to dogpile the guy and beat him to oblivion.

I see girls slap their boyfriends all the time, but I never see the reverse but one is seen as cute and the other is seen as abuse.

And when it comes to domestic abuse, that alone shows this sexism of aggressor vs victim stereotypes.
In many states, regardless of who called the police, the man is automatically the one arrested on the scene of a domestic dispute. Woman on man abuse is practically invisible in our society because its outside our gender perceptions to view men as victims of women. The traditional view of gender is that women are the victims, women are the ones abused, women are at the mercy of men while men are strong, tough, and aggressive and thus should be able to handle whatever a woman throws at him without issue so any scenario in direct conflict of these assumptions isn't taken seriously.
This is especially noticeable is homosexual cases of domestic abuse, since women are seen as victims, its difficult for society to acknowledge abuse existing between lesbians when women are seen as victims, not aggressors. Likewise, in gay cases, its hard to see one guy as being a victim when men are seen as aggressors and initiators of abuse.

[Jill]

What you describe is a problem, granted. But I don't know that its really because of feminism at all. Rather, it's another problem with society. If we lived in a world where there wasn't abuse and no one was hitting anyone out of aggression/violence/hate then we wouldn't have any problems.

The traditional idea that women are the victims, abused and at the mercy of men is still true. Out of the number of times that a man is arrested immediately with an abuse call is the many actually innocent, not nearly as often as he is guilty. I'm sure it also depends on who made the call as well. If the husband made the call that he was being abused, I highly doubt the police would've arrested him.

"A man makes a lewd remark to a woman and she slaps him.
A woman makes a lewd remark to a man and he slaps her."

I don't know about you, but the few times that I've seen a woman slap a man, it MAYBE leaves a red mark on their face and bruises their pride. Especially if the woman was petite and isn't trained how to hit others effectively enough to really hurt. On the other hand, when a man slaps a woman, I've usually seen the woman go flying several feet back, at least got knocked over and then sprouts a rather nasty bruise. It's not that one is a man and the other is a woman, it is that the man usually has a lot more ability to damage and injure when slapping than a woman does. Is it any wonder that people think it more permissable for a woman to slap than a man? Why do children fear spankings more from their father than their mother? Is it because one has a penis and the other a vagina, no, it's because daddy hits harder. period. Perhaps society does pass over women abusing others physically more than they should, but for good reason, they don't do as much damage. What really is devastating that women can do is not physical but emotional abuse, because that is the sort of abuse that women can pull off without being big and tough.

The point I've been trying to make is that the society stereotypes the situation not entirely on gender, but on the amount of damage generally caused. In a perfect world, if I had my way, no one would slap anyone else to injure, but until then, I'm going to imagine that the woman who is slapped is more likely to be injured than the guy is slapped. Is that unjust?


So, how are you tying these societal problems to feminism? Or are you even trying to?

What we should do is make it societally unacceptable to slap in injure in any case or situation. We should not be trying to injure each other, emotionally or physically. I frankly, don't "accept" it when men haul out on each other, especially because they both end up sometimes seriously injured even dead. Same goes for two women getting into a fight. I think society really needs to reevaluate their values, because we have a culture in which we like to see people beat each other up at times, especially for weird notions of "justice". An eye for a eye sort of mentality.

[TheImmortalLordAtlas]

I don't know about you, but the few times that I've seen a woman slap a man, it MAYBE leaves a red mark on their face and bruises their pride. Especially if the woman was petite and isn't trained how to hit others effectively enough to really hurt. On the other hand, when a man slaps a woman, I've usually seen the woman go flying several feet back, at least got knocked over and then sprouts a rather nasty bruise. It's not that one is a man and the other is a woman, it is that the man usually has a lot more ability to damage and injure when slapping than a woman does. Is it any wonder that people think it more permissable for a woman to slap than a man? Why do children fear spankings more from their father than their mother? Is it because one has a penis and the other a vagina, no, it's because daddy hits harder. period. Perhaps society does pass over women abusing others physically more than they should, but for good reason, they don't do as much damage. What really is devastating that women can do is not physical but emotional abuse, because that is the sort of abuse that women can pull off without being big and tough.

It's ok because women generally can't hit as hard? What are you smoking? You want equality so it shouldn't matter. Hitting is hitting.....

[Deleted]

It's ok because women generally can't hit as hard? What are you smoking? You want equality so it shouldn't matter. Hitting is hitting.....

You've missed the point of Jill's constructive argument completely. Also if you read the rest of her comments she actually makes some statements which support your argument, for example in her last paragraph she states

What we should do is make it societally unacceptable to slap in injure in any case or situation.

And lastly, thank you again Jill for widening my perspective on feminism. I made an early post about what I thought feminists represent. It was a misguided comment on how I felt in the past about feminists, which I said I was ashamed of and wanted to apologise for. Accept my humble apologies again. Your statements in the previous posts alone have shown not only a huge amount of honesty, but also a sensible and reasoned perspective on the subject matter.

[NickIsRidic]

The stuff being said in this thread already proves whats wrong with this issue. (CBA to find exact quotes) Most hard core extreme feminists (that I've seen anyway) are the same ones who wear low cut shirts to get good grades, or something free. What needs to happen is, either women need to realize they have the power to control any and all situations.(face it, its true.) Now, I'm not stating that guys as a whole are pigs and if you show us a lil ass we'll do what you want. But honestly, 9\10 guys would run like there hair was on fire to help a pretty girl who just fell down get up...Its natural.

So what I'm sugesting is,
either A) Women need to be happy with the way it is now, and accept that they generally hold the power to rule the world.
or B) Everything needs to be equal. If a women hits a man, every women in that bar needs to beat her down just like every guy in the bar would beat down the man.
sports need to be equalized. (IE same sized balls(no pun lol), same league same opportunity...)

But, in my honest opinion as I stated before, most hardcore feminist (except for some I've read in this threat, which actually have some good points\ideas, like Jill) don't really want equal treatment, they want better, even though, given the ladder they already get better.

[Fárina]

So, to end, NO, hitting women is not fundamentally worse than hitting men, but it sure happens a whole lot more and women are usually more injured when hit than men are because of size/strength.

Well, no. Most studies show that violence in relationships comes mostly 50/50 from men and women.

What men's rights have been taken away because of feminism?

You can't call out rights, but you can describe what's wrong today:
- men = bad , women = good seems to be the generic mindset presented in media.
- women quota discriminates men
- law discriminates fathers
- military service. Men have to do it in a lot of countries, women "can".
- gender rolls, as presented by feminists. Hurting both genders.
And there are probably more examples, but I'm pretty sleepy and so nothing comes to mind anymore.

But I don't know that its really because of feminism at all. Rather, it's another problem with society. If we lived in a world where there wasn't abuse and no one was hitting anyone out of aggression/violence/hate then we wouldn't have any problems.

Men = baaad is generally promoted by most feminists.

The traditional idea that women are the victims, abused and at the mercy of men is still true. Out of the number of times that a man is arrested immediately with an abuse call is the many actually innocent, not nearly as often as he is guilty. I'm sure it also depends on who made the call as well. If the husband made the call that he was being abused, I highly doubt the police would've arrested him.

As I said, nearly 50/50.

they don't do as much damage.

This is not really true. A lot of abusive women tend to use tools if they are not strong enough to "deal with him" themselves.

[Deleted]

Well, no. Most studies show that violence in relationships comes mostly 50/50 from men and women.

This statement of proof has no validity. Its the same as me saying "There have been countless studies showing frogs abuse cheese".

You can't call out rights, but you can describe what's wrong today:
- men = bad , women = good seems to be the generic mindset presented in media.
- women quota discriminates men
- law discriminates fathers
- military service. Men have to do it in a lot of countries, women "can".
- gender rolls, as presented by feminists. Hurting both genders.
And there are probably more examples, but I'm pretty sleepy and so nothing comes to mind anymore.

The first statement here is false. Think about the following logic here. In high celebrity alimony cases, the media specifically outlines the amount a woman is paid. This example is sometimes used (by men) to show why feminism or women's equal rights is wrong. And yet you start off by saying that in the media men are shown negatively, while women are not. This example shows a contradiction to what you say, given the outcomes from such an article.

Men = baaad is generally promoted by most feminists.

This is not true either. If you read carefully what Jill has written then you will know this. Here is her quote to prove it

I do not believe that women are justified whatever they do, and I don't know any other reputable feminists who do. Feminism actually now is more about providing basic rights to the women that still do not have such rights

This is not really true. A lot of abusive women tend to use tools if they are not strong enough to "deal with him" themselves.

She actually agrees on this point, because she further writes

There is oh so many more factors involved in abuse than simply "who has the most strength". It also depends on who has the power, who has the blackmail, who has been isolated from help/friends/family, who has been brainwashed to believe they deserve the abuse, who has threatened to injure for trivial cause, you name it. Judging by gender and gender alone, I agree, is wrong, but so is judging by strength alone too. Or by training. Each situation should be judged individually taking into account all factors.

Until a day ago, I would have agreed with most of what you have said Farina.

But your judgement, like my own, is not a considered one. I fear that your arguments above are more borne out of predjudice and misunderstanding, rather than relevant facts and sound reasoning, which in itself can be the problem when misguidance is the purpose of greater intellects with poor intentions.

[Fárina]

This statement of proof has no validity. Its the same as me saying "There have been countless studies showing frogs abuse cheese".

So we should just keep on ignoring the abused men? Just because you say "Studies are irrelevant"?
No can do.

Need a source? http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

The first statement here is false. Think about the following logic here. In high celebrity alimony cases, the media specifically outlines the amount a woman is paid. This example is sometimes used (by men) to show why feminism or women's equal rights is wrong. And yet you start off by saying that in the media men are shown negatively, while women are not. This example shows a contradiction to what you say, given the outcomes from such an article.

Err....high alimony for women has what to do with portraying men positively?
Also there are a lot of examples for this kind of behavior by media.
I remeber an article lately, where a women was titeld as a "Girl freeing herself" and was applauded over the whole article. For what? Raping a man.
I've strangely never seen an article applauding a men for raping a women?

This is not true either. If you read carefully what Jill has written then you will know this. Here is her quote to prove it

Then tell me, why are there so much women out there calling themselves feminists and stating that men are bad?
Jill is not all feminists.

She actually agrees on this point, because she further writes

I just wanted to clarify that abusive women can for sure hit as hard as abusive men can do. That's a point she seem not to agree upon... ; )

But your judgement, like my own, is not a considered one. I fear that your arguments above are more borne out of predjudice and misunderstanding, rather than relevant facts and sound reasoning, which in itself can be the problem when misguidance is the purpose of greater intellects with poor intentions.

Everydays media & women are not a predjudice. Those kind of people (not Jill) are the reason I can't understand why anyone still wants to be called feminist - these days, I would feel ashamed of that label....
My arguments are born by reading and seeing what today's "feminists" keep doing. Rather than actually support women who still have less rights than men (There are a lot of countrys where this is still the case.), they whine and bitch about having not enough rights where they already seem to have more than men.

As I said, this does not apply to everyone who calls himself feminist, but to a lot. If not most.

[Deleted]

As I said, this does not apply to everyone who calls himself feminist, but to a lot. If not most.

To coin a phrase we should agree to disagree. Your point is clearly valid in your own eyes.

[DionLight7]

I remeber an article lately, where a women was titeld as a "Girl freeing herself" and was applauded over the whole article. For what? Raping a man.
I've strangely never seen an article applauding a men for raping a women?

What the f**k?!

[TheShinyOne]

While I agree that equality is a universal concept, championing one group does NOT mean that you are ignoring the other groups that are oppressed. I am feminist yes, but I'm also against bulling LGBT, child abuse, emotional abuse, violence, etc. You cannot dismiss a movement simply because it focuses on one aspect, that would be unfair. Just because the women's rights movement has a title that I can claim doesn't mean that I'm not against all forms of oppression. Feminism is one aspect of equality, it does not claim to directly defend against any type of oppression, therefore is cannot be judged for not fixing the worlds many oppression problems. I am feminist, and I care about equality for everyone. Just because I am feminist does not mean I do not champion other causes and many MANY feminist I know out there also champion other causes.

But you do ignore that men have just as much disadvantages as women, yet you champion women's rights and call it equality -- illustrating his point quite nicely. If women had lesser rights in all cases, then yes, it would be equality; however, the fact is that in modern times, women are no more disadvantaged than men are, but in different areas. You took his point and detoured it to apply only to "oppressed" groups; it is more than that.

Basically, it's like saying if you belong to say the French Club at school that you can't belong to the German or English Club or any other language club because OBVIOUSLY the only thing you care about is French. (Caps is for emphasis not shouting).

No, that analogy does not work. It does not consider a situation of feminism's position on buffing women's rights while ignoring where men are disadvantaged. That is not equal rights.

I am feminist and I believe that hitting with the intent to hurt/injure/humiliate/or violate another is equally wrong, regardless of the gender of the person hitting and the person being hit. So, I guess I do believe in gender equality. Fancy that, feminists actually believe in true gender equality. :P

Given the way that you did not even consider that men are as disadvantaged as women (or perhaps don't believe this at all) I do not believe you do believe in true gender equality. Secondly, even if you do believe in true gender equality, how does that extend to your entire group? I don't believe it does, because it is beyond the scope of what your group is about.

There is oh so many more factors involved in abuse than simply "who has the most strength". It also depends on who has the power, who has the blackmail, who has been isolated from help/friends/family, who has been brainwashed to believe they deserve the abuse, who has threatened to injure for trivial cause, you name it. Judging by gender and gender alone, I agree, is wrong, but so is judging by strength alone too. Or by training. Each situation should be judged individually taking into account all factors.

This is all true, but goes beyond the scope of what his original point is. His is of simply hitting someone, whereas yours addresses abuse.

In answer to an earlier question by someone else, the feminism I know and believe in is the feminist principles that started from the very beginning of the movement: belief in women's rights: belief in the need to secure rights and opportunities for women equal to those of men, or a commitment to securing these and the movement committed to securing and defending rights and opportunities for women that are equal to those of men. This goal has not changed since the beginning. It is the various sub feminist movements that have veered off in different directions. But, feminism really has not changed its stance. It has been interpreted differently, producing people who believe all kinds of weird and erroneus things as mentioned by many on this board. It still doesn't change the core goal of the movement.

Perfect. This is the exact kind of feminism that is the issue. The one that considers itself "better" than the others and claims it is fighting for "equality", yet it somehow does not even seem enter consideration that men are disadvantaged in some areas just as much as women are disadvantaged in others. If you only aim to remove the disadvantages towards women, and maintain where men and women are equal, then what happens? Women have more rights than men! How does this happen? By feminism being a one-sided rights group that does not even consider the fact that men can even be disadvantaged, as evident in the responses I'm quoting; only removing disadvantages for women and maintaining their removal, all the while ignoring disadvantages of men, leaving men disadvantaged. This is where people get the idea that feminism desires to have more rights than men. That is not gender equality, by any reasonable definition.


This is exactly why I would see both feminism and masculism close their doors, and those among them who actually are truly for equal rights among genders, form a new group with the strength of both groups (not that masculism is near as powerful as feminism) -- with the added strength of recruiting people just like me, who would not join either side -- and put the gender issues to bed once and for all.

I remeber an article lately, where a women was titeld as a "Girl freeing herself" and was applauded over the whole article. For what? Raping a man.
I've strangely never seen an article applauding a men for raping a women?

I would really like to read that article, if you still know where to find it. It is horrifying how nobody seems to care about males being raped, just because of some stupid stereotypical view that "men wouldn't care, because all they like is sexy anyway".

[Deleted]

To be honest girls, no guy out there is going to respect you if you're just whining about sexism. If you want to be treated differently, DO SOMETHING about it instead of sitting there like a grumpy feminist. And don't tell me nothing can be done about it, because I have had my share and seen things change.

I also agree with what DionLight7 said about us being animals. 'Tis true. Sure, there's no need for us to be treated so badly to a point where we are abused, but why bother demand more than we have at the moment? Are you never happy? We CAN'T be equal with men. EVER. No matter how hard we try. It's not in a man's instincts to be below a woman. It's just not.

I think women are treated very well nowdays, compared to how we've been treated in the past. I am pleased with this.



P.S. If a man is treating you badly, just kick him in the balls. <3

[Khraine]

I'm all for human equality. chauvinists and feminists should both be working in the kitchen

[Elementium]

I'm for 100% equality of everyone.

Although I don't deny that because of our animal instincts (which we often repress) Men do tend to feel like they should be the dominant ones. Personally nothings more attractive then a women who can take care of herself and these days it's really stupid to think gender roles are valid in anyway other than what's physically impossible for men (Sorry ladies!).

[DeadlyDoll]

I don't know about you, but the few times that I've seen a woman slap a man, it MAYBE leaves a red mark on their face and bruises their pride. Especially if the woman was petite and isn't trained how to hit others effectively enough to really hurt. On the other hand, when a man slaps a woman, I've usually seen the woman go flying several feet back, at least got knocked over and then sprouts a rather nasty bruise. It's not that one is a man and the other is a woman, it is that the man usually has a lot more ability to damage and injure when slapping than a woman does.

I want to make believe I never read this. Because it doesn't hurt as much, it's acceptable? So just because a woman who gets hit by a man is more likely to be hurt than a man who is hit by a woman (let's just say both for no just reason because if a random guy grabs my ass and I punch him, I do believe I have every right to do so) that means the latter is brushed off and the guy shouldn't be acting like such a baby while the former is deemed as abuse? And you talk about equality... This is mind-boggling to me. If I am misunderstanding you, do explain this concept to me because the way I'm seeing it now, it is NOT just and definitely unacceptable.

Oh and what you were saying about kids being more scared of the father? That's not true for all cases. Most kids I grew up with were scared of their mothers (I was scared of their moms too lol) because believe it or not, their mothers are the ones who will hit them while their dads usually have no say in the matter. I was particularly afraid of my aunt. My parents never laid a hand on me, my aunt on the other hand made me kneel on a basin of rock salt for an hour once. I don't even remember what I did, but yeah... And the beatings with a leather belt.. The welts would last for a week, and mind you she was a very petite woman.

Just a note, I'm not saying my aunt was abusive. I deserved those beatings and I do not hate her, I in fact love her with all my heart because she helped me become the person I am today and honestly, I thank her for her guidance.

[TheShinyOne]

I don't know about you, but the few times that I've seen a woman slap a man, it MAYBE leaves a red mark on their face and bruises their pride. Especially if the woman was petite and isn't trained how to hit others effectively enough to really hurt. On the other hand, when a man slaps a woman, I've usually seen the woman go flying several feet back, at least got knocked over and then sprouts a rather nasty bruise. It's not that one is a man and the other is a woman, it is that the man usually has a lot more ability to damage and injure when slapping than a woman does. Is it any wonder that people think it more permissable for a woman to slap than a man? Why do children fear spankings more from their father than their mother? Is it because one has a penis and the other a vagina, no, it's because daddy hits harder. period. Perhaps society does pass over women abusing others physically more than they should, but for good reason, they don't do as much damage. What really is devastating that women can do is not physical but emotional abuse, because that is the sort of abuse that women can pull off without being big and tough.

The point I've been trying to make is that the society stereotypes the situation not entirely on gender, but on the amount of damage generally caused.

Then you are truly deluded. Is that really how you think it works? Enter my refutation, right before your eyes:

P.S. If a man is treating you badly, just kick him in the balls. <3

In a perfect world, if I had my way, no one would slap anyone else to injure, but until then, I'm going to imagine that the woman who is slapped is more likely to be injured than the guy is slapped. Is that unjust?

In order to stay consistent, explain why it is socially acceptable and fine to physically harm testicles by means such as kicking, but shocking and offensive to physically harm labia in the same manner? It is because a physical attack is based upon gender, not damage caused. Men can be permanently disabled from testicle damage; the mental and emotional backlashes from this are huge! Men have died from being kicked in the testicles, yet it's somehow viewed by society as something that is humourous, that is to be laughed at, that is okay for a woman to do if she is offended? But if a man were to kick a woman in the labia, he would become a public enemy and would be bashed by those around him, forever hated by women and feminists, he would be arrested, and it could go even further!

...society stereotypes the situation not entirely on gender, but on the amount of damage generally caused.

This is absolute garbage. You are wrong. How could you possibly be for equality if you can't even identify this?

[TheImmortalLordAtlas]

TheShinyOne is now my hero

[Karyssia]

As a female I say who cares. Why is this even a topic? Smh.

[Fortera]

Please do your volunteer 'job' and lock these idiotic threads, moderators.

They never lead anywhere but arguing.