Modern Feminism - What's the deal?

[Zhangfei]

Nah he retired some years ago was a random woman..Was more pointing out how widespread this paranoia has gone from the old days. Hell he was there during the early days of "predators are everywhere" if he didn't have some recordings proving his innocence he might have been brought up on cahrges....The guy heading the investigation had welll to make a harry potter reference Me Eye Moody thing going on. He'd been chasing predators and monsters so long he started to see em everywhere...Which sadly may be happening to society..

Oh and that actually is likely one cause of the courts favoring women since men are pretty easily painted/looked at in such a way these days.

And yeah i AM honest..can't lie since it makes me depressed and i am more often then not genuine..And of course i remember they're kids.

TBH i'm paranoid of others paranoia LOL...And yeah shitty place to be sometimes.

You sound a lot like my brother-in-law. The more paranoid you are, the more susceptible you are to seeing bad news and the more likely you'll feel targeted. I've noticed a change in approach and some odd looks but never been accused of anything - mainly because I have been trained in this time period and know how to avoid those worries.

Millions of male (and female) teachers do it every day without a problem and the few that do have problems get caught!

ake Valentines Day men are encouraged to spend large amounts of money on jewelry, candy, and flowers while it is acceptable for women to put on some fancy panties and trade sex as a gift.

From day one with my wife (and then gf) I told her that this thinking was based on inequality, so we spend the same on each other for St. Valentine's Day. We had all these discussions about equality back in the 90s lulz.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I'm a fan of helping people up even if it costs me personally.

Well you sound like a better person then, world could use more of that, but I think its possible to find common ground with most if people are inclined to give it a real effort, thus not costing anybody much, and gaining everybody the peace we all deserve.

[Sorrior]

You sound a lot like my brother-in-law. The more paranoid you are, the more susceptible you are to seeing bad news and the more likely you'll feel targeted. I've noticed a change in approach and some odd looks but never been accused of anything - mainly because I have been trained in this time period and know how to avoid those worries.

Millions of male (and female) teachers do it every day without a problem and the few that do have problems get caught!



From day one with my wife (and then gf) I told her that this thinking was based on inequality, so we spend the same on each other for St. Valentine's Day. We had all these discussions about equality back in the 90s lulz.

LOL i know and as i said before i'm not at my best right now either..Down and depressed whole recovering from heartbreak thing...So yeah.

I actually can see glass half full and when normal don't worry that much anymore..But still i have my relapses into full paranoia.

[Doctor Amadeus]

You talk about "men clubs that keep women down". Of course your assertion is that the only thing keeping women out of possition of power is "dem evil mans". Nowhere did you even acknowledge the fact that most women DONT EVEN PURSUE possitions of power and focus on part time jobs, family and comfort fields.

Alright guilty, sometimes it isn't always some guy behind a desk petting cat, and pushing buttons to make the world unfair, this is true, and I don't think feminism has ever been about women or anybody not applying themselves, but what i dont get is what you dont get about having access, that is it Access, no having to jump through a hoop of fire because your dad did, or you did, or I did, but giving someone access to an opprotunity and yes we are all different, and yes men are equally as deserving of rights hell I am a man last time i checked.


But living seeing life through the eyes of women i love, Some of them like some guys have a pretty rough go, its on everybody to do their share, I am just saying on the otherside nobody needs some dick, pushing against just because they can, and to me that represents the extremes on both sides that hurt everybody all around.

[Sorrior]

Well you sound like a better person then, world could use more of that, but I think its possible to find common ground with most if people are inclined to give it a real effort, thus not costing anybody much, and gaining everybody the peace we all deserve.

I agree..I actually support equality for both genders..But people like my sister have soured the feminist movement for me..She has LITERALLY said that women are superior to men in every way...

Moderate feminists however i have no problem with. Inequalities do exist but i just wish that the problems men suffer as well would be addressed and taken seriously as well.

[Zhangfei]

LOL i know and as i said before i'm not at my best right now either..Down and depressed whole recovering from heartbreak thing...So yeah.

I actually can see glass half full and when normal don't worry that much anymore..But still i have my relapses into full paranoia.

I'm a major depressive so I can relate some to how you're feeling. Hope you get better soon, like I said, you remind me of my brother-in-law. He's all raw emotion and intelligence frustration and too sensitive for this world. It can lead to dark places and dark thoughts.

It's a constant battle but you can win!

But people like my sister have soured the feminist movement for me..She has LITERALLY said that women are superior to men in every way...

Well then she's not a feminist!

[Endus]

So... how do you "do" gender relations without acknowledging different genders? Where do you get your ideas from?

Where are you getting the impression that I don't acknowledge gender? You keep projecting stuff onto my argument that I have never once suggested or implied. If you can't debate with me based on what I've actually said, and have to continuously try and make claims that aren't true like this, I'm just going to stop responding, since you don't seem to be interested in an honest discussion.

It's like making a ruling in a sports match. If the referee is a fan of either team, he's biased. It's better if he takes a stance that DOESN'T favor one or the other, even if one team's the underdog. And taking such a stance doesn't mean he can't acknowledge which team is which; that's ludicrous and I have no idea where you got that.

It is still true, whether you like it or not. It's clearly a male-dominated process.

To be clear, are you saying women can't negotiate competitively because they are women? You never answered that, before.

If you think they can't, you're perpetuating the idea that women are inferior to men.
If you think they can, then the issue isn't with the employers, it's that women aren't valuing themselves highly enough, and we should address that rather than the straw man of the job market system somehow being "unfair" because you can negotiate salaries.

I'm posing this question for a reason. It's because of this;

This is a straw man; I'm attacking society for perpetuating, reinforcing and expecting women to behave a certain way while equally acknowledging neurological differences that put women under men in this advantageous situation. We all know the individual woman can and may do it, but it's overall discriminatory.

You certainly seem to be arguing that women just have inferior brains and that's why they end up paid less. That's what "neurological differences put women under men" means. And I'm pointing out that this is misogyny; you're not trying to establish equal opportunity for women; you're arguing for special privileges to offset their inherent inferiority. That's what "neurological differences put women under men" means. And I find that offensive. That's why I take such issue with this argument; it assumes an inherent inferiority on behalf of women. I think they're fully the equals of men. That's the root of our dispute here. I don't agree that women are at any neurological deficit.

And that is a fantastic thing, but to suggest that because your mother and sister did, and other women didn't means they are lazy, or somehow only expecting to get over because they are women, i find bigoted.

I wasn't calling other women "lazy". I was calling out your ad hominem for claiming that I didn't understand because I must not have a mother or sister who've been through this. You're just projecting stuff onto my arguments.

[Sorrior]

I'm a major depressive so I can relate some to how you're feeling. Hope you get better soon, like I said, you remind me of my brother-in-law. He's all raw emotion and intelligence frustration and too sensitive for this world. It can lead to dark places and dark thoughts.

It's a constant battle but you can win!



Well then she's not a feminist!

LOL I know ic an. I'm past the worst of it already..And yeah i'm a bit soo sensitive and do indeed have a dark side...One that scares me TBH..But normally i'm pretty chipper....And before you ask my therapist says i'm just a bit more emotional not bipolar or borderline..I also recover faster then most she says so yeah...

I'd like it to deadpool or wolverine..I take a serious beating but i keep on ticking and heal fast.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I agree..I actually support equality for both genders..But people like my sister have soured the feminist movement for me..She has LITERALLY said that women are superior to men in every way...

Moderate feminists however i have no problem with. Inequalities do exist but i just wish that the problems men suffer as well would be addressed and taken seriously as well.

I think Feminism is movement based on an idea, You don't have to be a feminist, but I think its good you don't let a few people you disagree with, sour your belief in the idea everybody should atleast be allowed acces and not locked out because they are a man or a woman, based on fear or ignorance

[Deleted]

A pet peeve of mine is people who take issue with identifying as a Feminist, despite agreeing with the core tenets and philosophies of the movement. Feminists are for equal economic, social and political rights for men and women. The reason the movement is called feminism is because women are historically disadvantaged in these areas and as such advocacy for this position requires championing the rights of women. You could say that i'm an egalitarian if you like, but i won't call myself one because it distances me from feminists who came before me and has the danger of ignoring the issues of the minority just from getting drowned out by the issues of the majority. You have to make a special effort to keep the issues of the minority prominent or they will not be heard over the issues of the majority which in this case is men. Also, i've taken a look at so called 'egalitarian' communities and get a strong vibe that there is a noticeable number of people who identify as such who only do so as a means to disguise their misogyny. I'm not saying by any means all are, but i wouldn't want to stand along side those who do.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Where are you getting the impression that I don't acknowledge gender? You keep projecting stuff onto my argument that I have never once suggested or implied. If you can't debate with me based on what I've actually said, and have to continuously try and make claims that aren't true like this, I'm just going to stop responding, since you don't seem to be interested in an honest discussion.

It's like making a ruling in a sports match. If the referee is a fan of either team, he's biased. It's better if he takes a stance that DOESN'T favor one or the other, even if one team's the underdog. And taking such a stance doesn't mean he can't acknowledge which team is which; that's ludicrous and I have no idea where you got that.



To be clear, are you saying women can't negotiate competitively because they are women? You never answered that, before.

If you think they can't, you're perpetuating the idea that women are inferior to men.
If you think they can, then the issue isn't with the employers, it's that women aren't valuing themselves highly enough, and we should address that rather than the straw man of the job market system somehow being "unfair" because you can negotiate salaries.

I'm posing this question for a reason. It's because of this;


You certainly seem to be arguing that women just have inferior brains and that's why they end up paid less. That's what "neurological differences put women under men" means. And I'm pointing out that this is misogyny; you're not trying to establish equal opportunity for women; you're arguing for special privileges to offset their inherent inferiority. That's what "neurological differences put women under men" means. And I find that offensive. That's why I take such issue with this argument; it assumes an inherent inferiority on behalf of women. I think they're fully the equals of men. That's the root of our dispute here. I don't agree that women are at any neurological deficit.




I wasn't calling other women "lazy". I was calling out your ad hominem for claiming that I didn't understand because I must not have a mother or sister who've been through this. You're just projecting stuff onto my arguments.

Well I apologise if something I said came off as an attack that wasn't my intention, I am just saying the feminist movement is one I believe that is right, has done a lot of good and enlight of history, where unlike no other time in history everybody has more access now than they nearly ever did, and I don't think just because you have access and don't use it like your mother and sister did, means well, you just didn't choose to do it. They seem to be very admirable people.

[Sorrior]

I think Feminism is movement based on an idea, You don't have to be a feminist, but I think its good you don't let a few people you disagree with, sour your belief in the idea everybody should atleast be allowed acces and not locked out because they are a man or a woman, based on fear or ignorance

I just look at it as having been corrupted in recent times...I think it could still do great things if the more moderate people were more vocal/in charge but as with many things the extremists have taken the reigns.

[Lordender]

There is a lot of mis-information going on here, lets start with the what we know, speaking from the USA point of view.

The pay wage gap is a myth.

Historically women take more time off, they take time off to have kids, they take more vacation time on average, they knowingly take jobs that allow them this flexibility. Generally, Women dial back their careers once they do have children. Women do not take the more dangerous jobs, coal miners, electricians, construction/road workers, jobs that require high physical presence or bad working conditions, these jobs generally pay more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziWzgs40euc

Women making more money in professional Tennis than men, despite playing less sets.


The next argument is men are always violent, women are always victims(another messages feminists use to indoctrinate boys and girls). Domestic violence are very close committed between the genders. According to the CDC, Men are at 189k, Women are at 115k at the age 20-24 bracket, not the landslide margin feminists would have everyone believe.

Domestic violence against men isn't taken as serious in society and under the law. Various close friends of mine were hit, some by blunt weapons by violent girlfriends and the cops did nothing until it happened enough to show markings, cuts, bruises. Despite high domestic violence cases between the genders, women have shelters to escape to avoid violent men while men are simply told to "man up".

Women face 63% Less jail time than men for the same crimes and less likely to be convicted all together.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1874742.html


Male suicide rate climbs much higher after 2nd and 3rd wave feminism(post 1960-to present), largely due to the family court laws ushered in by feminism. "Tender years doctrine" which was later phased out toward the end of the 20th century into "Bests interests of the child doctrine" that affords women in the majority custody.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-efbXFk6Hts...eenShot007.jpg


Women have all the rights to childbirth(post pregnancy) despite needing the 50% provided by males. Women have much more birthcontrol options than men, including abortion options, safe haven laws where a child can be dropped off with no questions asked.

Women in the USA are not subject to the draft(Selective service) and get the same rights to vote.

Huge discrepancy in cancer funding that heavily favors breast cancer.

http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/05/br...er-of-victims/


In 1982 the ERA was struck down by a non-feminist who went by the name of Phyllis Schlafly, about as non-feminist as it comes(conservative right). It is not just feminists that want "cherry picked brand of equality". The ERA would have prevented discrimination under the law between the sexes and would have made women subject to the draft in the USA. In 1969, Ronald Reagan(converted to republican by this time period) introduced the concept "No-fault divorce" in California, by 1985, "no-fault divorce" existed in all 50 states, this was another blow in converting marriage into the joke it is to today.

Feminists aren't responsible for everything, men(politicians) are just as responsible, on both sides of the political party. I don't affiliate with either party, they're just as responsible as the feminists for the mess western society finds itself in.

[Zhangfei]

Where are you getting the impression that I don't acknowledge gender? You keep projecting stuff onto my argument that I have never once suggested or implied. If you can't debate with me based on what I've actually said, and have to continuously try and make claims that aren't true like this, I'm just going to stop responding, since you don't seem to be interested in an honest discussion.

You've said you don't approach it from a male perspective nor a female perspective, so what perspective do you approach it from? How do you acknowledge gender issues if you... well, reject the views of the two genders?

You can get whiny if you like. I know text is not the best place for inflection so I apologise if I sound ruder than I am trying to be. I was genuinely asking the question because I don't intellectually understand what the "third" gender approach is.

To be clear, are you saying women can't negotiate competitively because they are women? You never answered that, before.

I'm saying there's a neurological component that disadvantages them on the whole and a social component that compounds that. Women on the whole are less able to negotiate. It doesn't mean every individual women is less able to.

Unless neurology and society changes, it's discrimination.

You certainly seem to be arguing that women just have inferior brains and that's why they end up paid less. That's what "neurological differences put women under men" means. And I'm pointing out that this is misogyny; you're not trying to establish equal opportunity for women; you're arguing for special privileges to offset their inherent inferiority. That's what "neurological differences put women under men" means. And I find that offensive. That's why I take such issue with this argument; it assumes an inherent inferiority on behalf of women. I think they're fully the equals of men. That's the root of our dispute here. I don't agree that women are at any neurological deficit.

Woah. Being able to negotiate is not inherently "better," it's just a different skill. Your argument to me implies that baseball players are inherently worse than computer engineers because they can't code. Men have neurological and social difficulties demonstrating empathy; that's not saying every man cannot be empathetic nor is it saying men are somehow worse for it. A skill is a skill. An ability is an ability. If you choose to ascribe a preferred skill as making someone "better," you do that.

My point is that negotiation is not a key point to the majority of jobs so relying on it is discrimination. It'd be the exact same if showing empathy during an interview gained you more money; it'd be discrimination because it's relying upon a skill that comes easier to women and less so to men.

As I've said before; if the job does involve negotiation, fine. If it involves empathy, fine. If it doesn't, it's discrimination. I see no need for it apart from a historical "well we've always done it this way" kind of thinking.

But like you said, we disagree with the neurological basis of the argument. We shall only find out over time. Right now, neurology shows distinct differences between gender whatever you or I think.

A pet peeve of mine is people who take issue with identifying as a Feminist, despite agreeing with the core tenets and philosophies of the movement. Feminists are for equal economic, social and political rights for men and women

Mine too. I think people want to blacken or tarnish the name out of some inherent sexism. Wanting equality for BOTH genders has been a policy of feminism since the 70s but people don't seem to want to acknowledge that.

[Endus]

You've said you don't approach it from a male perspective nor a female perspective, so what perspective do you approach it from? How do you acknowledge gender issues if you... well, reject the views of the two genders?

You can get whiny if you like. I know text is not the best place for inflection so I apologise if I sound ruder than I am trying to be. I was genuinely asking the question because I don't intellectually understand what the "third" gender approach is.

I come at it from the perspective of balance.

Much like, again, a referee in a sports match. I don't have the perspective of either team, because that would defeat the entire purpose of what I'm trying to do. There is no "third gender". There's a perspective that doesn't pick sides at the outset. You can't claim there isn't by insisting I have to pick a side.

I'm saying there's a neurological component that disadvantages them on the whole and a social component that compounds that. Women on the whole are less able to negotiate. It doesn't mean every individual women is less able to.

Unless neurology and society changes, it's discrimination.

So you ARE arguing that women are neurologically inferior.

And I'm supposed to be the guy who's anti-feminist? I'm not the one claiming that women are just not capable of negotiating. I'm saying they have reasons, good or bad, for not choosing to be as aggressive about it. You're the one claiming they're inferior and need special treatment to protect them from their own incompetence.

My point is that negotiation is not a key point to the majority of jobs so relying on it is discrimination.

Unless your wage is set by collectively negotiated contract and determined by objective measures, this is simply not true. Your wages are negotiated, and it is a key factor of that job for that reason.

[Zhangfei]

I come at it from the perspective of balance.

Much like, again, a referee in a sports match. I don't have the perspective of either team, because that would defeat the entire purpose of what I'm trying to do. There is no "third gender". There's a perspective that doesn't pick sides at the outset. You can't claim there isn't by insisting I have to pick a side.

But you have to acknowledge there's only two genders and you are part of one, you can't be the referee. It'd be like the goalkeeper also officiating. The only views that apply to gender equality are from the genders.

I don't think it's possible to be into some sort of "meta awareness" because of our make-up, but we've exhausted this topic Thank you for clarifying.

So you ARE arguing that women are neurologically inferior.

And I'm supposed to be the guy who's anti-feminist?

Where did I say "inferior"? I said different. Inherently different does not indicate "inferior" or "superior" in the way you're using it.

But if you're implying people who are good at negotiating are superior and those who aren't are inferior, ok.

Unless your wage is set by collectively negotiated contract and determined by objective measures, this is simply not true. Your wages are negotiated, and it is a key factor of that job for that reason.

Which I disagree with as being a remnant from a male-dominated society that valued it and is clearly discriminatory and unnecessary. A good negotiator should be paid the same as a good empath when it comes to jobs that don't involve or need those skills intrinsically.

[Cybran]

But living seeing life through the eyes of women i love, Some of them like some guys have a pretty rough go, its on everybody to do their share, I am just saying on the otherside nobody needs some dick, pushing against just because they can, and to me that represents the extremes on both sides that hurt everybody all around.

Oh, so we are dicks now. We went from woman haters to regular dicks that do it just because they can?

You honestly mean to tell me that there is nothing wrong with perpetuating a myth that everything bad that has happened to women is the fault of men? You mean to tell me that there is nothing wrong with backing political claims with false "scientific evidence"? You mean to tell me that it's fine to fight against double standards affecting women, but in the same perpetuating gender roles harming men (child custody men are told to "men up and provide")? Same gender role of guardian of women that fights against his fellow males to defend feminism (white knights)?

After all these years where feminism has done nothing to brind close some equality, but has instead managed to elbow its way in every field of education, media and decission making to push its agenda of sexism you still claim its necessery to support it?

[Endus]

But you have to acknowledge there's only two genders and you are part of one, you can't be the referee. It'd be like the goalkeeper also officiating. The only views that apply to gender equality are from the genders.

There you go again, using circular reasoning to claim I can't hold the perspective that I do. I'm able to divorce my personal ego from my thoughts on social structures. It's not rocket surgery.

Edit: And just to be clear, I'm using "ego" in the psychological sense, to refer to my sense of self, not in the more popular sense to imply an aggrandized or inflated sense of self-worth.

Where did I say "inferior"? I said different. Inherently different does not indicate "inferior" or "superior" in the way you're using it.

I'm saying there's a neurological component that disadvantages them on the whole and a social component that compounds that.

You're saying their neurology is disadvantageous to them on the whole. That's a clear statement of inferiority. You very much did NOT just say "different". You said they couldn't do it, so they needed special privileges to protect them from that inherent neurological disadvantage.

Which I disagree with as being a remnant from a male-dominated society that valued it and is clearly discriminatory and unnecessary. A good negotiator should be paid the same as a good empath when it comes to jobs that don't involve or need those skills intrinsically.

If your wage is not set objectively according to a collective bargaining process, then negotiating recompense is an intrinsic need in your line of work. As much as being able to read and write would be. I've done research associate work, and proposed projects. I'm writing a novel as well. All of these require the ability to negotiate my recompense. For the novel, I'll probably want to hire an agent just to be sure, if my first book takes off, because it's so integral that it's worth hiring a specialist. Even though the job of writing itself doesn't involve it.

Claiming that negotiation shouldn't be a factor is ridiculous. You're basically requiring that the state mandate wages for everyone in every job everywhere. That's basically the alternative to the current system.

[Realsykes]

I've met some women who claim to be, and I quote, "crazy feminists."

One thing one woman in particular said has kind of me wonder, and I thought I'd ask for opinions.

She is completely okay with selling herself and her body for money, as she said, "I'd totally take the old D for cash," in reference to stripping and the rooms in the back if you get what I mean.

However, isn't this kind of going against what most feminists stand for?

Idk, I could be completely wrong, but it seems weird to me, so I thought I'd ask.

Enlighten me! I'm here to learn.

[Deleted]

i think everyone here would be served by considering whether they want the Outcome to be equal or the Opportunities be equal.
second if jim is a crap negotiator and gets less pay than bob and sherrie is that also discrimination?
what if jim is better paid than the both of them but is a better worker?
a system where the outcome is predetermined and equal, is by definition not a meritocratic system, meritocracy is one of he cornerstones of feminism, at least how i see it.
simply put we need to build a system that is fair for everyone and then accept if it produces a non perfect mathematical equality.

Unless neurology and society changes, it's discrimination.

how do you propose we change female neurobiology? besides if im better at something than someone else i should be paid more I.E its not discrimination if there is a pay diss-parity (personally i doubt there is any neurobiological differences making women bad negotiators, its most likely just societal indoctrination that women should sit down and shut up)