Thread: Tell Me About Feminism

There becomes a point when gender equality becomes womyn superiority.
I think feminism can go either way.

Like everything else, there are extremes, and too much of a good thing almost always ends up bad.

Can you list real examples of where women have tried to assert superiority over men? I know there are a few crazy misandrists out there who claim to be feminists, but I think the concept of feminism has become so tarnished and negatized for that reason partly to keep women down and from speaking out about women's rights.

It doesn't sound like its about equality to me.

The name says it all, really: Feminism. It's not about equality of the sexes, but the superiority of the feminine vs. the masculine approach, to governance, business, relationships, and any and all human realms. I accept much of the criticism leveled at "The Patriarchy" of old, and recognize the continuing disparagement of the feminine in many areas, but find Humanism far superior to Feminism in addressing these issues.

Granted, we likely wouldn't be in a position to consider true Humanism without Feminism having fought for women's rights, and there continues to be a role for Feminism in areas both geographical and ontological.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

The name says it all, really: Feminism. It's not about equality of the sexes, but the superiority of the feminine vs. the masculine approach, to governance, business, relationships, and any and all human realms. I accept much of the criticism leveled at "The Patriarchy" of old, and recognize the continuing disparagement of the feminine in many areas, but find Humanism far superior to Feminism in addressing these issues.

Granted, we likely wouldn't be in a position to consider true Humanism without Feminism having fought for women's rights, and there continues to be a role for Feminism in areas both geographical and ontological.

http://www.answers.com/topic/feminism

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/feminism

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/feminism

I... am a feminist.

Taosaur, granted that's what the name seems to imply, it really does aim to
make the sexes equal socially/politically/economically/whatever, just as Black
Eagle posted.

Originally Posted by Invader

Taosaur, granted that's what the name seems to imply, it really does aim to
make the sexes equal socially/politically/economically/whatever, just as Black
Eagle posted.

That was my impression as a teenager, as well, and I considered myself a feminist at that time, but I have since discovered that there is a strong strain of feminism, both in the upper echelons of academic Women's Studies and out among 'the laity,' that holds the feminine superior to the masculine and considers it preferable as a guiding force for society. There's an adversarial component built in to the concept of feminism, such that while I support many aspects and initiatives of feminism, I cannot call myself a feminist. If equality is the goal, why would anyone hesitate to set feminism aside for the more inclusive doctrine of humanism?

Down the road we can move on to mammalianism, then animalism, organicism, beingism and, finally, being-and-nonbeingism

Originally Posted by Taosaur

If equality is the goal, why would anyone hesitate to set feminism aside for the more inclusive doctrine of humanism?

Down the road we can move on to mammalianism, then animalism, organicism, beingism and, finally, being-and-nonbeingism

I pretty much agree agree all the way. The only thing that feminism really has left to do is secure equal pay for equal work which is still, as of the last time I checked, lacking. I don't see any major focus on that though and thus anybody who claims to be a feminist and isn't working on that almost exclusively is just seeking to make women dominant over men, IMO. So I suppose that he logic of setting feminism aside from humanism is a 'divide and conquer' strategy but after the last aforementioned legitimate goal is achieved, such separatists won't have even that leg to stand on.

Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer

Can you list real examples of where women have tried to assert superiority over men?

There are plenty of relatively insignificant examples based on the observations and experiences of others, but here's one that would make any rational person's (man or woman) blood boil. I'm not usually one to say, all in good conscience, that a person should just drop dead. Valerie Solanas, however, is one major exception. She can drop dead. And HARD.

I'll post my thoughts on feminism in more detail later (at work right now), but for now, let me just say that I strongly agree with Taosaur.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I pretty much agree agree all the way. The only thing that feminism really has left to do is secure equal pay for equal work which is still, as of the last time I checked, lacking.

That, and gender role in society. I don't know how aware you are of the
objectification of women over the media, but it's enough to make women's
anger pretty understandable in that direction. It's disgusting. It's as bad as
constantly stereotyping a specific ethnicity (which also happens regularly).

I don't disagree, Taosaur, although the domineering women you speak of are
only taking advantage of what the feminist movement is supposed to be
(equality of the sexes, according to the dictionary). Humanism, for starters,
would certainly a better phrase.

They're fierce... and they're in your FACE!!!!!!!

I think all females should stick to cleaning and cooking, and making babies.

[/joke]

But really, i think in some cases they bring it on themselves. If you watch any of the mainstream media outlets, its blatantly obvious that the women anchoring/speaking on those shows are straight up bimbo's. Fox news, from my observation, only allows blonde girls under 6 feet and under 130 lbs to anchor or host any of their time slots. The same goes for CNN, but they arent as strict about it. But they still have Robin Meade and a host of other dunderheads sitting up there talking about anything from christmas shopping to "scientific studies," and they have ABSOLUTELY no idea what they are talking about. The mainstream news puts these types of women on for reasons other than actually doing some good journalism, and those reasons are basically to keep people watching and to get ratings.
I mean, Michelle Malkin, seriously?

And also, i see women walking around all the time in clothes that would make my grandpa fall over with a heart attack, but when someone looks at them inappropriately they act like its the most unexpected thing. I think there was a commercial once where an ugly guy tried to ask this girl to lunch, and she called the cops or something, but when some "hot" guy walks in in nothing but his boxers and grabs her boob, she says "Hi."

[/rant]

And also, i see women walking around all the time in clothes that would make my grandpa fall over with a heart attack, but when someone looks at them inappropriately they act like its the most unexpected thing.

Anti-Slut defense. Look it up.

^^Yeah i guess that makes sense. But they're still sluts whether they like it or not

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

^^Yeah i guess that makes sense. But they're still sluts whether they like it or not

I'm a total slut. And I'm a dude. I would fuck any semi-attractive woman that would do it with me, anytime, anywhere. Is there a problem with that?

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I'm a total slut. And I'm a dude. I would fuck any semi-attractive woman that would do it with me, anytime, anywhere. Is there a problem with that?

It's cool for a man to be a slut. That's only fair.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I pretty much agree agree all the way. The only thing that feminism really has left to do is secure equal pay for equal work which is still, as of the last time I checked, lacking. I don't see any major focus on that though and thus anybody who claims to be a feminist and isn't working on that almost exclusively is just seeking to make women dominant over men, IMO.

There's so much more that feminism has left to do besides equal pay. Pretty much everything besides being allowed to vote and other basic laws STILL needs to be worked on. Just consider all the domestic violence, human trafficking, double standards both in the media and in real life that actively create a glass ceiling for women.

This article is particularly sobering.

Originally Posted by Lëzen

There are plenty of relatively insignificant examples based on the observations and experiences of others, but here's one that would make any rational person's (man or woman) blood boil. I'm not usually one to say, all in good conscience, that a person should just drop dead. Valerie Solanas, however, is one major exception. She can drop dead. And HARD.

I'll post my thoughts on feminism in more detail later (at work right now), but for now, let me just say that I strongly agree with Taosaur.

That not feminism. That misandry. Look them up and see the differences. Plus, just like in any cause, there are extreme radicals that the original purpose of the cause has no association with. The vast majority of feminists, as far as I know, are nowhere near that radical. They just want to be treated like human beings. Is that so hard?

Originally Posted by Invader

That, and gender role in society. I don't know how aware you are of the
objectification of women over the media, but it's enough to make women's
anger pretty understandable in that direction. It's disgusting. It's as bad as
constantly stereotyping a specific ethnicity (which also happens regularly).

I don't disagree, Taosaur, although the domineering women you speak of are
only taking advantage of what the feminist movement is supposed to be
(equality of the sexes, according to the dictionary). Humanism, for starters,
would certainly a better phrase.

I agree completely with Invader.

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

But really, i think in some cases they bring it on themselves. If you watch any of the mainstream media outlets, its blatantly obvious that the women anchoring/speaking on those shows are straight up bimbo's. Fox news, from my observation, only allows blonde girls under 6 feet and under 130 lbs to anchor or host any of their time slots. The same goes for CNN, but they arent as strict about it. But they still have Robin Meade and a host of other dunderheads sitting up there talking about anything from christmas shopping to "scientific studies," and they have ABSOLUTELY no idea what they are talking about. The mainstream news puts these types of women on for reasons other than actually doing some good journalism, and those reasons are basically to keep people watching and to get ratings.
I mean, Michelle Malkin, seriously?

But how is that honestly women doing that, and not the men who hire them? In this society, if you want to be successful on TV as a woman, usually the only way to do that is to be attractive and sexual.

I think there was a commercial once where an ugly guy tried to ask this girl to lunch, and she called the cops or something, but when some "hot" guy walks in in nothing but his boxers and grabs her boob, she says "Hi."

[/rant]

I think that would tend to be an equal case if an ugly woman came on to a man, versus an attractive woman.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It's cool for a man to be a slut. That's only fair.

I hope you're joking. I really do. That's probably the most popular double standard of all time.

^^Uhhh...they are treated like human beings, my friend.

Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer

I hope you're joking. I really do. That's probably the most popular double standard of all time.

Yeah, I was being satirical and pointing out the blatantly unfair double standard. Personally, I don't at all hold it against a woman if she is slut. It is so absurd when guys who would screw anything that walks go, "She's a damn slut." I'm always like, "Uh, you're a slut."

Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer

I hope you're joking. I really do. That's probably the most popular double standard of all time.

Genetically, a male's goal is to try and breed as much as possible to pass his genes on to the next generation. A female's goal is to only accept the best genes to pass on. It's not really much of a double standard, just the way nature works.

Originally Posted by Demon Parasite

Genetically, a male's goal is to try and breed as much as possible to pass his genes on to the next generation. A female's goal is to only accept the best genes to pass on. It's not really much of a double standard, just the way nature works.

That is the explanation for the natural tendency to have the double standard, but we live in an age where female sluts are generally trying to avoid getting pregnant and pretty much all of the male sluts are. People need to understand the silliness of having the double standard in these times.

Yeah its because we've become degenerate and people seek to fulfill their lives with pleasures, one of which is sex, without taking on the responsibility for the consequences

Uh.. Can I say something about this equal pay idea. Isn't it Socialistic to force employer to pay women the same as men? The women can demand more payment and everyone can be happy without socialism and without muddying up the legal system. I don't see the need for a law.

Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer

That not feminism. That misandry. Look them up and see the differences. Plus, just like in any cause, there are extreme radicals that the original purpose of the cause has no association with. The vast majority of feminists, as far as I know, are nowhere near that radical. They just want to be treated like human beings. Is that so hard?

A vast majority of feminists may not be that radical, to be sure, but a vast majority of them do, in fact, show some degree of misandrist behavior, even if minute...and therein lies the point: feminism and misandry tend to go hand-in-hand, no matter what way you look at it.

You see, the tables have turned with sexism, as far the degree to which one sex may stereotype the other goes. You see these self-obsessed cougars on shows like Sex and the City, going on and on and ON with their sexist jokes based off of male stereotypes..."Ooh, they're afraid to commit!" (*inane shrill giggling*), or "Ooh, if only the sex had lasted as long as the [insert lengthy activity]" (*inane shrill giggling*)" and whatever else have you.

And yet, poor Bernie Mac - rest his soul - got blasted for making a simple joke implying that his wife (and by extension, many women) tend to cheat. (Oh, kind of like the very same assumption women have that men always cheat? You don't hear anyone complaining about that when women joke about it.)

Quite possibly the only thing I believe women are getting jipped for - at least in today's society - is the double standard mentioned above. Because men have always circulated the myth that "women don't enjoy sex", women who do enjoy it are labeled as sluts. And because women (or at least any self-respecting woman in her right mind) wouldn't want to be labeled as slutty, a self-fulfilling prophecy sort of deal begins to unfold: women begin to really not enjoy sex, thereby causing them to be less receptive to sexual advances by their partners, thus only reinforcing the stereotype that women are simply prudes who don't enjoy sex. Which is something that any guy with half a brain should consider to be fucked-up; a woman with insecurities = LITTLE OR NO SEX.

However, that's really the only unfair disadvantage I think that women still have these days, aside from the relatively minor issue of equal pay. There exist many advantages that women have over men that will only perpetuate the circle of inequality. Certain social...privileges, if you will, that unless they are done away with, equality can never be achieved. Perhaps I'll explain them in a later post, but right now I've about ranted myself out.