EPTIn short, I take um-bridge to people rubbishing feminism, because it is so many things, much more than just the negatives stereotypes of women shouting at men for holding doors open, or manholes being renamed.
Ugh feminism.... - Page 5
| Blogs > ranshaked |
|
Kerotan
England2109 Posts
In short, I take um-bridge to people rubbishing feminism, because it is so many things, much more than just the negatives stereotypes of women shouting at men for holding doors open, or manholes being renamed. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7951 Posts
On December 22 2011 03:48 ranshaked wrote: Personally, I feel that we've reached equality, and if we continue, then it'll end up with men on the other end of the stick. I can't find a job as a bartender at most places because i'm not a pretty girl for instance. That's not equal! Yeah that's why there is only 12% women in the boards of european biggest companies. Then someone will come and say that it's because women are not leaders or that they are like this and like that, which will prove my point even further, since on top of inequalities, a shitload of people are massively prejudiced against women. Thanks to Zorkmid: we should all be feminist, although some feminist are plain retarded (but there are retards everywhere and in every movement, and they are always the ones you hear about the most) | ||
|
D_K_night
Canada615 Posts
These will be unpopular viewpoints. Just my opinions guys. Please. The reason that feminism isn't as successful as it could be, is because it means different things to different people. It has long reached the point where it can be just about anything anyone wants it to be. To one person it means more equality for women. To others it means just another outlet for self-expression, with a sprinkle of controversial statements within. Think about technology around us and how things - for the most part - just work. That's because finally dissimilar companies have finally agreed to standards. Plug and Play is a reality(mostly, it's good enough, bear with me here). But there are no concise standards on what Feminism is. Ask X number of people...anyone. It should be as wide a spectrum as you can possibly find, eg. your grandparents, the teenage boy on the street, construction worker, fashion designer, etc etc. Ask them "what does Feminism mean to you" And you'll get different answers from everyone. And that's a problem. Without a central figurehead of some kind, without some unifying set of principles, goals or even say, "commandments of feminism", we lack focus. We can gauge roughly what the conditions are today, but we don't have a unified end goal in mind, one which is consistent across the board, across all ages, groups, cultures, etc. We don't even know how to measure our progress, if any. And you know something? I'd be criticized for "thinking like a man" and these ways "aren't how women think, who are the true rulers of feminism". I can already hear some of you shouting "well noob it's wages disparity DUH" well no it isn't. We can't arguing wage disparity, where there is inequality with respect to gender roles in the workplace. Take a look at jobs/industries such as: - Mining - Sewage Treatment - Forestry - or any job that requires you to be exposed to rain/snow/the elements as a requirement of your job Fair to say that they're male dominated, by a large margin? What about other jobs where they're trying to encourage women to pick up, via ads, government mandates "must hire X women for every X number of men"? Where are the feminists when it comes to these scenarios? Totally silent. Let me guess, the jobs above don't appeal to many women - why? Conversely, why so many female admin assistants vs males? If you wanna talk wage gap in the workplace in an equivalent job, how many examples can you think of, of where there's still inequality with respect to what a male would willingly do, versus a female? Enough talk from me on wage disparity. Next thing is social etiquette. Man takes charge thing, with respect to manners, planning locations/activities for the date, being a gentleman when it comes to the bill - what is the end goal for feminists? Does "equality" mean splitting the bill? Does it mean equal input and ideas from both sides for activities, instead of the boring movie/dinner date? Will we see the woman pull the chair out for the man? I suspect that when it comes to romance, they(the feminists) want these old fashioned behaviors to remain intact, not to change, but yet change all these other things. They will continue to want a strong, take-charge man over a fella who solicits the women for their opinion before committing to action. | ||
|
TheLOLas
United States646 Posts
[B]On December 22 2011 03:45 HackBenjamin wrote:[/B Imagine if there was a zerg unit called "Feminisk". Doesn't do any real damage, it just makes noise to annoy you. This!! I cried laughing! | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
On December 22 2011 07:31 OmniEulogy wrote: I am strongly for equality which we have not reached in North America yet. However when you start to rename manholes because the term is sexist I believe the feminists are shooting themselves in the foot. It's unfortunate that the crazy ones get the largest platforms =/ I don't know about manholes, but the fireman vs firemen and women or firefighters is a reasonable argument. If you make things gender specific then it is harder for people to see themselves in the role. It's not that crazy. I mean what is actually so terrifying about making occupations gender neutral? Maybe you don't want to accept that these things affect the way we think and perceive gender roles, but it is pretty important to making cultural changes (instead of meaningless laws which promise to maintain equity but can't control culture inflicted biases). The word 'crazy feminist' gets thrown around pretty quickly, but if it were me I'd be reserving the word crazy for someone who wants to kill men or thinks that women will one day have no need of men because of artificial sperm. That's crazy. Gender neutral words? Doesn't have much on it imo. | ||
|
MasterBlasterCaster
United States568 Posts
On December 22 2011 05:22 Liquid`Tyler wrote: When the differences in the sexes of children have been studied, we've learned that there's more variation within the sexes (difference between one male and another male, or one female and another female) than there is between the sexes (difference between one male and one female). I am somewhat curious as to what this means? Do they mean physical differences, mental differences, and how do they quantify it? edit: I should expand on this I think: My main problem here is that it seem this study on gender roles was done on "children", who would not be sexually mature yet. Now, I can only assume that they mean mental or psychological "differences", as the physical end of that seems pretty cut and dry. I mean, I can point to one big ass difference that pretty much excludes any idea of larger physical variations within than between. It would be like saying there are larger variations within the different types of apples than there is between apples and oranges. It's just patently false. So, assuming that they do mean mental or psychological differences, the question becomes one of quantifying "differences". One girl likes to climb trees and one boy likes to dance? Well, that isn't so cut and dry as "this girl is masculine, this boy is feminine". And besides that, we're looking at children here. They are obviously not going to be as set in their ways as a fully mature adult. But then pointing at the adult who is set in his ways as evidence of a "gender role" being forced upon him by society is implying that correlation equals causation. A person would necessarily be more set in their sexual identity as a sexually mature being, than they would as a sexually immature being. The fact of physical and psychological differences between the sexes is just that: a well established fact. It is not the result of societal pressures so much as physical triggers. I Taking all this, it is hard for me to accept such a study as valid. Granted that I haven't seen the study in question, and only heard of it from you, but still, what little information I have is enough to question it's credibility. | ||
|
Lightwip
United States5497 Posts
It may cause problems. | ||
|
Mephiztopheles1
1124 Posts
On December 22 2011 08:22 D_K_night wrote: Aside from focusing on the young lass who did that youtube thing, what is the agenda or the motive behind the person. Is the person simply trying to provoke the viewers, in order to "promote" feminism? These will be unpopular viewpoints. Just my opinions guys. Please. The reason that feminism isn't as successful as it could be, is because it means different things to different people. It has long reached the point where it can be just about anything anyone wants it to be. To one person it means more equality for women. To others it means just another outlet for self-expression, with a sprinkle of controversial statements within. Think about technology around us and how things - for the most part - just work. That's because finally dissimilar companies have finally agreed to standards. Plug and Play is a reality(mostly, it's good enough, bear with me here). But there are no concise standards on what Feminism is. Ask X number of people...anyone. It should be as wide a spectrum as you can possibly find, eg. your grandparents, the teenage boy on the street, construction worker, fashion designer, etc etc. Ask them "what does Feminism mean to you" And you'll get different answers from everyone. And that's a problem. Without a central figurehead of some kind, without some unifying set of principles, goals or even say, "commandments of feminism", we lack focus. We can gauge roughly what the conditions are today, but we don't have a unified end goal in mind, one which is consistent across the board, across all ages, groups, cultures, etc. We don't even know how to measure our progress, if any. And you know something? I'd be criticized for "thinking like a man" and these ways "aren't how women think, who are the true rulers of feminism". I can already hear some of you shouting "well noob it's wages disparity DUH" well no it isn't. We can't arguing wage disparity, where there is inequality with respect to gender roles in the workplace. Take a look at jobs/industries such as: - Mining - Sewage Treatment - Forestry - or any job that requires you to be exposed to rain/snow/the elements as a requirement of your job Fair to say that they're male dominated, by a large margin? What about other jobs where they're trying to encourage women to pick up, via ads, government mandates "must hire X women for every X number of men"? Where are the feminists when it comes to these scenarios? Totally silent. Let me guess, the jobs above don't appeal to many women - why? Conversely, why so many female admin assistants vs males? If you wanna talk wage gap in the workplace in an equivalent job, how many examples can you think of, of where there's still inequality with respect to what a male would willingly do, versus a female? Enough talk from me on wage disparity. Next thing is social etiquette. Man takes charge thing, with respect to manners, planning locations/activities for the date, being a gentleman when it comes to the bill - what is the end goal for feminists? Does "equality" mean splitting the bill? Does it mean equal input and ideas from both sides for activities, instead of the boring movie/dinner date? Will we see the woman pull the chair out for the man? I suspect that when it comes to romance, they(the feminists) want these old fashioned behaviors to remain intact, not to change, but yet change all these other things. They will continue to want a strong, take-charge man over a fella who solicits the women for their opinion before committing to action. Just addressing the last point because I've personally discussed it with (academic) feminists and no, they do not want the same heteronormative values where the woman is still reified through couple etiquette to be maintained in romance. They advocate two things mainly: To create a consciousness of gender roles or 'empowerment through consensual dialogue' and the more radical ones prefer a 'deconstruction of the role of monogamy and hierarchical gender relations through a micro-political framework of subversion'. In other words, the latter means that the feminist, if she deems it appropriate will actually pull the chair for you. Date a feminist, they're quite interesting! | ||
|
khaydarin9
Australia423 Posts
On December 22 2011 08:22 D_K_night wrote: Aside from focusing on the young lass who did that youtube thing, what is the agenda or the motive behind the person. Is the person simply trying to provoke the viewers, in order to "promote" feminism? These will be unpopular viewpoints. Just my opinions guys. Please. The reason that feminism isn't as successful as it could be, is because it means different things to different people. It has long reached the point where it can be just about anything anyone wants it to be. To one person it means more equality for women. To others it means just another outlet for self-expression, with a sprinkle of controversial statements within. Think about technology around us and how things - for the most part - just work. That's because finally dissimilar companies have finally agreed to standards. Plug and Play is a reality(mostly, it's good enough, bear with me here). But there are no concise standards on what Feminism is. Ask X number of people...anyone. It should be as wide a spectrum as you can possibly find, eg. your grandparents, the teenage boy on the street, construction worker, fashion designer, etc etc. Ask them "what does Feminism mean to you" And you'll get different answers from everyone. And that's a problem. Without a central figurehead of some kind, without some unifying set of principles, goals or even say, "commandments of feminism", we lack focus. We can gauge roughly what the conditions are today, but we don't have a unified end goal in mind, one which is consistent across the board, across all ages, groups, cultures, etc. We don't even know how to measure our progress, if any. And you know something? I'd be criticized for "thinking like a man" and these ways "aren't how women think, who are the true rulers of feminism". I can already hear some of you shouting "well noob it's wages disparity DUH" well no it isn't. We can't arguing wage disparity, where there is inequality with respect to gender roles in the workplace. Take a look at jobs/industries such as: - Mining - Sewage Treatment - Forestry - or any job that requires you to be exposed to rain/snow/the elements as a requirement of your job Fair to say that they're male dominated, by a large margin? What about other jobs where they're trying to encourage women to pick up, via ads, government mandates "must hire X women for every X number of men"? Where are the feminists when it comes to these scenarios? Totally silent. Let me guess, the jobs above don't appeal to many women - why? Conversely, why so many female admin assistants vs males? If you wanna talk wage gap in the workplace in an equivalent job, how many examples can you think of, of where there's still inequality with respect to what a male would willingly do, versus a female? Enough talk from me on wage disparity. Next thing is social etiquette. Man takes charge thing, with respect to manners, planning locations/activities for the date, being a gentleman when it comes to the bill - what is the end goal for feminists? Does "equality" mean splitting the bill? Does it mean equal input and ideas from both sides for activities, instead of the boring movie/dinner date? Will we see the woman pull the chair out for the man? I suspect that when it comes to romance, they(the feminists) want these old fashioned behaviors to remain intact, not to change, but yet change all these other things. They will continue to want a strong, take-charge man over a fella who solicits the women for their opinion before committing to action. If, as you believe, mining/forestry/hard labour jobs do not generally appeal to women (and I would suggest that there is still a strong bias from HR departments against hiring women in these positions and industries), realise also that there's a reason that "admin assistant" jobs do not generally appeal to men. As to your point about social etiquette ... I think you're making an assumption with little ground to base it on. Some women like "old fashioned romance". Some don't. Some men liked "old fashioned romance". Some don't. It's difficult to generalise beyond that point. | ||
|
Haemonculus
United States6980 Posts
Then Tyler and TDL came along and now I'm quite pleasantly surprised. Thanks guys! Y'all are awesome! | ||
|
Desirous
Canada95 Posts
On December 22 2011 05:24 Liquid`Tyler wrote: yep and they are recession figures and the recession has had a greater negative effect on men's jobs than women's. explanations can go on and on and on about what these figures mean. it's absolutely ridiculous for someone to suggest a figure like that means that sexism is ending and feminism has accomplished its purpose The very existence of the word "feminism" is anti-equal rights, because you're fighting for ONE specific groups rights, because you think their rights are more important. Either fight for everyone's rights, or admit to being prejudice, because it is prejudice. FYI, as an American, you're spelling labor incorrectly. Labour is how Canada and the U.K. spell it. | ||
|
Stijn
Netherlands363 Posts
On December 22 2011 10:42 Desirous wrote: The very existence of the word "feminism" is anti-equal rights, because you're fighting for ONE specific groups rights, because you think their rights are more important. Either fight for everyone's rights, or admit to being prejudice, because it is prejudice. Of course not. Women have traditionally been marginalized, so they need "fighting for" a lot more than men, hence the focus on women's rights. And, obviously, you can't judge a whole movement simply by its label. | ||
|
DeckOneBell
United States526 Posts
Keep an open mind, and do a little bit of research on the topic. Look into the history, look into what it currently is. Keeping an open mind is probably the important part. A lot of people here come in with opinions that are solidified and clearly, they're not willing to move around on that at all. Honestly, not to be mean, but responses in this thread are (for the most part, not entirely) uninformed. I'll freely admit my knowledge of the subject is superficial at best, which is again, why it's important to keep an open mind and search for more about the topic (from different points of view). Basically, don't get mad about something if you don't bother to learn about it first. | ||
|
Orangu
Canada198 Posts
On December 22 2011 10:42 Desirous wrote: The very existence of the word "feminism" is anti-equal rights, because you're fighting for ONE specific groups rights, because you think their rights are more important. Either fight for everyone's rights, or admit to being prejudice, because it is prejudice. FYI, as an American, you're spelling labor incorrectly. Labour is how Canada and the U.K. spell it. Dude i don't understand how you can think that the feminist think they are better and deserve more rights, i mean historically women have had less freedoms than men and started to fight for the same rights that men had, not more rights. Seriously i would like to know exactly why you think this. | ||
|
Mobius_1
United Kingdom2763 Posts
There are of course still inequalities, and many of those we as a society can still work on. However, these feminists see injustices everywhere even when none exist substantially in the same way literary critics can pluck themes and illusions out of thin air. Ugh indeed. | ||
Falling
Canada11388 Posts
On December 22 2011 10:42 Desirous wrote: The very existence of the word "feminism" is anti-equal rights, because you're fighting for ONE specific groups rights, because you think their rights are more important. Either fight for everyone's rights, or admit to being prejudice, because it is prejudice. FYI, as an American, you're spelling labor incorrectly. Labour is how Canada and the U.K. spell it. I'm having trouble using your definition in context of historical feminism. For instance, the right to vote was denied to women (and Aboriginals in Canada), but was given to everyone else. How would fighting for one set of specific right, be prejudiced or anti-equal rights. Why would men and women of first wave feminism be required to fight for the vote for white males- they are already franchised. In fact landed white males have been franchised for a very long time, but women getting the vote during WWI in Canada didn't make things unequal for men. Just as Canadian Aboriginals gaining the vote in 1960 did not prejudice against the rights of men and women from any other ethnicity. There was right denied to one specific group and not others, and that is amended. Despite all the rhetoric and changed meaning associated with the word 'feminism" aka fem-nazi rhetoric, I think giving denied rights/ fixing unequal opportunities and unequal payment to women is at the heart of feminism. | ||
|
garbanzo
United States4046 Posts
On December 22 2011 03:42 ranshaked wrote: The 3rd song she uses as an example is "It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas" stating that the toys kids want are gender based. Of course they are! Most girls want dolls, while boys want toy guns. Quit trying to break a standard. Just the fact that you believe this makes me hesitant to believe anything you have to say about feminism being unnecessary in our times. Tyler's response is exactly spot on about why it's important to not fall into this trap. I think everyone here would do well to read this amazing article about a brave and lucky girl who didn't fall into the gender roles you claim are established as "standard". It really bothers me that you think this is the standard and should continue being the standard. | ||
|
GeorgeForeman
United States1746 Posts
| ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
Honestly, most of those criticisms are true. The context of those songs is still somewhat relevant today. | ||
|
Newbistic
China2912 Posts
On December 22 2011 08:36 MasterBlasterCaster wrote: I am somewhat curious as to what this means? Do they mean physical differences, mental differences, and how do they quantify it? I lol'd when I read this. Yes, some chicks have bigger dicks than dudes. The "problem" with feminism is the same problem that plagues all interest groups. When you get together with a large group of passionate people rallied around a vague idea, it will always have some degree of circle jerking where people agree with each other on things that outsiders will view as ridiculous. You can see the same thing in other ethnic studies, or even the Brood War/SC2 communities in relation to other game communities. | ||
| ||
