|
I don't understand how this is an issue.
Feminism wants equality for everyone, but sees that there are institutionalized systems in place that limits the ability of female identity from being treated as equals.
As an example: If you are a guy who likes wearing dresses, you are made fun of. This is not the case for women who wear pants. This is because while society sees a man acting "female" as weak, it doesn't see a woman acting "male" as weak.
Another example: Men are allowed to be shirtless while women are not. This is because a woman's breast is assumed to be a sought after object while a man's breast is simply his body, no different than his arms or head.
Another example: Women's magazines generally emphasizes ways to manipulate a woman's beauty or places emphasis on how a woman can maximize being a mother/homebody such as cook books or home decor. Men's magazines usually emphasizes specific hobbies considered fun to do. This is because while a woman has a role she is supposed to play, men have different options of play depending on the role they wish to have.
Both feminists and non-feminists wants the same thing: equality.
Feminists sees problems in the world that they want to fix.
Non-Feminists thinks the world is fine and gets defensive when its suggested it isn't.
|
On April 27 2016 02:13 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 01:54 OtherWorld wrote:On April 27 2016 01:43 xM(Z wrote:
or, feminism as a term always means nothing. problem solved; 'cause if you let it up to the (feminist)individual, there's no way you can pull a meaningful, generalized definition out of your ass. Feminism has many, many different iterations over time, thus feminism - like all "-isms", by the way - needs to be seen in light of history (I remember someone doing a pretty good job at explaining the different iterations of feminism in this thread, was it WhiteDog?). And yes, you can't let the definition up to an individual. Or rather, you can if you're discussing with that individual about what they think is feminism, but you can't use an individual's definition as if it was the one and only correct definition. i want a definition that would be like an applicable law. if there is none, then i can't be arsed to care. i'll take people at face value and define them based on their actions; if i call someone a feminist, i don't care if i, my definition, manages to squeeze in one of those iterations because guess what, i might just define the new meta-ism!.
Feminism is wanting gender equality. If you want gender equality, then you're a feminist.
If you think genders are already equal and that there's nothing wrong with the world and women don't get killed everyday just for not being interested in having sex with someone--then you're not a feminist.
|
... waiting for other feminists to tear you a new one. wish you gl.
(but if you actually care, what you did there is change the semantics argument from the definition of feminism to the definition of gender equality without adding any practicality what so ever)
|
Zurich15366 Posts
<- Here is another feminist and he agrees with Naracs_Duc
|
On April 27 2016 02:17 Naracs_Duc wrote:
I don't understand how this is an issue.
Feminism wants equality for everyone, but sees that there are institutionalized systems in place that limits the ability of female identity from being treated as equals.
As an example: If you are a guy who likes wearing dresses, you are made fun of. This is not the case for women who wear pants. This is because while society sees a man acting "female" as weak, it doesn't see a woman acting "male" as weak.
Another example: Men are allowed to be shirtless while women are not. This is because a woman's breast is assumed to be a sought after object while a man's breast is simply his body, no different than his arms or head.
Another example: Women's magazines generally emphasizes ways to manipulate a woman's beauty or places emphasis on how a woman can maximize being a mother/homebody such as cook books or home decor. Men's magazines usually emphasizes specific hobbies considered fun to do. This is because while a woman has a role she is supposed to play, men have different options of play depending on the role they wish to have.
Both feminists and non-feminists wants the same thing: equality.
Feminists sees problems in the world that they want to fix.
Non-Feminists thinks the world is fine and gets defensive when its suggested it isn't.
That was really, really well said. 
|
it doesn't matter if you agree with a pure theoretical point of view; irl, nothing changes if you believe in it or not and nobody cares.
the two dudes woman+man waiting at that door for someone to open it first, do not care.
they do care if one of them will be an asshole to the other and your definition doesn't mention any rules of conduct.
Edit: i can picture you being there, screaming but be pro gender equality!, they look at each other, then look at you, then decide to gang you and open the door with your head. (i'd totally put that n a movie)
|
On April 27 2016 02:17 Naracs_Duc wrote:
I don't understand how this is an issue.
Feminism wants equality for everyone, but sees that there are institutionalized systems in place that limits the ability of female identity from being treated as equals.
As an example: If you are a guy who likes wearing dresses, you are made fun of. This is not the case for women who wear pants. This is because while society sees a man acting "female" as weak, it doesn't see a woman acting "male" as weak.
Another example: Men are allowed to be shirtless while women are not. This is because a woman's breast is assumed to be a sought after object while a man's breast is simply his body, no different than his arms or head.
Another example: Women's magazines generally emphasizes ways to manipulate a woman's beauty or places emphasis on how a woman can maximize being a mother/homebody such as cook books or home decor. Men's magazines usually emphasizes specific hobbies considered fun to do. This is because while a woman has a role she is supposed to play, men have different options of play depending on the role they wish to have.
Both feminists and non-feminists wants the same thing: equality.
Feminists sees problems in the world that they want to fix.
Non-Feminists thinks the world is fine and gets defensive when its suggested it isn't.
How would you call a person that supports gender equality but also thinks that already functioning regulations in his country give women sufficient protection?
|
On April 27 2016 02:08 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 01:33 OtherWorld wrote:On April 27 2016 01:27 JimmiC wrote:
Politeness in general does not make sense from a logical sense, just social rules that were seen as being "good and nice"
Politeness does make logical sense because it helps to favor societal cohesion, something we badly need in our over-individualistic societies. It also makes logical sense in case you have something to gain to a social interaction, because you'll be seen more favorably. On April 27 2016 01:27 xM(Z wrote:
@AbouSV
i don't thing you got it.
the gesture itself has (alleged)feminists have (at least)two opposite reactions; neither cares about the practicality of said gesture. one feels entitled, the other demeaned. Congrats, you just found out that "feminism" used as a broad term means nothing. damn your logic
Well he's spot on; especially when it comes to the merits of politeness.
|
On April 27 2016 02:34 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 02:17 Naracs_Duc wrote:
I don't understand how this is an issue.
Feminism wants equality for everyone, but sees that there are institutionalized systems in place that limits the ability of female identity from being treated as equals.
As an example: If you are a guy who likes wearing dresses, you are made fun of. This is not the case for women who wear pants. This is because while society sees a man acting "female" as weak, it doesn't see a woman acting "male" as weak.
Another example: Men are allowed to be shirtless while women are not. This is because a woman's breast is assumed to be a sought after object while a man's breast is simply his body, no different than his arms or head.
Another example: Women's magazines generally emphasizes ways to manipulate a woman's beauty or places emphasis on how a woman can maximize being a mother/homebody such as cook books or home decor. Men's magazines usually emphasizes specific hobbies considered fun to do. This is because while a woman has a role she is supposed to play, men have different options of play depending on the role they wish to have.
Both feminists and non-feminists wants the same thing: equality.
Feminists sees problems in the world that they want to fix.
Non-Feminists thinks the world is fine and gets defensive when its suggested it isn't. How would you call a person that supports gender equality but also thinks that already functioning regulations in his country give women sufficient protection?
If you do not think there is an issue with the female identity being mistreated, then you are not a feminist. If you think they are being mistreated and are doing what you can to curb that mistreatment--then you are a feminist.
How far along society has come in generating those regulations to curb the mistreatment of the female identity does not redefine you as no longer feminist.
|
On April 27 2016 02:34 xM(Z wrote:
it doesn't matter if you agree with a pure theoretical point of view; irl, nothing changes if you believe in it or not and nobody cares.
the two dudes woman+man waiting at that door for someone to open it first, do not care.
they do care if one of them will be an asshole to the other and your definition doesn't mention any rules of conduct.
How insulted someone is has zero to do with feminism. Much like how dark skinned someone is has nothing to do with the civil rights movement.
If you think opening doors for people is good, do it. If people get insulted because you and them have different ideas about how human interaction should work--that's fine. But expecting a woman to thank you because you took the time to treat her nice is just plain fucking weird. Treat them nice because you want to treat people nice--it really shouldn't matter what they or others think.
|
Naracs_Duc's post provides good material for explaining the differences between different kinds of "feminists". I know people, who think all of the points mentioned should be actioned upon by the state and regulated, because everything needs to be succumbed to their wishes. On the other hand, there are people like me (and luckily, I know that I am not alone) who think that while some points (the dresses, the magazines) are great manifestation of human idiocy, they should be just seen as that - and fought largely by personal example and attempts to educate your surroundings (while I obviously agree, that rape needs to be taken care of by law enforcement and less obviously that any rules imposing different clothing requirements based on gender need to be abolished).
This I think is a central point that divides and really hurts the feminist movement - that when someone with regulationist tendencies stumbles upon feminism, they see a goldmine of "issues" that could be "solved" by forceful intervention and thus it naturally attracts such people. Their policies are then also naturally unacceptable for anyone who values personal freedom. A good example is the very popular topic of gender quotas, but there are countless similar things.
|
On April 27 2016 02:42 opisska wrote:
Naracs_Duc's post provides good material for explaining the differences between different kinds of "feminists". I know people, who think all of the points mentioned should be actioned upon by the state and regulated, because everything needs to be succumbed to their wishes. On the other hand, there are people like me (and luckily, I know that I am not alone) who think that while some points (the dresses, the magazines) are great manifestation of human idiocy, they should be just seen as that - and fought largely by personal example and attempts to educate your surroundings (while I obviously agree, that rape needs to be taken care of by law enforcement and less obviously that any rules imposing different clothing requirements based on gender need to be abolished).
This I think is a central point that divides and really hurts the feminist movement - that when someone with regulationist tendencies stumbles upon feminism, they see a goldmine of "issues" that could be "solved" by forceful intervention and thus it naturally attracts such people. Their policies are then also naturally unacceptable for anyone who values personal freedom. A good example is the very popular topic of gender quotas, but there are countless similar things.
This is true in everything actually.
Dialogue about minimum wage
Union rights
Civil rights
Church/State
etc...
Some people want more regulation, some people want less. The political divide between conservatives and liberals hinges on this very concept.
|
On April 27 2016 02:41 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 02:34 xM(Z wrote:
it doesn't matter if you agree with a pure theoretical point of view; irl, nothing changes if you believe in it or not and nobody cares.
the two dudes woman+man waiting at that door for someone to open it first, do not care.
they do care if one of them will be an asshole to the other and your definition doesn't mention any rules of conduct.
How insulted someone is has zero to do with feminism. Much like how dark skinned someone is has nothing to do with the civil rights movement. If you think opening doors for people is good, do it. If people get insulted because you and them have different ideas about how human interaction should work--that's fine. But expecting a woman to thank you because you took the time to treat her nice is just plain fucking weird. Treat them nice because you want to treat people nice--it really shouldn't matter what they or others think.
i understand what you're saying but you're barking at the wrong tree. you're supposed to say that to the woman who considers herself a feminist and gets offended by being stud up at the door; she will then decide whether to agree with you or not.
gl there.
|
|
|
|
|
On April 27 2016 02:54 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 02:41 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 27 2016 02:34 xM(Z wrote:
it doesn't matter if you agree with a pure theoretical point of view; irl, nothing changes if you believe in it or not and nobody cares.
the two dudes woman+man waiting at that door for someone to open it first, do not care.
they do care if one of them will be an asshole to the other and your definition doesn't mention any rules of conduct.
How insulted someone is has zero to do with feminism. Much like how dark skinned someone is has nothing to do with the civil rights movement. If you think opening doors for people is good, do it. If people get insulted because you and them have different ideas about how human interaction should work--that's fine. But expecting a woman to thank you because you took the time to treat her nice is just plain fucking weird. Treat them nice because you want to treat people nice--it really shouldn't matter what they or others think. i understand what you're saying but you're barking at the wrong tree. you're supposed to say that to the woman who considers herself a feminist and gets offended by being stud up at the door; she will then decide whether to agree with you or not. gl there.
What does it matter what she says? If you are honestly doing it because you want to be polite and you believe doing that is polite--then you shouldn't care what she says. If she does get offended and you would like to be better, then you should engage in dialogue with her about what is a better way to do it, and what options are available that she thinks is suitable. You then use your own agency using the new information provided to produce your own conclusions on what parts of her ideas are good and what parts are not, and hope that the new paradigm you reached is one step closer to "getting it right."
She, as a human being, has the right to be insulted by the things you do. Whether you agree with her being insulted is irrelevant. Its her right. And you could either try to change to be closer to what she thinks is right, or not. But how offended she is does not matter, nor should it matter, in your decision to hold open doors for people.
|
On April 27 2016 03:01 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 02:17 Naracs_Duc wrote:
I don't understand how this is an issue.
Feminism wants equality for everyone, but sees that there are institutionalized systems in place that limits the ability of female identity from being treated as equals.
As an example: If you are a guy who likes wearing dresses, you are made fun of. This is not the case for women who wear pants. This is because while society sees a man acting "female" as weak, it doesn't see a woman acting "male" as weak.
Another example: Men are allowed to be shirtless while women are not. This is because a woman's breast is assumed to be a sought after object while a man's breast is simply his body, no different than his arms or head.
Another example: Women's magazines generally emphasizes ways to manipulate a woman's beauty or places emphasis on how a woman can maximize being a mother/homebody such as cook books or home decor. Men's magazines usually emphasizes specific hobbies considered fun to do. This is because while a woman has a role she is supposed to play, men have different options of play depending on the role they wish to have.
Both feminists and non-feminists wants the same thing: equality.
Feminists sees problems in the world that they want to fix.
Non-Feminists thinks the world is fine and gets defensive when its suggested it isn't. I think this is mostly true. I also think it's a little like communism in that it sounds good in theory but gets mucked up in practice. I also think that for some reason we like to pretend that complete equality is possible and there should be 50% of each gender doing both things. I hope we get to a place where we understand that men and women are physiologically and physiologically different. And instead of looking for complete equality we look for equality and fairness of opportunity.
The answers you want are different from the answers I want because the conclusions you are making are not the same as the conclusions I am making. I disagree with what your idea of equality is, but I am glad you are willing to say that there is a need to attempt to achieve it.
|
On April 27 2016 03:04 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 02:54 xM(Z wrote:On April 27 2016 02:41 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 27 2016 02:34 xM(Z wrote:
it doesn't matter if you agree with a pure theoretical point of view; irl, nothing changes if you believe in it or not and nobody cares.
the two dudes woman+man waiting at that door for someone to open it first, do not care.
they do care if one of them will be an asshole to the other and your definition doesn't mention any rules of conduct.
How insulted someone is has zero to do with feminism. Much like how dark skinned someone is has nothing to do with the civil rights movement. If you think opening doors for people is good, do it. If people get insulted because you and them have different ideas about how human interaction should work--that's fine. But expecting a woman to thank you because you took the time to treat her nice is just plain fucking weird. Treat them nice because you want to treat people nice--it really shouldn't matter what they or others think. i understand what you're saying but you're barking at the wrong tree. you're supposed to say that to the woman who considers herself a feminist and gets offended by being stud up at the door; she will then decide whether to agree with you or not. gl there. What does it matter what she says? If you are honestly doing it because you want to be polite and you believe doing that is polite--then you shouldn't care what she says. If she does get offended and you would like to be better, then you should engage in dialogue with her about what is a better way to do it, and what options are available that she thinks is suitable. You then use your own agency using the new information provided to produce your own conclusions on what parts of her ideas are good and what parts are not, and hope that the new paradigm you reached is one step closer to "getting it right." She, as a human being, has the right to be insulted by the things you do. Whether you agree with her being insulted is irrelevant. Its her right. And you could either try to change to be closer to what she thinks is right, or not. But how offended she is does not matter, nor should it matter, in your decision to hold open doors for people.
meh, the whole point was that she felt insulted because she was a feminist(as per her definition) and you gave me a common sense lecture.
but to at least be tangent to your point and play devils advocate - a woman could literally kick the shit out of a man because he insulted her feminist views by opening the door for her. i doubt the man would not care about that.
as a bottom line: i can reduce any definition that you might come up with for feminism and/or gender equality, to a desire for basic decency, fairness/goodness from all humans. so then why back feminism and not smart-ism, wise-ism, intelligent-ism and so on?.
(i will agree with you on some feminist points/definitions if you call feminism a temporary and necessary evil, evolutionary wise; else just nope because in my view you're creating a new church and all churches do is divide the human base and create fanatics which you can't control).
|
On April 27 2016 02:57 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 02:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 27 2016 02:08 JimmiC wrote:On April 27 2016 01:33 OtherWorld wrote:On April 27 2016 01:27 JimmiC wrote:
Politeness in general does not make sense from a logical sense, just social rules that were seen as being "good and nice"
Politeness does make logical sense because it helps to favor societal cohesion, something we badly need in our over-individualistic societies. It also makes logical sense in case you have something to gain to a social interaction, because you'll be seen more favorably. On April 27 2016 01:27 xM(Z wrote:
@AbouSV
i don't thing you got it.
the gesture itself has (alleged)feminists have (at least)two opposite reactions; neither cares about the practicality of said gesture. one feels entitled, the other demeaned. Congrats, you just found out that "feminism" used as a broad term means nothing. damn your logic Well he's spot on; especially when it comes to the merits of politeness. yes he is that is why I responded as I did. I meant it to be a funny way of saying he is right after I had said logic and than he used logic against me. My bad if it didn't come across as such.
I misunderstood ^^;;
On April 27 2016 03:21 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 03:04 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 27 2016 02:54 xM(Z wrote:On April 27 2016 02:41 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 27 2016 02:34 xM(Z wrote:
it doesn't matter if you agree with a pure theoretical point of view; irl, nothing changes if you believe in it or not and nobody cares.
the two dudes woman+man waiting at that door for someone to open it first, do not care.
they do care if one of them will be an asshole to the other and your definition doesn't mention any rules of conduct.
How insulted someone is has zero to do with feminism. Much like how dark skinned someone is has nothing to do with the civil rights movement. If you think opening doors for people is good, do it. If people get insulted because you and them have different ideas about how human interaction should work--that's fine. But expecting a woman to thank you because you took the time to treat her nice is just plain fucking weird. Treat them nice because you want to treat people nice--it really shouldn't matter what they or others think. i understand what you're saying but you're barking at the wrong tree. you're supposed to say that to the woman who considers herself a feminist and gets offended by being stud up at the door; she will then decide whether to agree with you or not. gl there. What does it matter what she says? If you are honestly doing it because you want to be polite and you believe doing that is polite--then you shouldn't care what she says. If she does get offended and you would like to be better, then you should engage in dialogue with her about what is a better way to do it, and what options are available that she thinks is suitable. You then use your own agency using the new information provided to produce your own conclusions on what parts of her ideas are good and what parts are not, and hope that the new paradigm you reached is one step closer to "getting it right." She, as a human being, has the right to be insulted by the things you do. Whether you agree with her being insulted is irrelevant. Its her right. And you could either try to change to be closer to what she thinks is right, or not. But how offended she is does not matter, nor should it matter, in your decision to hold open doors for people. meh, the whole point was that she felt insulted because she was a feminist(as per definition) and you gave me a common sense lecture. but to at least be tangent to your point and play devils advocate - a woman could literally kick the shit out of a man because he insulted her feminist views by opening the door for her. i doubt the man would not care about that. as a bottom line: i can reduce any definition that you might come up with for feminism and/or gender equality, to a desire for basic decency, fairness/goodness from all humans. so then why back feminism and not smart-ism, wise-ism, intelligent-ism and so on?.(i will agree with you on some feminist points/definitions if you call feminism a temporary and necessary evil, evolutionary wise; else just nope because in my view you're just creating a new church and all churches do is divide the human base and create fanatics which you can't control).
Who says that a feminist only wants fairness/ equality for the sexes and not whatever wise-ism is? Civil rights movements do not have to be dichotomous. The reason that feminism exists (and needs to exist right now) is because sexism permeates throughout our culture. Feminism doesn't say that it doesn't value other "-isms" that may also be important.
|
i said nothing about sex(ism). i can do a discussion about that but it'll end the same:
- what drives sexism?
- stupid people.
then fix stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
