Feminism

[useless]

You seem to know so many, care to provide some examples? Or do you feel better crying, whining and posting snarky rubbish?

Not sure where i "cried" or "whined" but whatever mr MRA i'm sure misandry does exist in the form of

 

[CaptainF]

I'm talking about subtle ways in which women's autonomy is undermined.

Please don't throw around "rape" so loosely, it's super douchebaggy.

Maybe list some of these ways?

And look below for my reply to Zack regarding "throwing 'rape' around". Are these women douchebags for throwing the word around in ways totally alien to it's definition?

What about some of the prominent feminists I mentioned?

"It was a good rape." - Eve Ensler

I was intending to sarcastically reflect how many feminists love throwing rape around when it shouldn't be brought up. Naturally, that doesn't reflect well on the internet. Oh welp.

In a thread about feminism you're shifting the blame to women because some of them voted for misogynist jerks.

In a thread about feminism.

You seem to be implying that they got what they deserved. That they were asking for it, perhaps.

Hold up, I said men AND women. Men too. How am I shifting the blame to women here? I'm also calling out men for voting Republican idiots into office.

And yes, people who vote for crap politicians get what they deserve. Voters should educate themselves more about who they intend to endorse for office. There are undoubtedly women out there who know that the Republican party is very much a paternalistic, old-boy party that is frightened of women's sexuality. Yet, for some reason they keep voting for them. Such is the American public.

You're being really petulant.

This is quite riotous. The guy complaining, indeed, acting petulant for much of the thread, apparently has his own behavior confused with mine.

Ladies and gentlemen, this man doesn't recognize sarcasm.

The way you joke about rape so casually is pretty juvenile,

Wrong. I'm not joking about rape, as that would be disgusting. I'm joking about all the batty feminists who throw "rape" around like a verbal bludgeon, or think that men are inherently predisposed to rape/sexual assault.

"The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist" - Ti-Grace Atkinson

Interesting, that you want to keep analyzing me instead of the points I raised. Seems to me that it's a sort of tacit agreement.

not to mention that you seem to be blaming everything on women.

Where have I said that? I specifically said in my first post in this thread that feminism played a valuable role in helping women achieve parity with men in many areas of society. I've never denied that men have behaved in crappy ways towards women and that women have been the victim of oppression by men. My whole point this entire time has been that while I agree with many core feminist values, I can't get behind feminism because of the crazy things that many well-known feminists say and apparently believe.

Show me where I'm blaming everything on women. Put up or shut up.

I dunno about you but I don't care for most the politicians I vote for.

Then why vote for them? No one is making you.

Anyways why do you think there's so few female politicians in the US?

Any number of factors really. It's not like it's illegal for women to run for office. Societal roles are changing, and I think we will be seeing more female politicians in the future. I think Hilary Clinton is all but guaranteed the 2016 election at this point.

Hi Dawgphood001,

According to some sources, women currently make up only 4.6% of Fortune 1000 CEOs. And apparently earn an average of 77 cents to the dollar that men earn. Seems at first glance sort of like women are unfairly treated by our society. Is that not the case? Maybe I'm wrong but the stats above seem to be pretty convincing.

The 77 cent claim is not always what it appears.

From a political perspective, the Census Bureau’s 77-cent figure is golden. Unless women stop getting married and having children, and start abandoning careers in childhood education for naval architecture, this huge gap in wages will almost certainly persist. Democrats thus can keep bringing it up every two years.

There appears to be some sort of wage gap and closing it is certainly a worthy goal. But it’s a bit rich for the president to repeatedly cite this statistic as an “embarrassment.” (His line in the April 8 speech was almost word for word what he said in the 2014 State of the Union address.) The president must begin to acknowledge that “77 cents” does not begin to capture what is actually happening in the work force and society.

Thus we are boosting the rating on this factoid to Two Pinocchios. We were tempted to go one step further to Three Pinocchios, but the president is relying on an official government statistic–and there are problems and limitations with the other calculations as well.

And I agree with Phrossack here regarding CEOs. I don't see how making more women CEOs of huge multinationals would benefit society at all. They would still be corporate fat cat elites, benefiting from the same broken system that got them there.

Not sure where i "cried" or "whined"

I understand. When it's all you've been doing the entire thread, it's hard to pick a specific instance.

but whatever mr MRA i'm sure misandry does exist in the form of

Man, you are really so confined in your thinking that anyone questioning feminists and their words must be a fedora wearing MRA neckbeard? I don't know if that's funny, or sad. You need to meet more real people and steer away from the caricatures you see on Tumblr.

 

[Tee Kay]

I can't tell the difference between caricatures and real people anymore.

 

[useless]

I understand. When it's all you've been doing the entire thread, it's hard to pick a specific instance.

Go ahead and quote then,

 

[CaptainF]

Go ahead and quote then,

.....

Shock as men believe feminism is not needed

"But thing are very good for women and now modern feminists are just basically man haters" - A man

Look at the amount of female politicians in Britain, America etc. Look at the war waged against reproductive rights for females. Look at the pay-gap for women doing the same job as men.

Not even getting in to the victim blaming that seems institutional when it comes to females being the victims of rape, molestation etc.

Well in the bible...

Alternatively, work with feminists whom believe patriarchy is also harming men, especially in terms of mental health stigma, victims of molestation and rape, culture of masculinity harming men in terms of making them need to conform to certain expected ideas etc.

Nah, its much easier just to cry and whine about those evil ********s

Who needs facts when there's MISANDRY

*tips fedora* m'lady i am feeling quite euphoric at this moment

Not sure where i "cried" or "whined" but whatever mr MRA i'm sure misandry does exist in the form of

 

[useless]

How is that "crying"? Is pointing out the disparity between male and female right's crying?

I'm sure in your brain you are correct, but we're dealing with reality here

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I can't tell the difference between caricatures and real people anymore.

Thanks for that comment. I thought it was just me.

 

[Senethro]

3/7 of the pastors I've had, if that's useful!

Thats pretty cool!

What does that have to do with my comment? You did not answer my objection at all and many leaders of the pro-life movement are women and some are former workers of abortion mills are saw the horror that goes in those places where children where butchered under than of "choice".

I'm not going to answer your objection because the only authority you acknowledge is scripture, and I ain't got pages!

However this is the feminism thread and the topic of male viewpoints being favoured or completely excluding female ones has been recently touched on.

These people who interpret your scripture for you, many of them women?

 

[Crezth]

Again the slavery analogy.

Women were not "spared" only voting and other privileges. They were also spared dying by the millions in wars they didn't understand, being left to drown in shipwrecks, taking the worst of the worst jobs (yes, they also did horrible jobs, but look at accident and mortality rates in the workplaces and see that males were and still are far more likely to suffer grave injuries or die).

Are you trying to say women never died by the millions in wars? Because I'd be willing to bet a pretty penny that about half of all the people who died as a result of war were women. Give or take a percentage point, perhaps.

 

[Senethro]

Hold up, I said men AND women. Men too. How am I shifting the blame to women here? I'm also calling out men for voting Republican idiots into office.

Thats a correction that was sorely needed. Just like Luiz energetically pointing out that some men have been recipients of oppression too. Vital context, yes.

So now we have men AND women voting for a bunch of old men to write legislation interfering with matters that should be between a woman and her doctor. Very egalitarian. The correction really changed that situation.

And yes, people who vote for crap politicians get what they deserve. Voters should educate themselves more about who they intend to endorse for office. There are undoubtedly women out there who know that the Republican party is very much a paternalistic, old-boy party that is frightened of women's sexuality. Yet, for some reason they keep voting for them. Such is the American public.

Very vengeful. If any of the allotment of blame falls on the voter then its small compared with the politicians share.

 

[Yeekim]

/snip/

The extent to which we constantly manage to talk past each other... Certainly more than with any other poster I've come across.

Spoiler :

 

[Gary Childress]

And I agree with Phrossack here regarding CEOs. I don't see how making more women CEOs of huge multinationals would benefit society at all. They would still be corporate fat cat elites, benefiting from the same broken system that got them there.

I agree. Maybe something should be done to eliminate the position of CEO altogether in our society. I'm not necessarily saying more women should be CEOs. Only that women are in fact discriminated against in that institution. Our society has yet to have a female President. Only 18.5 % of the seats in congress are occupied by women.

 

[luiz]

Are you trying to say women never died by the millions in wars? Because I'd be willing to bet a pretty penny that about half of all the people who died as a result of war were women. Give or take a percentage point, perhaps.

I'd be willing to bet whatever sum you can handle, because the two bloodiest conflicts in human history alone victimized men at a far greater proportion. Of course the civilian casualties were more evenly split, maybe even if we a female edge (as so many men were in the line of combat), but combat deaths alone completely skew the picture.

And this is not me guessing, it's an established fact. If we look at the country that suffered the most in WW2, the USSR, this is what we find:

The disproportionate deaths of young men resulted in a drastic change in sex ratios among the population surviving the war. For example, the ratio of men to women in the 20-29 age group declined from .91 to .65 between 1941 and 1946.

http://web.williams.edu/Economics/faculty/brainerd-rfwomen.pdf

And this isn't exclusively a 20th Century thing. The Triple Alliance War, fought in the 1860's, killed anywhere between 30% and 60% of the whole Paraguayan population. The death toll on adult males, however, exceeded 90% by most estimates (some historians talk of near total annihilation of that age and gender group).

 

[Farm Boy]

So now we have men AND women voting for a bunch of old men to write legislation interfering with matters that should be between a woman and her doctor. Very egalitarian.

I still lobby qualified dissent with this broad statement, depending on where the details lead. And as, for some reason the gender of the speaker matters, my wife would lodge a flaming unqualified dissent log up your posterior were she given the chance. Hell, I'm not even exaggerating.

 

[luiz]

Thats a correction that was sorely needed. Just like Luiz energetically pointing out that some men have been recipients of oppression too. Vital context, yes.

Again trivializing the oppression of everyone who doesn't your "victims" category.

Here's the thing: it's not that "some" men were oppressed while all women were oppressed. It's that the vast majority of both men and women were oppressed.

 

[Zelig]

I think being an extremely wealthy CEO is generally shameful, not good. But anyway.

How exactly does the wage system pay women less than men? I'm not questioning that it does, mind. I just want to know how it does. I mean, it's not like at payday the boss says, "Here's your money, but you get less because you're a woman." And you'd think that given positions would have the same salary listed, so how do employers reduce women's paychecks?

Off the top of my head:

1. If there's a hiring bias for whatever reason (don't want to hire weak women to carry crates, don't want to hire women to play on your NFL team, don't want to hire women of child-bearing age for software development, etc.) it reduces the demand for women's labour, and price drops.

2. Women tend to be worse at negotiating salary than men.

3. Time off for maternity leave has opportunity costs in terms of promotions, bonuses, networking, etc.

4. Men are paid more and have more hiring power for historical reasons and men have an easier time networking with other men.

 

[Crezth]

@luiz: Fair enough, I'll concede the point, at least so far as the direct consequences of warfare is concerned. But the larger point - that women are spared of many dire horrors due to their perception as the "gentler" sex, and this constitutes a positive externalization of their social and political marginalization - ignores some rather important context in, for example, female infanticide in China, or sexual slavery (and on that latter point, I might as well lump in the wartime rapes that have occurred... all through history, really).

That having been said, death and dying in war is pretty bad, and I shouldn't dare to pretend that the death of young men in war is not a tragedy and, quite frankly, a bad problem. But the solution to recognizing that both men and women face problems is not to throw up the hands and say "there's no aid for it! such is life," but to oppose all injustice.

So when feminists say they'd like women to have more political representation, better access to healthcare, and maybe be raped a little less, I don't think it qualifies as an ethically correct position to respond with "well, men die more often in war." Well, so what? What has that got to do with women not being allowed to vote - or, more recently, having disproportionately small representation in governments and institutions?

The other problem is the apparent disregard for feminism on the ground that male rights interests are somehow at cross-purposes with female rights. But if you want me to say "men shouldn't die in war as much," I'd agree, as I hope you would also say "women shouldn't be raped as much."

 

[Senethro]

Again trivializing the oppression of everyone who doesn't your "victims" category.

Here's the thing: it's not that "some" men were oppressed while all women were oppressed. It's that the vast majority of both men and women were oppressed.

I think we can consider this safely placed in context now. Thanks for your strenuous efforts.

The context being that women had all the oppression of men plus sexism too.

 

[Senethro]

@luiz: Fair enough, I'll concede the point, at least so far as the direct consequences of warfare is concerned.

I wouldn't. But it depends if you consider "direct consequences" to end on the battlefield, which I don't. Refugee displacement, social upheaval, war crimes, food shortages and the associated plagues mean non-combatants aren't really safe.

 

[Crezth]

I wouldn't. But it depends if you consider "direct consequences" to end on the battlefield, which I don't. Refugee displacement, social upheaval, war crimes, food shortages and the associated plagues mean non-combatants aren't really safe.

No indeed, but the immediate contention was who died more, in strictest terms, and he sourced his claims.