What does being a feminist mean to you?

There's still one glaring problem though. A woman calls a man a pig, a bastard, or whatever other manner of names she can think of and it is ok. But a man calls a woman a bitch for her actions and it is the man who is at fault.




I don't know if that was gathered from my post of not but it makes me sick to compare a sexual assault to someone who refuses to practice safe sex and take responsibility. There's a rather LARGE difference between those 2 things. One is a criminal offense and the other is people being stupid.

It's actually poorer people.

If you didn't have something against men you wouldn't make such a ignorant statement. Let's not demonize half of the population.



They were around. They just didn't have all the legal rights they wanted(which is why they continued to exist).

Many of them also fought for other things that weren't exclusively gender issues



He said they should keep them closed if they can't get access to a form of healthcare that would provide contraceptives. You know, having the ability to take damn care of themselves. As you said early women have the final say because it's their own bodies. They're the ones who are going to have to go through the 9 month ordeal, and probably everything that comes afterwards until the child is 18 years. And no, we're not talking about sexual assault. That's something completely different, and based on your last comparison, I'm going to ignore anything you have to say on that matter.
Also this post don't not imply I'm against the pill, after morning pill or abortions. Only that if you're not going to take proper precautions before partaking in consensual sex, you should also know the risk of pregnancy, std's, etc. etc. (and you should get them yourself. If you don't have access to them, you probably shouldn't be going through with it, or at least understand the risk you're putting yourself in)

I have nothing against men in general. I'm a heterosexual woman, and I quite like men. However, my point still stands. Your "poor" people point doesn't make much sense, because, although true, poor people are not a gender. Would you deny that between men and women far more women women have, through history, been treated as second citizens, denied the right to vote, raped and subjected to domestic abuse?

So you deny that women had any crucial part in history before the fight for female rights in the 20th centery? That people like cathrine the great, bodica, joanne of arc, cleopatra, helen of troy, etc, could have been of any significance in power since women were constantly oppressed?

Just because you fit in a role doesn't mean that you are oppressed. I'm not a actor, nor a lawyer or a politician and I'd be denied any job opportunities to be one because I am unskilled and uneducated in what it takes to do those roles, so therefor I must have been oppressed and denied opportunity.

I think back to how people percieved their life in victorian area europe for example. Women were apparently according to you, highly oppressed, but they had a specific role in society. Did you know that the wealth of your family was not valued on the amount of money you had but the quality of woman you had with you. Your perception as a man was based on your woman and how she acted.

It may sound oppressive in certain ways but if you wife cheats on you in that era of time, it was your husbands fault because he failed to please you. It's just an example of a role a person played.

Look at todays life, people still fit into roles. You want to talk about sexism in these roles today, explain to me how you are oppressed when men aren't allowed to be care takers in old age homes. Or tell me about how many male receptionists there are, or male nurses. You think it's hard because those are the roles that society allows you to be without question, you aren't alone in thinking that you're opporessed because you can't be a construction worker, I can't be a care person in a old age home.

Inequality is everywhere, don't play a victim and paint people. It's demeaning and doesn't prove anything.



Also to adress your poor people statment because I have mentioned this before. Go out in any major city and walk around the streets. Tell me what gender you see sleeping on the streets. The vaste majority are men.

PRO TIP: So have men. Oppression is not a gender exclusive thing.

Far, faaaaar, far more women have suffered these wrongs throught history than men. That's not an oppinion, that's fact.



These historical women are a tiny minority when compaired to the thousands upon thousands of illiterate, subservient psudeo-slaves that existed. AND JOAN OF ARC WAS BURNED AS A WITCH FOR CALLENGING A MALE DOMINATED SOCIETY. Oh, and Helen of Troy is an awful example. She was taken to Troy, here people followd and there was a war that she had no control or power over. Not an example of a strong female figure.Additionally, your information on victorian society is factually wrong. I studied Edwardian and early Victorian history in graduate school. A woman who cheated was publicly shamed, had her assets stripped and was often disowned by her family. Even if you WERE right (which you aren't) that would be.sexist as well in asuming the woman to be more important than the man. As for your third point, there are plenty of male nurses. This gap is primarially due to gender differences in interest and not a feminist conspiracy.

That's actually an opinion. Or do you not know what the word "opinion" means?



Not only where they useless, but they were forced into something they didn't agree with. Basically that they couldn't think for themselves. Nice.




Yes, most societies value women over men, especially western societies. It's a terrible practice that still continues today, essentially making most of men(95% or so) disposable.



That is indeed true, but men in these positions make less than their female counterparts, but this is not a result of sexism or oppression. Due to gender differences men make more since although they don't always have to work "more" hours, they often do take in more riskier jobs, get degrees that the market usually values more, and are more "aggressive" when they want a pay raise. If they value their own labor enough, they can just quit and seek opportunities elsewhere.

I've kind of drifted away from posting in this topic, but there's one thing i just want to comment on. Are we actually debating whether women were treated equally historically?

I mean, whatever you think of feminism in its current state, can't we at least agree for a long time women for the most part didn't have much power in society?I mean, that is why feminism started in the first place.



Are you including Asian societies in that statement, cause if so i think the rates of sex selective abortions of female fetuses say otherwise. Also, i tried to look up cases of sex selective abortions of male fetuses to compare and i found only case,so i'm not sure i agree with the idea most societies prefer females

I'm only quoting this because the main thing to be said about it is, the majority of the world is still illiterate, uneducated, subservient psudeo-slaves. It wasn't just women, it was men too. INFACT! Women in medieval era europe were more educated than men because the men were forced into a role of physical labour while the females were the educational foundation of the family.

It wasn't uncommon to find entire cities of people were the top 0.5% were educated and could read while the 99.5% were illiterate. Please please please don't tell me that you believe that 99% of the population of those times were female.

You quoted the wrong person there mate.



I think this was dedicated at me.(possibly?)

Neither did the average man. I'm being dead serious.

Yes there's no denying that some women did get the short end of the "gender role" bargain, but life wasn't all peaches and roses for 95% of men.

I didn't see where the origional quote you took came from so I stole it from you.

It was directed more at theotherjacob. I did edit in a response to something you said, but i think that went through after you replied.

You're not sure, not even after looking at today's laws?

Didn't we talk about VAWA not to long ago. You know, taking away a man's constitutional rights away if he gets accused of domestic violence.
Discriminatory laws and policies have been set in place within western (should have specified western societies earlier, sorry about that)governments by "feminists"(non-extremist who do have money and numbers) influence that allow legal bigotry against men, while not one law or policy that discriminates against women, in any way, is on the books.

I'm all for equal legal rights, unfortunately even some "rational" feminist are not.

The thing that people don't seem to understand is that life is just like the internet. Look at it carefully, actually carefully is not even needed. Who are the most vocal people on the internet in any forums. The trolls, the haters, the bigots, the ignorant.

The people just like in feminism that claim they do well, allow the people who are vocal to get their way. Take video games for example. How do you get the bad people who destroy people joy of games to go away, you can't just get some higher power to ban them cause they just makes them stronger. You need to get the community to aid in reducing the problem but feminism does not do this.

No organized ideology does that. The westborrow baptist church makes all catholics look crazy but nobody does anything about it, the taliban make all of islam look crazy but we allow it, man haters make feminists look crazy but nobody does anything about it.

I think it has been mentioned in this thread before but lets say your child is a trouble maker at school, do you just abandon that child? Tell people that child isn't yours because you do things differently and you aren't that way? Those people would be branded as the worst parents ever.

If you want credibility, you need to show you are worthy of it. If you want people to take feminism seriously like it was in the old days, you need to get rid of the man haters. At least to my knowledge the women who fought for female rights weren't man hating, they wanted equality.


Edit: I'm going to extend this post because I was watching this video on the emmasculation of men. And it brought a couple thoughts to my head.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5OdQGbVNa4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPHYPHf0PfE


I perticularily like at the end of the second video where sean connery says that it's alright to hit a woman. Personally the only woman I've ever "hit" is my sister in play fighting. But if we are all to be considered equal under the law, and the law basicly says "an eye for an eye" then if a woman hits me, I should be allowed to hit her. But society doesn't work like that. I am fully aware that having stated this now that I will branded as a sexist, and I'm willing to live with that because I won't back down to a double standard.

I was also thinking of the whole oppression thing and it started to become apparent to me about human biology and human history. If women were so oppressed and didn't want to fill in the roles they were given, then how come they never did anything about it. If women are so independent as they claim now and so capable, they could have changed their futures when humans first walked on the planet. I mean MAN created fire, MAN created the wheel, MAN built the paramids, MAN send a rocket into space. If I am to believe that women are just as capable as men, then I must also believe that women can do the same things as men. Our species biologically is not designed to be fast, or strong. We aren't biologically designed to survive in the wild. So we became intellegent. We became a species that created tools. The first hunting men figured out that you can pick up an object and hit something with it and there was a reaction. Am I to believe now that men are immune to spear attacks? swords? arrows? guns? clubs? Cause there a lot of evidence that says men aren't. With all that being said, if women wanted some kind of freedom to prove their point why didn't they just pick up these tools that our species is capable of and fight back? They didn't because they liked their roles.

Women make up more than half the population, numarically these women could overthrow us in any election, in any war, but why haven't they? How come that isn't something feminists talk about? They will cry about not having women in politics but won't vote for women. But they still get their way by voting in these manginas. Welcome to the pussification of the world.

I was more referencing how i was only able to find statistical patterns of sex selective abortion towards female fetuses fetuses, in response to your comment about society seeing men as disposable.I will admit i should have been clearer on that tho

Also i did a bit of research on VAWA and found this



FYI there are limits on what you can do legally in self defense depending on what state you live in. While you do have the right to defend yourself, generally if the other person gives up or is unable to defend him or herself. You can't continue to hit them, or chase the person down to continue the fight if he or she leaves. Also you can only use use deadly force if you are under threat of serious physical injury or death.



If society doesn't give you the legal tools to fight back, its rather hard to do anything about it. That is why feminism started in the first place.



This year the number of women senators broke historical records, so they are progressing on that front.

I totally understand the reasonable limits of self defense. But this isn't just an issue of self defense. If a woman punches you in the face, and you (as a man) punch her back in the face, only the 1 time. The man will always be considered the monster in this situation even if she hit you first. Women are notorius for getting in peoples faces because society deems it unacceptable to do anything in return to a woman.


As for the second part I quoted, I disagree completely. Just because you don't have the legal tools, does not mean that you are useless. Sparticus lead a group of gladiators who had no legal rights on a rampage against rome. The spartan empire fell to rebels who overthrew their oppressors. Infact, america was founded on a revolution against the british government who did not give them legal rights. People can and will find a way to survive and fight back against oppression if they feel they need to. I just don't see why women haven't. Most men blindly follow the words of women.

Spartacus,along with the six thousand survivors of his revolt were killed. And yes America was founded on a revolution, but as the case with Spartacus proves not all rebellions are successful. And to use another group that we can at least agree was oppressed,there are a few cases where black slaves tried to revolt and failed. Now, you certainly wouldn't say that is due to blacks not trying hard enough,right?

It's true that not all revolutions are successful but there is a rather large difference between complaining about being oppressed and doing something about it. A revolution under that mentality can never fail because there will always be more to carry out the revolution until it succeeds. In almost all historical cases of oppression, the members of the oppression are usually the majority being controlled by a minority. If you take an example of slavery, a slave owner usually owned more than one slave. Making the slave owner a minority to his slaves.

I would prefer to say that attempting a revolution is better than complaining. I live my life by the philosophy that it is better to try and fail than to have never tried at all.


link for more revolution examples: (note: the link is an incomplete list)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revolutions_and_rebellions

You call that research.

Okay then. Guess I've been proven wrong. But seriously, almost all of it's sources are other blogs, which are just as opinionated as that one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_rights_movement


Just from reading over this, mens rights movements are far more equal in their ideology than feminism ever is.

What stands out most in this whole thing isn't just the fathers rights, but this:

Military conscription

Men's rights activists have argued that military conscription of men is an example of oppression of men.

In 1971 in the United States, draft resisters initiated a class-action suit alleging that male-only conscription violated men's rights to equal protection under the US constitution. When the case, Rostker v. Goldberg, reached the Supreme Court in 1981, they were supported by a men's rights group and multiple women's groups, including the National Organization for Women. However, the Supreme Court upheld the Military Selective Service Act, stating that "the argument for registering women was based on considerations of equity, but Congress was entitled, in the exercise of its constitutional powers, to focus on the question of military need, rather than equity.