What does being a feminist mean to you?

OK, you are right, I wrote it like I was acusing every men of being a possible rapist. But that's not what I was traying to say.
Now that I read your comment twice, I undertand you. Instead of teaching how not to rape, you speak about enforcing the rape-crime punishments. Well, that's gonna be more effective. If the rapists know about the hard punishment he's going to receive if he rape someone, he will think it twice before doing anything.
But I still think that rape can be avoided if the rapist is teached about not to rape. The problem is that society cannot know who is gonna be a rapist until he commits the crime. Also, I think in rehabilitation. I think some rapist can fell guilty for their crimes and by teaching them ethic-codes, or with psychiatric treatment, maybe they can be reintroduced in society guaranteeing they will not rape again. In some cases.
Again, you are right with the misanthropy, penguin, to hate men irrationally is wrong as to hate women irrationally.

This is why society promotes teaching women how to "not get raped". Yet, some feminists think this idea is sexist and wrong because in their eyes all men are evil, vile, disgusting rapists.

No, from what I've seen and heard, it pisses us off because it implies that men are without self control - that the heads of these programs are essentially saying 'Well, yeah, rape is gonna happen, nothing we can or want to do about that, so let's just go ahead and discuss what you can and can't do, and what you can and can't wear.'

I fully understand the responsibility of the individual - wearing a minidress without panties and stumbling drunkenly through the alleys as a 'shortcut to home' is a retarded idea. I still don't a. Feel it's justifiable to tell ANYONE how to dress in public, if it's in argument about 'How to not get raped' - It's just a scathingly reworded version of 'You were basically asking for it' at worst, or 'What did you expect?' at best. However, it then raises the question 'What constitutes 'asking for it' in terms of dress?'

Women in the Middle East cover everything but their fingers and their eyes/noses. They're still raped. Women in India wear roughly the same amount of clothing, and yet the occurrence of rape is atrocious - a woman just died to it. The rapists there are sadistic, sick fucks that seem to travel in groups. I really don't see how apparel would make a significant difference if the most modest countries in the world experience the largest amount.

I repeat - I don't think a woman should get drunk, solo, and scantily clad in a questionable establishment or neighborhood and then proceed to walk home. But in cases where women are just going about their business, dressed decently but still get raped... Tell me how you would address these occurrences? I don't necessarily think teaching men 'how to not rape' would work because let's be honest - those who rape, are mentally ill and such programs would have little to no effect on the stable individual because those urges won't be present anyways, but it'd also have zero effect on a rapist's mind because a 'comprehensive class' is not going to successfully rewrite whatever is broken in their mind, that causes them to want to rape.

-sigh-

I -really- want someone to come up with an insightful idea regarding this issue, because it feels hopeless. In the case of India, I feel that the progressive movement regarding women statuses should significantly improve things there, but as of right now in America.. it kind of feels like neither side is willing to shoulder a realistic amount of responsibility - E.g. the 'Slut movement'. I have mixed feelings about this because it'd be a sad day if women here had to abide by a dress code, and I feel that it takes more than a scantily clad woman for a rape to occur - it certainly exacerbates things for a rapist, but any decent person is not going to be driven to it just because she's dressed that way. A rapist will rape any woman who's vulnerable, regardless of what she's wearing.

So.. where would we find balance? Are there any measures we can take here? We already take heavy measures against sex offenders... but preventing sex crimes?

As for human rights then yes ofc male and females should be equall, but as for all normal things... why?
Why should we erase the difference between male and females, if we do that it would be the same as removing both genders and create a new one mixed between both of them.

In my country, Sweden, there is a debatt about this. It's about removing the words Han(He) and Hon(She) and call everyone for Hen(It). The swedish feminist wan't everyone to be called for It, It's Humiliating!

So as for the Equallity between Human rights, political stuff, same salery on the same job, i support it to 100%, but for those who wich to do other stuff like "It", then just grow up. Turning all Males into females and all Females into males is pathetic.

Let everyone be whoever they like, don't try to stop them unless tehy hurt someone with their way of life, and don't try to force everyone to live the way you live!

Nobody is telling women how to dress in public. They are merely pointing out the fact that some manners of dress are the equivalent to baiting a hook. There are more laws that tell men how they can dress more than there are ones telling women how to dress. Getting upset with someone commenting on your clothing is equivalent to getting upset with someone who recommended you lock the door to your house.

Let's draw a scenario shall we?

Let's say I put on a shirt that has the text "Fuck " the group could be any demographic, Christians, Atheists, Hispanics, Blacks, etc. I'm certainly not asking to get my ass kicked, because I like my teeth right where they are. However, common sense dictates that for me wearing a shirt with such a statement is going to going to have consequences namely, someone may very well commit a crime, namely assault, battery, attempted murder or possibly be successful and kill me. I'm certainly not asking to be assaulted, battered, or possibly murdered but, again I reiterate that actions have consequences. What could I do to minimize these consequences? Well obviously I could abstain from wearing the shirt but, barring that, I could make sure I'm capable of defending myself from any attacker(s) or make sure I don't go anywhere alone. Same system we as a society teach people in self defense courses.

I want to note that I'm not saying that clothing is the cause but, it's a factor because rape has 4 motivations behind it and those are Something I want to note is that rape has 4 motivations those being








In India, rape is more often committed for other than sexual reasons. Displaced aggression is a common reason. To take this further, many unemployed frustrated youth might rape a woman belonging to an affluent class because of jealousy or revenge, not just lust. And the other way too. People of a higher class/caste may do it to a person whom they consider inferior, often due to land disputes.
Calcutta’s DCDD-II (Deputy Commissioner, Detective Department) Ms. Sumanbala Sahoo says, †˜Gangrapes are more common in India (particularly in rural India), and are often motivated by revenge.



How would I handle it? Continue to teach women how to protect themselves from these mentally ill individuals as there isn't anything more to do prevent rape unless we develop technology like Minority Report where we can predict rapes before they happen or somehow find a way of identifying rapists with 100% accuracy. Then you have the problems of arresting people who haven't committed a crime.

Are you saying it's victim blaming? Because it clearly isn't.

I'm not saying it's victim blaming. There's a difference and I know that - I'm saying it carries implications. There are smart choices for women and if they're not taken, shame on them but the rapist still made the choice to rape. As Fiery Penguin said, it's obviously not smart to do/wear certain things, but rape is still a sadistic and violent act that is by and large, a far cry from a proportionate response to 'goading apparel'. Average, stable individuals will usually be either mildly attracted or in the case of the more 'moral'-minded, disgusted - stable people would most likely not even think of rape as a 'reaction'.



Interesting. I mean... not good interesting, but interesting. I learned something, thank you.



Oddly enough, that actually goes to prove my point that rape is more than the attire and behavior of the female victim. I don't know how I feel about that, it almost seems worse. All rape is horrific, but a person punishing a woman in that manner is just... there are no words.

Agreed, there are no words and anyone that seriously has a conscious wouldn't even contemplate doing something so horrific. That's the very nature of Rape itself: It's barbaric and it usually, as Fiery pointed out stems from the most barbaric emotions in us. What does being a Feminist mean to me(and I consider myself one):

It means Females are of the highest quality of life. Sadly, some have deemed it sexist to acknowledge the facts, but it is Females who carry life into this world. A once, most treasured gift. It is females who fill the very arudous and difficult task of being a wife, of being a mother. And above all, it is the woman who is capable of holding herself to high standards.

Are we universally Humans? But of course we are, but our genders exist. We can no more deny them than deny the bodies we naturally were born with(small or large, fat or slim). The unique talents that women universally possess, belong only to the female species.

Could we men manage a household? Hell, we barely manage our own rooms! Am I being sexist against my own gender? No, there are certainly exceptions but men are more task-oriented and speaking for at least myself: My room won't grant me money, it won't lead me to where I wanna go in life. And so, perhaps sometimes to a fault I don't care as much about my room as I do my clothing, or my grades.

I'm a pro-naturalist: We have different genders, different abilities, etc. And I'm perfectly okay with that. Some might think it's degrading to accept one's own differences, I think it's degrading to try to do something we can't do.

There was a scene in Gundam Seed that ascribes to what I was talking about: Kira, a coordinator had a fight with his best friend Sai, over a mutual crush(Flay). Jealous, Sai tried to pilot the Gundam and flopped miserably.

A few days later, Kira confronted Sai and acknowledged to Sai that as a coordinator, there were many things he could do that Sai couldn't. But, that there were many things Sai could do as a human, that Kira couldn't.

To go to the battlefield, is to play Russian roulette with your life. And equality in death should only have one meaning: With your significant spouse. Dying alongside some stranger male is no equality, nor an accomplishment to be proud of(You can't even be proud of it because you're freaking dead.)

To be a Feminist to me, is to protect the Sacred Feminine. That, above all else means allowing females to thrive in our society.

How can you consider yourself feminist if you don't feel women are equal to men, and have specifically stated you think it's 'unrealistic'? You use a term to describe yourself when your beliefs completely contradict that term. You don't think women should self-determinate [hold the same jobs as men]. You consider the end-all be-all existence for a woman is a housewife/child-rearer. Believing this to be true shows that you have absolutely no regard for what truly makes a woman happy. It varies woman to woman just like it varies man to man.

I feel women are equal to men, spiritually and ethically speaking. To call women equal to men physically, is a natural lie. I pointed out a link to you before, but basically

Women: 5'5, 110-ish or so on average
Men: 5'10, 150-ish or so on average

This is a difference, where in it am I being sexist? Where am I being sexist, acknowledging that women face psychological, sexual and violent dangers in war time? If women feel as though civil society poses these threats, then why the hell do they consider throwing themselves into the fire, as equal?

Those 'feminists' might be the only people I know, who want to actually put themselves in a worse situation, and for what? To try and grow out of their natural limitations?

Did men make women physically weaker? No, we had as much say(none at all) in the intelligent, physical design as you did. And I never said I had anything against a woman pursuing a career(though it has had its economic setbacks and in fact is a part of America's inflation. Brilliant.)

If anything, I'd like women to get the same pay, working less hours. Its more socially important to develop the family, develop the child. Hell, according to some statistics, couples that were able to make the same money and spend roughly the same time at work had a better time because of it.

What I feel some women don't understand is the value of life Men don't go to war because they want to, the Call of Duty kiddies not withstanding. But until governments get their asses together, the 'system' we live in requires us to have an open hunting season of human heads


I'll oversimplify what war is:

You shoot a person
Person shoots back
If you're lucky, you killed him.
Problem: There are about hundred of other soldiers and so the process repeats.

It's an infinite loop of death, this is why hundreds of thousands of U.S. men simply don't come home. So, be brutally honest with yourself:

Do you expect the average woman to survive this infinite Russian Roulette? Nope, neither do I.

Am I sexist? Hell no, I care about the survival of the female species. Your death is meaningless. Death itself is meaningless.

Women empowerment.
Equal rights between the sexes.
Divorce.

Not this shit again...

Seriously, women don't need "protecting" nor is there some "feminine ideal" to uphold.

Yes, this shit again. Because unlike Liberals, I don't have the interest of turning the United States of America into Mexico, Venezuela, Apartheid Africa/Israel or any other second or third world country.

I don't admire those countries, neither did our founders. Up until Liberalism, Western society didn't look at them either. I refuse to follow the trend to admire failures. They failed as did their ideas.

What the fuck are you talking about?

The founders were extremely liberal for their time. I think you're mistaking them for modern day progressives. And even then, you're implying that their goal is to be like those countries, which is false. I think they look up to countries like Sweden(really progressive).

The reason you're ruffling quite a few feathers is because you think of women as some kind of object or pets that need to be taken care of.

lolol oh look LustfulAngel is here to spout shit and derail topics. Prepare to hear about the "Sacred Feminine" and "America's sad state of affairs and shitty economy." Feminism (or anything remotely resembling it) is the last thing you'll hear about.

Just because a women isn't naturally prone to physical strength(and i would like to point out not every women is the exact same in this regard) doesn't mean she cannot train her body to overcome that. Even though its not as popular with women as it is with men, women can do weight training to enhance there physical strength

Furthur evidence of what i am referring to.The bit about functional strength at the bottom is the important part. Basically even though they generally don't get the same kind of muscle mass due to lack of testosterone, they can train their bodies to become better at physical tasks

As one poster(I forgot that poster's name) pointed out in a thread, this goes to the definition of Liberal. The Founders opposed the idea of slavery and dictatorship on philosophical grounds. To them, King George's tyranny wasn't acceptable.

Social Liberties may have been an idea, but the theory at least was plausible. And at least it involved securing life.

I don't mistake them for "Modern day progressives", they were statesmen.

You say Sweden, let's look at Sweden for a moment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden

9 Million inhabitants, as compared to the 300 million here in the Homeland, do you think its remotely feasible?

Well, its non-interventionist foreign policy is actually what the Founders spoke of. But, as long as we have a "responsibility" to uphold to the rest of the world, hell will sooner freeze over than America becoming Sweden.

We probably could and should transition to a Mixed Economy. But oh wait, we're committed to Free trade which invokes us giving our economy to Mexico, China and anyone else who asks.


Sweden actually agrees with me on Abortion: Only in cases regarding medical threats to the life of the mother, etc.

You say you'd idealize Sweden, but several of their ideas conflict with modern American-"Liberalism".

Now, onto your absurd notion that I look at women like some kind of "object" or "Pets" that need to be taken care of. If you proclaim that of me, then what's different of a parent taking care of his/her child?

A parent wants what's best for his/her child, the child is very much young, naive and sometimes even stupid. They don't permit them to do whatever. As our policies here in America have confirmed, several women have shown that even as they hit adulthood, maturity is severely lacking.

Women no longer respect the qualities they have, nor do they value their own lives. In a state so pathetically helpless to secure its own, Sweden is a far dream from where we are.

If you believe me to be a sexist, then there are also a hundred authors who are also sexist:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Sacred+Feminine

It is from this spiritual philosophy from which governs my current political thought. The idea of women dying and sacrificing their youth spits in the face of their own lives, it spits in the face of their parents who raised them.

Its the opposite of an advanced country, its a country that's degrading.

Not totally. Abortions are allowed for any reason up to 18 weeks. After that it does get more restricted tho.




...so not only have you compared women to children in terms of physical capability, but now you are comparing them to children in terms of mental ability too?



So they have to respect the qualities you feel they should?Also,in regards to Sweden they allow females in its military