What does being a feminist mean to you?

1. I'm not a modern day liberal or progressive. If anything you want more govt control to support you ideas. I've said nothing to suggest that I want govt control over people's lives, nor do I think they should live up to some status quo.(if they're not harming others, what they do with their bodies is their business)
2. I never said I idolized Sweden. I said progressives usually point to liberal countries like Sweden...Or other European countries. Also abortions are completely legal for the first 18 weeks, you don't need be a victim of sexual assault or need it for medical reasons.
3. Free trade with countries like China and Mexico? Yes. Private countries should be allowed to do so if they please.
4. Parents have a personal responsibility to take care of their children. You are not responsible for what others should think, like or want. Yes there is a difference between males and females, some do females do lack self responsibility and often have Uncle Sam take care of them when they themselves could not, often times extorting certain people to do so. Some males do lack personally responsibility too. We should not deny someone certain rights because "they might not be able to handle it", otherwise we move backwards.
5. Sorry I don't worship vaginas or "fertility".

6. I disagree that it's degrading. If a women chooses to be your idea of "feminine" that's her choice and I will respect her decision. Will there be tough times ahead? Sure.


Don't call me a liberal or progressive again.




[edit]


Go look at the section rules. I don't agree with everything that user has to say, but we shouldn't break rules or act like children. If you disagree with him, state why, or else just ignore him.

Me, want more control? Laughable. If anything, the government has enabled the degeneration of this country and thereby the female part of our society. The social decline is what leads to more crimes, ironically committed against women themselves! By glorifying sex, we make it so that women are viewed as tools. More so than any of my own political philosophies. In fact, I know my philosophy to be humanizing women.

By acknowledging them as a unique component in a dual-sex society. You know, like the other animals in the animal Kingdom.

3. Said trade has lowered our manufacturing production by 50% Should we still do as we please or can we stop this insanity?

4. You mean its possible to move even further back than we are now? Where as Biglundi points out, the country is divided, patriotism? Give me a break, there's a facade to which we want to keep but that facade is no more real than a dream. You're right that I'm not responsible for what others should think, like or want. But there are things in society(Like stripping freedom from those who've yet to live. Or for openly allowing a gender of our race(male or female) to blatantly commit suicide in the name of fightin combat.) that we simply do not allow.

It's on this basis the gun debate is currently being held. Absolute freedom=Anarchy, the freedom we're aiming for is a balance between civil and social responsibility.

"Feminists" as it were, wish to disrupt the social union and the order of nature itself and they expect the world to comply with them. It'd be real interesting to see if we could get a study on how many feminists believe in Intelligent Design.(I do), because if they did, they'd know that everything here is for a reason.

I don't care what you prefer to call the Designer, but who/or what it is, had a specific intention for this planet, from the animals, to the plants to the humans to even freaking dirt.

That's not a coincidence. We are now attempting to spit in the face(or being as it were) of the Creator and say "Hey, you didn't do a good enough job."

5. I don't worship fertility either, hell, its safe to say I don't worship anything at all.(I'm spiritual, but my connection with the Supreme Being is more benevolent than to hold myself in worship.). I hold the Feminine in great light, appreciation, understanding of the role that females are meant to play.

Just as we men have a role, we're meant to play. The difference is that men are more inclined to play that role.
Whether through simplification or understanding, most men instinctly know the role of provider, of strength and of self-reliance is what defines them and carries them.

I'm a naturalist, I'm not going to defy Order in the arrogance that I may somehow "know better." And politically,
how could I consciously say I'm a leader of the people as I let them do whatever they please, how they please and consequences be damned?

True progression will be the unification of men and women in a society that enables their best strengths, a society with high employment, high gross production, low debt and a fairly highly child birth rate.

I worship nature in its natural order, because that in of itself is the primer of life. It's the appreciation of life, which drives me.

So you're saying you don't want control, but you want to control what the private business should do? Ha.

Also there's a difference between "acknowledging there's a difference" and actually limiting the rights of people.




Abortion is a slippery slope when it comes to arguments. If you're pro-life, that's well and all, but again. I don't want you to dictate what's best for someone else.
Fighting in combat is another matter all together too.



We can already explain why human behavior is what it is. Intelligent Design is nothing but creationism that tries to call itself "science". Yes, there were social unions, and for the most part they worked as long as those involved were complacent with their lives. As for the whole "they want everyone to comply" thing...as long as it's not absurd like(male castration day) there's not much wrong with a women doing something outside of the social norm as long as she recognizes that she's responsible for herself and her actions.



I cannot prove you wrong or write.


I do not know what this creator truly wants, thinks, or cares about. I have no way of knowing what actions of mines are disrespectful, and to be honest, I don't really much care.



That's great an all that you're such great pals with "The Supreme Being" but you're trying to impose your ideals on others...in the name of some greater being.
See, I don't respect these...hmm attributes. I recognize that they're there, and that they've played a great role in human history and evolution, but I guess I'm not too crazy about it as you. Also I don't really believe that they have to "play some role" simply because they can.



Again, simply because I can, doesn't mean I have to.



Both men and women can fill these roles. Men can also be nurturing, supportive and all those "feminine" traits. Heck some might be better at them then most women.



I never claim to know better than "The Supreme Being" or whatever you call it. I think I can do as I please while still being considerate of others and bringing them no harm. I don't think I owe him/her/it anything other than that. If it weren't for defying "order" we wouldn't have half of the neat stuff we have today anyways.



I guess when it comes down to it, like everyone else, you just want your utopia.

This depends on the philosophical definition of a right. For example: Do all people have the rights to bare arms? The Founders believed so, as we see that's not always the best thing. Here's my belief:

People have the rights to do whatever they want that doesn't hurt others, or inflicts self-injury. If we bestow upon ourselves, rights then the least we can do is allow children unborn to have the rights to that same choice.

Let us not be hypocrites, what right we bestow upon ourselves is equal to another. But also, some "rights" are related to a specific group's abilities of carrying said "rights" out(No sane human being can proclaim killing someone(warfare) is a right.)

What I've espoused here is not a conspiracy theory, but modern western philosophy. I have simply clarified and defined it further to state that everyone doesn't fit in a borg hive. That these differences are real, they've governed our lives and the attempt to break through them is a unknown dynamic that poses threats to our society.

The difference between us and dinosaurs, is that we won't go extinct via natural changes to the earth(short of meteors blowing it up or something.) What will put the Human Race in extinction, is the constant changing of its societies.

Can we adapt? Yes, but the more we adapt, the more we'll end up losing. The more we sanitize war, the more we'll end up sacrificing.








Why not, via the outcries of "Pro-choice", a vocal media outlet has dictated this country to move closer and closer to that direction. Indeed, no one is "stopping" the pro-lifer from living the life that he/she chooses, but he/she has to do so in a country that so contradicts the meaning of life itself, the philosophy of the person. It's infact a debate whenever a young woman(whose pro-choice) ends up having a baby, one side tells her to keep it and the other tells her to ditch it.

The family members proclaim they "support her", but they look at her(now) born baby with disgust.

That's "Pro-choice" America in a nutshell. I want to make this a pro-life country, as it was originally founded to be. That is what made this country the world's superpower.




I'm not talking about explaining human behavior, I'm talking the grand scheme of things. The design of this planet, the plains, the oceans, the forests. There's no authority on whom the "Supreme Being" is, or if it's even a Being but rather an Existence(IE: Material Energy as it were. Such as the Big Bang theory.) But one thing we can clarify for certain is that without doubt there's a purpose to our lives and to the evolution of the Human Race.

Hence, calling it Intelligent Design. I've no qualms with a woman who wants to make her own choices that I don't necessarily agree with(IE: I'll call it the Worship of Death.) But do tell me, where's my choice in all of this? Our government has told me in effect that I have to risk watching my wife and daughter die, for the sake of political correctness.


If you tell me that I cannot use my political theories to adjust this country to a more proper status then so be it, but can those who proclaim to be pro-choice say they're justice? The only choice they concur with, is their own. Equality is a nice word to hide behind, for which those who preach it don't truly believe in.





Of course you can't, the odds of this planet popping out of nowhere and us popping out of nowhere for no reason at all are absolutely slim.

The only thing we don't know, is the "what, when and why". But we do know that logic is the determining factor in life, it always has been. Or do we disagree there as well?






No one really knows, this creator may not even have so much of a thought at all. But let's play a game and presume that it does. And let's say the only thing the creator wants, is the evolution and progress of the life to which he/she/it has created. By proclaiming our elimination as progress, we're definitely spitting in its face.

At the very least, eliminating a creator from the equation, we're spitting in our own faces by taking our own lives.




Do you know what occurs in deserted areas like Arizona when there's a drought? The crops die out, even though there was plenty of rain before the drought, just a month or so without water can kill plants. Just the same, when there's too much water, they die and when it snows the crops are ruined.(Hence, no one smart would plant crops in the winter lol.)

Its not because "they can", Cruz, the advantage and I suppose disadvantage for our politically accepted theory of "living" is that Humanity is a self-sustaining organism. Whether you like it or not, we must continue to live. Of course, the alternative choice again is our own death.

But there isn't a third choice, there isn't a "Oh, whenever I feel like it." That third choice has had the illusion of existence because while people may have choose that, there were others who choice to continue to promote life. But, if we should ever lose significant numbers then the illusion of choice will disappear.


This, perhaps would mean nothing if the illusion of political correctness didn't just put our female counterparts in harms way. Tell me, what do you think would happen if we lost a significant portion of our female population?

Oh, I know, I think our population would decline. Despite the world's wars, we have populated in size. True eugenics is going to be wiping off the female species.

I look forward to seeing this "equality"(Actually, more like I'll be weeping. But I want to see if the supporters will cheer the blood that will follow.)






As above, so below. Just as we'd suffer a population decline if we were to take current policies to the extreme(and yay, we're heading there!), can you imagine a society where men just said "Fuck it, we'll do it whenever."?

Be it sexist or not, we men make more(slightly. 0.75 to every dollar) than women.
Its precisely economic issues that end up separating couples. If we don't take up this responsibility, then who will?




Never denied that they both "could", but there's a difference between theory and actually implementing said theory. Tell me, Cruz, would you say that the New Left has succeeded in its revolution? Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, etc. The LBGT movement has gained significant steam and so forth. By every measure, things have changed significantly.

And so one question: Has anyone benefited? Has the LBGT community been able to realize true love through its politicization? Has the massive debt we've accumulated via our social programs been worth it? Have people benefited from said debt?

Not a single group has been fulfilled, the ones who promoted these ideas can only cling to the success of having been initiated. But if one's to be truly objective, one realizes this: Liberalism's dreams and the reality are polar opposite.

-If the LBGT Community wants to realize true love, its quite simple: True Love transcends all boundaries, that of course means all judgments. In today's America, we all preach from our lungs that we don't care. We only care when its brought to our attention.

So, the LBGT community should actually de-politicize itself.

-Instead of indebiting our government, we should simply put the social security funds in a trust fund, to every senior citizen. We're moving towards this of late, with economics becoming more prominent in classes but it should've been
done earlier.

See how simple that was? My ideas are also ideas, but my ideas are backed by pragmatism. Progress the country however you'd like, move forward. No one likes those ideals more than I.

But, only a pragmatic idea can work. If an idea lacks a pragmatic vision, a long-term objective then it will never succeed. You can certainly "feel good", but I'll say it once again: These thinkers are in charge of the most prosperous country on earth. Whether they feel good or not is irrelevant, what is of importance is that this country continues to prosper.







How so? Modern day technology doesn't defy nature. We've combined lightning(the monitor) with steel(the base of the computer) to form modern day PC'S, TV'S, etc.

If anything, we have evolved mother nature. We have taken her/it further. As I said above, if that's mother nature's desire then we've done her justice. When we defy Order, is when we proclaim we can procreate whenever we want. Or that we can let a few hundred thousand women go to war and not miss a beat.

I already explained how that's defying how we've lived for the last several hundred years or so. And perhaps in the short term, we can defy it. But can we avoid the long-term consequences? If we could, that's an even bigger smack in the face of the laws of nature. All things have consequences.





Only restraining in respect to current lifestyle opinions. Allow me to simplify: It would be a combination of the philosophy of our European traditions, with modern westernized technology.

The best of both worlds, and indeed my interpretation of a Utopia. Perhaps you may disagree, but just imagine what a world like that would be like for a second.

Alright, I'll keep my mouth shut from hereon. I do hope you see what I mean, though.

Probably wise if you don't want to get reported.
Anyone who argues with LA just need to learn firsthand what folly it is.

Come again? Over here a woman can go get an abortion (for free if under the age of 25) no questions asked and no reasons needed up until the 4th month of pregnancy. Just saying, after that you'd need to appeal to Social Services about it and I guarantee that medical threats are not the only reason they'll allow. They'll also take economical and social situations into account

Just felt like pointing that out.

Now, on topic.

To me, feminism means to accept the differences between genders, both physical and psychological. I would go as far as to say you should even embrace these difference but at the same time, a feminist should understand that these differences don't mean squat in today's society.

You really can't argue that there aren't any differences between genders, because they are there whether you like it or not, but the point is that they don't matter.

Funny, I could say the same about debating you. And you're committing the same "crime" as 623 here, you're grossly offtopic nor did you even prove why arguing with me is a folly.

Why is arguing with me a folly? Is it because I stay true to my convictions? Be that as it may, if the general populace's argument were good enough(it isn't) I would adjust my convictions to the so-called "correct" perception of reality.

In addition to my willingness to accept this perception if I could actually be convinced of such, in my own arguments numerous times I had posted links defending a number of issues. Often times, sadly the information I take the time to use in these debates is often ignored by my opponents.

You yourself have admitted to hating me in private, it is utter folly to try and convince someone who hates you of your own legitimacy.



Seriously? Let me give you an analogy: It doesn't matter that the mushroom is poisonous and is thereby going to kill you, its food! Actually, it matters. If you want to eat and you're starving I don't know about you but odds are you're trying to live.

To say differences don't matter, is once again an "ideal", one that is not aligned with our reality. These differences make up our social makeup, and allow us to have various experiences with various people.

Here, read this:

http://jefferson.library.millersville.edu/reserve/SOWK505_Girvin_GenderRoles.pdf

This describes several of the social agents that develop us from when we are babies, and into the adults we are today. The article confirms that many women would like to try their hand at becoming more, shall I call it bi-gendered. However, even towards the end they acknowledge the inconsistencies with this desire.

It's an idea, and that's great and all but what's the end game? How do you intend to implement this world and what makes it better than the old one? Proponents of this idea don't have the answer to these questions.

But, if you were to ask me the question in reverse, I would tell you: The mistake that was made in cultural development was in not allowing women to feel the importance of what makes them women. As I said once before, the Sacred Feminine.

Had such an ideal been preached, we're likely not having this discussion. Women don't really want to "become men", they merely want to be acknowledged as all people do.

A truly equal society, is one that acknowledges these differences and allows people to live as they are. Robbing oneself of one's self-identity is the same as discriminating oneself.

I'm not going to get into the whole LGBT argument because that's a different argument altogether and I'm not going to pretend it's similar or comparable to this situation.

Nature doesn't have any "desires", but wanting to reproduce is a part of human nature. We don't "go with" nature, we control it and use technology to do things we normally couldn't do for either convenience, comfort or survival.



Oh no how horrible, they have to live with the fact that someone willingly went through something.
Also no, America's "pro-life" stance didn't make it into a superpower. Don't even pretend it did.



What is it, and how can you prove it?
And no, I'm not going to pretend there exist some great being, and if you're going to openly state that the universe wasn't created by random chance you're going to have to prove it. I don't care if I'm spitting in the face of your hypothetical god.

I don't get it, everyone has to risk the probability of seeing someone they love meet an unfortunate end. Govt isn't forcing your wife to kill herself. If she does that on her own accord, that's your problem.


Believing everyone is equal and that everyone has certain rights that can't and shouldn't be taken away are two different things.



Humans are inclined to want to continue to live, I won't deny that. But ultimately no, we don't have to "continue" to be self import cunts. There is a "third" choice, but because it has a possible "bad" ending for all of us, doesn't mean it's not existing.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwogDPh-Sow
Also it's the responsibility of the couples to "fix" their own problems. Yes, I know the concept of women having self responsibility is outrageous(to you) but that's how it should be.


I think there's a few thing we can agree on like if there's a women who's...let's say 4'10, 110 lbs, who want to be a firefighter, they obviously shouldn't let her join.

But here's where we are different.
I have no care for her own personal safety(well I do, but just as much as the 6'3 200lb+ guy) since she's willingly doing something that might harm her. I think if a women meets certain qualifications and is willing to do it, she should be allowed to or at least given the chance.

I don't think by loosing HUNDREDS AND BILLIONS of hypothetical women helps your point. Today, men still make up most work place deaths, even though women have the right to get in those dangerous careers(if they meet the requirements asked), most just choose not to.

To me "feminine" traits aren't sacred or disgusting. They're just there, and if someone chooses to live their lives rejecting them, that's fine with me, because even though we're different(gender, sexuality, age, skin color), ultimately, it's another human being I'm talking with.

I think for most on the pro-choice side,they would rather make it easier for a woman for women to raise children, or at least that is how i see it. Maternity leave so that motherhood doesn't make mean maintaining a career impossible,making sure all women have access to support and services for children with disabilities(So that they are less likely to see disabilties as a reason to have a abortion),etc.

Because you think that banning abortions will stimulate the economy.

I think it goes without saying that I'm a feminist, mostly due to the fact that I believe in equality between sexes in all walks of life and sections of society. What I don't believe in is filling some sort of a quota for the sake of not upsetting so-called feminists. In the working world, some businesses may attempt to hire an equal amount of women and men to be politically correct, regardless of their qualifications. It's no good to blindly hire a dozen women for your business purely because they are women. If there are more men who are qualified to be hired, or certain male applications that are more apt for the job than the women who have applied, then the men should who applied for the job should be the employed over the women. Feminism isn't about equal amounts of men & women working in the same jobs. To me, feminism is about equal opportunities for both genders to do whatever they want, regardless of whether they're a man or a woman.

Feminism appears to have a slightly tarnished reputation with both men & women alike due to a form of hostility towards men among those who call themselves feminists. There is a difference between feminism and misandry, though some particularly overzealous people use the label of feminism to describe themselves or others while a more appropriate definition would be of a misandrist. I am completely against misandry as I am misogyny, and I am therefore flabbergasted at how some women can state things in the line of 'all men are rapists' or 'all men try to subjugate women.' It's just as ridiculous as thinking a woman is 'asking for it' if they're wearing revealing/provocative clothing (both of which are objective phrases) or that all women are spiteful and bitchy. Both sexes carry with them a handful of negative stereotypes and misconceptions that shouldn't be believed, as do races and nationalities. Pointing the finger at men and pulling the rapist card and mistreating women for their choice of apparel is in the same boat as persecuting someone for their creed or mocking a person's sexuality.

The basics of true, unaltered feminism should be and generally are common sense. It appears to me that some women may not want to call themselves feminists due to the negative connotations it carries, mainly due to Misandristic opinions, as well as the repulsion certain men feel concerning this aspect. Feminism and both lawful and moral in contemporary society and I am very glad that it is accepted as the norm, but the when the basic doctrine is taken to extremes or the term is corrupted as a tool for pushing hateful opinions, I can see why people can take a disliking to the title of feminist.

Incorrect, I think bringing births into the world will create an artificial demand for jobs, which will in turn lead to a higher employment rate, which will in turn lead to a revitalized economy.

Would my idea work? It worked a few decades ago, what I do know is that the present 'idea' is a miserable flop.

That economic theory doesn't have a lot of room to stand on LA.

It "working" a few years ago was not because of population increase but the economy becoming more globalized, and many more factors.

But this is all off topic.

It is off topic, but I'll end it with a question: Do you really think there was no trade prior to the wars? Trade certainly opened up during the era, but let's not act like people weren't outreaching to each other. As late as the 17th century, Christopher Columbus sailed out to the North American Continent.


And if globalization had such an impact, then why is it that we struggle now as we move forward into this new globalized era? I thought it was supposed to be wonderful.

There is something that i think you're not taking into account There has been a rise in the rates of abortion among poor and low-income women. From that statistic it wouldn't be illogical to presume a abortion ban would disproportionally lower income women. I'm not sure kids from low income mothers would really provide that much demand on the economy.

Of course the wars ending had a huge effect not just the growing population. There was need to become more technologically advanced. Progression made people's lives more comfy, which often leads to greater demands for...well a lot of stuff.


No but seriously if you're not stupid you would know a lot of people "fucked up" which is why we're "struggling" right now. The US isn't completely "capitalist" but our economies and those of others are intertwined. Sometimes big bubbles burst, people loose interest, sometimes a lot of money is invested into something that wasn't worth our time. There's literally thousands of reasons why we're in the state we are in now, and if you seriously think that because people legally get abortions we're in this big mess...well, I don't really know what to say. Who knows, maybe your made believe Over Ruler does exist and he's vengeful, but I don't want to entertain that idea.(because it's silly)

Wait what? Did you just compare the differences between genders to eating poisonous food? Wat. That's not even an analogy.



I think you missed the part where I said that you should accept and embrace the differences between genders. I get the feeling your trying to tell me the same thing I just told you, just with a lot more stupid.

No I compared your silly notion that it doesn't matter, to a situation where if you said the same thing you'd likely end up dead. Try to keep up ;)




We most certainly don't concur and I take offense to those words coming from you. My idea of accepting differences, is in allowing women to be women and men to be men. These "differences" in fact are a necessity for our society's survival.

Liberal ideas are now attempting to disrupt and erect a new culture, with no history as its basis or any reason for which it could possibly work. Without any basis to stand on, this "society" will crumble. Hell, its already crumbling.

But as we can see, we'll deflect its crumbling onto other areas of blame. A question: Why didn't other, older societies get this bright "idea"?

That's a question worth discussing, if our ideas are so great why weren't they thought of before? There were many great intellectuals during the time of development of Modern Europe-Western Society , so much so it's dubbed the Age of Enlightenment.

You're so stupid it hurts.

No seriously not only do you not know about economics, but history or human nature itself. These are ideas that aren't exactly new, and for the most part humans societies have gone through constant change. For someone who's so proud of his "western"(like it's even a homogenous group) heritage you don't seem to know a whole lot about it.



Robbing one from self responsibility is denying their humanity. Also as Chlor said, it's a pretty bad analogy. Just say what you mean next time.
I'm sure it's full of insight. ;]