What does being a feminist mean to you?

That's not an analogy, but w/e.


I want to ask you what it means for a woman to be a woman, and a man to be a man? Is this not subjective and up to each individual to decide for themselves?


Are you somehow trying to blame this recession on the progress for equality?


Religion would be one obvious answer. There are countless of factors that have caused societies to repress women throughout history.

I did bar him from replying in a previous thread for that exact reason. I haven't done it here yet because you and Chlor seem to enjoy being masochists. (It would also make it seem like I'm favoring one side over another.)

Hah.

Well, pointless arguing is one of the things that keep me going.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/analogy

"a. Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar."

Some respects, being the key word. You said that differences didn't matter, I presented to you a scenario in which differences would matter and you'd have to properly weigh out the pros and the cons.

It's the same in society, our differences do in fact matter. These differences allow us to work as a cohesive unit. No different from how society is run amongst the animal kingdom(Ants and bee's being two such examples of dividing tasks among groups)








Okay, generally we don't want women to work in construction, the best they could do is work with a crane. Sexist? No, a simple reality of physics! Baring exceptional intelligence, we go through one grade a year. Why? Because a child simply isn't equipped to do Calculus. Are we being "ageist" now against the child?

Work has been opened up to women in the police force, yet do you see them diving in doves to be a cop? Hell no, and for good reason. If anyone's read the news lately, you see the hundreds of shootings. Tell me, in the name of equality is it sane to let the typical average U.S. female dress up in a uniform and chase after people who have no regard for the law? It takes just breaking one law, to break another(ie: Murder.)


http://nuweb.neu.edu/nhe/He%20Police%20stress%20article.pdf

This one such study compares and finds that for the most part that male and female officers face similar levels of stress. Even more interesting, is that female officers rely more on family support. prayer, etc as positive relays of this stress.

What that means, and the statistics bare it out is that negative reactions(IE: Forcing it on the family) are also much closer than we would otherwise like. What would such an environment be for the children?

Regardless of male or female, such an environment is always stressful. But tell me, what is the benefit of this equality? To have females in between the matter of life and death?

But hell, I'm fine with that. At least that's a choice, not a conscription.

What Panetta's controversial decision does, is it conscripts every single female to at least sign up for Selective Service, and I'll wager my life that more than half of our U.S. Female population which has never trained for warfare, fighting or anything of that nature simply won't be able to perform much if at all on the battlefield.

So tell me, where's the equality in this? Equality means allowing both male and female to prosper. It means forming our society to be strengthened, not weakened. The current notion of equality threatens to weaken our society.

Apart from that, there are many females who've also cried out: "Hey, I never asked for this." Why should some females be forced into this new world, for the benefit of others? Is this too, equality?

We have laws that state that you can't smoke, drink until you're an adult. You can't register to vote until you're at least 18, in some states you have to be at least 21 to get your licence.

Are those laws "ageist"? Aren't they being prejudice against young people? You can't argue "no" and then argue that former restrictions from male-oriented jobs, which were so oriented because they required specifically the attributes of a male were prejudice against women.


Truth be told, women have a lot of things that men don't have. I'd like to be a ballerina but I'd have to wear a skirt, I'd stand out and it probably would disrupt the class. I probably won't be on the dance floor any time soon, oh well such is life.

I'd argue sex is more pleasurable for females than males(Well, after you get past the first time of course). Whereas a male's orgasm is generally weak, by comparison females have multiple of orgasms.

And suffice to say, females have more in looks, accessories, etc than men. I have Deodorant, Body spray, Cologne and maybe Gel. That's it, for a male to look "sexy", as it were, he'd have to be really good with clothes.

And then there's the human body, it's really quite simple: Buff, average or chubby(There are some girls who like it, but lets get real).

And with the advent of the internet and access to information, it becomes even more difficult to find the best possible way for you, yourself as a male(or even as a female) to attract the right possible partner for you.

Whereas a female, unless she completely lets herself go will be attractive to males in almost, pretty much every way. The power of a female's beauty, is infinitely more superior to that of a male's.

And because of the aforementioned "evils" that is women being groomed for society, I'd say that women have a longer, easier civilian life than say that of most average, violent-oriented males. But heck, who am I kidding?

LustfulAngel, the supposed woman hater is worshiping women! I don't hate neither women nor male, I hate the idea that we would just throw away the attributes of both males and females, and to destroy the social structure to which we've lived since the stone ages.

And worse: We're throwing it away with no idea of whether it actually works or not.
I mean, even though women are entering the work force, it's legal justification for rising the prices! Screwing both genders over actually, not just one.






Again, it depends on our notions of equality, Black Jesus posted an interesting link(which I read) that pointed out how these abortions are notoriously expensive and out of pocket. There are tax credits that you can get, for either adopting or having a child, building businesses, etc. But I won't blame this alone, it's just a small blimp on the very ugly radar.

Families being taxed higher, divorce rates as high as they are. And our moral justification is outright sickening. We should be thinking of improving the quality of life, not micromanaging it.

The more America grows, the more we will prosper. Prosperity starts here, not elsewhere. It starts inside the homes of every family.





I won't deny the religious crusades, but I really don't think women have been reprived of that many rights. By the 1850's, the revolution for women to have the right to vote succeeded here in America. A century later, said opportunities have now opened up tremendously.

Progress to me, is enabling women to work in fields they can excel in(This would allow them to go up the ranks higher, quicker and get more money!. Gasp, I thought I was Evil Incarnate.) But also, I'd have women working less hours for high quality pay. So as to enable men/women to spend more time together as a family with their significant spouse and other.

A society is only as strong as its weakest link, and right now we're incredibly weak by forcing ourselves into roles we are not equipped for.

You did read my links regarding female bodybuilding,right?

I did, and it pointed out that while females can certainly obtain a more physical build, its of a different kind and not of the type of testerone that males have.

Simply put, we're different and that's okay. It's okay if we enter into different fields and carry different parts of society. In fact, its what makes our society strong to begin with.

We need to support each other where the other is weak.

The fact you seriously think a larger population attributes to a better economy and quality of life alone, shows how absolutely little you actually know about how societal prosperity works. We're in a hole of debt, and having thousands more mouths to feed, bodies to house, and minds to enlighten sure as hell will not fix that.





... You seriously just argued that historically, women haven't had 'that many rights taken away'? I'm almost certain at this point that you're a troll. No decent human being looks back on history, shrugs and says 'Yeah, women's rights have looked pretty legit to me!'. Teenagers being married off. Chinese girls having their feet broken and bound to be 'beautiful enough for a good husband'. The dowry system? You have to be mentally unwell to think those practices were 'not that bad'. Historically, women have had to essentially grin and bear it while a man they not only don't love, but don't like, has their way with them because 'it's their duty'.



So.. what you're saying is, women should know their place, and only do what 'they're naturally equipped to do' as opposed to, um, I don't know.. what actually makes them happy and fulfills them as a human being?

You have absolutely no concept of humanism whatsoever.

I rest my case.

You presented a choice(eating vs. abstaining), I however didn't. But this is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.


Come-fucking-again? First and foremost, I don't think you really know how a construction site functions. It's not a playground for muscular men where they carry lumber and rocks as they brandish their oiled, muscular bodies in the sunset as they tear down/build houses with their bare hands.

We go through grades because you have to learn the basics and go upwards. You can't present advanced calculus to an adult who has never learned to do math and expect him to solve it either, now can you? You don't magically gain knowledge by getting older.


The benefit is equality. There is no need for women to join the force, nor should there be, but the option should always be available for those who want it.


Well, would a man who has never trained for warfare be more of use? I highly doubt it.


What are these women being forced into? The point is that a woman should be able to do as she wants, regardless of what that is. If a woman(or man, for that part) wants to be a housewife(man) and stay home and care for the household as their partner chases a career, that option should be available. If they want to do [insert any occupation here], they should be able to.


Yes, they are by definition ageist. However, these laws exist because adults/the government believe that they can't trust the judgement of young people. If this is true or not is up for discussion.


If it were common for male ballet dancers to wear skirts you wouldn't stick out. You would only stick out because of social conventions that make it so.


Again, social conventions.


No one said you hate women, heck, I never thought you did. I say that you are sexist, objectifying and degrading.


Number hardly equals progress. It's a big factor of course, but not the key one.


I don't even know how to respond to this. I would consider not being allowed to vote, drive, get an education, work, be frivolous, have male acquaintances, be out by yourself, show your hair, dress however you want, speak up for yourself or simply do whatever you want to be pretty fucking deprived of your rights. But now, that might just be me.


The point is that, given the opportuinity, there is hardly any reason at all why a woman can't excel as good as a man in any given field in today's society.


No, your society is weak because of the backwash, dark-aged mindset of people like you not allowing people who could make your society a better place do so.

Just a while ago you were declaring that by doing that, we were spitting in the face of some deity that may or may not exit.


Also equality doesn't mean giving both groups the "right" to prosper, but equal legal rights and accountability. I also never said you hated women, you just have a weird habit of making them out to be trophies/objects. You're not an "evil", just a creationist(deny it all you want but the resemblance to another typical fox news contributor is clearly there) with access to the internet.

If you really want to be a beautiful ballerina, go for it. I bet you look great in a tutu.

Out of curiosity, what do you think of Amnesty? That will also bring millions of people into the economy. People who will have to buy houses, get jobs, etc. Most of whom will be mostly in poverty.

Outside of that, we both have acknowledged several things. For one thing, the hole of debt. But what is the basis of that debt? Let's take a look shall we?

http://www.usfederalbudget.us/budget_pie_gs.php

As of last year, 68% of our spending(or 3/4ths) went to: Defense, Health Care and
Pensions! Welfare/Education accounted for 16%. Keep in mind, none of this takes into account for unfunded spending such as derivatives.

But I know what some Democrats would say: That's all Bush, Obama's had only one administration, etc. So let's just look at projected numbers:(Giving Democrats the false hope that projections aren't exactly exact but in this case, I wouldn't be surprised:

13:15%
14:13%(It's actually going down! Same person who said we needed to commit to compete in the "Global Economy")
15: Same percent(So where is all the new money going to, oh, right, the health care plan)
16:12%(COMBINED. Education is an absurd 3% of the U.S Economy now)
17:Same percentile.

If anything else went up, it was the interest on our spending. If things happen as projected, I wonder where the blame will go to? It most surely can't go to Republicans, many of whom face democratic outcry from voters.

If anything, we've confirmed as early as last year, that "new bodies" are far from what's causing our debt. The private sector's been destroyed. And our barometer for the economy now seems to be Wall Street(Oh, look the DOW went up!)

The Movers and Shakers of the economy isn't Wall Street, it's Middle America. Whom government has systematically abandoned in favor for its health care system.

I propose Middle America above all else, I want the economy to grow, I want our home grown families to grow and educate them. I don't have the time to build Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. Nor do I have money to waste on insurers getting their fat cat checks. It certainly isn't making America any healthier.





The teenage marriage system wasn't all that bad now, yes it was mostly against the woman's will but did you ever stop to think that likewise, it was also against the man's will? The parents of both children discussed it over. And such a system does have its benefits. Those children grew up together, lived together and in some cases such relationships ended up being spectacular.

This isn't arguing for the system, or, well, maybe it is with a little bit of an adjustment: If a teenager or a child should so refuse, allow that person to have the free will to fall in love with another and evaluate that potential partner.

Adjusting the system, I can see our Divorce Rates decrease dramatically. And I can see our children growing up with role models. Gangs and such decreasing. There was no need for a total makeover, just a little polishing.

And so, I looked up the Dowry System. For a moment I was worried, did America enact the female version of the Jim Crow Laws? I thought to myself. But when I looked it up, I felt relief. The basic of the Dowry system is that European traditions had developed in India: IE: Giving gifts to the bride and her family. A little background history into India:

-Ruled by Britain as a Colony, India didn't gain her freedom and independence until about the mid-60's After the successful struggle of Gandhi and his followers. We can safely say that India is barely 6 decades old as a country.

Its not the Dowry System, of course which is negative against women. But the reaction to it, via India's developing and recently struggling economy. It resulted in the sex-selective practices. In other words, aborting female fetuses.

But Loli-chan, a question: You support abortion here in America as a means for population control, what's wrong with abortions being sex-selective? Is it because its female fetuses?

What if India decided to selectively abort male fetuses instead, is it the least bit awful? Also, it seems as though an under-reporting of female births may also be part of the cause as well in some of these other countries.






Oh Loli-Chan, we have two very different definitions of what it means to be a Humanist. Do you know what the Superman Theory is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cbermensch

Why don't I put a new, 21st century twist on Nietzsche's philosophy? Superhumanism. Or in other words, the perfection of both man and woman on the planet. And how is such perfection achieved? Through self-efficiency, growth and development.

We both have limitations, humanity has long thought that by surpassing those limitations it could evolve further. That's also a part of this movement, by doing things that historically were male-dominated, females were attempting to evolve.


I find that to be a mistake, in my own life as well as philosophical. By going against our limitations, we only find that its much harder and ultimately less rewarding. Only so few times does the fairytale story of us exceeding our limitations actually happen.

We should only be focusing on our strengths and bettering those strengths. By making ourselves the best we can possibly be at what we're good at. Marriage is symbolic of this principle, two people mutually love each other and strengthen the other, without the other partner the person is half-complete.

Evolution comes from perfection, and perfection comes from simplification. Males and Females, combining their unique skillsets, perspectives of life into one force of humanity. This is my Humanism.

Lustful, stop it.

Why should I? We have two different perspectives on what is right, is all. And that's no different throughout human history. Wars were fought and people died on their beliefs.

Of course, things won't be as dramatic here. I have no hard sentiments either way, but what will determine the historical outcome of this debate are the actors currently in our society. If the society to which the others here have defended is victorious, then we should experience evolution.

And if/when we do, I'll happily join as a member of said society. However, if we don't experience evolution, if this society suffers a setback then is it safe to say that these ideals, noble as they were became impractical?

This isn't about who's perspective is right. Evolution is messy and it isn't about who's the "best".

There are a gigantic amounts of misconception about evolution, natural selection and adaptions, and that is one of them.

Even when offering a concession to everyone, you still find a way to oppose it. Interesting :)

I suppose when you say "Evolution is Messy", you're saying that to defy my notion that Evolution is Simplification? But, how is it not? Michael Jordan practiced about a thousand baseline jumpers. Athletes practice the most simplest moves to perfect their craft.


Also, I wouldn't say I'm in support of Natural Selection, seeing as I've included the entirety of the Human Race in my philosophical approach. I've selected no one and I'm biased against no man or woman.


My philosophy also extends to geopolitics, I believe that all nations on this wonderful planet of ours have something wonderful to give to it. Their individualism is what makes them unique. I harbor no racist thoughts or feelings, I merely acknowledge Existence As It Is.

But evolution IS messy(this applies not only to biological species but to culture, language and many other things). It doesn't always lead to some harmonious balance or "perfection".(which was my original point)



Good for Micheal and his success, but these are two completely different cases. If you want to talk science, we'll talk science. No shitty analogies... Even if it relevant, simple repetitions act that act as a base for more advanced physical movements(that are spread out even further) isn't evolution or simplification. This can't be applied to everything. Also although they practice simple repetitive techniques they still push themselves to their limits will trying to improve on their weaknesses something you said you personally disagreed with.



I never asked, and I certainly don't care. I only stated that you had a misconception of how it worked.
Also it's a bit hilarious that you say you're not biased against a man or women when several post ago you were saying women are naturally fitted to be in one place in the "greater scheme" and go against it was not only blasphemous but their death.



So you say you harbor no preconceive notions about certain groups? Like...I don't know...women having the mental maturity of a child?(which is reason enough to discriminate against "most" of them)

Who the heck was I talking to earlier then?



Passive aggressive smileys don't help prove any points. I said your you approach to evolution was objectively wrong.

Its true that revolutions, new philosophical approaches, etc went through their difficulties before being accepted as factual(IE: Many once believed the world was once flat.)

However, despite the difficulties and we certainly haven't achieved "perfection" in the ideal sense yet; we have at least moved closer to the ideal. Certainly a lot closer then centuries past.



Perhaps I should slightly rephrase: Putting as much effort into our weaknesses, as our strengths, is a waste of said effort. Of course, if you can improve you should. But why do the impossible? Just to say: "I can"? Many might cite the story of the train, who thought to himself "I think I can, I think I can." However, there was nothing logically to stop that train from doing so.

Logic dictates that there are physical differences between the two sects of our human species, these physical differences, if they don't make things impossible, certainly make them far more difficult than worth the application, especially for little more than political showboating.





Are you misquoting me now? Or deliberately taking me out of context? Do you expect the average female to be sufficient in combat? Of the female applicants in Israel for example, only 3% made the cut. Three percent! And yet, is it worth it? To what are we progressing towards? Meaningless casualties?

And it is still very much blasphemous for a female to attempt to do something that, logically and physically may very well be very difficult for her to do so. Just the same as it would be blasphemous, hell, impossible for a male to give birth.

And again, even if it were possible for a male to do so, what would be the purpose?
What potential good could possibly come out of it?

Humanity has been given a design, by whom or for what purpose, neither I, you or anyone else knows. But what we do know, is this was no fluke. And I believe our grand purpose is to advance humanity even further. To fulfill that purpose, there are some ideas I agree with and some that I think have defeated our common purpose.

And before you ask what it would be blasphemous against, I answered once before and again: Nature. We are products of Nature, the highest products to be sure but we still answer to her. As proof: We still can't control weather.



Same guy, some of these political/naive-oriented decisions which may very well break the fabric and foundation to which our ancestors built and in my mind is breaking it. Ever since this nation's prime(Early 50's), we've experienced a gradual decline to the present moment.

To me, we've been handed wealth beyond our imagination and we've managed to squander it. Why shouldn't I be pissed? Why shouldn't I identify that virtually everything we've done to this point is wrong?

I don't "discriminate" against people who support such decisions, I simply look down on them. In the same way that you likely look down on me, we're not discriminating against each other: We're holding an opinion about the other.



But not empirically so, there's no such thing as a wrong philosophical approach until its proven so. And I believe there are cases for both of us. Remember The Wheel? The Wheel was the base on which our modern-day Cars were invented :).

And my smiley wasn't passively aggressive or aggressive at all. I'm tired of this back and forth.

Doesn't really matter what the incentive is, we can keep progressing or at least try to find ways around our problems and personal weaknesses to keep improving. Sometimes by improving ourselves we can better help others. What's wrong with wanting to reach the mountaintop for the sake of doing it?



Well I wouldn't call their casualties meaningless. They did it willingly and probably lived life on their term.
But no, I wasn't misquoting you, you pretty much said that they were spitting in the face of their "creator" by going against what you consider the norm.





Look, there you again. Stop accusing me of misquoting you.



Yes, but it's not impossible to create artificial wombs, and it's definitely not impossible for a women to do something traditionally done by "men".



We'll know if we get there.



Prove it.



No. I don't believe there is a "grand purpose". I think we're just a collective of different with the desire to live(well a majority of us). How we live it and why we live it is up to the individual.



We are indeed a product of nature, chance, and a whole lot of random and weird factors. But at the same time we try to work around, with, and even control it for our own needs, rather than being forced to work under it. Also we don't "control" the weather but we're certainly affecting it through our actions. We're able to minimize it's impact on most people with simply things like...shelters and warm clothes.




I was 99% sure you would idolized the 50's which explains a lot. I think buy saying "break the fabric and foundation" you're admitting to not actually "worshiping" nature, but order that you've gotten from preconceived notions. One big thing about nature is "change".



I look down on you for many reasons, but not because I believe that your gender should determine so much of you and that by not doing that, you're "spitting on Jay suhs".



That would actually be the motor.



Admit you have little actual knowledge on evolution, or explain to me how it's "PERFECT" and "simplification".(your words not mine)

I'm at a loss for words. I am, however, a bit sad that you choose to ignore me.

Being born in Scandinavia. Thats what it means to me!

No seriously, its a topic that can be really hard to talk about outside of Scandinavia, meanwhile here its so obvious a woman should earn the same amount of money.
It's not really my front to talk about that, but I know the majority of my friends think that a woman should earn the same as a man, no matter what profession that is.

In most cases, I think we are all feminists in my country. x)

Having an equal opportunity to men in everything, not having gender be an aspect in the way people percieve you or treat you. Short and simple.