What does being a feminist mean to you?

I guess you're the Moses of our generation? Please, feel free to stand on your soapbox and condemn the world and nobody cares for your apocalyptic prattle.



If a woman wants to try her hand at joining the Marines she'll be expected to meet the same physical requirements for the infantry MOS as every man whose tried. Why should we allow this? Simply put, it's basic property rights taken to it's logical conclusion. If someone has exclusive property rights to their body, then they are free to do with their property (in this case their body) as they see fit. I don't expect you to understand with your protofacist dialogue of "an orderly society" and belief that women should stay home and "populate the fatherland"



Yeah, how dare those peasants rebel against the crown. Making decisions to rule their own lives for the sake of some concept of "liberty". We should return the United States back to England and return to being a territory of the British Empire!

If you're so fond of someone else telling you how to live your life I hear some of those Islamic States like Iran just love doing that. However, it's common for people who bow to the altar of the state to only see themselves as the ones in power and not the ones who are ruled over. You probably fantasize over the world being run by your strict interpretations of right and wrong.




Oh yeah, avoiding pre-emptive wars of aggression is completely insane alright. I mean, it totally makes sense to invade every nation that looks at us wrong.



There two aren't even connected or are we playing some twisted version of six degrees of kevin bacon where I have to work out the connections between women in the military and the legalization of drugs. If so, take that shit to IB, they love forum games.

Women want equality under the law. They want the same legal rights and privileges that men have traditionally had. I'm sorry if this rubs your 1920's sensibilities the wrong way but, women are people too. Again, I reiterate, they as sovereign individuals have the right to choose their own destiny.



Sieg Heil mein Führer! As I suspected, you see yourself as a benevolent ruler. By the grace of god you bestow upon us your kind wisdom, to bathe us in the water of enlightenment to cleanse the unwashed masses of their blasphemies of ignorance.



You really have no idea what the Taliban was do you? Allow me to enlighten you to the realities;

From the age of eight, females were not allowed an education, or to be in direct contact with men, other than a close blood relative, husband, or in-laws.They were not allowed to be in the streets without a blood relative and without wearing a Burqa. Women were forbidden to wear high heels, speak loudly in public, appear on the balconies of their apartments or houses. They were also banned from public gatherings, which means no protests, no t.v. or radio shows, etc. They were prevented from riding the same bus as men, not allowed to ride a bicycle or motorcycle. They were not allowed to even take a taxi without a blood relative present with them. The taliban also closed all beauty parlors, nail salons while banning the use of cosmetics such as nail varnish and make-up .

Yep, allowing women to serve in the military is absolutely like the Taliban. If a person can do the job, nothing should stop them from doing it.



It's actually quite accurate. You seem appalled by the idea of women existing outside of these figurative cages that you place them in. A woman wants to serve in the military, you proclaim Armageddon with fall upon us if we allow such things. Women wanting to do more than fulfill tired gender roles results in you screaming until your throat bleeds and your lungs collapse at how we're becoming a liberal culture of death.

In all honesty, I'm hoping that you're just trolling the ever-loving bejesus out of me with these unhinged statements.

People who disagree with you on strictly enforcing gender roles are comparable to the Taliban?

You do know recently they shot a teenage girl simply for encouraging girls to go to school,right?

I have a serious question for you feminists. What do you have against the nice guy? Against being feminine?

Is there some ego driven justification you are trying to hold onto? Are you afraid that it makes you appear weak to another person and you're really that concerned with appearence?

I mention this because it is one of the things some women do that really really pisses me off. I try to act like Mr. Nice Guy and I white knight myself a lot for nearly anyone, especially women. Most of the time I get a little appreciation for things like holding a door, paying for a meal, or anything else I do.

But there are always people who meet me with hostility acting as if I'm oppressing them, forcing them into something they don't want. As if I see them as inferior. I mean for god sakes, if I hold the door for you, it's because I'm a nice guy not some jerk looking to get in your pants. A smile and a thank you is more then sufficient to get me through the day.

I can understand if a woman wants to be a soldier, or a doctor. Your profession isn't my business but your personal interactions are. If you want to complain about being equal and treat my kindness with hostility then I will treat you as an equal and cuss you out. Cause that is how men treat other men who act hostile.


It's as my mom has always said "If you want to be treated special, I will treat you special. If you want to be treated equally, get your ass to the back of the line"

I think you are just interacting with the wrong kind of feminists. Most are not going to freak out over a little thing like having the door held open for them.

It's when I see things like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geQyrBGS_60


And then other women arguing against feminism:

http://www.youtube.com/user/girlwriteswhat/videos?view=0


Now the girl who does the girlwriteswhat youtube account, I have a lot of respect for her. She is far more logical then anyone I've seen here and has even countered some points made by the feminists here. If you haven't watched her videos, do it.


But I think this is my point. When I see these man hating articles all over tumblr, all over facebook, all over twitter. It makes me wonder at just how logical these women are. Take the incident of that lady who cut off her husbands penis. This was a big deal, and all these women applauded it. ARE YOU KIDDING ME! How stupid do you have to be as a women to applaud violence. It doesn't matter how skezzy this man was and who he slept with, apparently it's socially acceptable to praise women who commit violence against men but hey, if I cut off a woman clit I'd be condemned to hell right away.

There's your equality right there.

You seem to be under the impression extreme feminists represent the whole movement..which it doesn't.



Again, most reasonable feminists don't cheer women on male violence. And i would argue most want to get rid of gender roles that leads to violence against males not being taken as seriously as it should.

I'm not a preacher, I'm an intellectual there's a difference. Namely, I long for that which is correct and would like to avoid as many incorrect answers and decisions as I possibly can. Life, of course, is not perfect but I find if we all tried to intellectually search for answers, bloodshed might end up not being one of them.




Idealistic, but not realistic. You see, I'm asking you whats the sanity in allowing this and you still haven't come up with a sufficient answer. I'll try phrasing it in a way so even you could understand:

How many women do you expect to be able to sufficiently serve in the military?
What can they provide the front line forces that they didn't have before?

And finally, for all of these benefits, is it worth the loss of life of a mother? Of a sister? Think about the worst case possible scenario, and apply it to the best case. If the pros outweigh the cons, generally you do it.

I can't see that many pros, but then that's because I value life in all of its forms. Life itself leads to evolution.

Destroying life, because one is the wielder of said life is exactly what I mean by absolute freedom being of consequence. Essential Freedom is of more importance.





If I were to invoke a quote from Himmler, he said that during wartime there's no difference between a democracy, a republic or a dictatorship. That any form of government, can, would and does subjugate its people to its own rule.

So can we please quit speaking on our high horse? Especially since we've deemed that the lives of women are expendable, of course, at "their own choice." The truly best government, would ensure that as many of its citizens prosper, and actually live.

We have a government that has denied basic human rights to its unborn children. Hell, it doesn't even classify them as humans(But what else could they be?)

And now this, is it really equal? If it really were equality, there wouldn't be a need to make it a policy. If it really were equality, then we wouldn't have prevented such from occurring in the first place.

The prevention was put into place, precisely because its not equal. You have tasked the American Woman with the job of killing, the job of forgoing her emotions and abandoning her family.

If this is equality, then there's no such thing as inequality.





Don't make me laugh, you really think giving the military more cannon fooder in the name of female soldiers is going to stop this inept government from launching war?
Let's look at a real, physical example: President Obama betrayed and abused the War Crimes Resolution in his war in Libya, yet he wasn't impeached.

The same congress utterly incapable of fulfilling its own laws, is going to protect the women of this country? The same Congress that, on the mere heresay of a supposed Iranian operation was more than prepared to go to war?

Again, I reference to that quote above. The last thing this policy does is prevent war, in fact, it's an increase in troops in preparation for war!






You seriously can't tell the connection? Drugs have major and serious side effects, just as joining the military does. There's the connection. Now, here's the difference and why one's okay and one's not: Recreational Drugs, such as booze, cigarettes, etc can positively lead to changes within limited doses. There's a benefit to them(though, there's much healthier ways to achieve said benefits)

I've asked you before and again and I'm not asking for your political opinion, I'm asking for a subjective observation: What benefit is there to women joining the military, the front lines? With men, the observation was that men would learn discipline, self respect and honor. However, as noted by many feminists, females have those qualities already.

You may mention equality once more, but is it really equality when the womanhood, the family and ultimately her life is at stake? The benefits, weighed by the cons and the cons are much heavier.

We want a prosperous, healthy womanhood in the work force. What we don't want, is women working desperately just for the sake of work. That's the difference between you and me now.




If I were an academic, I would invoke the rule that states the first one to mention Hitler's name(or philosophy) in an attempt to discredit an opponent is the one who loses the debate. That said, why don't we look at prewar Germany?

The Versallies Treaty was the worst treaty in world history, proof of when humanity loses its common humanity in wartime. It didn't have to be Hitler and the Nazis, I imagine the Weimar Republic if it were strengthened would have eventually asked for its former territories back. The war was inevitable due to such a one sided "treaty"

Doesn't make the Holocaust right, but neither does it bask the Allies and the Western Powers as right either. In war, there is no righteousness. But, it could have been avoided.

The legitimate recognition of the German Empire, and its former territories. Had western nations such as Britain accepted German alliance, or even if we opened ourselves up to the Jewish Community. There were many steps that could've been taken.

That's not just me, many historians acknowledge the war could've been avoided on both sides.

But the German Economic Miracle is one worth looking at, the Nazis decided that Production, not income was the engine behind economic movement and that income was the result of production.

This simple reversal of policy allowed Germany to prosper at a time when the Western Powers and Europe were crippling on their feet. And we chose the opposite direction, of inflation via artificial activity(IE: War), leading to the worldwide debt crisis of today.

History lesson aside, name a single member of U.S. Parliament that doesn't see his actions as benevolent to the citizenry? Of course I think my ideas would transform this country to its fullest potential. And of course as I see this country's decline, yet we have quite a few hundred politicians, I think centralized rule is more efficient than rule by democracy.


In short, what if Germany didn't enter World War II? Some historians argue it would've been one of the better regimes in all of Europe. Its a regime, that arguably wasn't that different from the Founders.

The Founders also understood Absolute Freedom to be a mistake, giving the Federal Government consolidated powers so as to keep the union between the States.

Now, I've laid out history behind one of humanity's most tragic eras. Having blurred the colors between good and bad, you have two choices: A: Call me a Nazi(My bets are 80% on this) or B: Acknowledge that no one is ever righteous in wartime.

After all, we nuclear bombed two cities, killing thousands of innocents, inflicting severe diseases on the few who were lucky enough to actually survive and Japan by comparison simply committed a kamikaze attack on Pearl Harbor.


This is history, a lot more complicated than you're used to I know.





Maybe the method is different, but I suggest that by asking women to do things that naturally would be difficult for them to do is just as sexist, and just as unfair.
War entails death, you yourself said that these soldiers know full well of the consequences.

And so why? Because they can? That doesn't make logical sense. Much the same as it doesn't make sense that as a world, we as humans have failed to get rid of this system called war to begin with. Indeed, here's a true end game:

By eliminating war, that would thereby eliminate the need for women to have to fight in wars. Would you argue then, Fiery?





Nope, I know it probably shocks you but there are people who actually disagree. And as I said earlier, they disagree not out of hatred or out of spite but because they too want whats best. So as much as you'd like to call me a misogynist, a sexist, a nazi, etc. None of those definitions are correct.

I merely wish to merge Old Europe with some of the more acceptable principles of our modern era. By eliminating this idea of "equality at all costs", and allowing our citizens to prosper in the areas where they're the best. The American Nation will recover from its moral and economic brink of death.

Some women might be able to prosper as soldiers, I'd rather them prosper as firefighters or police at the worst. Or hell, if they have those athletic qualities, I'd rather them join our female olympic teams.

There's no meaning in their death, there's much better ways to use their talents while keeping them alive.

An intellectual would post facts, statistics, articles, studies, etc. You've just repeated the talking points of an inane philosophy that is almost lost to antiquity.




Easily the majority of women can "serve sufficiently" otherwise they wouldn't be accepted into the military in the first place. If you can't do the job, they don't keep you around.

They bring nothing extra to the military simply because they are women. Instead, as individuals we are gaining valuable personnel who can full the roles. If a woman is in "motor T" which is the group of jobs that deals with servicing and repairing the vehicles in the military and she can rebuild an engine block like anybody else. There isn't a reason to discriminate because of her gender BECAUSE she can do the job. Again, I'll reiterate, if a person can perform the job then there isn't a reason to not let them do it.

If you were skilled at a particular job you associate with women. Why should we ignore what you're skilled at because of some outdated gender role?




I'm not touching abortion with a 20ft pole. So if you want to talk about that, go make another thread or go join some pro-life forum. I've said my piece in the past and I've decided to leave it at that because nobody on either side will ever agree with my. If you want to talk equality between adults, then do it but, don't muddy the water by trying to drag abortion into this.





The L/libertarian view on war is irrelevant to the gender composition in the military. Libertarians and libertarians alike disdain war and appose wars of aggression.



Libertarians oppose any war of aggression against another nation. In simple terms, Libertarians do not like war. What this congress and many others before it as well as various presidents in the last century have done is irrelevant to the discussion on women in the military. Again you muddy the water of this conversation by dragging anything you can remotely tie to the conversation in your desperate hopes to bury me in a tidal wave of irrelevance.




What do we gain from women in the military? Why not phrase it, what do we gain from allowing blacks into the military, or Asians, or Hispanics. The way you phrase the question implies there is a difference. Rather than questioning their gender, we should ask if they can get the job done which is all that should matter. If you're a man and can't get the job done, then get out and do something else. If a woman can't get the job done, then get out and do something else.




You want women in figurative cages while I believe it's the right of every adult to determine their own destiny. You keep pressing for the status quo of gender roles. I'm stating that gender is irrelevant as I'm looking at the individual level of "can they do the job".




I'm going to go with C: and be amused at how obviously you skimmed a quick article or two on WW2 and how little you truly understand of the machinations that lead to WW2.



This coming from someone who oversimplified WW2. I'm choking on the irony.





See this quote? This is you pontificating. Stop it. You're going from one topic to a diatribe on how we as a species have failed to eliminate war.

I reiterate, we gain nothing from women because there isn't much of a difference between men and women. Yeah, yeah you can go on and on about how men are inclined to produce more muscle mass and women tend to be shorter than men but, that isn't enough to exclude women wholesale when individuals can perform their roles in the military as equal to or even better than some men.

There isn't a reason we should handicap ourselves by not using the best of our resources?





I'm not shocked that people disagree as it's quite common for people to disagree with me. Whitelion, Gibbous, flaser are some fine gentlemen and scholars who disagree with me quite often. However, what I am shocked about is how someone can actually believe the dreck that spews forth from your head and onto the internet. You actually make me concerned that there is a mentally ill person out there who isn't taking his medication.



Just be honest, you think women should just be barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen. When you have enough integrity to openly admit your little fantasy, we can put this to rest and I can go back to grinding out combo's in Street Fighter.




But, but the apocalypse will happen! Women might die! What possible good could come from letting our little songbirds out of their cages!!?!?!?!

Now, you've become a hypocrite. You opposed women in the military because "women might die" and "what possible good would come from it" to accepting women in an arguably more dangerous position because "they might be able to prosper".

This isn't just about feminism, it's about what is socially acceptable. When you see these things on main stream tv and being praised on main stream tv, being watched my millions of people. But of course this isn't all women, it's just what is being taught as acceptable.

It is undeniable that our society is ingrained with this mentality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x64cy3Bcr98

I would like to point out there are plenty of men who contribute to the idea male victims aren't to be taken seriously. It is not just radical feminism that contributes to that

Never minding your insults against my character, you somehow said that the military, operations against hundred of thousands of troops on, okay, I'll be fair and say a bi-weekly basis, is somehow less dangerous than say, police work or that of a firefighter.

At least when fighting a fire, it is not a live, physical person intent to do you harm. There's a team of fellow fire fighters and for the most part, if things go well you should be able to make a (relatively) safe living from it.

And at least with the police, save for gangs, military rebels, etc(IE: Very rare crimes) I'd say that the police force heavily outguns most criminals. If I had to accept a country where our females are going to be put in a mortally vulnerable position, at least one where she has odds of surviving.

You mention being a mechanic, technology, etc in the military. All good and well, except the enemy can and does attack non-military targets(See: Benghazi and recently Turkey).

When someone signs up for military service, under any capacity they are playing Russian Roulette with their lives. Oh, and I like how you imply that I skim an article or two of history, yet you don't go on to prove me wrong in any way.

It's also interesting that you dub me as some "mentally ill person" who needs to take medication while at the same time, saying you'd rather play a video game.

I have no interest in continuing this conversation with you, we're arguing philosophy here. It can't be proven wrong or right(at least, we can't prove it) We can only see where history leads us.

But is that their fault, or is it a conditioning of society. Look at the education system, small children perticularily male children are victimized by the "feminist" ideas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C-IyOpESeE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLJHR0MpKos


It's not strictly just about how you act as an individual but how you act as a society. You want to talk about how the genders view each other, just take the obvious of what people say, men commit violence, men break into houses, men commit murder, men are monsters. That is what society believes.

Wait, so now its the fault of feminists that some guys treat other guys badly?

Also, i'm unable to view the videos you linked to at the moment,so could you tell me what dangerous "feminists" ideas are damaging males?

What I want to know is what scale you think the US is waging wars at.

Gee, I don't know we've been in the Middle East for about 13 years now, with a residual force remaining in Iraq, our activity in Afghanistan, we've begun remote operations in Yemen, Mali, do you really want me to go on?

The videos talk about indoctrinization. About how our education systems on history has changed from female equality to male victimization. That in our education system we learn about the horrors of mankind at the hands of MANkind. It's one of those things were you constantly hear "If women ran the world, there would be no wars" or saying "Women are smarter then man" and you get applause for it. If you said that "Men are smarter then women" you get treated with hostility.

Just look at the most simplistic thing, men are forced to act a way towards females because we are not afraid of how society will act towards us. We are not afraid on consequences that are not shared.

The simplist proof to this, think of all the people you know in real life, and make 1 married man who will side in an argument against his wife. It just doesn't happen very often and when it does, there's a HUGE backlash against the man.

This is what feminism has done to society. There is no such thing as equality, it's a power struggle.

This whole thread is proof that feminism has changed and corrupted society. Simply look at the number of people on each side of this argument. There are far more people siding with the women and the feminists than on the other side. And the people who are on the other side as indicated are verbally attacked. The first posts calling people idiots, that they are ignorant, uneducated, whatever else you want to say, was the feminists.

What does that really show? I'm not taking sides with either one because I think the current system and beliefs are all wrong. I don't think that either side really know what they are talking about but my issue is society and what we consider acceptable. Our society allows these people to exist. You no longer have the freedom of speech because people believe they have the right to not be offended. I don't remember seeing that in the american or canadian constitution.

Let me make an example. If i make a rape joke, what do people think of me? Most people are going to be offended, some will find it funny but there are people who will go to extreme measures. Why do we let these people loose.


Edit:

I can give another example of what feminism has done to our society, just look at our justice system. If a man reports a case of rape, it is often dismissed, but if a female reports a case of rape, the conviction rate is 90%, there are many cases where the sex was mutually consented and the male still ends up in jail. Where is the justice there?

Another and personal example if custody of children. In over 90% of all court cases, the female is granted sole custody of the children even if she is deemed an unfit parent. I can take an example of my mothers long term boyfriend. His ex-wife, who could barely hold a job, never paid bills, had back payments on her apartment, would disappear for a week of more leaving her 2 children in a 1 bedroom apartment without food was granted full custody of their 2 children over a man who has worked his entire life. Spent every day with the children doing homework, playing games, teaching them hobbies, talking with them, making them food, doing their laundry, cleaning the house for them. This was a good man screwed by a society corrupted by feminist ideals.

It is this type of thing that makes me wonder if women should be allowed to have any power.

For most of history men have had most of the power, so obviously they have had more opportunities to misuse that power. And i remember hearing learning about men who had a positive effect on human history such as Martin Luther King,Socrates,and JFK. And there have been a few female figures who are not very loved, like Margaret Thatcher.

And again, i don't think most rational feminists believe females are smarter or less prone to war by nature. And as for your assertion men who don't agree with there wives are met with hostility, google "nagging wife" or "women logic" and i think you will find plenty of cases of people siding with the guy.

And this is not the only thread where people have gotten personal with there posts(And from what i'm seeing this only happened in later posts,not from the onset as you're implying), so i think holding it up as proof of the damage feminism has done to society is a bit much.

And freedom of speech means people can say things you disagree with,and that we don't lock up people or don't allow certain people not to exist because you disagree with them. And as for the rape joke thing...well, despite the backlash the received last time i checked Daniel Tosh is still employed.



Do you have evidence concerning men who were put in jail under false rape charges?

And the reason men don't fare as well in custody cases has to do with gender roles, which most rational feminists are trying to argue against. And there are situations where it is better for the women to have custody



...so because some woman are not good people women shouldn't have any power?

Absolutely, but you seem to be under the impression that the US line their troupes up by the thousand and tell them to stand tall and fire all 17th century style.

The US have suffered less than 10 000 military losses in total for the last 30 years. That's a third of the annual death rate in car accidents. Not saying that the military isn't dangerous, but you hardly sign your own death warrant either.

I can't explain it as well as the videos do, you need to watch those videos because I'm just relaying the information that I've been presented.

http://www.falserape.net/false-rape.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape

There are people on death row who are innocent, so it's easily and statically accurate that there are people who are jailed for rape unjustfully. And when you see the accusation rate at 40% or more for false rape. Where in these female brains do they think that they can get away with this?

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL92314DCCA89C3229

This video playlist linked above has 71 videos all shown on the news of women who accuse of false rape.



In my opinion, this is something that has come about because of feminist ideals in society. Women constantly being protrayed as the victim and men always being the aggressors has lead to a justice system that is not held accountable for equality and fairness. It is some falsely taught pretense in school under what is socially accceptable to do as a judge (yes they actually have a class telling them what is socially acceptable and how women should be treated in court.)

I seriously think you are confusing feminism and radical feminism. Rational feminists know women can be aggressors, and that men can be victims. And most importantly, try to fight against gender roles/sterotypes that lead to injustice(Also, you seem to be letting men who encourage harmful gender roles off the hook,while making the whole feminist movement responsible for it)