It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What is a feminist, what is feminism, and what is a 'feminazi'? Do you know what they are?

page: 8
28
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: ErgoTheAbsurd

The ladies have always lead.



YOU WEREN'T SUPPOSED TO TELL!

How are we ever gonna keep 'em down if they ever realize they weren't down to begin with?

Annee has a clue - she mentioned the whole "feminine Wiles" thing - but there won't be no stopping them if they ALL figure that out!




posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 04:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

It's definitely not a downgrade for women. It gave them choice.

Choice is never a downgrade IMO

Choose wisely.


Remember, Annee - they ALWAYS had the choice, because no one can be bullied who does not allow it.



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis




I wonder - could you put into words for me what my version of things is?


And why would I do that? I have no psychic abilities. I see only what you type, which just so happens to be a series of rhetorical questions. I have no clue what is going on inside that head of yours. Conversation is a two way street, not an interview.

From your socratic irony I can safely infer you are a feminist who doesn't like the idea that some people are criticizing feminism. Further, that you blame half the population of the earth for the problems the other half face. That, in my opinion, is your version of things. Please share more.



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 04:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: ErgoTheAbsurd
The ladies have always lead.

YOU WEREN'T SUPPOSED TO TELL!

How are we ever gonna keep 'em down if they ever realize they weren't down to begin with?

Annee has a clue - she mentioned the whole "feminine Wiles" thing - but there won't be no stopping them if they ALL figure that out!

I couldn't help it. She promised me she might think about maybe possibly thinking about briefly kissing me with the wind off her body as she walked by.


originally posted by: nenothtu
Remember, Annee - they ALWAYS had the choice, because no one can be bullied who does not allow it.

There is now partially chewed food on my monitor and a very confused significant partner next to me.
edit on 2014:11:16 by ErgoTheAbsurd because:



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu

I grew up in an all boy neighborhood.

A lot of girls hated me in high school because the guys would take me with them as one of their friends, and not take their girlfriends. Ouch!

I've been privy to a lot in the male world.

And you can see from my avi, yes that is me, I was not " one of the boys"









posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: Annee

It's definitely not a downgrade for women. It gave them choice.

Choice is never a downgrade IMO

Choose wisely.


Remember, Annee - they ALWAYS had the choice, because no one can be bullied who does not allow it.



No, you are wrong. Women did not always have choice.

Society, culture, and laws did not protect women from being bullied.



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
Society, culture, and laws did not protect women from being bullied.

Men did.


EDIT: Yes I'm being particularly inflammatory. It's absolute bull# to believe that society has not always been interested in protecting women more than men.
edit on 2014:11:16 by ErgoTheAbsurd because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: ErgoTheAbsurd

originally posted by: Annee
Society, culture, and laws did not protect women from being bullied.

Men did.


EDIT: Yes I'm being particularly inflammatory. It's absolute bull# to believe that society has not always been interested in protecting women more than men.


Men protected women.

That's your position, right?



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 04:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
Men protected women.

That's your position, right?

On average, yes. Women also protected men in their own way.

You can live in your fantasy land where most of human history is a bunch of stupid incapable women that were just waiting for you to come along but you'd be utterly delusional. I'm quite confident that if we were to send you back 200 years, 2000 years, or 20,000 years you'd be making the same CHOICES those women did given the environment they and the men they worked with were dealing with.

Yes, you live in a delusion that was built for propaganda purposes that convinces you women had no choice (as opposed to different choices, benefits, and problems) until these saviors came along in the mid 20th century and "made it all better".
edit on 2014:11:16 by ErgoTheAbsurd because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 04:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: nenothtu

I grew up in an all boy neighborhood.

A lot of girls hated me in high school because the guys would take me with them as one of their friends, and not take their girlfriends. Ouch!

I've been privy to a lot in the male world.

And you can see from my avi, yes that is me, I was not " one of the boys"





Well we may be uniquely suited to plumbing the depths of the divisions, then, as I was raised the only boy in an all girl house.

Somehow I managed not to wear dresses and makeup.

I am, right now, the only male in an all-female house. Some things never change. They still can't get me into a dress.



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 04:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: Annee

It's definitely not a downgrade for women. It gave them choice.

Choice is never a downgrade IMO

Choose wisely.


Remember, Annee - they ALWAYS had the choice, because no one can be bullied who does not allow it.



No, you are wrong. Women did not always have choice.

Society, culture, and laws did not protect women from being bullied.


Are you changing your position then, that no one can be bullied unless they allow it?

It's perfectly acceptable to do so, you know - a woman's prerogative, and all that.





edit on 2014/11/16 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: nenothtu
a reply to: Annee

I'm not far behind you, age-wise, but may have been privy to conversations which you were not growing up. based upon that, to hear the older (than me) fellas tell it, "equality" may be a DOWNGRADE for women.

So, the dance continues - it's just a matter of who leads.



It's definitely not a downgrade for women. It gave them choice.

Choice is never a downgrade IMO

Choose wisely.


Until they choose to go back into being housewives and get scorned for choosing the traditional roles we have been told we should be "liberated" from, that is.



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Nicely written OP. Thank you for a well thought out summary.

I won't stick around to listen to the sulking of how a feminist or a woman did someone wrong somewhere some how ...

I wish you all equality or your interpretation of what that may be.



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: nenothtu
a reply to: Annee

I'm not far behind you, age-wise, but may have been privy to conversations which you were not growing up. based upon that, to hear the older (than me) fellas tell it, "equality" may be a DOWNGRADE for women.

So, the dance continues - it's just a matter of who leads.



It's definitely not a downgrade for women. It gave them choice.

Choice is never a downgrade IMO

Choose wisely.


Until they choose to go back into being housewives and get scorned for choosing the traditional roles we have been told we should be "liberated" from, that is.


That's such a stereotype misnomer.

Equality is about having freedom to choose. Even freedom for men to choose stay at home dad.

All movements have a radical faction as part of the whole.



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: Annee

It's definitely not a downgrade for women. It gave them choice.

Choice is never a downgrade IMO

Choose wisely.


Remember, Annee - they ALWAYS had the choice, because no one can be bullied who does not allow it.



No, you are wrong. Women did not always have choice.

Society, culture, and laws did not protect women from being bullied.


Are you changing your position then, that no one can be bullied unless they allow it?

It's perfectly acceptable to do so, you know - a woman's prerogative, and all that.



I believe this last part was about laws protecting them.

Sorry to leave you hanging. I raise my high functioning 6 year old grandson with autistic behaviors. He's in need of attention right now. Priorities.



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: nenothtu
a reply to: Annee

I'm not far behind you, age-wise, but may have been privy to conversations which you were not growing up. based upon that, to hear the older (than me) fellas tell it, "equality" may be a DOWNGRADE for women.

So, the dance continues - it's just a matter of who leads.



It's definitely not a downgrade for women. It gave them choice.

Choice is never a downgrade IMO

Choose wisely.


Until they choose to go back into being housewives and get scorned for choosing the traditional roles we have been told we should be "liberated" from, that is.


No one is scorning housewives by me. I have literally never heard someone at my work (which is loaded with housewives as customers) scorn a housewife.



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Replying without reading the whole thread first, so please refrain from comments that "so-and-so said that already". Maybe they did, but I want to add my thoughts before reading all the rest. Based on the first page alone, I suspect it gets pretty heated later.

To be clear, my opinion is that of a woman, and no, I am not "oppressed" in any way. I am a stay-at-home mom, by MY choice, because that is what I feel is the best and most important thing I can be doing. I have, in the past, been single and working, married and working, a single mother and working, and a working married mom as well. So, I do know how things work in these different roles. Been there, done that.

Now, to the issues and labels. Political labels are made to define and divide. Always. "Us vs. Them" is the goal. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, if decorum is observed, because various groups tend to have opposing ideas, and labels can show to which group a person belongs, and help people understand the position a person is likely to take on various issues. However, we all know that isn't the only way labels are used. We often see various groups labeled with a negative connotation, and this goes for groups from all sides of the political spectrum. The "feminazi" label is mentioned here, but we also have equally negative labels from that side as well. "Male chauvinist pig", for example, is a far older term, and has been applied to men for decades, and was not always deserved. That's where the "divide" part of labels comes into play. Is it wrong? I'll leave that unanswered here.

Now, what do the labels in the OP mean to me? How do I feel about the issues? It's not nearly as cut and dried as the OP makes it out to be. The earliest starts were about voting rights. Certainly, women have as much right to vote as do men, being equally affected by laws and politics. Working for a paycheck or caring for a home, women are important members of society, and thus have a right to have a voice in government. Voting for women is a good thing, and I don't think most would disagree with me on that point.

Alright, what about the job market? Equal pay for equal work is common sense. That said, I do mean EQUAL work. If a woman cannot do the job as well, she shouldn't get the same pay. Some military jobs are excellent examples of this. The average woman isn't nearly as strong as the average man, and simply cannot carry and lift the same amount of weight. I have heard stories of women who weren't able, for example, to carry a fully loaded pack through a water obstacle, at which men in the same place had little to no difficulty. A woman in a job with that sort of requirement would thus not be doing equal work, as one of the men would have to assist. Lifting and moving heavy loads; same thing. The simple fact is that men and women are NOT the same, and we have different strengths and weaknesses. Women cannot do, equally, all of the jobs that men can do. Men cannot do, equally, all of the jobs that women can do. Most men won't be as good with small children, for example, as will be most women. These are just examples, but they do show that the sexes are not the same, and are not always capable of giving an equal job performance. Should a man working in a daycare receive the same pay as a woman, if he isn't as good at the job? If the woman coworker does more with the children, because she can handle that better, should she not be paid more? The same thing goes for a man doing the same job better, too. Equal, right? Yet I never hear any proclaimed feminists stating this. I never hear of hiring quotas for men. What feminist complains if a company is predominantly staffed by women? Let's be honest here.

Definitions........definitions can be simple and honest, or they can be twisted to push an opinion. The definitions offered for feminism, from Steinem and Wikipedia, are of that sort. They sound lofty, but they imply that one group is oppressed. Now, there are certainly times and places where women have been oppressed, and some are around today. However, in modern America, that isn't an issue. What I have seen in my lifetime, in fact, is the steady and inexorable demeaning of men in our society. I could list many examples of how fathers are put down in various television programs and movies, and even commercials. Men are portrayed as bumbling, unintelligent, uncaring, dishonest, and so forth, and opposite every such male character is shown a smart, strong, capable female. If this was reversed, feminists would be up in arms, but I don't hear them complaining, even though "women and men" are supposed to be treated "equally".

Now, it's time to address the point of being "treated equally". Is that really what feminists want? The above discussion seems to negate that. Plus, as stated, men and women are NOT the same. Fair treatment doesn't necessarily mean the SAME treatment. I do not WANT to be treated the same as one would treat a man. With respect? Of course. Courtesy? You bet! Votes, fair pay? Yes. The same, though? NO! I appreciate having a door held open for me, a seat pulled out, heavy things carried by a guy. I appreciate those things as much as a typical guy will appreciate being praised for his strength, capabilities, etc. Why not? We can treat each other fairly, with respect, and so forth, without acting as though we are all the same. We aren't. No matter how much some factions want to pretend otherwise, we never will be the same.

Now, I have to address the "negative" examples offered by the OP. I see those as an attempt to demonize any opposition, which goes right back to the start of my comments, and the uses of labels. Are they really negative, though? I submit that this depends on your opinion and position. What Rush Limbaugh said defined a "feminazi" was a desire to see as many abortions performed as possible. The term is also used to refer to feminists who do everything they can to quash any and all dissent. Frankly, I have no problem with using the term in such cases. It fits. A negative label that is simply negative, unjustly, can be considered an insult, but a label that is accurate is simply descriptive, if used in that fashion. The term wasn't offered by him to label and and all "feminists", as seems to be implied. Pat Robertson was also offered as a "negative", but we must be honest here. Much of what has been considered part of the "feminist" movement is, in fact, closely tied to the homosexual movement, and no one can argue the truth that feminism and higher divorce rates have grown together. As a conservative Christian, of course Robertson would make connections, and he isn't wrong for doing so. No matter what one's personal stance is on such issues, it would be unfair to deny another their own stance, and their own observations. A Christian such as Robertson has every right, as an equal citizen (and aren't we all supposed to be equal?), to have his own opinion on such issues, and to believe that certain things are morally wrong, and that certain movements can contribute to what he sees as problems. He has that right just as much as a homosexual activist has a right to their own opinion. To deny the rights of these men, while claiming they deny the rights of others, is not the act of someone truly seeking equality for all.

Well, that's my take on this. Now to read the rest of the comments.



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

I believe this last part was about laws protecting them.



Indeed, 'tis true - externals, such as "law", "society", and "culture" have now been added into the mix. The new argument subtly changes the original, which was "no one can be bullied who does not allow it". NOW, it is no longer the victim with the ability to disallow it - instead, that burden has shifted to "law", "culture", and "society", and the victim is once again a helpless victim, in need of rescue and protecting.




Sorry to leave you hanging. I raise my high functioning 6 year old grandson with autistic behaviors. He's in need of attention right now. Priorities.



No problem - I understand priorities. I'll be somewhere around when you get back.



edit on 2014/11/16 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: tavi45

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: nenothtu
a reply to: Annee

I'm not far behind you, age-wise, but may have been privy to conversations which you were not growing up. based upon that, to hear the older (than me) fellas tell it, "equality" may be a DOWNGRADE for women.

So, the dance continues - it's just a matter of who leads.



It's definitely not a downgrade for women. It gave them choice.

Choice is never a downgrade IMO

Choose wisely.


Until they choose to go back into being housewives and get scorned for choosing the traditional roles we have been told we should be "liberated" from, that is.


No one is scorning housewives by me. I have literally never heard someone at my work (which is loaded with housewives as customers) scorn a housewife.


Unless your work is in a militant feminist organization, I fail to see the relevance of the comparison.

Do you work in a militant feminist organization?



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Gender traitor!

Don't worry - if the girls get too mean, you can hide in the boys' club house... and we have beer!



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join