It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Tangerine
originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
originally posted by: Tangerine
originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
I find the way feminism has been hijacked to be counterproductive. It does not concentrate on the positive aspects and abilities of women, rather, it concentrates on the negative aspects (real, presumed or imagined) of men. At the same time it tries to make women more like men and men more like women. That's manipulated social engineering, that's not striving for equality. Feminism deals with men much like the triplets in Minority Report, it's all about pre-crime, feminists think it will happen therefore it will or did happen, with no reason, basis in reality or facts to levy a pre-punishment.
Cheers - Dave
What are the positive aspects and abilities of women? List some.
In what specific ways does feminism (the notion that women should be equal under the law) try to "make women more like men and women more like women"?
Positive aspects: They can do pretty much anything a man can plus they can make babies. But then, if we really wanted to, in a few more years we should be able to develop and fertilize cloned and/or genetically altered ovum, so it kind of makes males equal in that respect.
Second question: feminism tends to make women more aggressive (more like men), especially via the program of radicalized militant feminism and in doing so it tends to make many men change their attitudes in order to be with women (or not), subsequently they become more like women by being effeminate or use women as they wish to be "used" or the men go gay or even celibate as women become too much trouble and not worth the effort. I think the new term for a heterosexual effeminate male is metrosexual, LOL. This change in social structure and gender interactions appears to be promoted by both media and government. I don't think I have to explain or cite the media campaigns of straight men in dresses, high heels and/or with purses ;-)
I have no problem with "equal under the law" for rights, pay and position (for equal work/intelligence), I support that idea fully and it is the way it should be, but I want a level playing field. If women want equality then there can be no quotas, no special treatment, no favoured gender status, no affirmative action garbage, no more injured bird crap in favoured gender family courts, etc. and that way the competition for resources (which should not exist between men and women) would probably become equitable. Actually, I would prefer to see something like a meritocracy where positions and grants were given based on actual performance rather than the slanted quota system under which we are presently operating, which is promoted and reinforced into the business sector (as well) by governments.
With the twisted way in which feminism these days is operating, that being the non-level playing field, I see a lot of bitter old women having a hard time trying to get along on their own because they have been psychologically polluted to the point that no man (or other woman) will have them.
Cheers - Dave
To summarize your post:
1. The only positive aspects and abilities of women is that they can have babies.
2. Men are aggressive. Women are "effeminate" (whatever that means).
3. Women want to be "used".
4. Feminism makes women aggressive like men and makes men effeminate and gay or celibate (presumably like women).
5. There's a media campaign to put straight men in dresses and heels.
6. You have no problem with equal rights but you want a meritocracy.
7. Feminism is twisted.
8. Bitter old women have a hard time getting along on their own because they're psychologically polluted and no one wants them.
I'd say you have a serious problem and it's not feminism.
originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa
A very contraversial question: Do feminists deny the science of biological differnces?
A much more pragmatic question: Should "biological differnces" allow for inequality under the law?
Should blacks and whites be treated differently because of the color of their flesh? If not; should men and women be treated differently because of the shape of their flesh?
originally posted by: dawnstar
In the original hierarchy in religions the children slaves and women were at the bottom with the husband as her head.
The husband had quite a few heads above him really- his father, the elders of his family, the clan leader, the priests, the king, and finally GOD! I think somehow that manages to divert the flow of that energy away from the one to one as it should be to being channeled down as well as being fed up when someone in that chain did something to block the downward flow. when that happened those at the bottom were spiritually cannabilised to empower those above them. The feminist movement was just a part of a much bigger movement that helped restore the flow of that energy somewhat. The priests and kings were removed from their place in the flow as man claimed their right to nourish their own spiritual growth as they saw fit (or chose not to!) God was made approachable to them, and the slaves were freed and given the right to vote. But then they stalled both in the legal aspects as well as the religious aspects. They have softened the tone a bit in the churches when it comes to the place of women but they still place her below the husband. And she is still very much at an economical disadvantage. So, all in all I would say that the door has been left very much open for a quick retreat from this grand experiment if and when it is decided that a retreat is needed. And once women are place in a lower subservient role under men again it will only take a few generations for the children to accept the idea that everyone has a place in the pecking order and fall in line!
And all the other gains that have been made will be easily replaced!
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
originally posted by: Nechash
That is the real problem of discussing issues like this. People are vastly too emotionally invested and the slightest wording on a single sentence can "trigger" someone. Plus, many people feel that men have no room at all whatsoever to comment on women's issues, so some of those types will be offended no matter what a man says.
I didn't get emotional. I just read your post and wanted to check with you to see what you meant. I didn't mean to attack or anything. I am not one of those who think men shouldn't comment on women's issues.
What I am saying is that if a woman chooses to be a mother and to raise children instead of focusing on a career, many people who claim to be feminists are critical of that saying that she's sacrificing her own career for that.
I agree with you completely. I just didn't get that message in your first post. Now, I get it. No hard feelings.
originally posted by: InfamousSiren
I've always had a strong dislike of the word 'feminism', I agree with the concept behind it, equality between genders, but the word itself conveys superiority for females over males. Equalism is a more accurate term in my opinion.
It should not matter your gender, age, race or religious background, everyone's choices/opinions should be respected, unless they are opposing on another's opinions/views.
If a female wants to behave in a masculine way, then that is her choice, if a female wants to be a stay at home wife then, again, that's her choice and it should be respected. If a male wants to be a stay at home dad, his choice. If he wants to be the bread winner, that's fine too. As long as someone's opinion/choice is being respected and not inflicting on another's opinion/choices, then to me, that is Equalism (or feminism, whichever term you prefer).
I do believe that the term 'feminism' is unhelpful to our society because the term can be viewed by people as women only fighting for equality for women or superiority for women (ie 'feminazis'), but the concept behind 'feminism', 'equality between both genders' is a valid one. It's very beneficial to our society because I believe that each gender, or person even, has positive points to contribute to our society.
originally posted by: Pitou
I never really understood what the problem is with the word 'feminism'. It's not a men's or general civil rights group; they have objectives (although changing, shifting and imo rather weak) regarding one social group: women. What's wrong with that? It's also not as if I'd go ''but straight people?!'' when someone advocates gay rights. If gay people wish to get equal to straight people, straight people have nothing left to gain or fight for in that sense and it's not about them anyway...
It's okay to want emancipation for other specific groups, think ethnic groups, gay people, trans people etc. They don't want to take anything away generally, they just want their equality. Equality TO whatever group it is that is the most privileged in that sense. And no, I feel no need to be let in a gay or trans activism organisation because I simply don't belong there.
''More rights to straight people!!''
==> ''errrr... such as?''
==> ''Oh... well I just wanna be part of this group as well! '' Makes little sense.
originally posted by: Words
a reply to: AgentShillington
I suppose it would depend on what any particular society deems a citizen. Usually, race and gender do not play any role in modern definitions of citizen. Historically, however, that hasn't always been the case.
Feminism on the other hand pushes the idea of a "blank slate", and that most, if not all people, are fully conditioned by their society, for instance career choices, aggressiveness, empathy, "gender roles" etc. However, studies have shown that hormones determine interests even before a child is born, for example, infants with more of a certain type of hormone gravitate towards what might be considered "male" toys (trucks), whereas those with less of this hormone gravitate towards "female" toys (dolls). I think feminism avoids the biological facts here when it comes to a lack of women in, say, engineering, and believe it is a conspiracy of sorts.