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: dawnstar
if it all boiled down to brute force and aggression, man wouldn't have had to invent a god to help them enforce their rulership over women through most of history, would they?
as for your debate concerning rape, here's an interesting fact. when a small nine year old girl in Brazil was found to be pregnant with twins, her doctors, her nurses, her mother had to fight the legal system to allow this small girl to have an abortion, even though those doctors and nurses all said that the pregnancy posed an extreme risk to the girl. the girl was raped by her stepfather, who the gov't eventually found and imprisoned. but the catholic church was outraged that the girl was allowed to have an abortion, they excommunicated the doctors, the nurses, the mother...
but, the stepfather?? na... raping the girl and endangering her life by making her pregnant was not as great of a sin, it was forgivable, but trying to protect the girls life, now, that was such a bad sin, it was unforgivable in the eyes of the catholic church.
for the most part, at least here in the US, we would reject this logic, or at least most of us would. but, I've got to tell you, back in the mid 60's and 70's, it was more than common to let the rapists and child molesters off, to blame the victims. and for the boys to treat the girls they could bed as trophies, and be patted on the back as studs for the number of trophies they collected while the girls they bedded were categorized as sluts and whores and looked down on. such views don't die just because we decide to change the laws. they can take decades, a generation to filter out of a society. the idea that we still have judges on the bench that will blame the victim for the way she dresses, or whatever and let the rapist off with just probation isn't that far fetched! Heck the number of untested rape kits sitting on shelves gathering dust across this nation shows just how little effort goes into punishing rapists!
Imagine a world where showing emotion, loving Adele or staying home with your kids wasn’t considered feminine, and therefore less than. Doing away with gender roles and bullsh*t ideas of femininity and masculinity is good for everyone.
originally posted by: InTheLight
The ultimate battle of the sexes should be a joint effort in educating people on what feminism is..that being, they are not anti-man, but rather anti-sexism, anti-hate and anti-ignorance, and ultimately good for men to be whatever and whoever you want to be.
originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: InTheLight
I think there is a tendency for people to stress out and focus too mich on what other people are doing.
My wife used to feel a bit of pressure off her mates when the kids were young and she wanted to stay at home with them.
originally posted by: InTheLight
I've had my run-ins with some women who identify as feminists because I prefer to see/delve into the root of the problem and, unfortunately, that root is more like a tap root that goes very deep into the unjust societal system and is still feeding it to this day.
The problem may be, perhaps, catching up to the changes that are happening very fast. Or, alternatively, taking your time to understand the changes and either accepting or dismissing what does or does not work for you.
The general principle is that there would be a massive healing of society in terms of its function and functionality. However, social function would be tempered with endless creativity and lots of fun. Society would not be cut on ‘utilitarian’ lines, in the sense of people being shoehorned into the most financially profitable but emotionally profitless careers; instead everybody would be able to develop their capabilities and talents. Thus in this society people would be able to fulfil roles at their level of abilities without ruling out their potential to completely jump out of the box!
Maybe a poet could better portray the way things are. D.H. Lawrence says of love: “We have pushed a process into a goal.” Love is an ideal we all wish to acquire; but as Lawrence says, it’s a process not a goal, and to believe it is something to acquire is actually a fallacy. We do not fall in love to reach something and then stop: love is ongoing. So too must we understand social improvement as a process, for if we begin to view the ideal society as a thing we can create, then we’re accepting that we’ll reach a point at which we can go no further, no longer improve. Instead then, we must formulate an ideal and work towards it, knowing that its perfect implementation is unattainable. At least we will be moving in the right direction.
originally posted by: InTheLight
Yet, we can envision and philosophize social improvements and then take action to hopefully make the changes that effect equality for all.
but if we are to put the movement into today's context, then in Western countries women do have equal legal, economic and political rights to men, the only key area of contention is whether they have equal social rights to men.
originally posted by: WilsonWilson
Having laws in place does not mean the fight is over. When I was pregnant with my first 9 years ago my work tried to discriminate against me and remove me from my job role. I work in a call centre so there were no safety issues, it was purely discrimination.
originally posted by: kerrichin
for me feminism means equality for all f i want to work full time i can in what ever career i choose and my husband can stay at home if he wants with out being made to feel less of a man.
if man needs to cry hes not a ''sissy''.
from my experience of the mra's many are hostile to women wanting them to be subjugated, back to the good old days where the little wifey stayed at home and cooked hi meals and rubbed his feet after working (not all some), and these same men are also ignorant of real history where women have worked throughout history, with it really only women of high status eg queens who's only job was to push out an heir, many medieval pieces of art work show women working the fields, but then children too worked up tot he 20th century, the whole children not working and housewives is a relatively new thing.
(sorry i like history i can get into it then im off)
i did find your writing interesting though this quote i could argue is slightly wrong,
yes we women in the west are better off than say our eastern counterparts but we still have fights to conquers, some may seem non important even petty but are still important to many women.
legally some states in america women cant have abortions, i know this could open a can of worms but its an important area where women are denied the rights to their own bodies or are being told by men they dont know their own bodies, in extreme cases women are loosing their lives due to things like this take Savita Halappanavar in ireland who died because she was denied an abortion even thought he fetus was dead anyway.
girls being sent home or put in detention for wearing''revealing clothes'' which can effect her education, just because they feel she might effect the concentration of a boy, there for the boys education is more important by contrast.
women being forced to ear heels to work even though its been proven over and over again they can effect the health of women.
what about the past us election (forget which side won/who is right or wrong) trump was questioned on his attitude and actions on women and was let off, ignored or it was fobbed off as men chatting. but for hillary she was condemned for what her husband did, like or hate her hes the one who had the affairs and molestered women/girls.
women are still not taken seriously in politics take the recent picture of the british pm and the scottish pm, instead of focusing on the politics it was about their legs.
there is a woman trying to divorce her husband in england, a mushroom farmer but the judge wont allow it and she has to stay with the controlling, vindictive man.
i will never say womens issues are more important than mens, ive often lost my temper with people who say men cant be raped or molestered
men have rights too but women are still fighting to be seen even as human beings some days let alone equal rights
What a shame then that feminism only works towards achieving the above for women alone, and men are required to adapt to the decisions of the women in their lives without compromise. How is that "equality for all"?
History in regard to your particular argument is irrelevant, because the reason you are citing history is to ridicule MRAs, who by the way, are FAR from the only people who do not support feminism. It is certainly not a "choose feminism or choose MRAs, there is no other way!" situation. There are even feminists criticising other feminists for some of the issues MRAs have raised!
I am pro-choice by the way. You don't need to be a feminist to be pro-choice. You just need the ability NOT to be under the obligation of your personal religious beliefs, possess a fair and reasonable outlook and be willing to acknowledge that overall, abortion is not a straightforward issue. Anybody who says "abortion is actually a straightforward issue" is either stupid or lying. (That goes for pro-lifers OR pro-choicers.)
Individuals don't get to decide what "they personally" feel is considered revealing as soon as they leave their own homes. Once on public property, it becomes the individuals responsibility to fit in with society's expectation. The way you have phrased the above paragraph is typical of feminist ideology - never admit that females have an individual responsibility (not as females, but as individuals of a society) and keep deflecting from that fact until you can find a way to blame the males involved for the situation the females behaviour has led them into. Then pretend, no it is not the males, they too are the victims of the system which is the problem (the system of patriarchy), which of course is not tangible, in the explicit OR implicit sense, but we must still acknowledge that system if we are able to be in a position to tackle the problem at hand.
No, Hilary was condemned for Bill's behaviour because she chose to support him and stay with him while simultaneously attempting to be an advocate of Women's rights. If she had left Bill before running for President, the amount of ridicule she would have received while running would have lessened by more than 3/4. She was continually establishing herself as a hypocrite and a liar because the two actions happening simultaneously were a contradiction that she failed to address.
That is a pseudo-social issue that will not change until women in politics choose to not let such petty comments get to them to the extent that they are now victims that need society's help to fix the "problem". The same with "cat-calling", "man-splaining" and "harsh criticism just because I am a women", it's the EXACT same issue in those cases. Think about it.
I do not know anything about that case, but I will ask you this: is she legally being prevented from leaving the house because she is unhappy and wants to change the circumstances of her life, OR is she "legally" being prevented because she would not accept what she feels is her "fair share" of all resources as judged and therefore will voluntarily not leave? BIG difference. I cannot comment further until I know which one it is.
You will never say it, but you will demonstrate it in your actions and the arguments you present here that YES, you ARE willing to place women's issue above men's issues when the situation involves women having to make the same sacrifices and concessions as men would need to in order to be objectively equal in both situations.
feminism has fought for many rights for men, in the uk and many european countries men can have paternatiy leave to care for children if they want to, men can have any job they want with out being called out on their ''manlyness'' same with child care not long ago men were seen as inferior for wanting to do child care.
feminism faught along side gay men for their rights too
i disagree history is important, when it comes to womens/mens rights.
many anti feminists or anti-omens rights will often site the fact women ''traditionally'' belong in the kitchen, are homemakers and never worked they are inferior, weaker than men, when in fact history has proved this wrong time and time again.
real feminists do not have issue with womens choices if a woman wishs to be a homemaker then thats her choice its when it is forced onto her thats the issue.
there are many factions or people who do not like feminism i agree but most misunderstand or do not agree with the ideals of feminism.
obviously you dont need feminism to be prochoice and isnt that a good thing?!
abortion isnt a straightforward issue never said it was and again isnt that a good thing, treating abortion like its nothing would be a step back and play right into the hands of those who are against it.
peoples ideas of what is acceptable changes, not 100 years a go women couldnt show an ankle, and the fact is woman wearing leggings or shorts to schools have been acceptable for decades but now suddenly these girls are distracting, look at fashions from the 60s/70s, even the so called 50s women showed more skin than some of these so called ''revealing cloths'' and how is it ok for a boy to wear shorts but a girl cant wear leggings surely he is showing more skin.
im not blaming males, there are plenty of women with this backward ideology, and it adds to rape culture the idea that if a girl had covered up she wouldnt of been raped, just saying typical feminist ideology, why not. we are fighting for women to be seen as human beings not just objects
yes but that was her choice to stay with him and nothing to do with her ability to work, many women stay with their husbands after cheating, for many reasons.
bill having an affair and her sticking to the marriage does not mean she is not allowed to fight womens rights
she did not have the affair he did, trump is accused by many women of molestation and its ignored.
also i did not say who i supported i just used them as an example
the women i used as an example did not let it get to them, what i am saying is those women where seen as objects and their fashions and body parts were more important than the issues they were debating which were highly more important than what their legs looked like and this would never of happened if it was two men
if she leaves she will be penniless and homeless,either if she helped him with the business (which she has) or been a stay at home wife she is still entitled to some of the money, she helped him become who he is and she is being denied her right to what they earned as a couple.
i dont though i believe women should fight in the front line with men, men should be able to be homemakers, men should have the right to safe working conditions (my father was a miner and the injuries he sustained makes me fight alot for this) i believe men should have equal rights to children and i firmly believe that women arent automatically the best parents.
dont assume that just becausde im feminist and believe in womens rights i want to trample on mens.
the fact is though men have had rights women have only just got due to fighting or them, the right to a morgage, the right to a bank account, a right to be a single parent, a right to vote it goes on