The Ultimate Battle of the Sexes

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?

Man didn't have to invent god to "help them" subjugate women. That came naturally due to the nature of life at the period of time in question. Ever heard the term 'hunter and gatherer' before? And it was actually only a few powerful men — without the knowledge of any other men in existence at the time — that used the concept of God (they did not invent it) for purposes of power and control. Seemed to work 2000 years ago, and still works to some degree today as well!

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.

content.time.com...

Kudos to you for highlighting some extreme example as somehow representative of the norm in Western societies. Here's a tip: want to see somewhere where that kind of behaviour is not so rare? Try googling cases involving women who actually do not have equal rights and are still subjugated. Middle Eastern countries, anyone?

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!

www.usatoday.com...

This "stop blaming the victim" argument when it comes to the topic of rape is truly bewildering. There is literally no other crime where the context surrounding the crime and any actions of the victim leading to the crime taking place is forbidden from being discussed or looked into. Who cares about such petty considerations such as facts, evidence, logic and reason when we can just deny them all by accusing the speaker of trying to blame the victim. Who cares about trying to make future potential rape victims more aware of their surroundings, making them more aware of warning signs, or encouraging them to take reasonable precautions to prevent making them an easy target. No, those things will not help at all. Probably best for us to ignore all that. Let's rather focus on the degree of damage the current victims will suffer for the rest of their lives.

Let me tell you something: "stop blaming victims of rape, start blaming the rapists" is one of the most venomous misrepresentations of the term 'victim blaming' that exists, and we can thank feminism for that. All of a sudden, the usual concept that at least partial responsibility ought to be allocated to the victim when they suffered something due to first taking part in silly or risky behaviour before, has now somehow morphed into a "don't blame the victim, blame the rapist!" mentality.

It is truly mind-boggling that a woman who can get drunk, drive and knock over a group of school children at a crossing cannot be excused for her actions, but a woman who gets drunk, willingly has sex with a man, wakes up the next morning with a strong sense of regret, can then go on to accuse the man of raping her, and can ensure her behaviour prior to the alleged rape is forbidden from examination because she doesn't want to suffer the trauma that might prove she was partially responsible. How is this justice?

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.

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.

a reply to: InTheLight

I agree that the feminist aim of negating the gender role stereotype is a useful one.

If you want to do something, you should feel free to do it without regard to what someone else thinks of it.

I will say though, that there is a tendency mixed in with this that devalues people who take on what are considered traditional roles.

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.

Some of her friends might even view me as a bit of a dinosaur because I look the way I do, enjoy the things I do and, to be brutally honest, I definitely aint the sort who enjoys banging on about my feelings and things in the way that some younger types do.

It's just my way and it works for me, it shouldn't be seen as though I am somehow lacking, I assure you that I am not

I do like to paint in watercolours though

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.

Unfortunately, that cannot happen. Because even if you are a female who spends 20 years researching everything to do with feminism, including key texts outlining core aspects of feminism, looking into feminism's formation, its rise, and its influence on society since its inception to its current day form, if after doing all of this you come to the conclusion that there are significant consistencies, double standards and confusion on core aspects of feminist ideals, you will not be believed or taken seriously by feminists because they will assert you just don't understand real feminism.

Things will never change because even if you do manage to create a moment of doubt in their minds when expressing your arguments, feminists will point to a prison that cannot be seen, touched, felt or tasted and convince you that your failure to recognise this prison means you don't understand the need for feminism.

a reply to: SprocketUK

When I was 10 years old, I joined a boys' club when girls were finally allowed to join too - yes a boys' club (not a boys' and girls' club) only because I wanted to build a bird house. When I went into the class the instructor escorted me out of the class and into a girls' crochet class. I went back the next week and he ignored me completely, however the boy next to me was nice enough to show me what to do. It was made clear to me that boys and girls should never step out of the roles expected of us. I never bought into that BS even at that young age.

That goes for anyone wanting to step into whatever role desired or necessary to make one's life work. It is nobody's business how your and your wife choose to live, just as it is nobody's business if I would prefer to make a bird house rather than crochet.

I too took a watercolor course and I think that any artistic endeavour, including cooking, baking (just getting back to baking after two decades and it most definitely is both art and science), sewing, crafts...is a non-gender journey into creativity and imagination that we should all revisit for the well-rounding off of our spirits. Sometimes I wonder if we are all just too uptight and over-stressed and that is why some of us are high strung or agitated, or too involved in others' life choices.

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.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

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.

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.

"Ain't nobody's business if I do"; and there is a song about that too.

a reply to: SprocketUK

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.

and there seems to be plenty of pressure directed at those mothers who either because they don't wish to, or they are financially unable to stay home with the kids while dad works, isn't there? let me ask you something, which is better, dad has to take two jobs and never sees his kids, or mom gets a job and they work it out so that they each have time for the kids?? if you are financially able to let your wife stay home and care for the kids, lucky you!!! but, I am from a family where my mom worked outside the home, my grandmother worked, and her mother also worked at home to earning money... I can show you pictures of times long ago of women working outside of the home. feminism didn't draw those women out into the workplace, necessity did, feminism just made their working conditions a little better and their pay a little higher!

a reply to: dawnstar

Truly?

I think it's better for my kids to have had their mum at home more than me.

I worked a lot back then and brought in great money.

is it the same for everyone?
of course not.

I know a few of my wife's friends who feel mum guilt because thry have to work so it swings both ways.

I also know a guy who gave up his job to look after the kids but his Mrs earns a ton of money so he's able.

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 societal systems of most Western democracies are not perfect, have flaws and are still able to be improved upon. However, I challenge you to find an example of a societal system that has achieved to the same degree what Western democracies have in the relatively short period of their existence.

It's easy to complain about the system you are in and hard to appreciate it on merit alone. But you can NEVER understand how good you have something until you are forcefully placed into an inferior system. Then it becomes harder to complain about your former system and easier to appreciate that you were better off.

For those who are continually complaining about a system that is superior to all others (which they are inside of) while also failing to use their position to focus properly on improving the lives of those living in an inferior system, these people are a detriment to the fabrics of the superior country in which they are complaining in.

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.

Change, in terms of societal structures, does not permit us with that luxury. There is not enough time in the day to make everyone happy and ensure everyone gets along.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Yet, we can envision and philosophize social improvements and then take action to hopefully make the changes that effect equality for all.

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.

philosophynow.org...

Unite and conquer.

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.

Yes, you can envision and philosophize social improvements, but you cannot achieve social improvements without forcing people to change the way they think just because the current way they do think is determined by you to be wrong or threatening. You are actually advocating for the use of a type of mind control technique that ought to be used on people (without their informed consent) who do not share the same worldview as you do you.

And the "equality for all' that you speak of is the promotion of equality of outcome regardless of if there was an equality of opportunity to begin with. Unlike myself, who argues for an equality of opportunity to begin with and doesn't expect this to automatically lead to an equality of outcome.

"Unite and conquer" indeed! Unless you oppose our views, which in that case you ought to be mind controlled without us needing your informed consent first into accepting our worldview...agree or go to hell! Consequence: happiness and equality for all!"

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,

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.

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

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: 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.

It was not discrimination in the sense you are choosing to view it is. It was actually rational discrimination based on the fact that you being pregnant indicated that in the future, you would become a liability for the company and if they kept you on or didn't cut your hours AFTER you begin cutting hours due to your pregnancy, then you WOULD be a liability for the company.

You are free to do as you wish, but your employer does not have an obligation to keep you on the SAME hours, or even keep you there at all if from the moment you start taking off hours to deal with your pregnancy is affecting their business in a significant manner AND you have not clearly stated your reasons for doing so and how you intend to handle things once your child is born to your employer. (You cannot be justified in hiding such important information from them and only want to tell them when it suits you to do so.)

I find it close to impossible to sympathise with a person who due to their personal life decision expects a company to adapt for them specifically and bend over backwards to accommodate their needs and desires so that things can stay the same for them (same pay, same hours available and same level of reliability) while ignoring that it is harming the company they are working for.

If you cannot simultaneously raise a child while committing to the same level of work ethic you had established before giving birth, then that situation needs to be rectified by leaving one responsibility. Which means, you need to quit your job and focus on raising your child.

I am NOT talking about a mother who takes time off soon before the birth, for the actual birth and weeks after that, but rather one who once a reasonable amount of time has passed wants the best of both worlds without needing to make sacrifices on her part, that kind of mother.

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''.

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"?

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)

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 did find your writing interesting though this quote i could argue is slightly wrong,

Can you name me a single legal or political right that men have which women do not?

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

What Trump did towards harming Women's issues (which was basically zilch, despite continually being called a sexist and misogynist) pales so significantly in comparison towards Hilary's actions that I mentioned above that I cannot believe anybody in support of Women's rights could support Hilary when having the situation put into perspective as I have just done above.

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.

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.

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 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.

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

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.

Women in WESTERN countries still fighting to be seen as human beings? You must be joking. Women in WESTERN countries still fighting for equal rights when they DO have the same legal rights as men? Again, please show me one legal right a man has that a woman does not. Feminism is now only relevant and necessary in countries where women are STILL being subjugated and legally discriminated against, which does NOT include Western countries.

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"?

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

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 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.

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.)

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.

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.

but fashion change and 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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

originally posted by: kerrichin

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

It really is a shame I have to go through such effort to do what I am about to do, because you do seem like a pleasant, sincere person who is generally worried that the ideology she is a proponent of is just "not properly understood". Unfortunately, that is not the case. I'm not somebody who has a personal beef with feminism — I have never been married, never been in a serious relationship with somebody who identifies as a feminist, never had relatives who have and never been personally negatively judged or ridiculed in real life due to interaction with a feminist. I have no reason to even criticise feminism on a personal level because my life has not suffered from feminist ideology.

The thing is MANY lives have, continue to at this very moment and WILL in the future be negatively impacted by the legal and political consequences of allowing feminist ideology to be automatically accepted and encouraged on youth. Unless we can have an honest conversation about whether feminism is relevant in Western countries today, right now, and what it is is ACTUALLY trying to achieve, myself and others — whether we do or don't have a personal vendetta — will continue to speak out. The age of complicity from silence in the area of Gender Issues is OVER and I personally feel feminists (not women) see this as a grave threat.

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.

I didn't say history was not important in regards to analysing the rights of women or men. I said it was irrelevant to the specific argument you were using it for.

"Assigning" gender roles when they are not backed by laws means the individual (male or female) still has the freedom to pursue a different path than the one they were assigned. If somebody expresses they want to do something, you have to consider whether they are a child or an adult. If they are a child and their mind is not near finished developing, it is true that they will be more easily influenced by the views of others. But it is not as if only females are children and can be influenced in this way to their detriment. You can say "well let's get rid of gender roles altogether then! For everyone's benefit!" The trouble is you cannot "get rid" of gender roles because they are not just an abstract "social construct", but a social construct based off biological, physiological and psychological differences between the sexes. A "social issue" is not something you can fix using the law. The key trouble with feminism is attempting to use politics to solve social problems. It does not work.

When I settle down one day and decide to remain in a long-term committed relationship (doubt I will get married at this stage), I do not plan to even have kids, so I suppose it's not a problem I will have to deal with. If it turns out I meet somebody really special and she convinces me that starting a family would be great for both of us and we end up having a child, THEN I would have to make a decision. Which would be the choice is hers: if she wants to continue to work as well as raise a child, we will have to put the child in childcare or have her family help out with raising the kid. If she wants to be a stay-at-home mother, that is fine too. Unless I am earning really well at the time, that will not even be an option, though. If she gets a really lucrative position and asks if I would be a stay-at-home-dad, at this stage I would object because I don't personally think I am responsible enough, but if she convinced me I could do it I would. I would compromise what is best for the family as a whole.

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.

Finally, we have found some common ground.

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

Oh dear. Look how many separate issues you are trying to conflate into one and offering feminism as the remedy. You go from talking about history's attitude towards women, to comparing society's attitudes towards boys and girls while failing to compare the biological and sexual maturity differences between boys and girls (yes, girls tend to mature quicker emotionally but boys tend to be more curious about and interested in sexual topics at a younger age than girls), then you throw in rape culture without defining what it is, how it applies to Western countries and imply that just by mentioning it it should be accepted as a self-evident fact and useful example to strengthen your argument.

Continued

In Western countries where rape is illegal, where the overwhelmingly majority of both males and females consider it to be a heinous, disgusting crime worthy of ridicule of the highest order, where any depictions or suggestion of rape in any form of art draws immediate controversy from the majority, where Western countries are miles ahead than any other society in terms of reporting, investigating, keeping a database of offenders and actually bringing any type of justice towards victims when it is possible to do so without compromising the entire foundation of the justice system they have to work in, where making a joke of a sexual nature that a female finds offensive and then reporting it will result at the very least in a reprimand and being forced into compulsory training on sexual harassment and workplace attitudes towards women etc.. Should I go on?

I really can if you like, but before I do, let me ask you this: how is everything I have just written in the above paragraph indicative in anyway of a "rape culture"? It seems you want a society where a female makes a rape allegation, the person she is accusing is then assumed to be guilty, placed behind bars until a trial date where he will have to defend his denial against her allegation and despite there being no physical evidence suggesting the sex was not consensual, we must then assume he is still guilty until he can prove otherwise. In addition we must make it illegal for ANY person in the courtroom to question any aspect of the situation involving her actions, her judgements, her responsibilities and her reason for making the allegation and basically forbid putting what happened into any reasonable context.

Women cannot be objectified or sexualised in any form because even doing so for commercial purposes represents an attack on ALL women, women cannot be approached for ANY reason by a male stranger in any public context without their consent first and women do not have have the burden of proof when making any allegation against a male for any reason involving topics of a sexual nature. You want women who have not realised they have been victims to acknowledge they have been victims and make a noise, you want these women to feel traumatised by their experiences because you think their experiences were traumatising and therefore will expand the definition of sexual harassment and sexual assault to such a degree, that men making conversation with women in any context outside their private home is high risk. Would the scenario I just described be good enough to remove Western countries from the label of being a "rape culture"? Why or why not?

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

Maybe you are not aware, but Bill Clinton has been accused of FAR more than cheating on his wife. He has actually taken part in behaviour that would make any true feminist classify him automatically as a sexist misogynist pig! So much so that if you were to objectively compare him to Donald Trump in terms of level of misogynistic and sexist behaviour, you would classify Trump as a moderate feminist. To stay with a man such as Bill Clinton after finding out about all these things suggests either she is a hypocrite for promoting Women's Rights as her top priority while staying with him, either she refuses to accept the man he is and pretends he is the man she wants him to be, or she is putting on a public persona that presents her as a champion of women's rights in order to attain power for her own ends. Neither is good, but it has to be one of those.

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

Oh, they didn't? Who did let it get to them then? Who was so offended on their behalf? Why is that kind of talk considered a problem of humongous proportions? What types of issues were they debating? Did they spend the whole time speaking about her legs and how they'd like to have sex with her? You did say she didn't complain, so if it was so bothersome couldn't she have said something like "stop talking about my legs and let's focus on the issues we are here to discuss!" Would that be too difficult for a grown woman working in politics to do? To make her voice heard and establish that either the others focus on the issues worthy of discussion instead of being distracted by how the other politician looks, or she would leave and communicate rather with people who would focus on the issues? Maybe that would have been more effective?

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 agree with you that she is entitled to her fair share that she worked to produce. Does fair share mean "50% and nothing less!" or has she demonstrated to the judge that she has earned a certain amount in a reasonable way and asked to be fairly compensated? As I said, I do not know the story so I cannot comment further than I have. If you want to discuss it further then please send me a link so that I can be aware of what is going on and then make a decision.

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

I don't have a problem with women being allowed to choose if they want to fight on the front line, it is their choice not mine. However, if any standard is lowered to encourage them to do so, or the bare minimum standard expected of men is then lowered to ensure an equality of outcome, THEN we will be in huge trouble if a major conflict emerges.

When you say women have only just got the same rights as men have always enjoyed due to their sex alone (which actually is not true), you are strangely admitting that women have the same rights but that this is not enough. If you disagree, please indicate one legal or political right men have that women still do not in Western countries. When will it be enough? When will you admit that feminism is no longer necessary in Western countries?