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.

 

Feminist or FemiNazi? Truth and Myth

page: 10
3
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2006 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boatphone
I respect and care for women as much as anyone -- All smallpeeps has done is complain about the American justice system and then offer zero ways to make it better. Then he falsely accused Dr. Condi Rice of being a big oil shill. And then he also claimed that ED drugs are tools for rape, and that men cannot be raped.

Man, I could so easily go grab a bunch of your one-line, useless posts and display them here, but what would that accomplish, BP? Seriously, aren't you aware of your own behavior? I have yet to see ONE useful post from you. Paste a link for me if you have made one so I can read it and apologize to you.


Critics Knock Naming Oil Tanker Condoleezza
Chevron redubs ship named for Bush aide Condoleezza Rice

Now please go destroy some OTHER thread with your excessive quotes and lack of information because people are really enjoying this one, okay?




posted on May, 1 2006 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
BH and I are today living that ideal. At least I think so.


I think so, too. One thing many people don't realize are the benefits to men that equality brings. I see relationships around us form and fall and I can honestly say that I'm more in love every day with my husband after 15 years. The bond that comes from total mutual respect is something I can't even describe...

Also a man in an equal relationship doesn't have all the pressures to measure up to some idealistic standard of strength and machismo. He can relax and be the person that he is without being concerned that he might appear weak or somehow 'unmanly'. The masculinity standards thrust on men in a patriarchal society are nearly impossible to live up to. And no fun at all.


On the term Feminist as opposed to Humanist

The F Word



I'm sick to the back teeth, sick and tired, of feminists being accused of sexism and hypocrisy unless we spend exactly half of our time and resources pointing out every instance of how 'patriarchy hurts men too'. Gay rights activists aren't expected to spend half their time campaigning for heterosexuals. Anti-racism activists aren't expected to spend ages campaigning on behalf of white people. Yet its a different story with feminism, isn't it? The most infuriating thing about this is that - as regular readers will know - I do think that feminism is important for men as well as women and I encourage both men and women to critique mainstream masculinity as well as femininity. But that doesn't mean that I think that every single instance of feminist activism has to be prefaced with a disclaimer about how this also benefits men.
...
It's because there is a stigma attached to any activism that unashamedly benefits women, as a social group. It's not seen as worthy enough, and fighting on behalf of women as a group is embarassing somehow. I'm just talking about plain, uncontroversial activism that improves the lives of women.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Benevolent, Interesting read on your link that you submitted there, but I disagree wholeheartedly with the points it tries to spins. Let me comment to a few excerps, to voice my issues.




Gay rights activists aren't expected to spend half their time campaigning for heterosexuals.


Gay Rights activists should atleast use time to campaign with heterosexuals who agree with gay rights. It makes a better example.



Anti-racism activists aren't expected to spend ages campaigning on behalf of white people.


Again, assumptions that only racism comes from white people. Racism works equally, ever heard of the black panthers? This external source obviously already has a skewered view of thinking, seeing things as only one side being oppressed or assualted by something.



It's because there is a stigma attached to any activism that unashamedly benefits women, as a social group. It's not seen as worthy enough, and fighting on behalf of women as a group is embarassing somehow. I'm just talking about plain, uncontroversial activism that improves the lives of women.


What the real issue is, is with any rallys for rights of people, is that the -ists of the group only dicuss one side of it. Just with gay rights activists, or Anti-Racist activists, they only talk about one group. That makes the other side feel alienated and threatened. You have to connect with all people involved in a problem, to find a real solution. If you don't do that, then your view begins to get skewered to one polarity of the issue. And when you recruit people to a cause, they come in with an already skewered view, which becomes even more skewered. And the chain continues. Thats what happened to things like the anti-racism movement. You go from Martin Luther King stating to not judge by the color of peoples skins, but the content of theyre characters, to going to groups like the black panthers basically being a black KKK promoting the death of people, chanting "burn the white devil."

That link that you cited, while promoting the noble cause of equality, shows such a skewered and polarized view on the issue. Even if they are not aware of it, it still exists, and it brings up these types of issues. It inevitably alienates people from a cause, and recruits the wrong types of people, who now believe that its a different type of cause.

You DO have to represent all sides of the issue. If feminism is truly about equality, it has to represent that. It has to touch on the subject of men, not just women, who promote that equality, otherwise, you WILL go from promoting Equality to skewered views like "Men are the devil."



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps
Critics Knock Naming Oil Tanker Condoleezza
Chevron redubs ship named for Bush aide Condoleezza Rice


Wait, that's it? All you have is that they named a boat after her?

You don't have any real information on her being a shill do you?


You throw away a womans entire career because of this?!

-- Boat



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 09:30 PM
link   
What's this? Another useless post totally devoid of facts, information or ideas from ATS member Boatphone? At least you're consistent.



www.sfgate.com.../c/a/2001/05/05/MN223743.DTL

The giant vessel was part of the international fleet of the San Francisco- based multinational oil firm, christened several years ago in honor of Rice, a longtime Chevron board member. Rice, a former Stanford University provost, served on Chevron's board from 1991 until Jan. 15, [2001] when she resigned after Bush named her his top national security aide.

Yeah so that's TEN YEARS as a Chevron board member until joining the PNAC global devastation team in 2001, just in time for 9/11. Why do you want me to make you look silly, BP? Do you enjoy humiliation?



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
smallpeeps,


Thanks WO. I wanted to respond to you earlier, but I figured I'd let the thread go for a bit.



I'm really curious about this distinction. Equal chance at a job is great, and most folks would gladly support it. But if a sea change in gender roles is what you're after, the workplace is the finish line, not the starting gate. The starting gate is education.

I think you nailed it here. However, as Daft Punk sings, "Television Rules the Nation"... So how can people get educated for better gender awareness when school and TV are aligned with the conspiracy of violence and separation? Anyway I'm with you totally. Education is the key. I think it'll have to be parents who change the world, and I have always thought this. Families and communities, not politics or so-called "law".

I would like to provide more data for the smallpeeps dossier that is relevant to this discussion: The woman I am seeing now, when I met her, she was quite shy. I wondered about this, and her hesitiation toward physical closeness. Finally she revealed to me that she had been gang-raped when she was 15 by her 'boyfriend' and two other men. She tried to fight it in court, but the rapers were connected to the sheriff of this small town, and so she and her parents could do nothing in court. What makes me feel really great is that when we are together, she tells me, "You're different, [peeps]. You make me feel safe."

Also, this is not the only girl/woman I have known who has suffered "violent, invasive rape" (since we apparently have to catagorize rape to appease some members here). This would also include members of my immediate family. So I just want everyone to know that my anger at people who try to distract this issue comes from personal experience with people I love who have been directly hurt by this despicable sort of stonewalling.


[edit on 1-5-2006 by smallpeeps]



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 11:22 PM
link   
I believe in equality for the sexes. Just because a person is born female doesn't mean they aren't just as capable as a male. I think it would all come down to the individuals some people just aren't meant to do some things. It's easier to label everyone though.

It's bad enough that women weren't able to vote, I guess back then their opinions didn't matter. I'm all for equality but when it does come to things like the military I think they should have pass the same as the men same times etc no curve, they're soldiers.


I do feel women are better with kids, maybe its instinct for them but when I see a tiny baby I don't like to hold them I feel like if I move wrong I could hurt it. that's just my personal opinion


They're are a lot of way women are put down though where a male would get praise, the o'so famous if a girl has sex with random partners every night she's a whore but if a guy does it he's a stud? Also the "pretty good, for a girl."


We are all the same animal

[edit on 1-5-2006 by Lysergic]



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 01:27 AM
link   
Again, I am sorry that I haven't had a chance to say my two cents in a while. But, I think that everything has to do with gender roles here. I think that men and women can truly be equal if they could possibly work on erasing past gender roles and creating new ones in the present. That is the only way I could see equality of the sexes happening.

However, for this to happen, men have to be understanding of women's roles a bit more. And women equally so for males.

I too believe that it doesn't have to do with formal education. It has to do with what job someone is best at doing.

There are some men that are great with kids. But, because male nurturing is deemed wrong and somewhat obscene, any man who is a caretaker for children is defined as being "weird" or "odd".

The same thing happens when there are women who don't want any kids. If women find childbearing distateful, she is immediately defined in the same terms.

It is also the same thing when it has to do with intelligence. Why do men think that smart women are suspicious? Yet at the same time, men are taken to be "voices of authority?"

Why does always seem that "ladies ought to be protected"? Do some men need to be protected too?

I think it's time to put these old gender roles to rest and let each sex do what they want.

[edit on 2-5-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 08:44 AM
link   
WoW, your point of view seems to be exactly what the author said she's tired of explaining. But that's ok.
At least you know you're not alone in your position.


Originally posted by WolfofWar
What the real issue is, is with any rallys for rights of people, is that the -ists of the group only dicuss one side of it.


The only "2 sides" represented are equality and inequality. You either support equality or you don't. It's not men vs. women, gay vs. straight or black vs. white. It's equal vs. inequal on all fronts.

Gay rights is the movement for gay people to gain equal treatment under the law. If straight people are offended by this, that's too bad. It's not gay people's responsibility to make sure to cater to straight people (the people who keep them from having equal rights in the first place) to 'sell' their position.

I am straight and no gay person has ever lobbied for my support or included me in their movement, yet I am wholeheartedly a strong supporter of gay rights. Not because I'm incuded or because they connected with me or coerced me, I support them because it's the right thing to do. And it's not up to them to help me to see that. My opinions and viewpoints are up to me.



Just with gay rights activists, or Anti-Racist activists, they only talk about one group. That makes the other side feel alienated and threatened.


There's a big part of the problem. You think of them as "the other side". And if non-feminists feel alienated and threatened by the feminist movement, that's really their (the non-feminists') responsibility to deal with. If someone thinks inequality is the way to go, I'm not going to waste my time trying to recruit them to my cause.



You DO have to represent all sides of the issue. If feminism is truly about equality, it has to represent that. It has to touch on the subject of men, not just women, who promote that equality, otherwise, you WILL go from promoting Equality to skewered views like "Men are the devil."


I have been very clear how I feel about men. I have touched on the subject of men. The author also talks about men and their position in society today. Yet you still think it's somehow not enough. If "Men are the devil" comes out of this, it is not me or my words or thoughts that conjure this fantasy.



Despite what those anti-feminist emails accused me of, I am one of those feminists who belives that the mainstream culture does stereotype men. I do believe that 'Patriarchy Hurts Men Too'
...
I'm one of those who believes that 'Feminism Benefits Men Too' ... Yes, I do think that stereotyping men are bad, as I've said, again and again and again. I never said it wasn't.
...
feminists think men should be treated as fully functional human beings with brains and morals who should be held responsible for the choices they make. If I was a man, I'd rather have that than the shallow and insulting implication that 'men can't help it because they're naturally stupid.' If I was a man, I know which I'd find most offended by. If I was a man, I know who'd I'd accuse of 'man-hating'. And yes, yes, for the hundredth time YES, feminists disapprove of advertisements that stereotype men as ignorant buffoons. These ads are nothing more than macho caricatures which, as Holly Combe said to me recently, 'make fools of men, whilst simultaneously making excuses for them.'
The F Word


If, after reading that article, you still come out thinking that feminists see men as the devil or whatever, there's not a thing I can do about it, even if I thought it was my responsibility.

I refuse to take responsibility for how you or anyone else views the feminist movement. You will come to your opinions of it on your own. You will either reject it because you feel threatened, alienated and insecure (or you think equality is a bad idea) or you will embrace it because it's the right thing to do and you see value for all of mankind in it. I won't condescend to you and coddle you in hopes of 'recruiting' you to the cause. I will not play a game of including you to inlist you to "my side".

Because if I, or anyone, can 'recruit you' to feminism, that means to me that someone else potentially has the power to 'recruit you' away from it. And I honestly don't want the responsibility of the movement measuring up to your expectations or not. I don't want the responsibility for having 'convinced' you that equality is the right way to go. I don't want to have to defend the variety of viewpoints that belong to all people who call themselves feminists. I think the final decision really needs to be yours, without influence, coersion, recritment or inlistment. You need to come to it on your own, just as I did.

How you decide to view or participate in the feminist movement is TOTALLY up to you.



[edit on 2-5-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps
What's this? Another useless post totally devoid of facts, information or ideas from ATS member Boatphone?


Yes, devoid of any information to support your wild claims. So, sorry to try and prevent the spread of false information...




Yeah so that's TEN YEARS as a Chevron board member


Oh, man...where do I start here...

First, you described Dr. Rice as an oil shill, meaning that she does the bidding of big oil. But if she was on the Chevron board of trustees then that would mean that she had POWER over oil, not the other way around...thats how boards work, you see.

Second, if you think that by being on a board makes you a shill then I guess shes been real busy, because shes been on many powerful boards!



Rice has served on the board of directors for the Chevron Corporation, the Charles Schwab Corporation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Transamerica Corporation, Hewlett Packard, The Carnegie Corporation, The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Rand Corporation, and KQED, public broadcasting for San Francisco.

She was also on the Board of Trustees of the University of Notre Dame, the International Advisory Council of J.P. Morgan, and the San Francisco Symphony Board of Governors.

Link...



Wow, I guess you think shes a shill for all those too right??



Why do you want me to make you look silly, BP?


I think you'd look less silly if you would admitt that Dr. Rice is indeed a powerful woman in America, and give up your foolish claim that she is not.


-- Boat

[edit on 2-5-2006 by Boatphone]



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 11:10 AM
link   
I don't have any respect for Condoleeza Rice. In my opinion, she supports the patriarchy. She has gotten to where she is by appeasing men and acting like a man. She has shown that she goes along with the war mongering, supports torture, concealed evidence, 'played the game' in order to climb the ladder.

I won't put her up as an indication of feminine equality simply because we share the same genitals. She got where she is by being a patriarchist, not by being a feminist. There are men who are feminists, Condi is a woman who is a patriarchist.

To use a term usually reserved for race, she's 'passing', not as a white person, but as a patriarchal male.

She is being used by the (white, male) patriarchy to indicate some sort of equal opportunity in the White House. I think she probably knows it, but that's not the point. She has taken the blue pill. She fits in. She's a part of the system. She goes along. I dare say she wouldn't stand up if she disagreed. If she did, she'd be out of there quicker than Harriet Miers.

Some people consider her truly powerful and that's ok. I do not. We have different opinions of the woman.

[edit on 2-5-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 12:35 PM
link   
...for proving my point against feminsim.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I don't have any respect for Condoleeza Rice. I She has gotten to where she is by appeasing men and acting like a man. She has shown that she goes along with the war mongering, supports torture, concealed evidence


So, you assign war mongering, torture as male actions. You have assigned negitive values as being only male...this is why people view feminists as "femiNazi"'s. Thanks, for giving us a look into that world...

Oh, and by the way Dr. Rice got to where she is by being the best person for the job. She is an foriegn policy expert. It's a shame that you feel that women can only become powerful by "acting like a male", I feel women are just as able as any man.


I won't put her up as an indication of feminine equality simply because we share the same genitals.


Then why do you say that no women have been in high power in America, I mean if your not going by genital type, then I guess Bill Clinton was a great female President!


Come on, your arguments don't make any sense!!




She is being used by the (white, male) patriarchy


What does skin color have to do with anything? Your really grasping at straws here...


She goes along. I dare say she wouldn't stand up if she disagreed.


She would disagree in two seconds. Dr. Rice doesn't "go along", in fact she would change political parties if she didn't like it.



Rice was a Democrat until 1982 when she changed her political affiliation to Republican after growing averse to President Carter's foreign policy.

The Link...




Some people consider her truly powerful and that's ok. I do not. We have different opinions of the woman.


No, see it's not an opinion, Dr. Rice is one of the most powerful in the world. It's a fact, she makes policy that effects everyone on this planet.

Saying otherwise is just denying the facts.

Your emotional and nonfact based arguments are not efficacious.

-- Boat



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 01:31 PM
link   
I thought it was interesting that I got this email today, when I'm embroiled in this thread and my thoughts on feminism. Somehow, I ended up on this woman's "cute-and-meaningful-emials-to-send-to-my-friends" list and I usually just delete them without reading, but I happened to read this one today:



To be 6 again...

A man asked his wife what she'd like for her birthday.

"I'd love to be six again," she replied.

On the morning of her birthday, he got her up bright and early and off they went to a local theme park.

What a day! He put her on every ride in the park: the Death Slide, the Screaming Loop, the Wall of Fear, everything there was! Wow! Five hours later she staggered out of the theme park, her . reeling and her stomach upside down. Right to a McDonald's they went, where her husband ordered her a Happy Meal with extra fries and a refreshing chocolate shake.

Then it was off to a movie, the latest Star Wars epic, a hot dog, popcorn, Pepsi, and M&Ms.

What a fabulous adventure! Finally she wobbled home with her husband and collapsed into bed.

He leaned over and lovingly asked, "Well, dear, what was it like being six again?"

One eye opened. "You idiot, I meant my dress size."

The moral of this story:
Even when the man is listening, he's still gonna get it wrong.

SEND THIS TO WOMEN WHO NEED A LAUGH... AND TO MEN YOU THINK CAN HANDLE IT...



Now... There are so many things I hate about this email!
But I'll just mention that I think the reason women strike out at men like this is that they feel resentment and it's the only way they know to feel their power. It makes me sick and it's so sad that the best a woman can do to feel empowered is to make a man out to look like an incompetent boob!





posted on May, 2 2006 @ 02:22 PM
link   
I don't follow your logic BoatPhone.

Are you contending that males do not make up at least 95% of history's book of infamy? Because you'd be wrong.

You can count the notable female mass murderers and despotic rulers on ONE HAND, two if you really stretch. One or two off the top of your . is easy, but try to keep going. And find me a woman in history responsible for the scale of atrocity we see routinely at the hands of men - you can't do it! There's one Egyptian gal that comes close, that I know of, but she's not even in the same league as a guy like Ghengis, Alexander, Vlad, Edward, Cortez, Charlemagne or Louis-pick-a-number, Stalin, Hitler (the list goes on practically forever, one could spend a lifetime simply doing a survey and never finish).

And then there's the minor brutes, the warlords by any other name that are ubiquitous in human history. Where's the parallel? There isn't one, that I see. Women managed to avoid all that, for the most part. There are exceptions to the rule, definitely, but for every one there are ten or twenty more examples on the other side.

Women and men are not the same. We're built for different purposes. Just based on our reproductive physiology, women are at a severe disadvantage when it comes to killing a whole bunch of people, and creating a whole bunch more in their wake.

Women are limited reproducers, they have to wait 9 months - no matter how many men they subjugate. A male's breeding potential is limited only by his access and control over women. That's a real incentive for disaster, and it highlights the very real difference between the two sexes over the course of history. One could argue that women have simply been trying to survive, while men have been actively engaged in killing one another to attain some limited, temporary dominance, real or imagined.

Nobody is saying that violence is exclusively male, only that war and carnage and mass death are the hallmarks of men, not women. Women gain NOTHING from that state of affairs, they have to suffer more lost pregnancies, and have a reduced selection of mates. All that survival of the fittest crap goes out the window when you consider that Johnny's baby might be well suited to life in civilization even if Johnny wasn't well suited to life in a shooting gallery.

This is pressure, and maybe it's helped us, but we certainly don't need to help it.

Claiming that women are equally responsible for millenia after millenia of constant violence is simply not true. They weren't, they aren't, they probably never will be, until some drastic change in the fundamental biology of our species changes, right?

I was reading the other day about some dragonfly's penis (sounds strange, I know, blame the people at National Geographic), and how it attempts to utilize the specially evolved organ to scrape the female's sperm receptacle clean, to shoot down the hopes of former mates. Now, dragonflys have a huge jump on us, but it seems like we're doing the same thing in a roundabout way, less efficient.

Human men are increasingly programmed to kill everything they can get their hands on and breed like rabbits? That's a scary thought, but I think it's a pretty reasonable expectation given that the same behavior is exhibited all across the spectrum of life, at every level. We're bound to become something else, it just remains to be seen if we end up slobbering brutes or telekinetic masters of the stars, or mundane carbon meat tubes with extra wide asses for long office shifts.



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Are you contending that males do not make up at least 95% of history's book of infamy?


No, i'm not saying that at all. I agree with that, but i'm saying thats the past, and now women do have power in America.

Also, if it had been women in charge of the world for all those years of history, then all the evil names that we read about in those history books would be names of women.

So, in short the fact that history was made by men, only goes to show that that control itself is responsible for the number of war like male leaders. (in the past).


at the hands of men - you can't do it!


Please read above...

I'm not sure what this has to do with the modern feminist movement, or the power of modern women in Ameirca...


Nobody is saying that violence is exclusively male, only that war and carnage and mass death are the hallmarks of men, not women.


Well, BH in fact assigned those negitive values to be male only. I disagree, violence is a problem with the human race male, and female

-- Boat


[edit on 2-5-2006 by Boatphone]



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
To be 6 again...

A man asked his wife what she'd like for her birthday.

"I'd love to be six again," she replied.

On the morning of her birthday, he got her up bright and early and off they went to a local theme park.

What a day! He put her on every ride in the park: the Death Slide, the Screaming Loop, the Wall of Fear, everything there was! Wow! Five hours later she staggered out of the theme park, her . reeling and her stomach upside down. Right to a McDonald's they went, where her husband ordered her a Happy Meal with extra fries and a refreshing chocolate shake.

Then it was off to a movie, the latest Star Wars epic, a hot dog, popcorn, Pepsi, and M&Ms.

What a fabulous adventure! Finally she wobbled home with her husband and collapsed into bed.

He leaned over and lovingly asked, "Well, dear, what was it like being six again?"

One eye opened. "You idiot, I meant my dress size."

The moral of this story:
Even when the man is listening, he's still gonna get it wrong.


It seems to me that the moral of this story is that said woman is a total jerk. The man ut in alot of time and effort to make her day fun, but in the end she just calls him an idiot? Nice.

Plus, she didn't even say "size" six, just six. Worst joke ever.

It seems like such jokes might only be used by women who have low self estem and need to put others down in order to feel good. Sad.


the reason women strike out at men like this is that they feel resentment and it's the only way they know to feel their power.


Or they could work hard, and become a vastly powerful women like, Dr. Rice, in order to "feel their power".

-- Boat


[edit on 2-5-2006 by Boatphone]



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Very interesting stuff, WyrdeOne!
Anyone claiming that men and women are equally responsible for the violence, war, torture and general destruction in this world is "missing the boat".

I said I do not consider Rice "truly" powerful. And the reason I say that is that if she decided to wield the power of her position, I have no doubt she'd be restrained. I honestly think her power is in her title only.

So while the Secretary of State is a powerful position, I contend that since it's held by this particular woman, the power is impotent, unless backed by the rest of the administration. If it were Madeleine Albright, a woman of true power, it would be a different story. She's powerful regardless of the position she holds. And there are many like her, they just aren't often appointed powerful positions because they might use their power. But Condi doesn't rate up there in my opinion.

Some say that Rice is a politically powerful woman in the world today, and I disagree. I think she occupies a very powerful position, but is not afforded the power that the position represents. And she's not about to test that.



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 05:04 PM
link   


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Boatphone
So, the goal of the feminist movement is to change men’s view of women?


I would say yes, that's one goal. To change men's (and women's) ingrained views and therefore treatment of women is certainly an important goal of the movement.


So, who is to say it's okay to change one's views? That's pretty vain to figure that the views need changing in the first place. I'm not saying I disagree with equality (as far as equality can go, so long as logic and rationality are in tow as well), I'm just saying when is it okay for one human being to try to change another human being's perceptions? Many people have had 'movements' to change things all throughout history, and sometimes it backfires or ends up in disasterous consequences.



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by LysergicI do feel women are better with kids, maybe its instinct for them but when I see a tiny baby I don't like to hold them I feel like if I move wrong I could hurt it. that's just my personal opinion


(g) Surprisingly, this isn't true. I'm just *terrible* with babies (they're small, noisy, and smelly. I do a good job with them, but I don't get that warm and cuddly feeling over them (on the other hand, you'd lose all your major body parts if you tried to harm one in my presence.)) But after the age of 6 or so, I really get into kids.

My husband's just the opposite, and so is my son. They're SO great with babies!


They're are a lot of way women are put down though where a male would get praise, the o'so famous if a girl has sex with random partners every night she's a whore but if a guy does it he's a stud? Also the "pretty good, for a girl."


Women's leader role models just bite, too. Too often the "heroine" onscreen is shown as some virago who shoots and kicks at the drop of a hat and never tries to reason out things or to find other solutions.

Feh!



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by dedre
So, who is to say it's okay to change one's views?


I really don't have to power to change anyone's views, but education can. And even then, if one doesn't want to change their views, they won't. I want to change the treatment of women in our society. I understand I don't always get what I want, but I think it's something worth working toward.



That's pretty vain to figure that the views need changing in the first place.


I don't wish to change anyone's views out of vanity. It's not vanity that drives me toward equality.



I'm not saying I disagree with equality (as far as equality can go, so long as logic and rationality are in tow as well), I'm just saying when is it okay for one human being to try to change another human being's perceptions?


I think it's always ok. I think that's what discussion is about. I think that's what debate is about. Sharing opinions and pointing out the logic and reasoning behind one's beliefs is a way of trying to change others' perceptions. Many times people see things in a different light, educating themselves in the process. Sometimes the person who was trying to change others' perceptions actually learns that what they thought they believed is not really valid anymore and they change how they think.



Many people have had 'movements' to change things all throughout history, and sometimes it backfires or ends up in disasterous consequences.


Yes. For example the 'movement' to rid the world of Jews? Is that the kind of movement you mean? There are certainly different types of movements. I don't think, however, that a movement toward equality for all people will end in a disaster. Are you concerned that the feminist movement will have disasterous consequences?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join