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: 18
3
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2006 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Well, if you insist that I'm a hypocrite, have at it. Yes, I'm offended, but I pretty much got it off my chest. You have confirmed nothing. I am not being a hypocrite. And people get offended all the time. It's no big deal. Like I said, I can handle it.

I compared apples and oranges to make a point. That point being that when you compare cohabitation with equal rights, you are also comparing apples to oranges. I have not argued that women 'need protection' from men. I have argued that cohabitation would introduce extra sexual issues into an already stressful situation. It just doesn't make sense.

Your girlfriend got smacked because she engaged in violence, not because she needed a man's protection. Get over yourself!

You have every right to disagree and call me a hypocrite and I have every right to be offended and imply that you are a chauvinist.

Read Open_Minded Skeptic's post again reeeeeaaal carefully. He explains it very well. Better than I did.

I'm done arguing this with you. We're getting nowhere. Neither of us is going to convince the other.

You've made it clear that you think things are just fine the way they are and that I should too. Well, I don't. And as with godservant, you don't get to say when the feminist movement has reached its goals. You don't get to say when everything's fine. Anti-feminists are the least qualified to say when women have equal rights. How would they possibly know?




posted on May, 31 2006 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I am not being a hypocrite.

Please see my signature below. And if you can handle it, then why do you seem soo irate?


I compared apples and oranges to make a point. That point being that when you compare cohabitation with equal rights, you are also comparing apples to oranges. I have not argued that women 'need protection' from men. I have argued that cohabitation would introduce extra sexual issues into an already stressful situation. It just doesn't make sense.


Oh, now we backpedal with the semantics huh? Nice. What "extra sexual issue" might those be? Rape, plain and simple, and you did say that women deserve preferential treatment because men would most likely rape them. Why can't you just admit that you are a hypocrite. There are plenty of worse things to be (like a chauvenist perhaps?)


Your girlfriend got smacked because she engaged in violence, not because she needed a man's protection. Get over yourself!

My girl got socked, and her eyes split because she thought she was equal to a man, and could take him. This has nothing to do with my opinion of myself either.


You have every right to disagree and call me a hypocrite and I have every right to be offended and imply that you are a chauvinist.

I have asked you repeatedly how you have a right to be offended when in fact you said that you had no problem if I thought you were a hypocrite.


Read Open_Minded Skeptic's post again reeeeeaaal carefully. He explains it very well. Better than I did.

Believe me I did, and I still see it as hypocrisy, as do many besides me.


I'm done arguing this with you. We're getting nowhere. Neither of us is going to convince the other.

This I agree with


You've made it clear that you think things are just fine the way they are and that I should too. Well, I don't. And as with godservant, you don't get to say when the feminist movement has reached its goals. You don't get to say when everything's fine. Anti-feminists are the least qualified to say when women have equal rights. How would they possibly know?


I have made no such thing clear, I have not said that everything is fine, and I never said that the feminist had reached their goals. As a mater of fact, I think I have made it abundantly clear that feminism has failed miserably, all I did was be honest as to the reason why. Instead of dealing with what I have actually said, you instead choose to put words in my mouth, and accuse me of being a chauvenist all because I do not agree with you.

Back in the day men used to say that women could not debate because they are too emotional and lack logical thought...interesting really don't you think?

Am I a chauvenist? Perhaps, but I can say this--I do not believe a woman's place is in the home. I do believe in equal pay, if the work being done is truly equal. And I do believe that this can all be achieved without women getting drafted, patrolling the streets as police, running into burning buildings...OR ending up in a cell with a man. Sorry, I don't see that as being soo bad.

[edit on 31-5-2006 by phoenixhasrisin]



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 11:24 PM
link   
Oh, dear.. I'm not irate!
I rarely get irate or mad or even perturbed. I'm a very mellow person. I take it as it comes.
I can't imagine why it seems to you that I'm irate. Sorry. Does this help?


I didn't say I had 'no problem' with you thinking I'm a hypocrite, I said:



Think of me as a hypocrite if you wish.
...
I most definitely take offense at being called a hypocrite, because I am not, but I can handle it.


I never promised not to get offended.
And everyone has a right to be offended any time and for any reason they choose. The reason for offense doesn't go before the board of offenses for review.

Look, we don't agree, and we're not going to agree. That's no reason to be hateful or angry. I'm totally fine that we don't agree. These things happen. I'm not angry or irate.


Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
Am I a chauvenist? Perhaps, but I can say this--I do not believe a woman's place is in the home. I do believe in equal pay, if the work being done is truly equal. And I do believe that this can all be achieved without women getting drafted, patrolling the streets as police, running into burning buildings...OR ending up in a cell with a man. Sorry, I don't see that as being soo bad.


I didn't mean to say that you're bad. Actually, I don't believe I did. In fact, I think I've been pretty nice.
I got a little offended and I jabbed at you about being chauvinistic there a little bit. I got sarcastic, but hey, you can take it, I'm sure. And I got over it. You started the name calling after all...

Anyway, I hope you have a nice woman that doesn't want to be a cop or a firefighter or any of that other stuff. But there are women out there who do. I just don't think you have the right to dictate to them what a woman should do and what she shouldn't do, that's all. I think you, as a man, really aren't in any place to be telling women what jobs they should hold. See, we're kind of against that whole idea of men saying what is appropriate for us, being feminists and all.


Peace.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 05:27 AM
link   
as far as equal pay for equal work not being a good measure of equality, I'd have to disagree...

dependance equals servitude, unless women, and now men, find a way to support their needs, well, they will be forced to either rely on another individual (like spouse), or the government...if both partners in a marriage have what is close to equal earning power, then it is more likely an arrangement that is mutually acceptable by both., and if it isn't they both have the financial ability to leave the relationship if they wish. but, if one has overwhelming financial power, while the other has squat, well, there seems to be a temptation to misuse that power...the one with the $$$ now has his own personal servant to do whatever he wants...
it seems to me that the govenrment, instead of fully accepting the idea of equality of the sexes, and the idea of an equal pay structure, instead, just gave the women an alternate lord to serve....the welfare system. until she can stand on her own, she is not free or equal...
and because of the welfare system, employers have gotten the idea that they are not responsible for providing a valid living wage, they can pay as little as they like. and well, so now, we have alot of men who cannot hold their own also. their unwillingness to embrace the equality of women has led to the enslavement of men.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 08:32 AM
link   
I took the following from Wiki:



Source

Many feminists today argue that feminism is a grass-roots movement that seeks to cross boundaries based on social class, race, culture, and religion; is culturally specific and addresses issues relevant to the women of that society (for example female genital cutting in Africa or the glass ceiling in developed economies); and debate the extent to which certain issues, such as rape, incest, and mothering, are universal. Themes explored in feminism include patriarchy, stereotyping, objectification, sexual objectification, and oppression.


Patriarchy: Traditionally, males have held most positions of power. Historically, this condition evolved in the attempt to protect and provide economic security for women. This archaic societal structure is no longer necessary. Women are still physically weaker than men are, however, with proper education most women can protect and provide economic security for themselves.

Stereotyping: The simplification, generalization, or exaggeration of characteristics of people is a common justification for discrimination against them. We are all guilty of this in one form or another. It may not be logical, but it is human nature to blame the entire gender, race, religion or culture of the person whom we perceived to have wronged us. We make statements such as: men are pigs, or women are gold diggers. We think that men are not nurturing enough to raise children or that women are too emotional to be in positions of power. We teach these stereotypes to our children. When we teach ourselves to look at the person as an individual, we learn to stop stereotyping.

Objectification: The direct result of objectifying a particular group of people is dehumanization. We feel superior to those whom we objectify. This is an attempt to justify our actions. We turn people into property. We make statements such as: It is my kid, or my wife, I will hit them if they need it. Objectifying and dehumanizing a person results in slavery. Objectification includes but is not limited to sexual objectification.

Sexual Objectification: Throughout history, women have been evaluated as objects for men’s erotic gratification. It stems from one of man’s strongest biological urges, the urge to procreate. Men’s bodies respond to erotic stimuli. However, one man’s stimulus can be another man’s revulsion. Nowadays, women are just as guilty as men in this practice. We may say things such as: a man is just a penis that performs lawn and car maintenance, or a woman is just a vagina that cooks and cleans. Sexual objectification can only lead to oppression.

Oppression: Men and women use sexism to oppress other people. Women capitalize on men’s biological desires to control them. Men and women are often the recipients of physical abuse from their partners. Men tend to use physical means to control people more often than women do. Physical violence should never be justified. The education of a society is a slow process. It is imperative that we teach our children the importance of valuing human life.

The patriarchal society was instituted to protect women. Greed and lust corrupted this society to the point where law makers had to step in and grant rights to women. Women do not want to be treated like men, they only want equal opportunities. These opportunities include:

1. The opportunity for education in any field they desire.
2. The opportunity to enter any occupational field for which they are qualified.
3. The opportunity for equal wages, benefits, and advancement in that field.
4. The freedom of family planning.
5. Respect as a colleague based on job performance.
6. Appreciation of their physical attributes rather than objectification.
7. Protection from oppression by those who are stronger or more powerful.

Interestingly enough, these are the same opportunities desired by men. The only war between the genders is the one of power and control. IMHO greed and lust are hardwired in our psyches. It is only through education and altruism that we can rise above our selfishness. If we work together, we can overcome the need for a feminist movement. Sadly, though, we can only change ourselves. Selfishness, greed and lust are our societal norm. Until we individually begin to change, there will be a war between the genders as long as there are men and women.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 10:39 AM
link   
WOW! I have separated out these sentences of yours because I think everything here is SO important to focus on individually. Very astute! Great job, darkelf!


Originally posted by darkelf
Interestingly enough, these are the same opportunities desired by men.


Really, that's it in a nutshell. Women have real desires of accomplishment, success, power, patriotism, service... all the same desires that men have. We should have the choice to pursue them. The right to the pursuit of happiness, whatever that means to us.



The only war between the genders is the one of power and control.


I think women want the power and control of their own lives, their occupations, their aspirations. What is wrong with women deciding what we want? What is wrong with a woman seeking power and control over her own life? Nothing. In fact, that seems the way it should be.



If we work together, we can overcome the need for a feminist movement.


Absolutely. And I don't think women are going to give this up. We do need to work together. It would be a lot easier with the cooperation of men. As has been shown, they have been making the rules about what is appropriate for women to aspire to, setting the limits... They're used to that and they think it's appropriate for them to say what our limits should be. And they really need to step back and stop trying to control us. Because we will not be kept down.

And those aren't fightin' words, they're just factual.



Sadly, though, we can only change ourselves.


And it's a long slow process.



Until we individually begin to change, there will be a war between the genders as long as there are men and women.


Now that women realize our potential, it's inhumane to try to fight us and keep us from achieving what we want. Of course we're going to fight.

And that's what we see here in this thread. Some men say the feminist movement is a failure or it isn't necessary. (And it's not just men. I know some women feel that way too.) And for them, I say fine. Don't be involved. But step away from the feminist. Because those of us who do not consider it a failure and those of us who do think it's necessary are doing this thing. And it gets ugly when someone stands in the way of what another person wants.

Because... We're here. Your peer. Get used to it.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 11:09 AM
link   
Another thing...

I wonder how men, in general, would feel if women, in general, were setting the limitations and boundaries over their lives as they currently do over ours... Let's explore.
...........
I don't think it's right for a man to stay home with the children. It's not necessary. They really can't nurture and give the love and care that a woman can. I mean after all, women bear the children, it's only right that they raise them. That's the way it's meant to be, clearly. It's really better for the children to have a more nurturing, caring environment than a big, strong, masculine man can provide. I know you try, but just the way you're made means that you can't love like a woman can. And children need that love that only a woman can provide.

And male nurses? Well, it's a well-known fact that men aren't as compassionate and soft as woman. How can a man give a dying patient the attention they need and deserve in that kind of environment? It doesn't make sense. Plus nurses have to be in service to doctors. Men can't really so that. Let the men stick to being the doctors. We'll handle the nursing. It's better for the patients. And besides, men don't like all that mushy stuff anyway.

And what is this whole 'movement' of men cooking and calling themselves 'chefs'? How cute is that! Why would they even want to waste their time preparing food? That's a woman's job! Everybody knows that! Men go out and make the money to buy the food. That's good! That's what they're supposed to do. That's how God made them. Strong, powerful, motivated. Why would they even care about how the food is prepared? Like they have some kind of 'sensitive palate'?
Let me cook the stuff, honey, you just wolf it down, ok?

And one more, and this one, I cannot see any compromising on. Male secretaries. How demeaning for you! I'm sorry, I can't let you make a fool out of yourselves by trying to fill this obviously woman's position. Call it executive assistant and dress it up as much as you want, it's still a secretary and it's a woman's job. Period. Well, women and gay men. Women can type better, are more organized. We don't mind getting coffee (Hey! It's what we do!) We will shop for the boss. (Come on, I know you hate shopping!) We're just more able to serve and it embarrasses me for men to have to put themselves in this subservient position. Please, no more!
...........
Now, I ask you. How does this feel, men? I know some of you may not want these jobs anyway, but how does it feel to even be told that you're not really qualified and that you need to be protected from having to do these jobs? How would it feel to NOT EVEN HAVE THE CHOICE to pursue these or any other job you desire?



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Now, I ask you. How does this feel, men? I know some of you may not want these jobs anyway, but how does it feel to even be told that you're not really qualified and that you need to be protected from having to do these jobs? How would it feel to NOT EVEN HAVE THE CHOICE to pursue these or any other job you desire?


It feels ignorant. But heres the thing, Many people in the Feminist movement sees things that way, you'd be surprised.


I think its important to break down the barriers of Sexes, on both sides. And thats my problem with the movement, it only seems to be focusing on one side.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Thanks for responding.



Originally posted by WolfofWar
I think its important to break down the barriers of Sexes, on both sides. And thats my problem with the movement, it only seems to be focusing on one side.


Men are fighting for equal rights as far as child support, custody, divorce agreements. And I support them 100%. (Is that what you're talking about?)

Let me tell you something, WoW. Women have found that to get what we want we have to fight against the 'status quo'. It takes time, effort, perseverance. Unfortunately, it's a fight. People are resistant to change. And change takes time. There is a movement for men to be treated more fairly in divorce. But like the feminist fight, it also takes time, effort, perseverance. On your part.

I support men in their fight toward equal rights. I have even provided links to guys who were struggling with this. I feel for you in your struggle here. I'm a female 'masculinist'. But change happens on an individual basis, as has been so eloquently stated.

And yes, the feminist movement is only focusing on one side. We have a big job ahead of us. And if you really want change in how people view men as fathers and providers, you have a big job ahead of you, too. But I do support you 100%!

By saying that you don't support the feminist movement because it doesn't address your needs (I'm paraphrasing) you're putting it all on us. We're trying to address our needs. But like OMS and smallpeeps and the other male feminists out there, I support you in reaching your goals, but I can't and won't do it for you.

Let's be clear, the feminist movement is for the females. We want women to have equal rights with men. And all that entails. But we're focusing on the women here. We focusing on even having the freedom to have the choice to pick our own jobs, control our own lives, not as far as men give us the control, but as far as WE choose. I'd love to help you out and when we do reach our goal, I will. But until then, don't leave your goals in the hands of women. We have our own fight on our hands.

This movement is over 50 years old. And we're still not there. There have been all kinds of changes in the movement over the years, and part of that was a resentment toward men for 'keeping us down' but I really rarely see that anymore. Male-bashing is passe. Today, women aren't so much acting in 'reaction' to men, but rising up on our own. We're learning to take what we rightfully deserve, not based on men, but in spite of them.

Your fight is really much smaller. I mean you've kind of been in control all along. We have come a long way, baby, and we're closer every day. We really can't afford to let down to make sure the men are taken care of, too, but don't forget, there are plenty of women who support you and the movement to more equitable divorce and child-rearing.

Don't leave your needs and goals in the hands of women because our hands are full. If it's important enough to you, believe me, it will be worth the fight. After all, it's not really the women who your fight is with. It's with the men who have made the laws about divorce in the first place.

I hope I don't come across as sexist here, but it's important for you to understand that the feminist movement is for women, but it can definitely benefit both women and men.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
And why is that? Because the current order that feminist want soo much access to was forged by that group (men) out of war, and strife, and that is how it is maintained today.


That could be why. I'm not entirely sure. Regardless, both sexes are valubale and in the context of traditional roles, war, etc., both served a purpose - neither could survive without the other so any argument for more value over the other makes no sense, IMO.




What I do not see are empasioned arguments that call for a woman draft as much as I hear about equal pay for equal work. Even your fellow feminist here admitted that they are in the minority as far as this is concerned, why the B.S?


I think it's easy to see why there aren't very many passionate arguments for it. No one wants to be drafted into a war. I think part of feminism, a very important part, in fact, is women realising that they do indeed benefit from their situation in some ways.
Feminism, a responsible and honest feminist, must be aware of this and consciously accept equality on those terms.




Are you trying to tell me that men do not worry about getting raped in prison? You have got to be kidding me? So let me get this straight, you feel women have seperate (read unequal) co-habitation arrangements because of some fear that something might happen, therefore you need and deserve "protection"? Nice equality there. Perhaps you should get over your fear and come to the realization that not every man wants to forcefully stick their penis in you.


I never said that.
But let me ask you: If men and women cohabiting in the same prison, do you think most men will continue to rape other men?
I also think you need to re-read what I said previously.





It's not an argument against feminism, more of an attempt to get you to realize that unless you do more to bring about TRUE equality, then women will be forced right back into their traditional roles, no matter how empowered they think they are.


Sounds to me like you're trying to say that women need to be more like men have been traditionally. Is that correct?



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by parrhesia
I think part of feminism, a very important part, in fact, is women realising that they do indeed benefit from their situation in some ways.
Feminism, a responsible and honest feminist, must be aware of this and consciously accept equality on those terms.

So you admit that there are unequal benefits that you get simply because of your sex, then go on to say that equality must be accepted on those terms (read your terms). So it is alright for a woman to benefit from a situation based on nothing but sex, but it is sexist when men do? Mind boggling.




I never said that.
But let me ask you: If men and women cohabiting in the same prison, do you think most men will continue to rape other men?
I also think you need to re-read what I said previously.

Which is why I asked you, because it did seem like you were trying to trivialize men's fear of getting raped in jail. Yes I do think that men would continue to get raped in jail. Convicts HATE rapists and child molesters. I can not stress this enough, and anybody who has ever been to jail (county or penn) can attest to that.

This line of thought, automatically assuming that women will be raped en masse if they are put in a cell with men is sexist, plain and simple!


Sounds to me like you're trying to say that women need to be more like men have been traditionally. Is that correct?


I believe that violence and agression are a natural part of life, just like care and nurturing are as well. For whatever reasons, humans have chose to indulge in only one aspect of their personality, which has led us to label certain qualities as masculine, and certain others as feminine. Until this ends, we will always have sexism. Until men get more in touch with their "feminine" side, and women get more in touch with their "masculine" side, nothing will change. IMHO.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

I don't think it's right for a man to stay home with the children. It's not necessary. They really can't nurture and give the love and care that a woman can. I mean after all, women bear the children, it's only right that they raise them. That's the way it's meant to be, clearly. It's really better for the children to have a more nurturing, caring environment than a big, strong, masculine man can provide. I know you try, but just the way you're made means that you can't love like a woman can. And children need that love that only a woman can provide.


Well, personally I do not think that couples should be allowed to raise children, but that is for another thread.

As the current system goes though...Couldn't agree more. Whilst I do believe that a child needs both influences in it's life, I feel an early female influence is imperative, especially for boys.


And male nurses? Well, it's a well-known fact that men aren't as compassionate and soft as woman. How can a man give a dying patient the attention they need and deserve in that kind of environment? It doesn't make sense. Plus nurses have to be in service to doctors. Men can't really so that. Let the men stick to being the doctors. We'll handle the nursing. It's better for the patients. And besides, men don't like all that mushy stuff anyway.


Hell, I say give em the entire medical profession. Except for maybe ambulence drivers



And what is this whole 'movement' of men cooking and calling themselves 'chefs'? How cute is that! Why would they even want to waste their time preparing food? That's a woman's job! Everybody knows that! Men go out and make the money to buy the food. That's good! That's what they're supposed to do. That's how God made them. Strong, powerful, motivated. Why would they even care about how the food is prepared? Like they have some kind of 'sensitive palate'?
Let me cook the stuff, honey, you just wolf it down, ok?


''Now that," Case said to his glass, all his bitterness suddenly rising in him like bile, "that is so much "B.S"."-Gibson

Sorry, it was just the first thing that came to mind.

Anyways, I do not agree with this as I believe the only reason women got stuck with cooking was because they were home, and men probably just didn't want to deal with it when they got off work. Everybody knows the world's best chefs are men. (yes I am an ex-chef)


And one more, and this one, I cannot see any compromising on. Male secretaries. How demeaning for you! I'm sorry, I can't let you make a fool out of yourselves by trying to fill this obviously woman's position. Call it executive assistant and dress it up as much as you want, it's still a secretary and it's a woman's job. Period. Well, women and gay men. Women can type better, are more organized. We don't mind getting coffee (Hey! It's what we do!) We will shop for the boss. (Come on, I know you hate shopping!) We're just more able to serve and it embarrasses me for men to have to put themselves in this subservient position. Please, no more!


Perhaps this is my chauvenism showing again, but I would never hire a secretary unless it was a woman or a gay man. I always did kind of want my own Smithers, that way my wife could never accuse me of sleeping with my "admin asst".



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 02:28 PM
link   
I believe that the 'machoism' (or however you spell it) is ingrained in males genetically, some more than others. You can see that in chimpanzees. One male will be surrounded by several females, perhaps a few adoloscent males that do not challenge that one male's position. However this also comes at a price, if the top male is challenged by rival males, and the females do not support his position it would be taken away easily.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
So you admit that there are unequal benefits that you get simply because of your sex, then go on to say that equality must be accepted on those terms (read your terms). So it is alright for a woman to benefit from a situation based on nothing but sex, but it is sexist when men do? Mind boggling.


That's NOT what she said! Jesus. She said an honest feminist must be aware that there are benefits to maintaining the status quo and we must give those up for true equality. :shk:

As far as the rest, you obviously missed the entire point of my post.
And I'm not in the mood to go over it again.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
That's NOT what she said! Jesus. She said an honest feminist must be aware that there are benefits to maintaining the status quo and we must give those up for true equality. :shk:

If that is what she meant then my bad, I do think that she can speak for herself though.

As far as the rest, you obviously missed the entire point of my post.
And I'm not in the mood to go over it again.


No need as I did get the point. My point was, that it would not be such a bad thing if women dictated some aspects of society. Do not be frustrated because you failed to win me over with your example, like you already said, we are not going to agree, and that is fine. You did ask what men would think though, did you not? Just trying to give an answer since only one other man responded, that's all.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin

So you admit that there are unequal benefits that you get simply because of your sex, then go on to say that equality must be accepted on those terms (read your terms). So it is alright for a woman to benefit from a situation based on nothing but sex, but it is sexist when men do? Mind boggling.


What???

Yes, there are unequal benefits, but don't mistake me for saying that I'd keep those benefits over real freedom and respect as a woman.

Equality must be accepted in rejecting any benefits a woman may have as a result of her oppression. Yes, those are my terms, what's wrong with them? I am n ot saying women should only want and accept what they want and that which benefits them.

When did I say it was alright for women to benefit? I DIDN'T! Perhaps I didn't say it as best I could, but when I say it needs to accepted on those terms I mean that women have to want equality, and all that it encompasses and realise that in doing so they are rejecting any fringe benefits they may get from opression.

I don't want those benefits. I want freedom, opportunity and respect as a woman.





Which is why I asked you, because it did seem like you were trying to trivialize men's fear of getting raped in jail. Yes I do think that men would continue to get raped in jail. Convicts HATE rapists and child molesters. I can not stress this enough, and anybody who has ever been to jail (county or penn) can attest to that.

This line of thought, automatically assuming that women will be raped en masse if they are put in a cell with men is sexist, plain and simple!


I'm not trying to trivialize them at all.
But remember - men are being raped on the basis of their actions - not to say that they deserve to be raped at all, NO ONE DOES. - Women are quite simply women and raped on that basis. And like I said before, men are not raped as men, they are always feminized.

See what I am saying? See what is underlying all of this?






I believe that violence and agression are a natural part of life, just like care and nurturing are as well. For whatever reasons, humans have chose to indulge in only one aspect of their personality, which has led us to label certain qualities as masculine, and certain others as feminine. Until this ends, we will always have sexism. Until men get more in touch with their "feminine" side, and women get more in touch with their "masculine" side, nothing will change. IMHO.


Do you think that in doing the above there will be a realization that both people, different characteristics aside, contribute and are essential to functioning?



I feel an early female influence is imperative, especially for boys.


I don't want to get too far off topic, but why?







[edit on 1-6-2006 by parrhesia]



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Can we please take rape out of this thread. Rape has nothing to do with sexual or gender identity. It is simply an act of aggression from one person who wishes to violate, debase, and/or control another person. It is a violent act that has nothing to do with this conversation other than to derail it.

When women say that we want equality with men, it means we want equal opportunities. We want the same choices and protections that men get. I don’t know why that is so difficult to understand.

Yes, many women as well as men have tried to disrupt the feminist movement by preaching propaganda to forward their own agenda. Hence the point of this thread is to state these claims and then either discredit or support them.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
I do think that she can speak for herself though.


And I can speak for myself.



My point was, that it would not be such a bad thing if women dictated some aspects of society.


The aspects you approve of, though. I mean you wouldn't want women dictating that men can't be firefighters or cops. Just the 'ladylike stuff'.


I'm not frustrated.
I do have some emotions around our interchange here, but I'm not frustrated or angry or anything like that, so no worries.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkelf
Can we please take rape out of this thread. Rape has nothing to do with sexual or gender identity. It is simply an act of aggression from one person who wishes to violate, debase, and/or control another person. It is a violent act that has nothing to do with this conversation other than to derail it.


I didn't want this to be missed at the bottom of the previous page.

I agree 100%!



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by parrhesia
I don't want those benefits. I want freedom, opportunity and respect as a woman.

I said it once, I will say it again...MY BAD. I misunderstood you.



And like I said before, men are not raped as men, they are always feminized.

Please explain how you can be raped as a man then would you? The terms used are accurate and I do not see how they are sexist. A bitch ( a mans sexual toy in jail) refers to how a dog simply walks up and does what he wants. When two people are having sex, one assumes the "male" role, and the other assumes the "female" role. One gives, and one receives, no? So, if a man is screwing another man, and the other man is taking it, who is assuming which role in the situation? Besides, why do you act surprised at the terminology used? After all, we all know rape is about power anyways, the very act of man on man rape is a direct assault on the masculinity of the person being raped, feminization of the victim via derrogatory terms is just further reinforcement of who is in power.




Do you think that in doing the above there will be a realization that both people, different characteristics aside, contribute and are essential to functioning?

Yes I really do.



I don't want to get too far off topic, but why?

Well because, people are more impressionable when they are young, and what better way to teach a boy "feminine" qualities than when they are young? I also think the fact that the mother is the first female relationship that a boy experiences would greatly reinforce this teaching.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Thanks BH. I was afraid that it already had. We all posted within minutes of each other.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join