Feminist or FemiNazi? Truth and Myth

page: 7
3
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 08:50 PM
link   
Xeros, sounds degrading to me, too. Don't blame feminism on degrading commercials, blame advertisers. Can you and friends contact advertisers and complain?

Smallpeeps, I'm shocked! How did you get into our meetings to get those pix?





[edit on 29-4-2006 by desert]




posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 09:04 PM
link   


Xeros, sounds degrading to me, too. Don't blame feminism on degrading commercials, blame advertisers. Can you and friends contact advertisers and complain?


Well maybe It's a product of society whereby the male feels it inadiquate or inappropriate to complain given the whole feminist exposure in the world today. Or maybe they don't feel as threatened. I personally don't feel threatened by feminism, but feel as if it should take into account that by reversing the situation, it's a bit hypocritical. If it's not a direct result of feminism then what the heck are they complaining about?

[edit on 29-4-2006 by Xeros]



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xeros
I personally don't feel threatened by feminism, but feel as if it should take into account that by reversing the situation, it's a bit hypocritical.


Feminists don't want to reverse the situation. We want true equality as has been expressed throughout this thread.



If it's not a direct result of feminism then what the heck are they complaining about?


Can you rephrase this so I know what you're asking? What's '"it" and who is "they"?

And remember feminist isn't synonymous with woman. All women aren't feminists and all feminists aren't women.

[edit on 29-4-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
My girlfriend happened to be looking over my shoulder, and she asked "who's Rommel?" No lie. The kicker is, she's German.


So what do y'all make of that? Is it enough to provide equal employment when there's such a huge gap in the educational regimen? Do certain fields and subjects fall outside of feminine interest (for the most part) naturally, or does it take conscious manipulation to keep that norm in place? Should this be changed, eliminated, protected?


I don't understand that idea.
The study of WWII is part of a history class required to graduate high school, isn't it? I don't think they have special requirements for male and female graduates


BTW, in high school I HATED shorthand so much that I appealed to the principal and was allowed to change my schedule.
I was the first female student in the drafting class.
This was before women's lib gained a hold of society and in a Catholic high school.



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 09:44 PM
link   
BenevolentHeretic.
I phrased that wrongly. What I mean to say is that if it (attitudes portrayed in the media especially) is a direct result of feminism then what are the feminist complaining about? Which I realise implies that I think the feminists want a reversal in social attitudes towards gender. If feminism was to bring about equality why is it called feminism in the first place? and why does it not see (or feel compulsive) to act towards instances of sexism on the other end of the spectrum?


[edit on 29-4-2006 by Xeros]



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 09:58 PM
link   
DontTreadOnMe, I think you performed a miracle, changing shorthand into drafting! '
' Young men now who enjoy their cooking classes have a woman like you to thank for helping pave the way. You also gave a lesson about speaking up for yourself.



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 11:30 PM
link   
i dont know if feminism is such a good idea after all. I mean, im all for equality in everything yada yada, but there is something wrong behind this picture

I mean, i am a caring husband, and we all know how cruel, competitive, exhausting and stressful real life is? I would never permit myself to expose my beautiful wife to that. I mean, she would go out every morning, exposing herself to the elements, rain, hail, thunderstorms, to some maniacs that could want to do bad things to her, to potential traffic accidents and other lethal hazards. I could not tolerate having my wife race in the corporate ladder considering all the risks above, and all the risks i haven't mentionned.

She is the pride of my life, id rather keep her in a climate-controlled environment (a big luxurious home), where she can be safe. Id much rather have her perform minimum-risks tasks like cleaning, laundry, cooking, welcome home sex when i get back from the office.

i mean, out there, she could get stuck in elevators, hurting herself, driving? too dangerous. public transportation? even more dangerous. knowing her boss is looking at her ass and offering her raises in exchange for sex in the office closed door? NEVER. I mean, if you love your wife, you will not tolerate anything like this. you will work your behind off to the maximum to make money (not like it is hard anyways) and you will do everything to keep her safe and secure. you love your wife don't you?



And my wife never complained about her lifestyle.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
In my opinion, your wife's statement is indicative of an acceptance of male stereotyping in an attempt at comic relief. You know, if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em. Even making 'fun' of the woman's bodily function has always been a derogatory way for men to put down women.

By saying what she said, and buying into the stereotype, it makes her ‘more like a man’, and many women, including myself, are saddened when we see attitudes like that displayed, especially by women.


I think, in her mind, it was more like. Can't we just admit that women and men are different? Let women figure out their own management style.


The truth is men are emotional, too. Look at this thread! Men backstab, too. Look at any corporation or workplace, look at any situation in life and you’ll see emotional people sticking it to other people.


Sure, men have emotions. And men are backstabbers.
But, in my experience. Women's emotions are closer to the surface, more readable.
I also think, that at least, in present times. Women might be a little more fearful of direct confrontation. More men are FRONTstabbers, than women. Hence the stereotype. (Looking over my should now)



The comment about menstruation is just sad. My husband says I’m sweeter on my period than most women are the rest of the month. The most I might do is tear up about something. But men have ups and downs, too. But when it’s a man, they just call it stress and admire him for handling it.


But pre-menstrual syndrome has been used as a defense, in court.
If thats the case, then could it be blamed for bad decision making?
Should us men be allowed to comment on the time of the month, or not?
I admit that I do sometimes. My manager is a woman. And I do know the dates
of when I need to keep a lower profile. Is that a sexist thing? Knowing when
someones attitude will be different? Or should I just not comment on it at all?
I just don't know. And thats a problem too. Men don't know the newer rules of the workplace anymore. The Written, and unwritten rules.


The most real situation I can imagine your wife might be experiencing is that a woman boss isn’t likely to let another woman get away with something simply because she’s a woman. A male boss might let his underlings get away with less-than-stellar work simply because he doesn’t hold her to the same high standards as a woman might. Or perhaps because he thinks she’s hot.


OK, my wife is very outspoken. And isn't afraid to point out someone elses mistakes.
Not in a crowded room, thats in very poor taste. She will tell her boss (face to face) how she feels about the way things are being run, or how, a decision might be ok in the short term, but not for the long run..Something like that. In nearly every situation, the female boss became highly defensive, usualy ending up in a downward spiral in my wife working conditions. Some pretty bad things have happened.

On the other hand. So, far, when similar situation occured with a male boss. It just became a discussion. No harm done, sometimes even a pat on the back..



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Bring to this thread all your common beliefs about feminism.
Non-feminists, how do you see feminism?

I see feminism just as you described it. But just like FredT brought up, it's the hardcorps feminist pitbulls and even some of the low key ones, that give you girls a bad name.


What is feminism to you?

Persuing equality for both sexes. I guess mainly for women to be 'equal' with men.


Question for Parrhesia, BH or anyone else who wants to answer. You may have already answered this.....I only read the first two pages.

This is obviously an important issue and you're doing something about it by starting this thread, but what are the feminist doing about the whack-jobs out there giving you girls a bad name? How do you view them?

Being from the D.C. area I've been to Dupont cirlce a few times with some friends and have meet a few 'man-haters' and nut-jobs. Not that many, but definately enough to give someone the wrong impression of what a feminist is.



[edit on 30/4/2006 by SportyMB]



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by SportyMB
Question for Parrhesia, BH or anyone else who wants to answer. You may have already answered this.....I only read the first two pages.

This is obviously an important issue and you're doing something about it by starting this thread, but what are the feminist doing about the whack-jobs out there giving you girls a bad name? How do you view them?

Being from the D.C. area I've been to Dupont cirlce a few times with some friends and have meet a few 'man-haters' and nut-jobs. Not that many, but definately enough to give someone the wrong impression of what a feminist is.


The movement to promote equal and honorable attitudes toward women is not about hating men, any more than the movement to promote equal and honorable attitudes toward black people is about hating 'whitey'.

As with pretty much any social movement, the 'extreme' edge exists. About the only thing that can be done is to present the real effort of the movement, both to the general population and to the extremists themselves.

I've known several virulent man-haters myself. I don't worry about it. As long as they are not presenting a physical danger to myself or my friends, I dismiss them as whack-jobs and go on.

One of the issues of equality is that it is no better to honor all women just because they are women than it is to dishonor them because they are women. I know several women that I am not particularly fond of, and for whom I have little respect. Because they are jerks, not because they are women.

The danger lies in the non-thinking generalization, in either direction.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xeros
Which I realise implies that I think the feminists want a reversal in social attitudes towards gender.


IMO, true feminists do NOT want a reversal. We want equality. Now, of course you're going to encounter all levels of 'militance' as I explained in this post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



If feminism was to bring about equality why is it called feminism in the first place? and why does it not see (or feel compulsive) to act towards instances of sexism on the other end of the spectrum?


I really suggest you read the whole thread if you're interested as these questions have been discussed. I think it's called feminism for the same reason that Gay rights is called Gay rights. Those are the people who have been affected by the oppression in this particular case. Male oppression is also discussed in the thread.

Suffice it to say, I do act towards what I see as sexism on both ends of the spectrum. I call women on male-bashing conversations. That hurts the cause of equality as much as anything else. Plus it makes me sick. I love and respect men. Not all men, but neither do I respect all women.

I do believe that just as men are generally physically stronger than women, women have qualities that exceed men in some areas. And I believe both genders should be celebrated for their differences and unique and valuable contributions, whether they fit the generalization or not.


Originally posted by SportyMB
This is obviously an important issue and you're doing something about it by starting this thread, but what are the feminist doing about the whack-jobs out there giving you girls a bad name?


They only give us a bad name if you let their behavior reflect on us because we're all women. There are some real dill weeds out there who are men, too, right? What are you doing about them? It's not your job to do anything about them. It's MY job not to lump all men together and judge you all by the actions of a few.




How do you view them?


I know there are true bitches out there. I've seen deceitful women. I've seen angry man-hating, mind-game playing, gold-digging, wicked women. And that's how I view them. AND I feel somewhat sorry for them. One, because for some reason or other, they feel they need to use these tactics as a defense or as their only means of getting along in this world and secondly, because they'll never know what I know. And that is that just as there are some good women and some bad, there are some men who are so worth knowing and loving. They may never know that it's ok to be soft, compassionate and vulnerable. They may never know what it feels like to embrace their femininity and be a powerful, proud woman with strong opinions and self-confidence, without hatred and games.



Being from the D.C. area I've been to Dupont cirlce a few times with some friends and have meet a few 'man-haters' and nut-jobs. Not that many, but definately enough to give someone the wrong impression of what a feminist is.


Yeah, that's the myth! That the haters are the feminists!
That's one of the wrong impressions that we want to dispell. They may or may not be true feminists, but feminist is not synonymous with man-hater.


Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
One of the issues of equality is that it is no better to honor all women just because they are women than it is to dishonor them because they are women.
...
The danger lies in the non-thinking generalization, in either direction.


Oh, You are so brilliant! Right on!
No wonder I married you!



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

As for the rest of your post, some of the things you say so obviously point out that you do not get what feminism is about. And I'm weary of trying to explain it to someone who (it seems) just wants to take 'the other side'.


you did it again, i told you, i get it, i don't agree.

''feminist or femnazi, truth and myth?'', an opinion was asked for, i'm giving it, women in socity are as equal as anyone else, in a capatalist democratic socity total equality can never exhist, only equality of opertunity, women have achieved this, thankfully. the role of feminism as a movement is obsolete, women and men are equal except in the minds of individuals, same as short and tall people, same as ugly and pretty people, same as blonds and brunettes, welcome to life.

sexism is about attitude, the attitudes of socity are, at this stage, verging on sexism towards men,but we're not aloud say it, if the men, even on this thread, bring up the point that we see it in the media so often we are told that it is the media's fault and it doesn't reflect feminisim, if we see it in the workplace, through the ludicrous disparity in paternal leave and the fact that we are asked to work longer hours so that the women can get home to their kids we are told thats mens fault aswell, if we look at our governments and see a huge and well funded lobby group for female rights but none for men we are told we don't need it, when we look at the coverage womens health issues recieve from all levels of public discource and say, what about mens difficulties with health we are told to speak up for ourselves and when we get something, a chance discovery that restores the confidence of thousands of men worldwide we are told it is another tool of male subjectation of women. gimme a break, all thats left at this stage are preconceptions in the minds of a certain proportion of the female population, and thats why young women are ashamed to call themselve feminist, its a byword for ignorance and intolerance the only feminists left are the nazi's and this thread has done nothing to change my opinion, anyone else?



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps
In the US, you'd never have a woman placed in real power.


Are you living under a rock? Or, do you think we are so foolish as to believe that?

There are MANY women in positons of extreme power in America!

Here are a few...

Dr. Condoleezza Rice Ph. D -- Secretary of State

Justice Ruth Joan Bader Ginsburg -- Supreme Court Justice

Hillary Rodham Clinton -- U.S Senator (and one of the most powerful people in America)


the prohibition against rape will similarly need to be applied in a speech by that president.


Are you insane. Rape is illegal in the United States of America!

-- Boat



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
the only feminists left are the nazi's


Opinion noted.


I see a lot of 'men vs women' attitude in your posts, which says to me that you think of feminism as a debate between men and women. That's why I say you don't get it. Because that's part of the myth. That women are rising up and want to put men down or get back at men or hate men or think they deserve better than men. Those are the people you call feminists and feminazis. And that's the myth we've been trying to dispel. Feminism isn't about women vs. men, but it's your right to continue to believe it if you want.

[edit on 30-4-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
One of the issues of equality is that it is no better to honor all women just because they are women than it is to dishonor them because they are women. I know several women that I am not particularly fond of, and for whom I have little respect. Because they are jerks, not because they are women.

The danger lies in the non-thinking generalization, in either direction.


Wow stop the presses! Anyone not a base low already knows that. That's whats wrong with feminism...

See you don't need to be a feminist to understand the core basic value in gender equality!!

-- Boat



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boatphone
Are you living under a rock? Or, do you think we are so foolish as to believe that?

I will explain it to you: The president of Liberia is really in power (as opposed to Condi), because she was elected by a traumatized populace, including a large number of the women of that country. My point is that although women in America do respresent part of the electorate, they are not permitted to elect a woman who would actually enact useful laws designed to protect women fully. What we DO have in America is a system where the courts will probably humiliate and degrade a woman who goes to court to testify against a rapist. Most rapes are not reported because of this.

The US courts and their methods will ensure that rapists will always have a fairly easy escape route. Perhaps if we actually had a female leader who was truly elected by the people, that woman could serve to A: enact some kind of less-traumatic way to try rape cases, and B: attempt to educate males about sex. If both of those things were done, there'd be less rape and more justice for women. That's my point.



Dr. Condoleezza Rice Ph. D -- Secretary of State

Justice Ruth Joan Bader Ginsburg -- Supreme Court Justice

Hillary Rodham Clinton -- U.S Senator (and one of the most powerful people in America)


Mostly controlled puppets all of them. They had to make major sacrifices to rise to power in this male-dominated country. I'm sure you don't agree, from your other posts which I have skimmed, so I probably can't help you understand what I'm saying.



Are you insane. Rape is illegal in the United States of America!

What's insane is the amount of power which white males have, and also the hundreds of years prior to that when they wouldn't even allow women to vote or discuss politics. Meanwhile, as they struggle to hold onto their power, more women are being trafficked globally than ever. In short, the US plays lip service to women's rights. They will prop up a few smart-looking ladies like Condi and Hillary and say "Look! We support women!" ...but in fact, their policies are strictly male-centered and conservative.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by parrhesia

Originally posted by WolfofWar
Sure, the specific Extremist Feminist movement that comes to mind if Radical Feminism, which actually considers its movement as "a war against men."


Is that right? May I ask which radical feminist, or which radical feminists said this, or where you are basing this on?


My old college grounds were a breading ground for radical feminists, and probablly is still so today. I don't have a problem with women, equality, and being treated as human beings and not subservant.

It goes over board when women start saying things like we don't need men in our lives at all. We can raise the children by ourselves. They treat all men like dirt, and call them pigs. They bash any man who tries to help them in any way, shape, or form. They do not allow men to be courtious towards women any longer such as holding open the door for them. That is beneath them. They will not admit they need help from a man even when they actually do. If they accept help from a man, then they are complaining about him and his help the entire time.

What has this done to relationships between men and women? It has greatly deteroriated it pratically on all social levels. Men have no knowledge as to which women hold which views. They are getting so many mixed singles, that they are not sure how to act around women any longer. Some will bash them for being helpful and courtious, and the others will bash them if they are not helpful and courtioius. They are basically in a catch 22, no win situation.

After being bashed so many times, they entirely stop trying to be nice thinking almost every woman has something bad to say about them. Courtiousness and chilvery is totally out the door. If a door was closing on a woman with her hands full, he would rather see it bash her rather than have her bash him for trying to help. See a woman pulled off on the side of the road trying to change a tire, forget trying to help. She might nail him on the head with a crowbar just for offering help.

Thankfully my husband knows I still like to be treated with courtousness and chivelry. He will open the door for me, and help me when I need it. I actually thank him for it.

Also, they tend to bash housewives, especially those who don't have children. Those with children they look down upon, and can't understand how one could choose to stay home with the little brats and not hand them over to a stranger in a day care center. They can hardly tolerate any woman who isn't chasing a career of one type or another. They see willing housewives as enslaved to the men and children. All my ____ if the woman not only stays home with her children, but chooses to homeschool also. Then she must be insane.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mystery_Lady
It goes over board when women start saying things like we don't need men in our lives at all.


That's overboard? "I don't need a man in my life at all" is overboard? What's the matter with not needing or wanting a man (or a woman) in one's life to to live a full, worthwhile, fulfilled life? For some people, it's just the ticket.




Thankfully my husband knows I still like to be treated with courtousness ... He will open the door for me, and help me when I need it. I actually thank him for it.


Same here. And I have been known to hold the door open for men. Most of them are pleasantly surprised and accept it graciously. Sometimes, they almost trip over themselves in an attempt to 'do the right thing', but I understand that - as they've come from years of conditioning.

I must say, I haven't encountered the kind of radical 'anti-malers' you speak of since the early 70s, but I'm not saying they aren't out there. I just don't see them. I tend to think there are a lot fewer of them these days than when the movement was new. And I think the memory of them speaks so loud that anytime someone hears the word 'feminist' sadly, that's who they think of...



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Parallelogram

this is crazy!

this is absolutely unbelievable!

what the hell are you talking about?

it's obvious you have something against men, and whatever it is, it is statements like that that make gender equality an impossibility.

how is a man supposed to feel equal, or to respect women, if THAT is the kind of rhetoric we find ourselves faced with every day?


Interesting that you put it this way, The Parallelogram.

How do you think Women feel?




posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mystery_Lady
What has this done to relationships between men and women? It has greatly deteroriated it pratically on all social levels. Men have no knowledge as to which women hold which views. They are getting so many mixed singles, that they are not sure how to act around women any longer. Some will bash them for being helpful and courtious, and the others will bash them if they are not helpful and courtioius. They are basically in a catch 22, no win situation.

After being bashed so many times, they entirely stop trying to be nice thinking almost every woman has something bad to say about them. Courtiousness and chilvery is totally out the door. If a door was closing on a woman with her hands full, he would rather see it bash her rather than have her bash him for trying to help. See a woman pulled off on the side of the road trying to change a tire, forget trying to help. She might nail him on the head with a crowbar just for offering help.


I disagree that men-hating women have damaged relationships between men and women at all levels.

True, the societal rules that used to govern male-female interactions are less stringent and less confining.

Courtesy and chivalry, however, are alive and well. Speaking strictly for myself, if I go through a door and someone else is close, I hold the door for them, without regard to their gender. Some nimrods of both genders are unable to accept this courtesy, but that is their problem, not mine. I behave the way I do because I want to do so, not because of some societal rules.

Although, I was raised that way, so those societal rules may have more impact than I imagine!


In my opinion, for a man or a woman to behave in a particular way because they think another person will or will not approve of it is a losing game. No matter how one behaves, some will approve, some will disapprove. All I can do is behave in the way the person I'm with all the time will approve.

I do agree that inter-personal relationships have deteriorated over the last few decades, but I do not put the blame onto the feminist movement, not even the rude militants who abuse the name. There are a ton of other factors at work here. But that is for another topic...





new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join