Feminism and the Disposable Man - General

[QUOTE=Aidan_088;41744929]I said that lots of feminists write for the paper not that it was run by a feminist.[/QUOTE] I know, but you brought that up the Guardian response to me claiming that rich white men control the media, and the Guardian is controlled by a rich white man ... Now, [I]yes[/I], not all the media is necessarily completely bent to a rich white male perspective, even if a rich while male is running it. But it'd be hard to argue that the majority isn't, especially of those that are most critical and damaging to feminists. [QUOTE=Aidan_088;41744929]I agree some feminists have been fooled by conservatives and are now lending their presumed legitimacy to pro-censorship policies. The fact that some feminists have effectively been tricked is disheartening but not the point, the point is that they're the ones who make these laws legitimate and close down much of the serious opposition, especially on the left, by accusing opponents of misogyny.[/QUOTE] The problem is not with them, though, it's with the people in power who are using them to give themselves legitimacy. It's silly to use this to criticise feminism when the only reason this group of feminists are getting attention/success is because they happen to agree with the people in power's ideology on this issue alone. It's like blaming black people for when Fox News gets a black person on their show to agree with them.

[QUOTE=Tweevle;41745117]I know, but you brought that up the Guardian response to me claiming that rich white men control the media, and the Guardian is controlled by a rich white man ... Now, [I]yes[/I], not all the media is necessarily completely bent to a rich white male perspective, even if a rich while male is running it. But it'd be hard to argue that the majority isn't, especially of those that are most critical and damaging to feminists. The problem is not with them, though, it's with the people in power who are using them to give themselves legitimacy. It's silly to use this to criticise feminism when the only reason this group of feminists are getting attention/success is because they happen to agree with the people in power's ideology on this issue alone. It's like blaming black people for when Fox News gets a black person on their show to agree with them.[/QUOTE] I don't blame all feminists just the specific group who support censorship. To follow your analogy it's like disparaging black slavery apologists during the civil war, it doesn't mean you disapprove of black people being involved in politics just that you believe that they've effectively been tricked into supporting something that obviously isn't in their best interests and they're inadvertently lending legitimacy to racism and slavery. In much the same way some feminists have been tricked. I disapprove of far right authoritarians and the feminists they now control but the distinction between them is the feminists can be convinced of the error of their ways whilst it's unlikely that the far right can be. As a secondary point I'm not sure why the race or gender of the owner of newspaper matters. Either you agree with his political stance or you don't, race and sex shouldn't affect this.

[QUOTE=Tweevle;41745117]I know, but you brought that up the Guardian response to me claiming that rich white men control the media, and the Guardian is controlled by a rich white man ... Now, [I]yes[/I], not all the media is necessarily completely bent to a rich white male perspective, even if a rich while male is running it. But it'd be hard to argue that the majority isn't, especially of those that are most critical and damaging to feminists. The problem is not with them, though, it's with the people in power who are using them to give themselves legitimacy. It's silly to use this to criticise feminism when the only reason this group of feminists are getting attention/success is because they happen to agree with the people in power's ideology on this issue alone. It's like blaming black people for when Fox News gets a black person on their show to agree with them.[/QUOTE] The way you negatively generalize the race and sex makes you a racist and a sexist. Think for a second what you are saying. Instead of criticizing something like the actions the media does, you are criticizing the media because a [i]white male[/i] is running it. How extremist can you get? Race and sex does not create a hivemind, stop doing that.

[QUOTE=bunguer;41745541]The way you negatively generalize the race and sex makes you a racist and a sexist. Think for a second what you are saying. Instead of criticizing something like the actions the media does, you are criticizing the media because a [i]white male[/i] is running it. How extremist can you get? Race and sex does not create a hivemind, stop doing that.[/QUOTE] Watch how they will try to explain to you how you can't be sexist nor racist against a white male.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;41745686]Watch how they will try to explain to you how you can't be sexist nor racist against a white male.[/QUOTE] Bigoted behaviours can exist on an individual scale, but saying that white males are institutionally disadvantaged is delusional.

Men rule the society. "We need women in order to survive". Place higher protections on women, but also higher regulations. "We can't send women into dangerous places". Place limits on social mobility, abilities, and occupation of women. Men now do all dangerous tasks. "See, men have it worse off because we have to do all the hard dangerous stuff and get left behind from the lifeboat. Women don't have it bad at all". Then proceed to generalize feminist movements and misrepresent the aims and goals of feminists. Tah dah, you have this video. The roundabout of it is that the "gain" of not being disposable comes not out of genuine beliefs that women ought to be preserved not because of their personhood but because it's in the interest of men to maintain women who can make them families. It isn't out of genuine care and honestly it is objectifying and degrading. Men pick the women, men trade the women, men confine the women to the home, men forbid the women from doing dangerous tasks, men create the standard of "women and children first" because women are valuable. To men. This wasn't pampering and protecting, it was simple self-interest. So yes, there is a problem with male disposability, but it doesn't come out of the benefiting of women but rather the disadvantaging of men by men in order to create a social relation between the sexes that- hey guess what- benefits men. Feminism, rather than seeking to promote women all the time in every instance to create the fempire, is not about inequally benefiting one sex over the other, but undoing restrictions in society on [I]both sexes[/I] in ways that cause no harm to either, preferably. As such, it's pretty easy to see why a feminist would not want male disposability to be a thing any longer. There's really no need for it, and [URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1205121&p=37226718&viewfull=1#post37226718"]I'm of the opinion that women are equally capable of pursuing and doing equal work and equal positions in society[/URL], including the ones that are often considered male only like the role of a soldier or a construction worker or whathaveyou. The goal of feminism is to break these social bindings for both sexes. Get rid of male disposibility, but also promote women out of the "protected object" classification.

[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;41745870]Bigoted behaviours can exist on an individual scale, but saying that white males are institutionally disadvantaged is delusional.[/QUOTE] Who's saying they are institutionally disadvantaged? Where are you even getting this from? You're the first person who said something about it. Unless "sexism" only means "institutionalized discrimination based on gender" and "racism" means "institutionalized discrimination based on race", although it doesn't if I recall correctly.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;41745926]Who's saying they are institutionally disadvantaged? Where are you even getting this from? You're the first person who said something about it. Unless "sexism" only means "institutionalized discrimination based on gender" and "racism" means "institutionalized discrimination based on race", although it doesn't if I recall correctly.[/QUOTE] From a societal standpoint it does... Which is at the level that it really matters. [URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1295628&p=41694479&highlight=#post41694479"]Personal or ideological racism means naught compared to systematic/societal racism, which is institutional[/URL]. This is exactly why it's mostly irrelevant that there's black people who are racist against white people or what have you, when they live in a white dominated society.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];41745959']From a societal standpoint it does... Which is at the level that it really matters. [URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1295628&p=41694479&highlight=#post41694479"]Personal or ideological racism means naught compared to systematic/societal racism, which is institutional[/URL]. This is exactly why it's mostly irrelevant that there's black people who are racist against white people or what have you, when they live in a white dominated society.[/QUOTE] You are just forcing your argument now. Racism and sexism have dictionary definitions and that's what people assume you are talking about unless otherwise specified. What matters is that all forms of racism and sexism is wrong, and what he said was obviously racist and sexist and that's not okay to do. Institutional racism and sexism is a whole different matter that should have its own discussion. It's not okay to negatively generalize any race or sex. It's also not okay to be racist against whites even if you live in a white dominated society for that matter. He made a personal accusation based on his race and sex and that's racism and sexism. Also feminism has had many changes throughout time, and this video criticizes mostly the third-wave feminism which is quite different from second-wave feminism.

[QUOTE=bunguer;41746289]You are just forcing your argument now. Racism and sexism have dictionary definitions and that's what people assume you are talking about unless otherwise specified. What matters is that all forms of racism and sexism is wrong, and what he said was obviously racist and sexist and that's not okay to do. Institutional racism and sexism is a whole different matter that should have its own discussion. It's not okay to negatively generalize any race or sex. It's also not okay to be racist against whites even if you live in a white dominated society for that matter. He made a personal accusation based on his race and sex and that's racism and sexism. Also feminism has had many changes throughout time, and this video criticizes mostly the third-wave feminism which is quite different from second-wave feminism.[/QUOTE] I'm not forcing my argument but rather reinforcing Max's, which I agree with. Of course all racism is bad, but institutional racism is the problem. Considering this thread is about an institutional discrimination, then isn't it safe to assume that the focus is on the institutional, societal discrimination in any camp?

[QUOTE=bunguer;41746289]You are just forcing your argument now. Racism and sexism have dictionary definitions and that's what people assume you are talking about unless otherwise specified. What matters is that all forms of racism and sexism is wrong, and what he said was obviously racist and sexist and that's not okay to do. Institutional racism and sexism is a whole different matter that should have its own discussion. It's not okay to negatively generalize any race or sex. It's also not okay to be racist against whites even if you live in a white dominated society for that matter. He made a personal accusation based on his race and sex and that's racism and sexism. Also feminism has had many changes throughout time, and this video criticizes mostly the third-wave feminism which is quite different from second-wave feminism.[/QUOTE] He isn't being racist or sexist. They key word here is "institutional". If he had said "white males have no problems at all" then yes, it would have been a bigoted post, but he didn't, he's saying that white males are not subject to [I]institutionalized oppression[/I] ([URL="http://www.pcc.edu/resources/illumination/documents/institutionalized-oppression-definitions.pdf"]read this if you want a deeper explanation[/URL]), that means that white males aren't subject to oppression just for being white men. Sure, we still have problems, but the color of our skin or our sex aren't the reason why. [editline]also[/editline] Also, you guys really need to drop this vindictive, "gotta show [I]them[/I]!" attitude in this threads. This is the exact same thing NOR_92 mentioned back in the first page. The reason all these debates start out well and then turn into shit is because instead of discussing the issue and trying to understand where the other person is coming from you keep taking it personal and start petty argument. Y'all need to more positive. This is a debate. There is nothing personal against anyone unless you make it so. Not directed at anyone in particular but it's depressing to see it happening all the time.

[QUOTE=Dr. Gestapo;41746721]He isn't being racist or sexist. They key word here is "institutional". If he had said "white males have no problems at all" then yes, it would have been a bigoted post, but he didn't, he's saying that white males are not subject to [I]institutionalized oppression[/I] ([URL="http://www.pcc.edu/resources/illumination/documents/institutionalized-oppression-definitions.pdf"]read this if you want a deeper explanation[/URL]), that means that white males aren't subject to oppression just for being white men. Sure, we still have problems, but the color of our skin or our sex aren't the reason why.[/QUOTE] Nowhere I said anything like what you said. This is specific about what Tweevle said and about what he concluded solely from the fact the CEO is a white male. Instead of using his actions as something to prove his point he just used his race and sex. This discussion is not about institutionalized oppression, it's a very simple and specific situation. Max came out of nowhere with the institutional conversation, no one started this discussion and there is nothing to discuss about that. Institutional oppression it's not supposed to be used in an individual basis, much less to infer something about a specific person.

[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;41745870]Bigoted behaviours can exist on an individual scale, but saying that white males are institutionally disadvantaged is delusional.[/QUOTE] [i]This[/i] is why I don't like femenists. Or at least the ones on Facepunch. You're not addressing his point you're talking past it. "Saying that white males are instituationally disadvantaged is delusional." Yes, it is, and it has nothing to do with with someone being racist against white people. Tweelve's complaint is that the Guardian is bad because it is owned by a rich, white male, which is sexist and racist. It has nothing to do with institutionalisation and no one even brought it up until you did.

[QUOTE=bunguer;41746848]Sometimes I find hard to have a civilized discussion about these subjects, nowhere I said nothing like what you said. This is specific about what Tweevle said and about what he concluded solely from the fact the CEO is a white male. Instead of using his actions as something to prove his point he just used his race and sex. This discussion is not about institutionalized oppression, it's a very simple and specific situation. Max came out of nowhere with the institutional conversation, no one started this discussion and there is nothing to discuss about that. Institutional oppression it's not supposed to be used in an individual basis, much less to infer something about a specific person.[/QUOTE] I apologize, my post was meant to reinforce Max's but I guess got tangled up between Tweevle's and yours. But still, the thread [I]was[/I] about institutional oppression ("Feminism and the Disposable Man"), it just got derailed by a discussion about the media or something. It's not even relevant to what the video in the OP is about. [QUOTE=Janus Vesta;41746943][i]This[/i] is why I don't like femenists. Or at least the ones on Facepunch. You're not addressing his point you're talking past it. "Saying that white males are instituationally disadvantaged is delusional." Yes, it is, and it has nothing to do with with someone being racist against white people. Tweelve's complaint is that the Guardian is bad because it is owned by a rich, white male, which is sexist and racist. It has nothing to do with institutionalisation and no one even brought it up until you did.[/QUOTE] Maybe it's because the thread is about something else and not about racism against white people? I don't know why it was even brought up.

[QUOTE=Dr. Gestapo;41746978] Maybe it's because the thread is about something else and not about racism against white people? I don't know why it was even brought up.[/QUOTE] I agree it shouldn't have been brought up in the first place. It doesn't change the fact that Max replied to criticism of someone claiming a company of bad because it's owner is a white man with "but there's no institutionalised racism against whites!" Which is entirely irrelevant to the post he was quoting.

[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;41747447]I agree it shouldn't have been brought up in the first place. It doesn't change the fact that Max replied to criticism of someone claiming a company of bad because it's owner is a white man with "but there's no institutionalised racism against whites!" Which is entirely irrelevant to the post he was quoting.[/QUOTE] I'm looking at my post [img]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3797350/hosting/2013-08/2013-08-07_20-22-56.png[/img] and I'm not seeing where I was off-topic in my reply? [editline]7th August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Dr. Gestapo;41746978]I apologize, my post was meant to reinforce Max's but I guess got tangled up between Tweevle's and yours. But still, the thread [I]was[/I] about institutional oppression ("Feminism and the Disposable Man"), it just got derailed by a discussion about the media or something..[/QUOTE] basically that

[QUOTE=Aidan_088;41745339]I don't blame all feminists just the specific group who support censorship. To follow your analogy it's like disparaging black slavery apologists during the civil war, it doesn't mean you disapprove of black people being involved in politics just that you believe that they've effectively been tricked into supporting something that obviously isn't in their best interests and they're inadvertently lending legitimacy to racism and slavery. In much the same way some feminists have been tricked. I disapprove of far right authoritarians and the feminists they now control but the distinction between them is the feminists can be convinced of the error of their ways whilst it's unlikely that the far right can be.[/QUOTE] Okay, fair enough! I just don't think it's fair to criticise feminists as a whole for these feminists being heard about more or more successful in some of their aims, since that's more to do with what those aims are and how it benefits those in power more than anything else. [QUOTE=bunguer;41745541]The way you negatively generalize the race and sex makes you a racist and a sexist. Think for a second what you are saying. Instead of criticizing something like the actions the media does, you are criticizing the media because a [I]white male[/I] is running it. How extremist can you get? Race and sex does not create a hivemind, stop doing that.[/QUOTE] You misunderstand me. I'm not criticising media because rich white males are running it, I'm saying it'll probably be bent towards a white-male-perspective because people tend to bend things to their perspective whether it's intentional or not, especially when they're talking about someone from a different perspective. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with rich white males running something, but if [I]everything[/I] is run by rich white males then people who aren't rich white males probably aren't going to have as much of a voice, is all. In the media, that makes it more likely that they'll publish from an adversarial stance to things like feminism, because one of feminists' aims is to reduce the power of rich white men as a group (as a result of distributing power more equally, to be clear, not for the sake of it). [QUOTE=Silly Sil;41745926]Who's saying they are institutionally disadvantaged? Where are you even getting this from? You're the first person who said something about it. Unless "sexism" only means "institutionalized discrimination based on gender" and "racism" means "institutionalized discrimination based on race", although it doesn't if I recall correctly.[/QUOTE] In some contexts it does. Usually that's the context people are using when they say you can't be sexist or racist against men or white people, respectively. I don't tend to use the word that way because it confuses people.

she took the video in the kitchen, lol

[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;41747993]I'm looking at my post [/QUOTE] It wasn't off topic, it was just irrelevant to his point. No one's saying white men are institutionally disadvantaged. He said it's racist/sexist to say the Guardian is a bad newspaper because it's owner is a white male. Almost every thread about feminism has someone come in and claim people are bad just for being white men, acting as though being white and a man somehow makes you the biggest problem the world has these days. I'm not saying they're legitimate opinions, most of the time it's probably just stirring up shit, but feminism threads already turn into a clusterfuck on Facepunch without people saying "Well X is the fault of white males" or on the other hand "Well Feminists just need to shut up". He wasn't right to predict that someone would make a blanket statement about racism/sexism against white people, but your post didn't address his in any way, just saying white people aren't descriminated against in general doesn't add anything to the discussion, especially when no one said they were descriminated against.

if feminism is about both genders being equal then why isnt it called genderism??

is she gassed up on something why does she do this stupid self satisfied laugh every 30 seconds. her rambling nonsense about how "females are the determining factor in reproduction" (despite there being a need for a man to impregnate a woman??) and how thats the reason for human success, placing value on women over men, doesn't make any sense and is just her desperately trying to set up a basis for the idea that society values women over men. the burning building example is a complete fallacy, nobody says you need to save a woman over a man lol, and like the lifeboat argument, the reason people don't expect you to save women first is because the feminist movement has reversed that nonsense which came from the idea that women were weaker and needed protecting in the first place. then she goes on to say that tending to baby girls more than baby boys is a sign of female preference, completely ignoring that its just the result of a focus on masculinity and gender roles in society, ie completely unrelated to sexism against men OR women. essentially she just rambles for 16 minutes about things that disadvantage men in society, like military involvement and the lifeboat example, things that came from a belief that women were inferior and needed protection, and pins it on feminism despite the fact that no actual feminist would argue that you need to save a woman over a man in the event of a fire. then she tries to blame the enforcement of gender roles on feminism? give me a break the only thing more annoying than this video are the waves of comments from people who get hard at the idea of a woman being against feminism. the first couple comments in this thread are just people who probably didnt even watch the video feeling validated that a female said something bad about feminism and thus somehow her arguments are more valid than if a man whined about it [editline]7th August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Janus Vesta;41746943][i]This[/i] is why I don't like femenists. Or at least the ones on Facepunch. You're not addressing his point you're talking past it. "Saying that white males are instituationally disadvantaged is delusional." Yes, it is, and it has nothing to do with with someone being racist against white people. Tweelve's complaint is that the Guardian is bad because it is owned by a rich, white male, which is sexist and racist. It has nothing to do with institutionalisation and no one even brought it up until you did.[/QUOTE] lol complaining about the fact that an industry is run by straight white men isn't sexist/racist its an acknowledgement of inequality in power structure

[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;41750287]He said it's racist/sexist to say the Guardian is a bad newspaper because it's owner is a white male. Almost every thread about feminism has someone come in and claim people are bad just for being white men, acting as though being white and a man somehow makes you the biggest problem the world has these days.[/QUOTE] But I never said the Guardian is a bad newspaper ... I generally like the Guardian (and the stuff I don't like isn't it being run by a rich white guy). I also never claimed that people are bad just for being white men. This is exactly what I was talking about when I mentioned people misinterpreting things. [QUOTE=obdob;41750310]if feminism is about both genders being equal then why isnt it called genderism??[/QUOTE] if gay rights activism is about both sexual orientations being equal then why isnt it called sexual-orientationism??

[QUOTE=obdob;41750310]if feminism is about both genders being equal then why isnt it called genderism??[/QUOTE] Why don't we have hospitals for healthy people? Why don't we have cemeteries for alive people? Why don't we have parking spots for non-handicapped peo... oh [editline]8th August 2013[/editline] I'm not too sure what you're trying to say though. Are you saying feminism isn't about gender equality because the name is "feminism"?

[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;41753003]Why don't we have hospitals for healthy people? Why don't we have cemeteries for alive people? Why don't we have parking spots for non-handicapped peo... oh [editline]8th August 2013[/editline] I'm not too sure what you're trying to say though. Are you saying feminism isn't about gender equality because the name is "feminism"?[/QUOTE] while his question may have been asked sarcastically it's kind of hard to tell with it being text and everything. also holy shit what a stupid response to that question. even if it was sarcastic on his part, nowhere in the word "hospital" does it say "person of illness" nor "cemetery" to "dead person", while the "fem" in "feminism" may confuse some unaware people about gender equality or simply "more rights for women" or "the female sex". assuming he acknowledges feminism is about gender equality but doesn't understand why it's called feminism, he would not be entirely in the wrong to be confused by it, as a quick look at wikipedia shows: [quote]Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights [b]for women[/b].[1][2] This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist advocates or supports the rights and equality [b]of women[/b].[3][/quote] while many feminists do discuss the inequalities and poor portrayal of [b]both sexes[/b], many do not focus much on the importance of stabilizing and balancing the social playing field, and i think it's sort of a legit question for someone who isnt trying to stir shit, but is actually confused on the term. so instead of acting like a dick you could explain it to him or not even entertain his sarcasm and shit-stirring if you so assume, it's up to you.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;41750547]is she gassed up on something why does she do this stupid self satisfied laugh every 30 seconds. her rambling nonsense about how "females are the determining factor in reproduction" (despite there being a need for a man to impregnate a woman??) and how thats the reason for human success, placing value on women over men, doesn't make any sense and is just her desperately trying to set up a basis for the idea that society values women over men. the burning building example is a complete fallacy, nobody says you need to save a woman over a man lol, and like the lifeboat argument, the reason people don't expect you to save women first is because the feminist movement has reversed that nonsense which came from the idea that women were weaker and needed protecting in the first place. then she goes on to say that tending to baby girls more than baby boys is a sign of female preference, completely ignoring that its just the result of a focus on masculinity and gender roles in society, ie completely unrelated to sexism against men OR women. essentially she just rambles for 16 minutes about things that disadvantage men in society, like military involvement and the lifeboat example, things that came from a belief that women were inferior and needed protection, and pins it on feminism despite the fact that no actual feminist would argue that you need to save a woman over a man in the event of a fire. then she tries to blame the enforcement of gender roles on feminism? give me a break the only thing more annoying than this video are the waves of comments from people who get hard at the idea of a woman being against feminism. the first couple comments in this thread are just people who probably didnt even watch the video feeling validated that a female said something bad about feminism and thus somehow her arguments are more valid than if a man whined about it[/QUOTE] I'm not sure you understand what a limiting factor is, one man can do the job of a hundred in impregnation while the same isn't true in reverse. I think your attitude is a big issue to understanding here. "It's not feminism that causes these issues, it's the patriarchy, it's all because men are in charge and isn't feminism's fault", when what causes it isn't the point at all. I hear a lot of feminists claiming that men benefit from feminism too in regard to these issues but other than the vague and meaningless rhetoric like "destroying the patriarchy" no attention is paid to them and no-one cares. Where feminism comes into this most often is in the form of belittling any action to help men as MRA bullshit or judging by completely arbitrary criteria that women are worse off so men's problems don't matter. The only reason you aren't accusing her of being some neckbeard bitter basement dweller is because she's female, you'd happily make any personal attack on them for being a whiny crybaby the same as you'd attack a man in a traditionally female role. [QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;41753003]Why don't we have hospitals for healthy people? Why don't we have cemeteries for alive people? Why don't we have parking spots for non-handicapped peo... oh [editline]8th August 2013[/editline] I'm not too sure what you're trying to say though. Are you saying feminism isn't about gender equality because the name is "feminism"?[/QUOTE] Case in point, men's problems dont matter because I say women have it worse. None of the areas where men have it shit matter because things like pay inequality and historical legacy overrule everything. It's not about individual issues, it's all or nothing, better or worse, and we only pay attention to those who have it worse.

[QUOTE=TheJoey;41753157]while his question may have been asked sarcastically it's kind of hard to tell with it being text and everything. also holy shit what a stupid response to that question. even if it was sarcastic on his part, nowhere in the word "hospital" does it say "person of illness" nor "cemetery" to "dead person", while the "fem" in "feminism" may confuse some unaware people about gender equality or simply "more rights for women" or "the female sex". assuming he acknowledges feminism is about gender equality but doesn't understand why it's called feminism, he would not be entirely in the wrong to be confused by it, as a quick look at wikipedia shows: while many feminists do discuss the inequalities and poor portrayal of [b]both sexes[/b], many do not focus much on the importance of stabilizing and balancing the social playing field, and i think it's sort of a legit question for someone who isnt trying to stir shit, but is actually confused on the term. so instead of acting like a dick you could explain it to him or not even entertain his sarcasm and shit-stirring if you so assume, it's up to you.[/QUOTE] These "new/tumblr/radical" feminists give feminism a bad name. Instead of rational debates they prefer knee-jerk reactions and other emotional responses instead of factual data. They throw current buzzwords like privilege, institutional oppression as a way to justify their point of view or the cause of all problems. (Not saying it doesn't exist, because it definitely does, but I'm saying it's a lot more complex and is not in context most of the time I see it used. Why not talk about victimization too since it's usually hand in hand?) It actually reminds the trend of recent atheists that become so angry, anything about religion pisses them off in the beginning. I do wish for a more equal and better world, and some of things are worth discussing, but just seeing the shit-storm every time makes any real discussion not worth having. Radicalism is almost never a good thing, next I'll be seeing quotes from Dworkin as sources. (Most feminists with accomplished academic work usually despise works from her for those who don't know her.) There's also a lot of history and traditions and some people seem to forget that, expecting things to change in a day is not realistic. This is a bit of a rant I suppose, but I think all this mindless fighting actually does more harm than good.

Wow Gee This solved a lot of problems Guys! I think we should all Meet back here in a day to rant about the next Gender Debate!

[QUOTE=Devodiere;41753245]I'm not sure you understand what a limiting factor is, one man can do the job of a hundred in impregnation while the same isn't true in reverse. I think your attitude is a big issue to understanding here. "It's not feminism that causes these issues, it's the patriarchy, it's all because men are in charge and isn't feminism's fault", when what causes it isn't the point at all. I hear a lot of feminists claiming that men benefit from feminism too in regard to these issues but other than the vague and meaningless rhetoric like "destroying the patriarchy" no attention is paid to them and no-one cares. Where feminism comes into this most often is in the form of belittling any action to help men as MRA bullshit or judging by completely arbitrary criteria that women are worse off so men's problems don't matter. The only reason you aren't accusing her of being some neckbeard bitter basement dweller is because she's female, you'd happily make any personal attack on them for being a whiny crybaby the same as you'd attack a man in a traditionally female role. Case in point, men's problems dont matter because I say women have it worse. None of the areas where men have it shit matter because things like pay inequality and historical legacy overrule everything. It's not about individual issues, it's all or nothing, better or worse, and we only pay attention to those who have it worse.[/QUOTE] I've found a video that also talks about this. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHvcFzzUues[/media]

the real important thing to note here is that this is all IMPLIED in feminist discourse, it's assumed, it's common sense, and it really doesn't need to brought up because it is far less of a societal issue. It's rare for a man not to get a job because he is not "manly enough" while many women don't get jobs because they are not attractive enough etc. [editline]8th August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=TheJoey;41753157]while his question may have been asked sarcastically it's kind of hard to tell with it being text and everything. also holy shit what a stupid response to that question. even if it was sarcastic on his part, nowhere in the word "hospital" does it say "person of illness" nor "cemetery" to "dead person", while the "fem" in "feminism" may confuse some unaware people about gender equality or simply "more rights for women" or "the female sex". assuming he acknowledges feminism is about gender equality but doesn't understand why it's called feminism, he would not be entirely in the wrong to be confused by it, as a quick look at wikipedia shows: while many feminists do discuss the inequalities and poor portrayal of [b]both sexes[/b], many do not focus much on the importance of stabilizing and balancing the social playing field, and i think it's sort of a legit question for someone who isnt trying to stir shit, but is actually confused on the term. so instead of acting like a dick you could explain it to him or not even entertain his sarcasm and shit-stirring if you so assume, it's up to you.[/QUOTE] it's far less important and that's why it is not discussed as often. not only that, but women are not in a place where they can really even discuss that to the extent they can an issue they deal with first hand, as they are women, in the same way I can only talk about the issues of feminism in broad, general strokes

Remember when saving a woman was considered romantic, not misogynistic? And there is something about different genders that society didn't spew from originally, which comes from a saying my old [B]female[/B] health teacher told everyone. Men are more physical and simple in nature, women are more psychological and emotional in nature. Women like to talk about their day, like to be very social and have lots of friends. Men like to kill things. Women go into great detail when they tell a story. Men get right to the point. Women like to have romantic cuddle sessions and kiss a lot. Men like to fuck things. Men are built to be rough and tough and throw spears into big animals, women are there to be guidance and compassion, a world with just men would be terrible because the emotional aspect would be nearly gone. Yes there are feminine men, and masculine women, but they're far less common. And no I'm not implying women should bow down to men and accept them as their overlords.