|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted June 17, 2014 06:27 PM |
|
|
For me it's actually pretty simple: the males had a good go at it for a mighty long time - and they screwed up. Massively so.
It's pretty obvious that "general enlightenment" of a society and "female rights/equality" are in proportion.
So: feminism?
Yes, PLEASE.
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted June 17, 2014 06:28 PM |
|
|
Assuming that males were indeed in control.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 17, 2014 06:32 PM |
|
|
The problem with the term "feminism" is that it lumps together some very different views that are mutually exclusive in many respects, and basically only have in common the belief that on average, women should be treated better than they are now. A criticism of a radical feminist is unlikely to apply to an individualist feminist, and vice versa. Also, it's important to note that "radical" does not mean "angry" - not all radical feminists are angry, and not all angry feminists are radfems. Describing radical feminists as "feminists who are angry" is as inaccurate as describing Communists as "social democrats who are angry".
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Nitramar
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted June 17, 2014 06:44 PM |
|
|
If you want equality, you shouldn't start by dividing peope into two groups, because then you're not treating people equally... I think that's the main flaw of feminism (or at least its name, depending on what you actually mean by feminism as I've seen it varies quite a bit).
Besides, there are many other groups that are treated badly too: children, elderly, handicapped, immigrants, criminals, obese, poor people, tourists, people who look unusual etc. You could probably arbitrarily choose any group, say, people with long noses, and you'd inevitably find out that they are treated differently than the people who don't belong to that group. If you try to promote all of these groups' rights individually it becomes excessively complicated: by helping one group you might hurt another one without even realizing that there is a connection, because there are an infinite amount of possible groupings and you can't possibly consider them all (yet all groups of people should be equally important because all people are equal, right?).
Basically what I'm saying is that it's healthier to propose that no particular social group should have any advantage over any other social group than it is to propose that a certain group should have the same rights some other(s). The point should be to eliminate this dividing of people into groups and just treat everyone as humans. If this is what feminism means, I support it, but it shouldn't be called feminism. If it doesn't mean this, I don't even support it. But as I said, people don't always mean the same thing even if they use the same word.
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted June 17, 2014 06:50 PM |
|
|
I love it! 
Everyone should be treated equally!
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 17, 2014 06:50 PM |
|
Edited by fred79 at 18:51, 17 Jun 2014.
|
meroe said:
And to my shame at times, I have let it go, because rape isn't something men truly understand. I don't mean that insultingly like all guys are dumb. No no. And I don't mean that most guys are not sympathetic, understanding or empathetic enough to understand the horror of rape and the vileness of it. But the actual act of violent penetration isn't comprehended by guys, because its really something that they will never experience. Yes men can be raped, but only effectively by another guy or group of guys. And even then, even with all the physical trauma and injury, they still would never need to worry about being impregnated.
i have issue with this. saying that anything is a one-way street is wrong. i remember a case of a man being raped by a group of women(i'm trying to find it on the internet, so far no dice). they stuck a pencil into his dick hole, to keep his penis "stiff", and they took turns riding him. obviously, with a pencil in your dick hole, it couldn't have been fun for him.
what you say, is akin to saying that men only abuse women, and not the other way around. my mom's old boyfriend used to get beat to **** by his (now ex)wife, and he couldn't do anything about it, because she would hurt herself before the cops showed up, and make it look like he beat her. this is someone i knew, not just an article or story that i've read. i knew a girl who was underage; she coerced a friend of mine to have sex with her(they were only a year apart). anyway, after he found out she was something of a psycho, he tried to break it off with her. and so, she threatened to press statutory rape charges against him, because he would no longer **** her, let alone continue a relationship with her. she also threatened to have him beat up by her friends; threatened to kill him,; etc.
like i said, nothing is one way, meroe. there are bad apples everywhere. something negative being the norm for a group of people, doesn't omit the fact that there are people who will use an exploited group to do their OWN exploiting.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 17, 2014 06:50 PM |
|
|
Nitramar:
It's called feminism because it recognizes the reality that currently women are treated worse than men (on average), so it avoids the problem of people saying things like "I support equality, which is why I think women have too many privileges". It's one thing to support equality in principle, and another to specify what equality would entail in practice. Feminism means that equality in practice would mean better treatment for women.
Think of it in terms of answers to these questions:
1. Is equality desirable?
2. Do we currently have equality?
3. If we don't have equality, what should change in order to establish it?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted June 17, 2014 06:57 PM |
|
|
@Fred
There's been a lot of focus on husbands in violent relationships in my country. Because women beating up their husbands isn't typically reported.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 17, 2014 07:10 PM |
|
|
Nitramar said:
If you want equality, you shouldn't start by dividing peope into two groups, because then you're not treating people equally... I think that's the main flaw of feminism (or at least its name, depending on what you actually mean by feminism as I've seen it varies quite a bit).
Besides, there are many other groups that are treated badly too: children, elderly, handicapped, immigrants, criminals, obese, poor people, tourists, people who look unusual etc. You could probably arbitrarily choose any group, say, people with long noses, and you'd inevitably find out that they are treated differently than the people who don't belong to that group. If you try to promote all of these groups' rights individually it becomes excessively complicated: by helping one group you might hurt another one without even realizing that there is a connection, because there are an infinite amount of possible groupings and you can't possibly consider them all (yet all groups of people should be equally important because all people are equal, right?).
Basically what I'm saying is that it's healthier to propose that no particular social group should have any advantage over any other social group than it is to propose that a certain group should have the same rights some other(s). The point should be to eliminate this dividing of people into groups and just treat everyone as humans. If this is what feminism means, I support it, but it shouldn't be called feminism. If it doesn't mean this, I don't even support it. But as I said, people don't always mean the same thing even if they use the same word.
this. i couldn't have said it better myself. or, i could, but since you already have, i don't have to.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 17, 2014 07:15 PM |
|
|
fred69 said:
i knew a girl who was underage; she coerced a friend of mine to have sex with her(they were only a year apart). anyway, after he found out she was something of a psycho, he tried to break it off with her. and so, she threatened to press statutory rape charges against him, because he would no longer **** her, let alone continue a relationship with her. she also threatened to have him beat up by her friends; threatened to kill him,; etc.
I hope women coercing males to have sex with them is the next step in social evolution.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 17, 2014 07:20 PM |
|
Edited by fred79 at 19:25, 17 Jun 2014.
|
Stevie said:
fred69 said:
i knew a girl who was underage; she coerced a friend of mine to have sex with her(they were only a year apart). anyway, after he found out she was something of a psycho, he tried to break it off with her. and so, she threatened to press statutory rape charges against him, because he would no longer **** her, let alone continue a relationship with her. she also threatened to have him beat up by her friends; threatened to kill him,; etc.
I hope women coercing males to have sex with them is the next step in social evolution.
it's rather difficult to appreciate your intended humor, when i was seriously discussing something of importance. thanks anyway, though. maybe i'll find it funny later.
|
|
Nitramar
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted June 17, 2014 07:22 PM |
|
Edited by Nitramar at 19:26, 17 Jun 2014.
|
mvassilev said:
Nitramar:
It's called feminism because it recognizes the reality that currently women are treated worse than men (on average)
Why pick specifically women, though? I think it's really quite arbitrary. It can't be because of the size of the group (~50% of humans) since it is possible to construct a grouping such that all people except one (~100% of humans) are treated worse than the one person who is treated best. Really, the only reason it addresses specifically the needs of women is that women started the movement (and there's nothing wrong with that, except that non-women might find it selfish or even like an attack on their interests).
That doesn't mean that I want women to be treated badly or that I don't want anything to be done about women being treated worse. But I think it's more a question of men being treated better than of women being treated worse. Rather than improving the treatement of "non-men", we should eliminate the special treatment of "men", just as we should eliminate the special treatment of any other group that we notice is being treated favorably. So, rather than adding new legislation supporting unsupported groups, we should remove existing legislation that supports any group. Of course, that may mean, in practice, that the conditions of women improve, but I don't think it justifies naming the entire principle by one of the groups that might benefit, as there are countless others that might as well.
Also, btw there are differences between, equal treatment, equal rights and equal opportunities and I don't think all of these can coexist.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 17, 2014 07:27 PM |
|
|
Nitramar said:
Why pick specifically women, though?
Because women are a disadvantaged group. There are some movements to help other disadvantaged groups, such as the disabled, homosexuals, and so on. Feminists are the group that focuses on equality for women.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Nitramar
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted June 17, 2014 07:32 PM |
|
|
|
Right, and I just think it's silly to promote all of these different groups separately because their interests might be in conflict. It only degenerates into different groups competing for promoting their own rights, which really sounds like the opposite of what the goal was to begin with.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 17, 2014 07:45 PM |
|
|
I don't think feminists, disability rights advocates, gay rights advocates, and so on conflict that much (though they do some), they just focus on their specific issues without hurting any of the other causes. Someone may be particularly interested in or good at talking about feminism and be less focused on gay rights, or vice versa. As long as they're not getting in each other's way, what's the problem? Especially considering that specialization helps, because different groups have different problems.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 17, 2014 07:45 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 19:48, 17 Jun 2014.
|
Nitramar said:
Right, and I just think it's silly to promote all of these different groups separately because their interests might be in conflict. It only degenerates into different groups competing for promoting their own rights, which really sounds like the opposite of what the goal was to begin with.
Where there are different kinds of oppression through different kinds of groups based on different reasons, there will be specified movements against them. Everyone is equal is too general, hence vague to motivate certain political communities. Besides, these different groups can also have conflicting agendas, I doubt that a Muslim advocating Sharia Law under the premise of "equality to cultures" would be okay to categorize his agenda under "equality for all" and side with a feminist. Equality is a nice word, nobody rejects it, but they all fill in the meaning quite differently.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 17, 2014 07:48 PM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
As long as they're not getting in each other's way, what's the problem? Especially considering that specialization helps, because different groups have different problems.
what he's saying is, unity is the cure for what ails humanity. simply put. the problem is, splitting people up, so that they can argue with one another. which should be easily apparent.
nitramar, if i'm not spot-on with this, feel free to correct me.
|
|
meroe
Supreme Hero
Basically Smurfette
|
|
posted June 17, 2014 07:48 PM |
|
Edited by meroe at 19:51, 17 Jun 2014.
|
First off Fredrich, while that is indeed a horrible story, if true because it seems rather bizarre, and a horrible thing that happened and I in no way intend to belittle the suffering of the victim. Incidents like the one you refer to are rarities, compared to the violence/sexual violence/discrimination etc women face on a daily basis.
The story you mention is horrible, but how many guys has that actually happened too???
Compared to how many Yemeni/Arabian/Indian/Pakistani girls etc, who have been sold into child marriage, raped daily and died in childbirth before their teens?
Or how many Sudanese girls have their clitoris and labia sliced off with a sharpened piece of flint and no anaesthetic at the age of 4?????
Or how many young girls get set of fire by families wishing to keep her dowry???
Or how many Muslim girls get beaten to death with bricks or have their throats cut by their father's because they have been accused of dishonoring the family?????
Tell me, please how many?
How many women sexually abuse children?? Compared to men?
Also on another note, it is proven the world over - in countries where women are treated better = better child rearing, better education, more prospects and better standards.
So it makes sense to provide equal opportunities towards women.
____________
Meroe is definetely out, sweet
as she sounds sometimes, she'd
definetely castrate you with a
rusted razror and forcefeed
your genitals to you in a
blink of an eye - Kipshasz
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 17, 2014 07:52 PM |
|
|
|
@ meroe: all i'm saying is that nothing is one-sided. it seemed to me you were trying to say it was, when it isn't. that's all i was addressing. of course there's a lot more violence towards women; of course women have been under the foot of men since forever; i wasn't denying that. what i was denying, was the one-sided nature of your argument.
|
|
meroe
Supreme Hero
Basically Smurfette
|
|
posted June 17, 2014 07:55 PM |
|
|
But my argument was never one sided, Fred. We are talking about feminism. So I am talking from a female perspective. And this thread needs one, believe me. I might not be the best advocate, but at the moment, I'm it.
____________
Meroe is definetely out, sweet
as she sounds sometimes, she'd
definetely castrate you with a
rusted razror and forcefeed
your genitals to you in a
blink of an eye - Kipshasz
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
