Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ouze wrote:
I think that is exalt-worthy.

I agree. Nicely done.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Feminists want to make women equal with men in society by promotion of women, not by degradation of men.

This is absolutely true, as long as you ignore all of the hypocrisy, the pushes for advantage, and the blatant employment of double standards.

Perhaps you could give some examples.

He's good at all those topics, so it should be easy!

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I agree with Mel alot, but the militant feminists, who are way to prevalent at my school said child bonding is more important for the mother, and that mothers should get more time off to spend with a child, but not men.
I used to identify as a Feminist, and i can see their struggles(One thing I really want to study for sociology is gender diversification among majors) But Im more of an equalist now, thinking everyone deserves a fair chance, we just are not at a point where everyone can get a fair chance

Do you judge all Irish Catholics on the actions of the IRA?
Do you judge all Muslims on the actions of Al-Qaeda?
Do you judge all Christians on the actions of Westboro Baptists?

I judge all <25 year olds by Bronies.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I agree with Mel alot, but the militant feminists, who are way to prevalent at my school said child bonding is more important for the mother, and that mothers should get more time off to spend with a child, but not men.
I used to identify as a Feminist, and i can see their struggles(One thing I really want to study for sociology is gender diversification among majors) But Im more of an equalist now, thinking everyone deserves a fair chance, we just are not at a point where everyone can get a fair chance

Do you judge all Irish Catholics on the actions of the IRA?
Do you judge all Muslims on the actions of Al-Qaeda?
Do you judge all Christians on the actions of Westboro Baptists?

 d-usa wrote:
I judge all <25 year olds by Bronies.

Yes to all.

 Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Feminists want to make women equal with men in society by promotion of women, not by degradation of men.

This is absolutely true, as long as you ignore all of the hypocrisy, the pushes for advantage, and the blatant employment of double standards.

Almost every single rights group has extremist members who make it look bad though.

PETA for animal rights being a good example just off the top of my head.

I'm cool with "real" feminists who have a good head on their shoulders. Like most here I also can't stand "feminazis". The latter are where a lot of the stereotypes surrounding their movement come from and do far more to hurt their cause than help it. I just learned to ignore the crazies, like I have to do with any other movement.

 d-usa wrote:
He's good at all those topics, so it should be easy!

I don't think that's fair to Seaward. He deserves to be allowed to post support for his argument without making a joke of it.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
He's good at all those topics, so it should be easy!

I don't think that's fair to Seaward. He deserves to be allowed to post support for his argument without making a joke of it.

True.

I just remember the last argument where I pointed out his double standard and he just decided to put me on ignore...

 d-usa wrote:
I judge all <25 year olds by Bronies.

Sweet! I slid by that one by a few months, I'mma let my pastel equestrian flank fly!

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Almost every single rights group has extremist members who make it look bad though.

PETA for animal rights being a good example just off the top of my head.

I'm cool with "real" feminists who have a good head on their shoulders. Like most here I also can't stand "feminazis". The latter are where a lot of the stereotypes surrounding their movement come from and do far more to hurt their cause than help it. I just learned to ignore the crazies, like I have to do with any other movement.

I think part of the problem is that the term is simply too broad. Trying to distill it down to, "Anyone in favor of equality," doesn't really work, because there are far too many factions that are about so much more than that. I might be on Camille Paglia's team, but not on Gloria Steinem's.

I like the distinction between equity feminism and gender feminism.

It's pretty much like libertarian.

There are quite a number of different branches out there that can be quite different from one another.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
He's good at all those topics, so it should be easy!

I don't think that's fair to Seaward. He deserves to be allowed to post support for his argument without making a joke of it.

What do you want examples of? Hypocrisy? There's more than enough of that out there. Look up pretty much anything Robin Morgan ever wrote. I'm partial to the, "I feel that man-hating is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them," quote.

Double standards? That gets tricky. Not due to a lack of them, but more due to which specific faction of feminism you want to mine for them. I do admit partiality to the Barbie vs. He-Man picture, though. I also tend to think the maternity leave arguments are a ridiculous double standard, in addition to being a push for advantage. Parity or special treatment: you have to pick one, you can't have both. I know if I book it from my job for a couple months, it won't be there when I get back.

To sum up,

Feminism posits that women face disadvantages in civil society because they are women. People who call themselves feminists believe that women are disadvantaged to some extent because they are women.

The words "feminism" and "feminist" thus indicate that the corresponding issue is the disadvantages women face in contrast to men.

Words like "equalist" strike me as either (1) sincere but too vague to be meaningful or (2) an attempt to pretend that feminism is no longer relevant to contemporary society/that feminism should really be about men.

 d-usa wrote:
I judge all <25 year olds by Bronies.

Good thing I am not 25 or older huh?
Also, I admitted it was wrong already.

To sum up,

In which case I'm hurling you over the side. After all neanderthal males are an endangered species!

Im fine with feminists.

Only ones I dislike are -video game feminists- who try to shoehorn there agenda into every game regardless of the games intent regarding gender.

People who complain about pixels harming them mentally or "triggering" them need to get real about life.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I judge all <25 year olds by Bronies.

Good thing I am not 25 or older huh?
Also, I admitted it was wrong already.

He said, "I judge all less than 25 year olds by Bronies."

If I'm not mistaken you are under 25...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
Im fine with feminists.

Only ones I dislike are -video game feminists- who try to shoehorn there agenda into every game regardless of the games intent regarding gender.

People who complain about pixels harming them mentally or "triggering" them need to get real about life.

Good news! There is a thread on this topic in the video game forums one sub-forum up!

"I am fine with feminism except not really." -- Dakka

Are there actually any women on this thread?

BrookM is a chick, I think.

 Boggy Man wrote:
Are there actually any women on this thread?

I look like a chick from far away

 Manchu wrote:
"I am fine with feminism except not really." -- Dakka

America has the same issue with Obamacare

Do You support being able to get insurances despite a prexisting condition? Yeah!

Do you support being able to give insurance to you kids longer? Yeah!

Do you want to make it cheaper to go to the hospital by reducing "planned emergency room visits"? Yeah!

Do you support Obamacare? No!

so yeah welcome to the US of A

 Alexzandvar wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
"I am fine with feminism except not really." -- Dakka

America has the same issue with Obamacare

Do You support being able to get insurances despite a prexisting condition? Yeah!

Do you support being able to give insurance to you kids longer? Yeah!

Do you want to make it cheaper to go to the hospital by reducing "planned emergency room visits"? Yeah!

Do you support Obamacare? No!

so yeah welcome to the US of A

So... the PPACA is the only fething thing that can achieve those "Yeahs"?

 Alexzandvar wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
"I am fine with feminism except not really." -- Dakka

America has the same issue with Obamacare

Do You support being able to get insurances despite a prexisting condition? Yeah!

Do you support being able to give insurance to you kids longer? Yeah!

Do you want to make it cheaper to go to the hospital by reducing "planned emergency room visits"? Yeah!

Do you support Obamacare? No!

so yeah welcome to the US of A

Its a great step forward, but it is not perfect

 Alexzandvar wrote:
Im fine with feminists.

Only ones I dislike are -video game feminists- who try to shoehorn there agenda into every game regardless of the games intent regarding gender.

People who complain about pixels harming them mentally or "triggering" them need to get real about life.

So am I to take it that Anita Sarkeesian is off your Christmas card list?

 Asherian Command wrote:
Because why not have the equal treatment of both men and women? Instead of dividing a line between the two sexes.

There is a dividing line because of the sexual dimorphism between male and female humans.

The two groups are different no matter how much they want to be like each other.

You can not have pure work equality because there are jobs that a male can do that some females can not do (Mostly involving physical prowess such as heavy lifting etc...).

People can say everything is equal, and try to make everything equal, but because of the sexual dimorphism everything will never truly be equal unless the sexual dimorphism fades, which is not likely to happen.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Because why not have the equal treatment of both men and women? Instead of dividing a line between the two sexes.

There is a dividing line because of the sexual dimorphism between male and female humans.

The two groups are different no matter how much they want to be like each other.

You can not have pure work equality because there are jobs that a male can do that some females can not do (Mostly involving physical prowess such as heavy lifting etc...).

People can say everything is equal, and try to make everything equal, but because of the sexual dimorphism everything will never truly be equal unless the sexual dimorphism fades, which is not likely to happen.

Except the difference between individuals is far larger than the difference between sexes, making it a pretty silly thing to try to exclude people on. And, AFAIK, sexual dimorphism has been decreasing in our species for some time.

As Manchu notes, questions like this can come from a bad place (they're often used by the so-called Men's Rights Activists when they're feeling angry about how much better women have it than them). That said, it doesn't always. When I was in primary school I somehow got the idea that feminism was about women being better. I don't know how I got that idea - maybe it just followed from the name? My first "feminism" memory is from asking my mother about it because of that. I just say this to note that the question doesn't always come from something negative.

Of course, feminism is about equal rights between men and women and it's called that for a) historical reasons and b) because women still have it worse. But any feminist can tell you that The Patriarchy hurts men too.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Why wouldn't a Feminist who supports both sexes being completely equal call themselves a Humanist or an Equalist?

Because the vast majority of gender-based inequality, especially large-scale inequality imposed by society as a whole, goes against women, not against men. The title "feminism" is intended to make this clear, instead of pretending that inequality hurts everyone the same way.

That's of course both simple and correct, and will be completely ignored.

The reactionary forces of American culture have done a very great job of learning to point out every way a majority (usually privileged) group is "oppressed," all while loudly proclaiming that they love equality. As long as they don't have to do the slightest thing to achieve it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, feminism, at its broadest, is pretty simple: it's the belief that women are people, with a package of rights like any group of people.

Women are more different from men then really any other faction divide, aside from disabled/healthy. Obviously women have issues that seem like advantages, but those are often due to the risks and downsides inherent in being a woman.