Feminism

[Papa Lazarou]

No that was just me not bothering to read the thread and jumping on Merlkir's slightly misleading sentence.

 

[Argeus the Paladin]

And people die when they are killed. Hooray.

 

[Sir Saladin]

But what would happen when we need to produce offspring?

Nobody ever needs to do that.

 

[killer-blead]

That's why we have science! We need to hurry up with the cloning.

 

[Weaver]

Oh yes, there's hidden (sic!) misogyny everywhere.

You really ARE one sad, sorry individual.

And keep it up guys. You're all doing a very wonderful job of proving exactly why feminism isn't a dead horse even in the West.

I think there is some misunderstanding here.
Feminism, afaik, is a movement for equal social, political and economic rights for both genders.
But you personally, for some reason, think that there are common humans (men) and special humans (women) who need special treatment. And you proved it many times in the rape-thread, claiming that courts should be heavily tilted in woman's favor, for example.
This has nothing to do with equality.
So I'd say you are not a feminist, but rather a female supremacist. Which I can respect if you at least keep civil attitude.
Those uncalled for ad hominem jabs do not become a grown-up and apparently well educated woman like you. You can do better than that.

 

[Merlkir]

Oh yes, there's hidden (sic!) misogyny everywhere.

You really ARE one sad, sorry individual.

Well, yes. I am. I do not however think most people in the world are barely hiding their eternal hate for me and my "kind". That must feel pretty awful.

 

[Pharaoh Llandy]

That's what we call "being a teenager". But eventually, everybody has to grow up. Even Peter. He grew up and became Robin Williams. And look how that turned out. Well, pretty good, actually. But I stand by my initial point, whatever it was.

Have you seen his stand-up? Only one in five of his jokes are funny and the others will make you cringe. And that's when he's not coked up. Therefore, by the transitive property of Neverland, feminism is defunct.

...I  was talking about the end of the movie, not Robin Williams' career. I don't follow that.

 

[Bluehawk]

But you agree that his failure as a standup defeats feminism as a social movement?

I was being completely facetious.

 

[Sir Saladin]

If it hadn't been for Mork & Mindy feminism would have fizzled out by 1990.

 

[Oberyn]

This has nothing to do with equality.
So I'd say you are not a feminist, but rather a female supremacist.

"Supremacist" is harsh and ladden with overtones. Might as well have called her a "feminazi". There is a division within feminism on the matter, the two sides are usually described as "equity feminists" and "gender feminists". I agree with you that Jhessail definetely falls on the "gender feminist" side on certain issues. I doubt that gender feminists even agree that there is a division at all though.

 

[romandude]

I have a pretty standard view on the subject of Feminism. Women deserve equal rights. As I always say, there ain't no difference besides whats between yer legs.

 

[Sir Saladin]

I have a pretty standard view on the subject of Feminism. Women deserve equal rights. As I always say, there ain't no difference besides whats between yer legs.

That would be like a nightmare if it were true. Gender neutral names would become very confusing in a world where the only way to tell male from female would be by examining the crotch.

 

[romandude]

I have a pretty standard view on the subject of Feminism. Women deserve equal rights. As I always say, there ain't no difference besides whats between yer legs.

That would be like a nightmare if it were true. Gender neutral names would become very confusing in a world where the only way to tell male from female would be by examining the crotch.

LET THE CROTCH EXAMINATIONS BEGIN

 

[Seff]

This is the true use of boobs.

 

[rebelsquirrell]

This has nothing to do with equality.
So I'd say you are not a feminist, but rather a female supremacist.

"Supremacist" is harsh and ladden with overtones. Might as well have called her a "feminazi". There is a division within feminism on the matter, the two sides are usually described as "equity feminists" and "gender feminists". I agree with you that Jhessail definetely falls on the "gender feminist" side on certain issues. I doubt that gender feminists even agree that there is a division at all though.

Swap labels all you like but the problem stems from the means used to seek equality.

Jhess has demonstrated that she is more than willing to use not only positive discrimination (like affirmative action) but also negative discrimination against men.

Jhess is the reason why people who might otherwise be sympathetic are distrustful of feminism. 

She is fully aware of this and tries to doctor up what she advocates with intellectual dishonesty.

Rebel is referencing my one rant from the Rape-thread, where I advocated that, if a court is presented with physical evidence of sex having taken place, they should rely more on the woman's testimony if it was otherwise a "he said, she said"-case. Position which many of our wonderful boys here then immediately twisted into meaning that I advocate that all men who've had sex with a woman to be sent into jail


The underlined portion implying deceitfully that that there would need need to be more evidence than that to satisfy her burden of proof.

Here we see two examples of that she claims that proof of sex and accusation is all that is required, period.

Physical evidence of sex and the victim claims not having consented would be enough evidence, in my mind, of conviction.

That only if the evidence is muddled and the whole case degenerates into "he said - she said", then courts should judge in favor of the victim, instead of dismissing the case as is now standard.



Note that proof of sex does not necessitate rape.

If the man says we had sex but it was consensual then how does proof of sex equal not consensual, "well she said it was rape."

Well I say jhess killed Billy so it must be true.

Here we a have were she attempts to convince us that we should be OK with sacrificing our right to fair trial.

So many guys in this thread value the integrity of "innocent until proven guilty", a nice ideal that our justice system already tramples all-so commonly, so high that they are okay with the above sentiment.

That idea that "oh we don't know what happened, better that hundreds, if not thousands, of women get raped in shady situations, rather than even a single man get punished unjustly". Newsflash: prisons are full of innocents already.


Here we have the justification for her sexism

When the issues kurzack mentioned are history, when men no longer invent these circumstantial apologies for rapist, we can realize true equality.

Finally we have the most infuriating statement of all.

Of course. I'm just pissed off with this nonchalant attitude several male posters show in this thread, when their male privilege is under (illusionary) attack. The link that Paula provided stated that 94-87% of men never rape or commit sexual assault. Thus if I find it mind-boggling that so many are willing to play rape-apologists, when they would never be in a situation where someone would accuse them of rape.


Apparently male privileged is defined as the right to a fair trial. Which see clearly attacks, all she requires is a accusation and proof of sex for a guilty conviction. Despite the only evidence that in and of itself points to rape is the word of the woman. 

Apparently we are rape apologists for wanting the same rights as women.


The feminist movement sadly has  many Jhessites.


The non-sexist feminists are not or at least don't seem to be very vocal about outlining a detailed plan to achieve true equality.


I would appreciate if one of you fine egalitarian feminists would outline such a theory that would stand as a antithesis to  jhess' "Its ok to be sexist cuz we don't have true equality" doctrine.


In short I ask the question to the lovely egalitarian ladies of TW

How does one go about making the changes in society necessary to achieve equality happen.

 

[Úlfheðinn]

FEMINISM!

I am drunk but please continue this discussion.

Kampradturk demands it.

 

[Mage246]

Almost 9 pages too late, actually.

 

[Tibertus]

www.avoiceformen.com

 

[Oberyn]

I kind of see AVFM as the Fox News of gender discussions in a sense (a lot less influential obviously). They see mainstream culture as being infected by feminist (liberal in the analogy) discourse, so they overcompensate and say they provide "balance" by focusing entirely on the opposite point of view. A sizeable portion of their supporters I consider as the flip side of radical feminists. Don't get me wrong though, there's a lot of people who I personally would consider to be humanist egalitarians that actively identify with either the MRA or feminist label. Of course they both claim to carry the banner of true humanist egalitarianism, but the problem seems to be that the two terms are vague and sizeable enough to encorporate anything from moderates to extremists (not unlike conservative and liberal). The MRA movement seems to lack the fragmentation and inner debates that feminism does only by virtue of being a newcommer and it's relative lack of importance (and number of adherents).

 

[Duke Daniel Milutin]

I have a pretty standard view on the subject of Feminism. Women deserve equal rights. As I always say, there ain't no difference besides whats between yer legs.

I hate when people say that, it makes me think we aren't that far from the state when most western woman are actually not more than physically different from men anymore.

Really, if there is a difference between what the genders have between there legs, maybe that also have a deep intention into it?