lets collectively lol @ these "I need feminism because..." pics

[baconmaster]

1. What does that have to do with feminism?
2. I guess I need some backstory to see what this has to do with anything.
3. Good point, poor wording
4. fuck that term.
5. The second quote on there is a pretty terrible thing to say, actually. This one is alright
6. Well if you're still healthy, good for you. I feel like this is suggesting that it's wrong for people to find certain body types attractive, though. That's kind of silly. It IS wrong for them to think less of you based on physical attraction
7. Valid, sure. I've never heard anybody suggest otherwise. Probably not the most useful... but that's irrelevant
8. Not to say that it doesn't happen, but I can't imagine a decent artist agreeing with what this is implying. I could easily be wrong, though. I'm hardly an expert on art

 

[Cry Wolf]

SNIP

I'm still going to give my thoughts on the pictures presented (because yes, they are really dumb) but you should have given a little more care in your presentation of this to avoid the hilariously uniformed shitstorm that is occuring. The Escapist tends to be a place of reactionary people who tend not to read the finer details.

Anyway, OT-ish:

Oh boy, here we go. It?s probably worth stating before I start that I?m a supporter equality movements, including feminism, when they?re cause be arbitrary variables. People like this, however, who are either repurposing a movement to correct some perceived moral injustice or are completely oblivious to the actual purpose of their cause are the largest obstacle to solving serious issues (like equal pay for women, gay marriage, etc.).

1. - Seriously? You need equally rights for women because you feel unmanly performing a particular sex act? I am so tempted to just break out a certain image of Jackie Chan here. So tempted. For future reference, here is the definition of feminism;

fem?i?nism
The advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men

2. - No, you don?t. Having a university named after a man is not an automatic example of gender inequality. What would be a problem is a university not being named after a woman of equal or greater merit due to the fact that she is a woman and I?d be right there fighting such an injustice. It?s worth noting that we shouldn?t be trying to show how we need change by bringing up potential past injustices ? which his university?s naming may have had. It?s current injustices that make feminism a necessary endeavour.

3. - The ?problem? here about self-esteem rather than gender-equality. Feeling unattractive due to a lack of attention that is perceived to be common is a universal issue.

4. - ...fuck it. It?s time. I can?t help myself.

Spoiler: There?s honestly nothing more to say here.

5. - This isn?t a gender equality ideal so much as it?s an issue of beauty without direct parallel in current trends. This doesn?t make it an issue, as men ?suffer? similar objectification. Given that men and women are distinctly aesthetically different, having different ideal bodies for them is to be expected (side note, I?m pretty sure if I ?decided? to grow my armpit hair out as a man that?s about as positive as the reactions would be for me).

What is actually a problem? The current ideal body image for women in a lot of western culture is unhealthy. It's part of why in western culture feminism is still relavent.

6. - Not a gender equality issue. Men who love their body being one which is unhealthy are also looked down on. I should know, being one of them.

7. - You need feminism to validate you degree? This is the problem with spending your time studying something with no practical application in the workforce rather than, once again, a gender equality issue. Welcome to the same boat liberal arts majors are in

8. - Not a gender equality issue, as it?s done to both sexes. Apart from what I?ve already written on beauty standards, what you?re really saying is you either want men objectified but not women ? that?s is so far off feminism it?s not funny ? or you believe nobody should be objectified. Hey guess what? It?s still not about gender equality.

 

[Happiness Assassin]

Some of these really are stupid (I don't really understand #2), but most of these do make some good points. What is the point of this thread beyond going "LOL feminism"? No what stops us from having a proper dialogue on gender issues is a total lack of respect that both sides feel toward the other, kind of like what you are doing now OP.

 

[DevilWithaHalo]

I mean it doesnt make sense because youve assigned at entire group of people an action (Thought control) then in the same sentence damned them for it without any sort of input from the person you are talking to. Thats not fair. This is why i dispise labels. When i say "Im a feminist" or an "Elgatarian" people pigeon hole all sorts of random bullshit for me that i have no interest in associating with. Id rather explain what i personally think. It might be what 99.9999% of feminists want, but as long as i dont it isnt fair to assign it to me.

Accepted; I made the comment that feminism is near meaningless and I used to ascribe an action as a singular entity. That?s my bad.

Cant argue with that, if your point is that certain people want crazy laws to LEGISLATE being nice ill agree.

Cool beans, I?ll try to snip the relating commentary based on this. A lot of people aren?t, but some people are. The problem is they both do it using the same terminology; bit of a problem really.

Certain people dont matter to me. It isnt a majority. And even if it is it isnt really relevant in this discussion since i dont think anyone in this thread has suggested such a notion. It seemed weird to bring it up. Keep your past experiences away from me in regards to what people want, im in the present and i want something different.

The problem is they don?t need to be a majority; they just need to have enough influence towards the right people to make their desired change. And when people like you, who might not know about it, or attempt to defend it because it happens to share certain aspects of your personal philosophies, terrible things happen in the name of good. There are things happening today that people are fighting against that people don?t understand because the discussion is cloaked in a sea of rhetoric, ad hominems and emotional reaction.

Im fine for allowing other perspectives. I just seek to use the same methods. I ENCOURAGE people to not be creationists. I ENCOURAGE people not to hate eachother. I would NEVER use legislation to do this. Ever. But if youre going to tell me im a bad person for challenging people not to hate eachother so much im not really sure what to say.

You?re not a bad person for encouraging others. The difference, and the problem, is that some people seek to punish those that think differently; which is the very notion they oppose currently. Encouraging people to be decent to each other isn?t a feminist idea anymore than it?s a Christian idea; they do not own that ideology.

True. This is why i hate labels. Id rather just explain my own view and let YOU label it with whatever is appropriate to you. Ill give everyone said opportunity to frame my views in comparison to their world view rather than me presenting one that can mean wildly different things to different people.

Well? an interesting thought. I suppose that?s the problem; it means too many things for it to be anything meaningful.

There is a logical reason to feel sad about it if said person is abused and mocked for doing something totally harmless. Its irrational at best and pretty dickish at worst to verbally abuse another person about it. Again, NEVER legislate this, but talking it through and realizing that its pretty petty to do this is a nice thing in society. I dont know. Id rather people disliked people for real reasons beside who has what armpit hair. If i get the opportunity to try and convince people of that i will.

The difference is that you?re attempting to reason with the unreasonable. It?s quite the common occurrence in gun control; they attempt to regulate guns/ammo/clips/etc to prevent psychopaths from going insane. That?s the problem; you can?t regulate and account for psychopaths anymore than you can stop assholes from being assholes. That?s why we educate normal people on how to defend themselves, because we can?t stop all the violent people from being violent.

It does. And i DO live in this particular society. Questioning societial norms is how people make progress in being happier with eachother and themselves. I think those things are weird. I see what you are getting at by saying that no one can possibly have a totally objective standpoint on cultural values but i cant see the harm in trying to remove ones that generate vitriol and unkindness JUST via discussion.

True, but I think that?s a separate issue; people tired of eating the same meal, not really the fact they?re eating. Weird analogy I know.

Arguments ONLY from tradition are very weak. Because we did it before can be used to justify literally ANYTHING including hammering nails through your eye. If values can be shown to make EVERYONE happier and make the country an objectively better place by preventing undeniably HARMFUL behaviour then go for it since its no longer an argument from tradition.

I suppose the problem then is demonstrating it?s inherently harmful. Aggression for example is a behavior deemed harmful; would you agree?

I dont subscribe to it myself and have always viewed it with distaste. Im a big boy now, i can handle a little disappointment if things turn out worse than i expect.

Indeed, but there is wisdom in it. The medical field is an example; paramedics must be prepared for the worst, as do police, firemen, etc.

No policy should be made to do with offence or hate. However Twilight isnt a person. Hating a person, like properly DISPISING a person is what LEADS to the knife going through you. Its a two pronged attack. Will to do something to someone you hate and means via the knife. If the removal of hatred between men and women in society is a bad thing you can be the first to tell me. Id rather talk away as much hatred as possible between PEOPLE. Not objects. Hating a rock doesnt offend the rock. Its not legally wrong to hate. Nor in some cases morally. But i cant imagine it being a GOOD thing in many circumstances. Id rather have less hate than more is all im saying and i think discussion and removal of irrational prejudices and roles is a way to move past it.

Again, it?s not the hatred that matters, but people acting on that hatred. There are some few people that I absolutely despise and think the world would be better off without them. I?m fairly positive several people have thought the same about me. But thoughts, like hatred, don?t affect me. It?s only when they cross the line into acting against me on their hatred does it harm me. To quote Steven Hughes; ?When did stick and stones stop being relevant??

True, id say "Standards" should have some basis in objective harm to society and other people. If they dont scrap them. Im aware that shifting the goalposts is NOT what i want in the long term. But hey baby steps right?

Baby steps towards what? Everyone has their own views on the betterment of society; I?m simply not convinced that the way we are currently headed is the right one.

Labels make everything so messy. This is why for the most part, i dont. I call it "What Chris thinks".

So you?re a chris?tian? Sorry, couldn?t resist.

Yeah. If tradition is AMONG the arguments used then sure why not. After all its "Tradition" (In the sense that we always have done it this way) to NOT stab nails into our hands on our 18th birthdays. An argument COULD be used against it like "We have never done it this way before" which is an argument from tradition. However there are MANY other arguments against such a practice being encouraged and taught as normal. Its possible for a value to be "Traditional" by coincidence while still rooted in rationality. I dont want to be murdered so murder is illegal and "Traditionally" has been for a long time.

Glad you see that.

I dont want to make social policy so im not sure how this is relevant. I would rather use discussion like i said.

I?ll try to avoid the lengthy rant but; there?s a current theory that suggests people who are provided all the options will tend to gravitate toward what comes naturally, which is often seems as a perpetuation of a gender based stereotype. So while historically men and women had different gender roles as a matter of survival, they exist now as a matter of preference. This can be seen evident in the choices that people continue to make in our society; such as gender dominated fields of study, whereas many people continue to blame the society for either not doing enough to encourage a-typical gender behavior or blame society for promoting typical gender behavior.

Hitting your wife and kids, while not socially ENCOURAGED, was certainly NOT the horrific crime it is today about 150 years ago in Britain. Not so. It was a silly extreme example that i regret to be frank. It was to demonstrate my point. That progress doesnt require mind control or legislation. Perhaps just discarding outdated AND irrational values.

And we had Gladiators in the Coliseum. Keep in mind this was the same Rome that openly and socially accepted homosexual behavior and prepubescent relationships. Progress, while a commendable goal, doesn?t always go the right way.

EDIT: HOLY FREAKING SHIT IM AN IDIOT. I saw the first picture then scrolled down quickly and assumed that it was the same picture set i saw earlier today, with WAY more sensible views on it. No i dont agree with some of these. Especially the last one. Or the second one. The first one seems valid. So does the armpit hair one kinda. Tbh that was my fault. I was lazy and assumed id seen these before. There are a lot more much better pictures in this set.

Amazing what you can discover when you dig a little deeper eh?

Then do tell if it's not just "They hurt my feelings" or "They make me feel like a bad person"

Done. It?s a matter of justifying policy based on sensibilities; not ?they hurt my precious feelings?.

I see no censoring.

What implication do you gather then? Would you like to see evidence of censorship? I would be happy to provide them.

Social pressure, btw, is not censoring.

I agree. I simply see no need to exchange one type for another.

It's free speech.

Then we should not infringe on it.

You have no real grounds to claim censorship unless the government is getting in on it.

What if I told you they were? What if I could provide evidence of certain groups that are lobbying for these kinds of protections?

Furthermore, in no way is 'emotional manipulation' censorship.

Accept of course if their justification for such censorship is the emotional well being of others correct?

Until I see police coming up and arresting your complaints about control are merely the same as complaints about condemnation.

They?re not actually. I can point you toward the R&P section where certain members support the WBC being listed as a hate group. When things get listed as a hate group, the government steps in to insure they are shut down and anyone affiliated gets prosecuted for hate crimes. I can then also point you toward certain organizations that are trying to get various other organizations listed as hate groups in order to get government support in shutting them down. I?m not waiting for that to happen, I?m speaking out now. Because people *are* trying to do it, and there is evidence for it.

In other words, you're just going to make shit up? I see no greater understanding from you, merely complaints about something you claim you would protect.

You don?t see it, therefore it?s not happening? Isn?t that a anti-ism argument? I?m curious, what would it take to convince you?

No what stops us from having a proper dialogue on gender issues is a total lack of respect that both sides feel toward the other, kind of like what you are doing now OP.

I?m getting tired of seeing this (and I?m sorry for using you as an example); because this kind of shit has only been posted about 50 times on this topic. Take a look through this thread, several people are having a discussion, sharing ideas and questioning how an ideology addresses these issues. Several *other* people are coming in here saying we can?t be friends and this thread is going nowhere and this is just another stupid discussion. Who the bloody fuck do you think is actually contributing to the very problem people are bitching about?

 

[manic_depressive13]

Well this looks good. A community notorious for its racism and sexism deliberately posting examples of silly people affiliated with feminism (that it pulled from 4chan of all places) in an attempt to discredit the whole movement. How mature.

 

[TheMann]

Alright yes, these are from 4chan, but I've just linked the images, not the thread. The thread is full of the usual idiots, but yeah look at the pics.

Spoiler

Holy shit, I'm going to have fun [sub]and be incredibly mean[/sub] with this one. Shall we begin? Commencing ridicule in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1...

1. Augh, TMI! Not broadcasting that shit to the world would be more manly, or to be accurate just more considerate. Pass the brain-bleach please, preferably industrial strength.

2. Does this really matter to you, or are you perhaps doing this in the hopes of looking sensitive to get laid? Seriously, you're grasping at straws here. Also, I totally think the NHL should have more female hockey players[footnote]Look at the background.[/footnote] ... dipshit.

3. So what I'm picking up here, is that she needs to be ogled in order to feel pretty. I don't suppose it ever occurred to this broad that perhaps most men, hell most people, are simply polite to complete strangers. Or maybe guys just aren't that attracted to women who can't spell. Well, I hope she has fun crying into a pint of Haagen Daz while watching the Lifetime channel.

4. Wow. Ummmm, well come to think of it, this guy does look a bit rape-y. He claims he doesn't know, but in order to make that sign, he must be aware of it on some level. I see a problem here. [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paradox] Maybe he suffers mild retrograde amnesia or blacks out during his rape-capades. Either way, a psychologist or neurologist could build his or her entire career around this case.

5. A. I most certainly can tell. B. You're not getting in my bed to begin with due to the fact that you throw out an extremely annoying vibe, and C. There should be no "positive reaction" to some chick who gets shaggy in the pits just to make some self-righteous statement that frankly nobody gives a shit about.

6. Okay, I think I know what's going on here so I'll be easy on this one. This girl really isn't fat. Rubenesque perhaps, but definitely not fat. I'm going to take a guess based on experience and say that she may have some insecurities due to having some really bitchy friends who consider themselves "hot". I'm not writing this just to be a bastard for comedic effect like in the rest of this list, I've actually seen this a lot. Men definitely have some conventions on what they think is attractive, but I've seen women be really competitive with each other over looks. Hell, I'd rather date this girl than the dour looking Sasquatch in #5. She's probably way cuter than she thinks she is.

7. Yeah, you're right. Unless of course, those other people got degrees in the sciences, engineering, teaching, business, economics, law, nursing, pre-med... Well, enjoy that piece of paper on your wall while you work the deep-frier at Burger King to pay off those crippling student loans.

8. I, uh, don't know what to say about this one. I'm no art student but I'm pretty sure that male nudes are also painted. I could point out that I believe these are done to teach about classical art and are meant to be tasteful, not exploitative. But it wouldn't matter anyway. I'm guessing this person doesn't paint or draw, and probably only picked this because she had to come up with something for her lame poster. Hey, or maybe she got kicked out of art school. I think there was some historical figure who got kicked out of art school, but who was it? Who indeed?

Well that's it,

Spoiler: but I just can't resist showing this.

Yeah, I'm a bad person.[footnote]Who is writing this for humor so please don't kill me.[/footnote]

 

[BreakfastMan]

Cause clearly if you guys never encountered it, it's not there.

Never really said it wasn't. Just that it was disingenuous to criticize an entire movement over one specific thing when the entire movement does not believe that specific thing. :\

Part of being apart of the movement is criticizing the whole.

But how can you criticize the whole when the criticism doesn't apply to the whole, or even the majority?

 

[BreakfastMan]

But those second wavers were real thats why its a negative connotation.

Yes they are, but saying that the movement should change it's name because of them is silly. It would be like insisting gamers should change our name because of the stupidity of the Portal 2 metabombing. What needs to be done is fight attempts to make feminism a negative term, not give up and let it be used as an insult to bludgeon people with. Education, not surrender. :\

 

[Dfskelleton]

Just to waltz around all the arguments, I'd like to mention that the guy in picture #4 has the most absurdly smug face. I can't even ponder what's written on his little board; his face is just... it's just too smug!

 

[Deathninja19]

#6- This is a tiny bit more difficult, because of the whole "healthy" thing, but even so she still has a very good point. See the above point number five about women's bodies being more controlled than men's. Women are expected to look a certain way for men, and when they don't, they are considered worthless. No. Really. That's why you can get pudgy male politicians and lawyers who are very successful, but you'll never see a pudgy woman successful in law or politics to the same degree. Ever. Look at the successful politicians and lawyers today. Look at the men and women. Look at how most of the men have fat, and most of the women look like they fight it constantly. THAT'S WRONG.

#8- Yep!! They totally are!! See... Here is the thing. Male bodies aren't objectified when artistically nude because we live in a society that does not objectify men. Female bodies are still objectified, even when it is clearly art, simply because of the society we live in. It's impossible not to objectify them more than the men. Because women are objectified. They are treated as objects and commodities by society. AND THAT NEEDS TO CHANGE. AND THE ONLY WAY IT WILL CHANGE IS IF PEOPLE ARE FEMINISTS. I would like to see the day when male and female bodies can be in the nude without any objectification going on at all.

And there you go. That is why.

I'm sorry but as a card carrying feminist myself (stared on Germaine Greer and worked my way through a lot of feminist theory) you need to realize that you are blinding yourself to the other reasons rather than 'Patriarchy bad'. As said above a lot of body issue problems come from female dominated areas ie fashion and gossip mags, for example celebrities are constantly mocked for having cellulite and photos end up far more airbrushed in fashion mags than those in masturbation fodder magazines. The female parts of media needs to start taking some measure of responsibility for what they are doing to their readers self-esteem because, and I'll let you in to the greatest secret we men keep, we men don't have a set definition of beauty and honestly sexual attraction for us is never dependent on the complete package, we'll to have our favorite body parts and even then it can be the fatter or skinnier the better, we men can be picky but never the way women assume. Besides a lot of women I know want to look a certain way not for male attention but because it boosts self esteem and makes them feel better about themselves just as men do.

Also artistic nudes are usually done by enthusiastic female models who enjoy their bodies and how they look on film, they are art even if some people don't view them that way and never objectify women as the minute it becomes purely for sexual reasons it stops being an 'artistic nude' and becomes a simple nude. Sorry to be blunt but this seems like a self esteem issue as and I'm sorry again but looking at her picture I assume it's a little bit of envy and that's OK, I admit I am envious of people who embody the media's portrayal of the masculine ideal of being tall dark and handsome. Artistic nude pictures are actually a beautiful and liberating thing which we should encourage and not shunned because some models fit too closely to a certain type of beauty otherwise it could lead down a dark path of oppression and regression.

The ultimate problem however as I have posted before is that no one, not even feminists, can unanimously agree what constitutes sexism and what doesn't all we can do really is stop being so rigid in our opinions and realize that there may be other factors at play than simple male on female sexism.

 

[Giftfromme]

snip

You know what I like to laugh at?

People who have never actually read or learned about feminism trying to laugh at people who have. It's like watching a dog try to walk on its hind legs.

#1 uhhh feminism lets you achieve that how??

I'll give you one clue, see if you can work it out.

Feminism.
Feminization.

They have the same prefix. Why?

#2 ummm you're not getting harassed and that makes you feel unattractive? Very few people actually think this way and subscribing to feminism won't change that opinion of yourself.

Would it have been easier if she had written it in pink?

Anyone who didn't get that one should be fucking embarrassed.

#3 well that shit makes no sense at all. Because I don't subscribe to feminism, I'm for rape? lol what

Read the sign one more time. There's a very big clue in the way it is phrased.

#4 lol...again that's a personal confidence thing

No it's not.

Did you actually read the card?

#5 a self confidence thing, nothing that an outside power will change for you. You need to do it yourself

Again, go back and read the card and tell me in what way anything you've said is relevant.

#6 Cool story!

You know what's funny? People who justify their own ignorance by claiming that the knowledge in question isn't important.

A cursory knowledge of gender studies would at least help you understand these cards before you embarrassed yourself on a public forum.

#7 lol that don't make sense, but ok!

Really, this is too difficult for you? It's a pretty simple point.. if there's any criticism which can be made of it it's that it's actually too simple.

For number 1, that is actually up to him how he feels. He chooses how to feel about this activity. No where is it written that I have to accept his choices, applaud him etc. I can choose to feel how I wish to about his choice. And how I choose to feel about it does not affect him at all. 99% of people could disagree with him for whatever reason, and yet he can still choose to feel about it as he wishes to. Before you try to "burn" me, or "flame" me, think about it more. My thoughts on the matter have no bearing on his own thoughts whatsoever. Subscribing to the tenants of feminism won't change his opinion of himself, but if it does, that's not a good sign. You need to look within for your thoughts and feelings, not always rely on what others think.

For number 3, I don't understand what you're saying there. She is saying that people think if you're not getting harassed on the street, then you can't feel attractive. That does not make sense. Very few people actually think this way. She can feel as attractive as she wants to, outside of others' opinions (or lack) of her. Why should I be embarrassed by not "getting" this one? There's nothing to get. If everyone in society thought that the only way woman could feel sexy, attractive etc was by having men harass them on the street, then we might have a problem. I can assure you very, very few people think that way. Letting that tiny minority of people change the way you feel about yourself is just bad. Like very bad. Subscribing to the tenants of feminism won't change how you feel about yourself because it's a tiny minority of people that think that harassing women on the street makes them feel better about themselves. An extremely small minority. Such people will always be around. Letting the thought that such people exist somewhere affect how you feel about yourself is bad and is something you as a person need to work on. An outside power cannot do this for you.

Number 4. I read it once more. It's phrased in such a way that indicates that I could somehow support or be a part of "rape culture" (whatever that is), without knowing it. Could I be contributing to the death of stars without knowing it? Could chaos theory be real and me clapping my hands cause a hurricane somewhere else without me knowing it? How on Earth could I inadvertently be supporting rape culture? Am I enabling it? Am I stopping others from having discussion on it? Am I harassing people? Am I giving money somewhere? And what the hell is rape culture? You are very high and mighty in your post, just assuming we both share the same definition. What does it mean? The western world accepts rape? It encourages it? Let's rapists go free?

Number 5. Let's say someone tells her that no one will notice her armpit hair, implying it's a bad thing. What then? She could shave it to appease people, or decide she won't let others opinions of her change the way she feels about her armpit hair. Than what's the problem? A person can choose many things to nitpick on someone else, whether or whether not the tenants of feminism exists. Let's say feminism completely succeeds. People will still choose things to nitpick on, and that will include armpit hair on a chick. Simple as that. Or else they will choose another body part.
A guy tolerates her armpit hair by not kicking her out of bed. What then? How do you know he really didn't notice? Maybe he didn't care? Does she need to ask every guy whether he noticed after they had sex? If she feels the need to do that, that's an internal factor, nothing something an outside force should fix. This is something she needs to work on herself. Either that or get better friends. Or not talk to the people who think that way.

Number 6. Yes that is an internal confidence thing. Where do I come into this? I need to give her permission so she can feel better about herself? She needs my permission to do this? Do you know how silly that sounds? She can feel how she wishes about her body, and if she needs others' permission to do so, that's a separate issue. Feminism won't fix that. Does that mean now everyone has to tell her she is beautiful? Let's say it's a radical concept that she loves her fat body. And what of it? Why does it matter to her where the concept lies? If she feels that way about herself amongst an entire group of people, she is all the stronger for it. People won't change their views anytime soon (where skinny is attractive etc) nor should they. She sounds like she is already a strong person if she feels that way about herself, no matter what others think of her.

Number 7. The degree is as valid as the sum total of everyone else's opinion of it. Feminism will change everyone's opinion all of a sudden? If she felt the degree was worthless, then why do it? If she thought it was useful, than what's the problem? I am doing a Masters of Writing, and that will not lead to many job opportunities. I am doing because I think it's a fun thing to do, not because what others think of it. There are far more practical degrees to do, but I chose mine. Do I suddenly wish people would accept my degree as something more and just shove jobs my way? Nope, because that's not the way it is.

Number 8. If the females who volunteered (unless they're being forced for some reason) feel this way, then they shouldn't pose for those art schools. Simple. And women's bodies won't be objectified in the art school anymore. Firstly you need to tell the woman who pose to stop this. Unless you think they shouldn't have a choice in the matter.

So again, saying shit like "Really, this is too difficult for you?" to make yourself look better or put yourself on a higher moral ground, simply doesn't work. You need to address my points and only once you do that can you be so smug. I dare you to refute my points.

 

[BoneDaddy_SK]

But those second wavers were real thats why its a negative connotation.

Yes they are, but saying that the movement should change it's name because of them is silly. It would be like insisting gamers should change our name because of the stupidity of the Portal 2 metabombing.

To be fair, after the whole Anita Sarkeesian debacle, I briefly wondered if identifying myself as a convicted sex offender would be better than identifying as a gamer.

Joking aside, thank you for saying this. It baffles me that the least educated among us think that everyone else should be the ones to have to change to accommodate them.

 

[runic knight]

Feminism... lovely.

Most of the OP pics relate to gender role stereotypes. I can see how that can tentatively relate to feminism, as from all I have understood of it, feminism relates to equalizing female roles and rights to that of men and therefore would go back to gender roles but...not quite. I think for it to do so well, either feminism needs to be so broad that it would encompass more then both it's name and its defenders imply (that being, it started with a push for female rights and grew into a push for female equality in other areas besides legal. Ideas relating to the uselessness of a degree on gender studies, the social opinion on various male roles and how negative one must look at a crime based on the gender of the one it is committed to requires a broader tent there).

Myself, I think a new term is needed, not because of the manhating nuts out there but because the term is limited by the goals it had in the past and if the new definition is much broader, if it encompasses all social roles and gender based equality, if it encompasses stereotypes and social pressures around sexuality and gender, then it seems a little silly to say "feminism", something tied in social consciousness to women's suffrage and equal rights through supporting (probably wrong word, but like, through increasing the standing of) women only. This is a new problem, a larger one, why not present a new, larger solution? Or is this a branding thing where people want the name recognition and the victim card of feminism? Jerkish to tack on, perhaps, but honestly, I have seen it played a hell of a late when it comes to discussions on feminism.


this doesn't even get into the ideas of sex negative feminism, and the pletora of other branches of it that are less then acceptable.

 

[DevilWithaHalo]

For those thinking these are cherry picked or isolated incidents of "who needs feminism" crazies, allow me to share the last 10 pictures I was able to read off the primary site that hosts these... (the ones I could actually read anyway)

I need Feminism because...
1. ..."Society" says that I can't sport short hair and play videogams because I have a vagina.

2. ...I should have never felt like it was my "job" to keep a man sexually satisfied.

3. ...I am sick and tired of hearing guys blame their gender for them acting like perverts and not being able to control their sexual urges.

Women can have just the same amount of sexual urges as men, just as men also can be completely asexual. The only reason that we do not act like perverts is that we are taught from a young age that sexual urges are a ?man?s thing?.

4. ...I shouldn?t be put down for having more male friends than female friends. According to society, I look like a ?slut.?

5. ...I want the freedom that men have.

6. ...some people still think that it is ?not that bad? or ?just a joke? to grab or smack our butts, on the streets, in clubs, etc?!
AND I need feminism because? we should never ever be told my other men or even women, that we are uptight or overly sensitive, just because we respect ourselves and know that our body is ours only!

7. ...I didn?t know I was being sexually harassed until one of my awesome feminist friends pointed it out to me. I assumed his behavior was normal because that?s what my teachers, my parents, and the media taught me.

8. ...having ?tiny tits? does NOT make me a lesser person, nor does it make me any less of a woman.

9. ...I?m sick of people saying ?You?re too pretty to be so smart!?(And because I know some trolls will say ?She isn?t pretty!?)

10. ...people are still being fooled by the ?the doctor is a woman? riddle. (Q: A man and his son are in a car accident. The man dies at the scene. The boy is taken directly to the hospital and into surgery. The surgeon looks down at him and says, ?I can?t operate on this boy, he?s my son.? How is this possible? A: The surgeon is a woman.)

You can also look at additional tripe on their facebook for you facebooks users... http://www.facebook.com/WhoNeedsFeminism#!/WhoNeedsFeminism/photos_stream

And for those who'd like to just make your own and poke fun at them; you can provide submissions here; http://www.whoneedsfeminism.org/

Obviously there seems to be some dissent of opinion regarding feminism.

 

[lacktheknack]

There's some snark that could be had about the OP's images, but OP utterly failed to recognize any of it.

(For instance, "My gender studies degree is as good as anyone else's" --> "You're right, it's just as useless as all the others!")

And the other pics in the thread explain why laughing at these is probably a counter-productive idea anyways.

What's OP's point? Is he saying that feminism is dumb?

Uh.

Well.

That's an awkward viewpoint to have.

EDIT: I will admit the second one is dumb. I mean, my local university is named after a princess, does that technically invalidate his argument?

 

[burningdragoon]

My feelings of the actual photos themselves (ranging from "that's dumb" to "mmm ok"), I feel like the phrasing of "I need feminism because..." is at best too weak and too passive. Wouldn't "I am feminist because..." be better. Hell "Fuck off, I " would be better.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

Cause clearly if you guys never encountered it, it's not there.

Never really said it wasn't. Just that it was disingenuous to criticize an entire movement over one specific thing when the entire movement does not believe that specific thing. :\

Part of being apart of the movement is criticizing the whole.

But how can you criticize the whole when the criticism doesn't apply to the whole, or even the majority?

Because not enough self-policing is being done to correct it.