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

Giftfromme

New member
Nov 3, 2011
555
0
0
evilthecat said:
Giftfromme said:
It's all well and good for acceptance, but what difference does it make to the guy who wants to be banged by his girlfriend with a strap on? There are differences in our genders, studies have shown that guys and girls learn differently.
I'm confused about what you're saying here, and I'm not sure if you're misusing the word "gender" or not. Remember, "Sex" refers to the anatomical, endocrinal and genetic differences between people which make them male and female. "Gender" refers to the way in which these male and female bodies are socially differentiated from each other.

Assuming you actually meant to say "gender" then yeah, countless studies have provided overwhelming evidence of that, to the point that it's a common sense assumption accessible via a cursory glance at our society. That's actually what I've been saying all along.

If you meant to say "sex", then no. There isn't very much evidence. A handful of studies does not "prove" anything just by getting published, they must be repeatable (anyone, regardless of prior belief, must be able to come to the same result), logically consistent (any original theory must be the product of analysis) and it must eliminate alternative explanations. Sexual difference theories regarding cognitive functioning have never been able to do any of these things.

In truth, we actually don't know how different the sexes are from one another in their cognitive functioning, but given that even the most hardline study in this area is only asserting a generalization, the logic answer is "not very". Moreover, once you put together how human sex actually develops it becomes a pretty pointless question, there isn't a magic binary switch which gives you a magically different brain and physical appearance, it's all regulated by differences (sometimes very subtle differences) in the production of androgenic hormones. What we're looking for when we study "sex differences" is actually the effects of those hormones, which vary enormously between individuals anyway. In short, we all learn differently and we all think differently. A crude generalization is no basis for organizing our society.

Giftfromme said:
Yes that opinion is formed and informed by societal standards, but some things will always be weird or deviant to us.
And if he had said "I'm tired of feeling weird for enjoying my girlfriend's strap on" that would be highly relevant. However, he didn't. He said "I'm tired of feeling unmanly". This isn't an issue of what's generally "weird", it's not remotely weird for women to want to be anally penetrated despite the fact that the physical rewards for them are usually close to non-existent.

The reason why its "unmanly" to enjoy receptive anal sex is not because men are just different and are "programmed" to hate it. In fact, anatomical sexual differences mean that receptive anal sex can be far more pleasurable for us than it can ever be for women, and yet it is highly taboo in many societies is because it is seen as a feminine position.

And, going back to my very original post to you.. why is that such a bad thing?

Giftfromme said:
So there is simply no point in waiting for that. His sex life doesn't need to be political and can be 100% private.
Just like everyone else's sexuality is completely private??

Except it's not, is it? We are saturated with very public sexuality all the time, generally very boring and normative sexuality which may be why it's so hard to notice. Perhaps it's become so normal that you don't register it as sexuality any more, but it is nonetheless. Everything from advertisements to the basic conversations you have with people will include references which position their sexuality as normal or abnormal, or which clues about whether their sexual behavior is manly or unmanly or feminine or unfeminine or gay or straight or whatever.

Giftfromme said:
How many people actually think that a girl feels attractive if she is ogled in the street or whatever?
Many. That's why people still do it.

You've mistaken this issue completely. It's nothing to do with the "quality" of the guy, it's to do with behavior which is aggressive or insensitive.

If you stare at someone, fine. It happens. But if you happen to make eye contact and you don't get a smile or something, then you break off. This isn't even etiquette, it's basic body language. If you make eye contact with a gorilla and don't break it then you're going to get your arms ripped off because it's an aggressive gesture. If you keep staring at someone who has not given you a positive reaction, if you stare at them as if they're an object without displaying any regard for their feelings, it's no better than chasing someone down the street when they've rejected you telling them you'll leave them alone if they'll give you a handjob.

This is not something guys do by accident, it might be something guys do if they never learned how to behave properly, but it isn't accidental. It is clearly and obviously aggression. The issue is that some guys still believe that women respond to aggression and feel complimented by it, when the much more likely reaction is that they feel embarrassed or even afraid.

How many guys? Far fewer than 30 years ago. Why is that? I'll give you a clue, it begins with an 'F'.

Giftfromme said:
Men are typically the ones who will "hunt" for a girl, or is generally the one who initiates contact with a girl. Our brains formed on the savannah (for roughly 2 million years, known as the Pleistocene period) and we haven't been out of it long enough for deeply ingrained values and attitudes to change.
Again, this is pure supposition.

Anyone can take a present day social trend and claim it's something humans have evolved to do. It doesn't make it accurate. Observe:

Women like pink because they evolved to find berries in the undergrowth and became very sensitive to red-spectrum colors.

This one is actually, patently untrue (which hasn't stopped people trying to claim it). It's only in the last hundred and fifty years or so in one particular society that pink has been considered a feminine colour. You cannot extrapolate evolutionary trends from social trends without eliminating alternative explanations.

There is no Flintstonian constant, particularly since for the past few thousand years marriage and sex has been explicitly about political kinship ties and the pursuit of sexual pleasure has generally been entirely secondary. Most of these ideas about the most "naturally" attractive female body shapes are Victorian preoccupations, there's no real evidence for them prior to that.

Giftfromme said:
If the urges are strong enough in a man and he rapes a woman, he will use any excuse to justify it, and education cannot fix that. These urges are not trivial, this is your very DNA pushing you get pass on your genes by getting laid.
Science aside, before you go down this road, I want you to sit and think about the social implications of what you are saying for a minute.

I'm assuming we're both male. If what you just said was true, and if it was accepted to be true, what would the logical solution be? How that would solution impact on people like you and me?

Giftfromme said:
I've seen some decidedly unattractive guys who are good with woman, but they could have easily given up.
Do you really think none of the women in those pictures could get laid if they wanted to? Do you think they couldn't score way out of their league if they wanted to? You're assuming randomly that they're subject to exactly the same situation as their male counterparts, that "success" means the same thing to them and thus all they need to achieve that "success" is a little self-confidence.

They clearly are self-confident to some degree. They've posted pictures of themselves online. One is showing us her armpit hair, the other has stated that she "loves her body". I don't understand how you get from this to "they need more confidence". Why, so they can get men to have sex with them? You're assuming that's in any way difficult, or that it's what they're looking for.

Giftfromme said:
No I don't think my arguments are original. Of course others have them. That's the point. If I was the only, I might think something is wrong with me.
Bingo.

Do you get why we need feminism yet?
Nah you have missed the boat on many parts.

"You've mistaken this issue completely. It's nothing to do with the "quality" of the guy, it's to do with behavior which is aggressive or insensitive."

Utter nonsense. I have real world experience here, that's where I'm talking from. I'm guessing you're talking from experience of reading magazines and how they tell you someone should act. Many, many of these are self-serving and are just incorrect. What is aggressive to one girl may not be to another. What does insensitive behaviour mean? It's meaningless when applied in broad strokes. There is absolutely no way to tell how a particular girl will react to a certain type of advance. You can get cues but you could also be misreading cues. I have done many things when approaching girls that you would consider "aggressive" or "insensitive" and these experiences have turned out 100% fine. I've tried these same tactics on other girls and been turned down. Nothing I can do to predict such reactions. What is defined as aggressive changes from each person to the next. There are many, many shades in there. Men practice approaches all along the scale and it is after the fact that it is decided whether or not the approach or whatever was too aggressive etc.
You look at a girl and she doesn't keep eye contact? She could be shy you know. Please don't bring up these examples in a condescending manner when you don't know what you're talking about. Again, I've tried to hold eye contact with a chick, she dropped her eyes, I approached her and it was fine. Girls can be shy too. Sometimes little to nothing about the nature of a girl can be determined beforehand. Hence guys try many, many strategies. I do indeed agree that some are wrong, especially when coming from a place of ego, but many times it's just the type of man that does it, and not his approach.


"This is not something guys do by accident, it might be something guys do if they never learned how to behave properly, but it isn't accidental. It is clearly and obviously aggression. The issue is that some guys still believe that women respond to aggression and feel complimented by it, when the much more likely reaction is that they feel embarrassed or even afraid."
Completely subjective as already explained. There is no such thing as "behaving properly" as I will behave differently around my friends then others. I will also behave differently around different groups of strangers. When you say how woman will respond to "aggression", it could be that in fact one woman will accept a guys advance that you see as "aggressive".

People will always negotiate what is normal, abnormal etc regarding sexual positions and this will inevitably involve gender roles. But what is the point of enforcing equality in this arena? You can't nor should you enforce people change their opinions on this arena. These opinions are formed over centuries and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand or considered irrelevant. Why would everything be considered sexually equal? People feel weird for many fetishes, including ones where the man is submissive and they continue to do them, despite what others feel about it. If we somehow had complete gender equality regarding sex, then nothing would be considered deviant or weird. Is that a realistic hope? Of course not. Who cares if he is tired of how society feels about his sexual act. You can negotiate gender roles and relationships over the course of a larger society, but you should never serve to neutralize these. That would defeat the ongoing negotiation in society on gender roles etc. You can't nor should you aim to enforce what people perceive as gender roles, male, female etc. These come with a long history and are not trivial or should be discarded. So currently yes, it is considered unmanly to take it in the ass with a dildo from your girlfriend. This did not just come out on its own one day and people felt this way. There's a hell of a lot of history behind it, and you can't just dismiss that history. Whether or not you feel the history is right (like woman traditionally who were and are still seen as submissive) is a value judgement on your part (and others who judge history), but many people felt they were right at the time to perpetuate these beliefs. Some of these have carried on into the present day and this means most people would think its unmanly to take it in the ass by a dildo. You have to ask yourself why this is. It's not just men who decide social values, it's women too. You might find that many woman would agree that the guy is unmanly. You will find that many woman will hold to gender roles too, whether traditional ones or new age ones. They will say they want a man who makes the moves, leads etc. There is little place in this view for a man who takes it in the ass by a dildo. These views can't just be invalidated out of hand and attempting to enforce equality from this stance is just silly.

Yes we are bombarded with images of what a normal sex life etc is. But these are done by both genders. We have to form our own opinions (or just go along with everything if that's what you want to do) in the face of a hell a lot of advertising telling us how to live. You have to decide which ones, if any, you adopt and there is little use in in wanting acceptance in every area you choose. Polygamy is generally not considered acceptable. And yet many people have engaged in it throughout history and continue to do so today. Do these people care about equality or acceptance? It could indeed be seen as sexist. But you don't see these men complaining about how what they're doing is viewed as in the larger society. The man living with two women might see it as his right to do so and be offended by your opinion that it's sexist. You cannot be guaranteed acceptance for every life choice you make. Your view and his view on what gender equality is will be different. Who is correct?

When we talk about evolutionary history, you need to understand that it's mostly institutions that we have put a blanket over our age-old ways that stops us from acting like we used to. We have not been living in cities long enough to evolve to these new standards of living. Never in history has anything closely resembling our cities been part of our day to day lives and we are definitely not accustomed to it as a species. It was only in 2007, that more than 50% of people lives in cities. For the vast majority of human history, the vast majority of people have lives in rural areas. We did not evolve to live in cities and this new mode of living would not be possible without institutions that we have put up over many of our age old behaviours and predispositions. A hell of a lot of our behaviours come from when we were still on the savannah. Want an example? A study was done where people who went to marriage counseling, for both instances, where man felt that his wife's jealousy was ruining their relationship and where the wife felt that the man's jealousy was ruining the relationship.
The researchers pulled aside the person who was the partner of the jealous person and they were asked if they really did cheat on their partner. The vast majority of people said that yes they did. Their partners could not explain their suspicions but had what you might call a "gut instinct" (none had evidence of the cheating) but in most cases they were correct. Surely in our new evolved society, such a trait, behaviour etc (or whatever you call it) that in fact evolved while we were on the savannah should have been wiped out by now? But no it still with us, along with a myriad other behaviours. We have not lived a city life long enough to evolve into it. People still act irrationally and are very violent. We have codes of conduct, we have police, we have the courts, jail etc. to curb this behaviour.

Dunno what else to say about the rape thing. Biological urges are powerful and any amount of mental acrobatics can be done to justify a particular act. A man might look at all the advertising and think that everyone bar him is getting laid. He might then use that as an excuse to get rape if he's desperate enough. Anything could be used as an excuse. Education will hardly stop that from happening. I don't have a solution in this area.

Regarding the last point, yes I choose to hold these opinions. I know many of my opinions only a small minority of people would agree with, but I don't care. If I was literally the only person in the world to hold these opinions, than shit, maybe something is wrong. This guy is not the only guy in the world who likes to get done in the ass by a dildo, but he is in the minority. I certainly don't give a shit about acceptance for my views (some of which I've expressed in my posts) as I feel that they're right. They're definitely in the minority but this doesn't bother me one bit.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,907
1,774
118
Country
United Kingdom
OuroborosChoked said:
1. "Allegedly" - I can get you half a dozen videos right now from YouTube. *I* guarantee YOU that they're the first search results that come up, too.
2. I dare say most of them believe they are, inasmuch as Feminism has been defined for them as "equality for women"
Feminism isn't the same thing as "what women think", it's not even "what all career women think" or "what all activists think".

Just because a woman relies on or uses some feminist ideas in certain areas of her life doesn't mean she's always speaking as the living embodiment of the great feminist collective. You yourself accept certain feminist ideas. It's very hard not to do so. That doesn't mean you're always speaking as a feminist. You don't go to a restaurant and order your meal in a "feminist" way (unless you're doing so in a way designed to eliminate the gendered inequalities in society somehow, and no, I have no idea how that would work). Feminism used to be something you are, nowadays its meaningless to talk of it like that, feminism is something you do. Some people do it more than others, but almost everyone does it. This is why there's no feminist movement any more, because it would be impossible to say where it began or ended.

However, feminism continues to exist in the form of a particular body of theory which is quite specific in its implications and meaning. That theory remains very interesting to those of us who are interested in the functioning of gender norms and how they impact on our lives. Again, feminism is not mind-control. It has been successful purely because it gives people tools to challenge the assumptions of their own lives.

Feminism didn't suddenly show up and everything automatically became better for women. Every step towards equality has been met with hostility and obstacles, and people have personally suffered as a result despite and even because of their feminist convictions. Feminism doesn't fix that, and doesn't claim to. What it does do is to give you the theoretical framework not to passively accept the weird assumptions and unequal treatment which are fostered on you, and to call the world out for being wrong even when every other thing in it disagrees. I can guarantee that you and I would not be able to even be having this conversation about inequality in dating etiquette if feminism had never existed, what reason would we have to even think about it?

Demand it for yourself in personal life. Refuse to accept the alternative. Do what the people in the original post are doing and tell the world what is not acceptable. Feminism already gave you the tools to do that, it never gave any woman in history anything more and look how far they came with it. Don't tell me you can't do the same. The only real question here is how much you want to.
 

Shock and Awe

Winter is Coming
Sep 6, 2008
4,647
0
0
boots said:
OuroborosChoked said:
boots said:
Tell me, do people like you actually give a flying fuck about the unfair standards of beauty applied to men, or do you just wheel this out whenever you want to derail any discussion of the unfair standards of beauty applied to women?

See also: people who suddenly really care about men getting raped ... but only when someone tries to talk about women getting raped.
Yes, because women are uniquely victims of everything... like violence (no, wait... that's mostly men even though women get all of the attention and "end violence" campaigns... can't use that, either). Instead of framing problems as they impact just one group of people, how about we focus on getting rid of problems ENTIRELY?

I think that's really what you're missing when people do this: some people aren't sexists and actually care about ALL people... not just their own kind.
You want to know why this pisses me off so much? Because of the fantastic irony of it. People will try to start a discussion about women being marginalised, and almost instantly someone will jump in with claims that women have it better off and it's men who have the real problems, and suddenly the conversation becomes all about female-on-male rape/domestic violence, and the unfair standards of beauty for men, and the way that custody courts are unfairly biased against men ... all this despite the fact that - as the previous poster admitted - most of these people actually couldn't give a shit about any of these issues most of the time. If anyone tries to bring the conversation back to injustices and prejudice that affect women, they instantly get shouted down by someone demanding to know why they don't care about men's problems.

And suddenly women become marginalised in a conversation that was originally about the marginalisation of women. It's fucking beautiful.

This is especially common on sites like The Escapist, where female posters are massively outnumbered by male posters.

There's this idiotic, kneejerk assumption that any time someone tries to talk about problems that affect women, they're instantly disregarding men by not mentioning them, even with something like the issue of rape where the vast majority of cases have a female victim and a male perpetrator. Yet it is very, very easy to find feminists discussing the ways in which society's gender roles negatively affect men. People talk about injustices in child custody courts like this is a new thing that feminism invented, as opposed to something that has existed for centuries and which many feminists are actually arguing against [http://www.nomas.org/node/167]. Any discussion of female genital mutilation is immediately derailed into a discussion of circumcision, another issue that many feminists are fundamentally against [http://ecochildsplay.com/2011/07/07/why-circumcision-is-a-feminist-issue/]. And best of all, people talk about chivalry like it was something that feminists invented, as opposed to something that has been around since medieval times and which is in basic ideological conflict with feminism [http://www.nerdyfeminist.com/2012/01/no-chivalry-thanks.html].

No one's saying that you shouldn't talk about issues that affect men. If you really want to do something about them, then do something about them. Even if all you do is start a thread to discuss why you're against circumcision, or why you feel male rape/DV victims don't get enough sympathy, or why family courts are unfairly biased towards giving women custody.

But funnily enough, we never seem to see these kinds of threads around. And when they do pop up, they always seem to end up as a bunch of people ranting about how much they hate those damn feminazis (who apparently invented gender inequality). It's almost as if people don't actually give a shit about any of these issues, and just want any excuse to derail conversations about gender inequality that affects women.
What you seem to not understand is that when you bring up how bad some issue is for women specifically then the implication is that it is either not a problem or much less of a problem for men just by virtue of singling out how it specifically effects women. An example of this is talking about how bad working conditions are for women with all the unequal pay and sexual harassment. While everyone is making a fuss over this no one is really paying attention to the fact that over 90% of work related deaths are men. Now I don't know about you but I think thats a pretty significant issue that no one apparently gives a shit about despite all this noise from wannabe feminists about equality. Are some things really bad for women but not men? Yes there is. These things should be looked at and fixed if possible. However there are also other important issues that are disproportionally detrimental to men and boys and these are rarely talked about if at all because to insinuate that sometimes men are getting the short end of the stick is seen as sexist towards women.
 

TheLion

New member
Apr 18, 2012
44
0
0
Feminism isn't the same thing as "what women think"
Which kinda begs the question; if the average woman isn't concerned with feminism beyond equal pay, body image, and sexual harassment, how relevant is this neo-feminist goal of destroying gender roles? Call me an idiot, but i very strongly believe in the Will of the People, and if women themselves are defending antiquated ideas like chivalry, I don't think feminist theory can touch it anytime soon. (I hold doors for everyone FWIW)
 

Shock and Awe

Winter is Coming
Sep 6, 2008
4,647
0
0
boots said:
Shock and Awe said:
What you seem to not understand is that when you bring up how bad some issue is for women specifically then the implication is that it is either not a problem or much less of a problem for men just by virtue of singling out how it specifically effects women. An example of this is talking about how bad working conditions are for women with all the unequal pay and sexual harassment. While everyone is making a fuss over this no one is really paying attention to the fact that over 90% of work related deaths are men.
What do sexual harassment and unequal pay have to do with workplace deaths? Yes, they both happen in the workplace, but they're entirely different issues, and sexual harassment in particular is an issue that mostly affects women. More to the point, do you actually care about workplace deaths outside of conversations about workplace sexual harassment?

And why are you so obsessed with playing Oppression Olympics and fighting over who is oppressed more? The old "women have it better off, men are the real victims!" retaliation has been trotted out since before women even had the right to vote [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Legal_Subjection_of_Men], and it's just as pointless now as it was back then. What is so astoundingly difficult about admitting that workplace deaths and workplace sexual harassment are both bad, instead of using the existence of one to justify the existence of the other?

Now I don't know about you but I think thats a pretty significant issue that no one apparently gives a shit about despite all this noise from wannabe feminists about equality.
If you think that's a pretty significant issue, start a thread about it! Or even better, take real action to help reduce workplace deaths! But when you only bring it up as an excuse to derail a thread about feminism and make snide digs at "wannabe feminists", I can't help but question whether you actually care about the issue at all.

Besides all this, it's not like men are disproportionately being killed in workplaces where there is an equal split between the sexes. That stat is almost entirely due to men being more likely to take physically dangerous jobs like construction and armed forces.
You keep asking me if I care about these issues I come back with. Do you care about them? As much as womens' issues? Thats really the heart of what we are talking about here. Feminists love to talk about how objectified and put down women are but really are rarely interested in actually trying to make things more equal. Instead they are interested in trying to make things better for women, even when it makes no sense. Feminists were jumping for joy when Women were allowed to enter Combat MOSs here in the US, but did anyone start clamoring for Women to start having to sign up for the draft? Not a chance in hell.

The reason people always come back in these threads with issues that effect men is because the people talking about how poor life is for women totally ignore them despite the fact that things are just as bad for men as they are for women.
 

bastardofmelbourne

New member
Dec 11, 2012
1,038
0
0
TheLion said:
Which kinda begs the question; if the average woman isn't concerned with feminism beyond equal pay, body image, and sexual harassment, how relevant is this neo-feminist goal of destroying gender roles? Call me an idiot, but i very strongly believe in the Will of the People, and if women themselves are defending antiquated ideas like chivalry, I don't think feminist theory can touch it anytime soon. (I hold doors for everyone FWIW)
The question of its "relevance" depends on who you ask. Most people are comfortable with contemporary gender roles, for the exact reason that it's what they're used to, and how they were raised. The actual content of these gender roles change over time, and not always in a logical fashion - it's become conventional for a woman to wear pants if she pleases, but it's still seens as weird for a man to wear a dress. So for the common people, as long as they aren't being screwed over, these gender roles are fine.

If you ask the "feminists" (I'm putting that in quotes because what I really mean is "those feminists who believe in dismantling gender roles", and not all feminists) then this apathy towards the subject is due to the self-reinforcing nature of these gender roles. People are raised to think certain, sometimes arbitrary things (blue = male, pink = female) and because they're raised like that, they're not concerned with changing it. To a feminist of this opinion, what's needed is to forcefully dismantle these roles. In their favour is the fact that these gender roles are a substantial barrier separating the two sexes and, sometimes, are used to justify discrimination. Against them is the observation that, as you say, they're not really acting according to the desires of the average women they purport to represent - in fact, their relationship with them is somewhat hostile, as the intellectuals want to force change and the common people are comfortable where they are.

boots said:
You're still caught up on the idea that feminism is a women-only club that only represents women. There are many, many, many male feminists out there and - by the same token - many sexist women who genuinely believe that they belong to the inferior gender.

Feminism just means gender equality, not "female expowerment".
I don't mean to disagree with you, but I should point out that "feminism" is by no means a clearly defined term, and the feminist "movement" is deeply fractured.

So while some feminists equate feminism with egalitarianism (and for some reason don't call it that), others define feminism as differential treatment based on rights unique to women (i.e. pregnancy), and some go whole-hog and define it solely as the empowerment of women. The further you go, the wierder it gets. I've met self-identified feminists who do not believe you can be a male feminist. I've met feminists who do not believe you can be a heterosexual or bisexual feminist. I've met feminists who don't believe in equal treatment between the sexes. I've met feminists who think you can't be a feminist if you want to get married. I've met feminists who automatically equate feminism with socialism, libertarianism, liberalism and objectivism (yeap), though rarely all at once. I've met feminists who think all the other feminists I've met aren't true Scotsmen.

What I take away from this, and I'm sure you're already aware, is that feminists can't really agree on what feminism is, so whenever someone says "I am a feminist" or "I need feminism" I feel compelled to ask them to specify. And while your personal views on feminism seem totally agreeable, it is misleading to say that "this" is feminism, and nothing else is, or that someone else is "wrong" about what feminism is. Not intentionally misleading - it's just that the same person you're correcting has probably been in such a situation before, where they're being corrected on what feminism is, and been told that something completely different is "feminism."
 

OuroborosChoked

New member
Aug 20, 2008
558
0
0
boots said:
You want to know why this pisses me off so much? Because of the fantastic irony of it. People will try to start a discussion about women being marginalised, and almost instantly someone will jump in with claims that women have it better off and it's men who have the real problems, and suddenly the conversation becomes all about female-on-male rape/domestic violence, and the unfair standards of beauty for men, and the way that custody courts are unfairly biased against men ... all this despite the fact that - as the previous poster admitted - most of these people actually couldn't give a shit about any of these issues most of the time. If anyone tries to bring the conversation back to injustices and prejudice that affect women, they instantly get shouted down by someone demanding to know why they don't care about men's problems.

And suddenly women become marginalised in a conversation that was originally about the marginalisation of women. It's fucking beautiful.
So you get upset that people bring up that women aren't uniquely victimized? I can see how not getting ALL the attention would leave you wanting more attention... It's almost like we should care about men's issues and women's issues equally and not frame issues as gender-specific... as I have mentioned before...

There's this idiotic, kneejerk assumption that any time someone tries to talk about problems that affect women
Maybe because... well, see above. I do tire of repeating myself...

Yet it is very, very easy to find feminists discussing the ways in which society's gender roles negatively affect men. People talk about injustices in child custody courts like this is a new thing that feminism invented, as opposed to something that has existed for centuries and which many feminists are actually arguing against [http://www.nomas.org/node/167].
O RLY? Not in that link. The article you linked to (and the site in general) was very anti-male. The article only ever referred to male parental custody claims as "'father's rights'". As if fathers don't really have any rights to custody... it's all just bogus claims by abusive males... I mean, why else would a couple possibly seek divorce if not for the man being abusive of a "protective mother" (as the site puts it, without quotes)? So on one side we have "'father's rights'" and on the other we have "protective mothers": what ideas does that plant in your head? Elsewhere on the site, there's an entire section devoted to debunking the idea that wives could possibly be violent in the not at all provocatively named "Ending Men's Violence" section. Because we all know the only humans who can ever be violent are men.

That site is a joke. The only problem is that you don't, can't, or refuse to see it... has Feminism warped you to such a point that you see something like "Ending Men's Violence" and it just sails right past you? How about "Ending Violence"? Or "Ending Domestic Violence"? No? Nothing? Is this all a lost cause?

Any discussion of female genital mutilation is immediately derailed into a discussion of circumcision, another issue that many feminists are fundamentally against [http://ecochildsplay.com/2011/07/07/why-circumcision-is-a-feminist-issue/].
Great. I'm glad minor bloggers on parenting websites are finally getting around to this issue that's been in discussion in the medical field since the 1950s. Now, if only mainstream feminists could consider genital mutilation of ALL humans... oh, I think you know where I'm going with this. For the record, there IS an organization dedicated to eradicating the practice: NOCIRC. It doesn't feel the need to dress itself in Feminism, either. It's for HUMAN rights and HUMAN dignity...

And best of all, people talk about chivalry like it was something that feminists invented, as opposed to something that has been around since medieval times and which is in basic ideological conflict with feminism [http://www.nerdyfeminist.com/2012/01/no-chivalry-thanks.html].
I have no idea who talks about chivalry "like it was something feminists invented"... and the practice of men defending and providing for women and children goes back a LOT further than medieval times. If you think that's where it starts, you might want to do some historical research...

And again, I agree with you that Feminism likes to say it's opposed to chivalry. But when someone offers... well, I guess... just this once... it'd be okay if we bent our principles, right? Who's going to know? And besides: it's a free dinner!

No one's saying that you shouldn't talk about issues that affect men. If you really want to do something about them, then do something about them.
That's what people are trying to do by raising awareness. Tell me, when was the last time mainstream media informed you that men even HAVE issues that need to be addressed? Never, right? You had to hear about it on the internet, didn't you? And yet, you still don't seem to care anyway...

It's almost as if people don't actually give a shit about any of these issues, and just want any excuse to derail conversations about gender inequality that affects women.
...And we've come full circle. Thanks for flying It's All About Me airways. Please wait until we have arrived at the gate and come to a complete stop. We will begin disembarking with women and children first.

You are aware that this is, ostensibly, a site about video games, right? Not gender inequality issues for women, right? I mean, it's not like there are literally thousands of blogs and dedicated forum sites out there already specifically devoted to those topics... yet you bring them *here* and expect the same reception? Why? Do you make a habit of bringing volatile socio-political discussions up with random strangers elsewhere? You must be fun to be stuck in an elevator with...

boots said:
Then do it. Actually start a poll instead of stalling and making snide speculation.
It was *your* suggestion. If you're so confident in the results, be my guest.

OK, go ahead and find me half a dozen videos by feminists (and I mean people who actually claim to be feminists, and not just "well she doesn't say she's feminist but she probably thinks that she is") who say that men should always pay for dates. Go on, put your links where your mouth is.
And I'm supposed to just *know* who's a "REAL" feminist by YOUR definition... how exactly? I'm supposed to read minds? Also, I suspect this will end up being something like looking for a "true" Scotsman...

"Oh, well I know she SAID she was a Feminist... but no true feminist would say THAT!" ...and so on...

I said I could provide you links for what the popular opinion was of people who would likely describe themselves as feminists based on their understanding of feminism as "equality for women". That I can do. I cannot read minds and do not have the time to interview all of them for their opinions on gender politics. You are free to determine for yourself, however. Search: who should pay on a date - then go down the list. Spoilers: it's apparently the man's responsibility... at least on the first date. Feel free to read the comments, too. I found some real gems...

"Feminism is sexist and don't ask me to back that up because I'm too busy filling out the derailment bingo card with the old 'we shouldn't talk about this while there are worse problems in the world' chestnut."
No, it's much more compassionate to just get angry at people who dare to mention that there are greater things at stake in this world than "Bayonetta's sexist because she's more attractive than I am"... right? Oh, who am I kidding? Nothing is more important than how girls feel about video game characters' bust lines... Let's all stop and listen to what the Feminist has to say about the cartoon. No, shhhh... guys! This is a serious issue! Her feelings were really hurt that the fully-developed female protagonist was also made to look attractive... The fictional character made her feel inadequate! She then wants to talk about how her university is named after the man who founded it and how that's sexist. I don't want to hear a peep out of you troublemakers until she's done!

No, really, go on. What other "rights issues that impact all of us" do you really care about
The bogus voter fraud witch hunt being pursued here in the US, for one... Latino harassment and profiling, drug prohibition, education funding (yes, I believe education is a right), maintaining equal opportunities for all people in government-funded programs, and my country's interference in the sovereignty of other nations, to name just a few more. Yeah, I care about a lot of things that impact people here and internationally. Rights issues... not just "If you're ugly, don't talk to me in the elevator". The international part is a bit difficult, though... as you may wish to help in some situations, you don't want to end up dictating your cultural norms to other cultures.

why aren't you off discussing them instead of busily posting in this thread to people that they're not allowed to talk about rights issues affecting women?
Oh, so I have to go elsewhere to discuss gender politics, but you've claimed this space for Feminism? This website for video games? Well, I guess I wouldn't want to steal your thunder, would I? I don't know how, but I forgot how much you like getting ALL the attention...
 

marcooos

Shit Be Serial Cray
Nov 18, 2009
309
0
0
DevilWithaHalo said:
I was being sporting in the other thread, not going to be so friendly here...
dragonswarrior said:
#1- Feminism is all about creating equity between the genders, and a part of what feminism promotes (heavily) is smashing down old fashioned patriarchal stupid bullshit ideas of masculinity. Like feeling ashamed because you like things up your bum. So yea. Feminism actually has a lot to do with that.
Your feelings... are your fucking problem. What he wants, and what you want, are universal social acceptance. This will never happen; it *cannot* happen in a free and democratic society. I whole heartedly reject feminism as an ideology that promotes thought control through emotional manipulation.
dragonswarrior said:
#2- This is definitely the one that makes the least amount of sense. Even then, I can still see how it can make many people uncomfortable to have to be in spaces named for men who were VERY much part of the patriarchal oppressive society in the day, especially when in many ways we are still living in said patriarchal oppressive society. Who wants extra reminders of that shit? Still makes the least amount of sense.
Let's take an example; the George Washington University. This guy lead the American Revolution against The Empire back in the day. He was so oppressive; he turned down the opportunity to become king of America because he believed in freedom and a democratic republic. Now you'll still sit there with a straight face and tell me he was an oppressor because he didn't do enough for women and that our society is an oppressive patriarchy? Is the entire basis for this oppression social expectation; that *women* share half the burden of perpetuating?
dragonswarrior said:
#3- As Bloated Guppy pointed out, many men (and a lot of women) consider sexual harassment to be something positive, i.e "You should be glad men find you attractive enough to harass you." I completely agree with this woman. I need feminism to get rid of this bullshit too. There are just so many fucking problems with this way of thinking...
Then don't think that way. Holy shit, that was a tough fix! What's next on the agenda?

Oh wait... you want to control other people's thinking, I keep forgetting that. Now do tell, how do you intend to ethically justify thought control? Because it hurts people's feelings?
dragonswarrior said:
#4- Yea. That's a thing. Male, female, whatever, we live in a rape culture. And unless you are a genius on the level of Kruppe the Arcane you have contributed to it unknowingly. And the only way we are going to get rid of it is, yes, with the dreaded feminism. This world will never be a good one to live in until we finally get rid of the idea that one gender is "prey" for the other gender. Even when we try to mean it harmlessly.
Except that there are two fundamental and important flaws behind rape culture theory...

A. Rape is a crime. Now no doubt you'll attempt to counter this will various "facts" that have been proven to be misrepresented over and over again feminism lost a great deal of integrity. Something along the lines that most rapists aren't jailed (ignoring the preponderance of evidence required for a conviction in our innocent until proven guilty legal process) or that the social stigma prevents victims from seeking help, which leads to the next issue...

B. Rape is universally despised as an immoral act. Even rapists know this. Making a joke about it doesn't affect it anymore that making a Jewish oven joke affects the holocaust. Humor is the human condition overcoming and commanding a great injustice dealt to them.

Now you might snap back some other retorts that I'm familiar with and simply don't care to get into, but using your asinine logic; we live in a murder culture, a genocide culture, a pedophile culture, and a culture culminating every single atrocity you can fathom. So would you please stop contributing to infanticide culture by ignoring that it's women committing 100% of the decision involving bringing another person into this world? (That was an abortion joke by the way; dammit... I just contributed to abortion culture, gah!)
dragonswarrior said:
#5- People should be able to do what they want with their bodies, and if it isn't harming anyone else, they should have nothing but support and acceptance. Where feminism comes in to this, is that women's bodies are FAR more controlled by the patriarchal male dominated society then men's bodies are. If a woman wants to grow out her armpit hair, the "positive" reactions she gets are still basically people telling her she shouldn't have done it, or that her first concern should be how men will react to it. And that's wrong. That's really really wrong. Especially when you realize that men can do whatever the fuck they want with their armpit hair, and society doesn't care.
People can and do whatever the fuck they want with their bodies. But they do NOT deserve support or acceptance from society as a whole for it. Society can accept what they did by shrugging their shoulders, but that's all they should be required to do. Aside from the abortion issue (which is a whole bag of worms itself), exactly how is the patriarchal male dominated society controlling women's bodies? By having beauty trends that change with the current social paradigm? Did you know during the Great Recession larger women were deemed more attractive? Did you know that the negro culture supports women with bigger booties?

I don't like hairy arm pits on women, and this wonderful country allows me the right and privilege to maintain that opinion. You, in your infinite wisdom, seek to rob me of expressing my individual tastes that happen to conflict with other individuals world views. I'm allowed to say; "I don't like it." She isn't entitled to positive reactions for everything she does from everyone who she tells. That's bullshit.
dragonswarrior said:
#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.
Equating physical attraction to political power; now who's being oppressive to women? (Don't think I didn't notice your inner turmoil in accepting her health standards) Both sexes have social beauty standards. At any rate, Sonia Sotomayor seems like a woman with some meat on her bones. Elena Kagan certainly has some girth. And of course, everyone's favorite; Oprah! Granted she fluctuates a lot. But I find it rather odd you don't seem to account that women are more critical over each other than men are. Did this little factoid not come up in your women's studies?
dragonswarrior said:
#7- Women who do gender studies are looked down upon as unnecessary or feminazis or etc or whatever. One need merely look at this thread to realize that we desperately need more people taking gender studies.
What contribution do they represent to society? A self propagating liberal arts degree? It's valid insomuch she bought it with her own money, but not nearly as valid as a degree in... oh, I don't know; social psychology, criminal law, mathematics, nursing, engineering, media arts, etc.

Here's what tickles my fancy; women who go into gender studies to learn about how there aren't enough women earning degrees in male dominated fields. How's that for a fucking head scratcher?
dragonswarrior said:
#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.
Ok, in what crazy screwed up school have you ever actually taken a nude drawing class? I've been in them, and never at any point were the models (both male and female) ever objectified as anything beyond the subject of the artwork being practiced. Quite in fact, the beginning of each class consisted of a brief understanding that people would be naked, the artists would treat this as serious and anyone found to be acting at any moment immature, or mentally fapping to the nude model would be thrown out of the class and *never* welcome back.

The very basis for your argument hinges on the difference of the models anatomy. A female model disrobes; students of both sexes draw her. A male model disrobes; students of both sexes draw him. So the difference is because... tits?

.../sigh

So, let's recap here...
1. You disagree with current social concepts of masculinity. You didn't actually discuss what they were, but "their bullshit". And feminism will fix this, again not actually discussing how.
2. Men are oppressive because we live in an oppressive patriarchy. And buildings being named after men make people uncomfortable because they helped build and maintain the oppressive patriarchy. (By the way, can you name me a legal right that men possess that women do not? Just curious.)
3. Because some people believe that sexually harassment is positive; we need to use feminism to make sure no one thinks this way. And how pray tell does feminism intend on doing this?
4. Rape culture. Feminism will fix rape culture by... making sure people can't joke about rape? By the way, you need to stop supporting rape culture; ok?
5. People should always get positive reactions to everything they do because the patriarchy controls women's bodies. I assume feminism will make a law that insures I'm required to high five people that choose to stop bathing?
6. Men control women's beauty standards, so women should be fat and get into politics. Will feminism dictate the weight requirements for political office?
7. I disagree with every single one of your positions, so we will use feminism to recruit more people into the program whom I will eventually disagree with; brilliant!
8. Female nudes are objectified because some guys like fapping to porn. So... feminism will ban porn? (I imagine you are one of those porn hating feminists) Or feminism will ban nude art?

Tell me, how are the "ladies" over at RadFemHub these days? They ever figure out that biological solution to the problem yet?
Beffudled Sheep said:
dragonswarrior said:
have contributed to it unknowingly.
I would enjoy it if you listed a series of examples of how one would unknowingly contribute to rape culture.
I do not seek to debate I seek to learn since I don't like doing harmful things, especially without knowing.
Trust me, you really don't. But if you'd like to read through some bullshit, you can start with http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/01/five-ways-rape-culture-exists-unnoticed/ and then move on from there. Here are some wonderfull bullshit solutions feminism has proposed as well; http://www.thenation.com/article/172643/ten-things-end-rape-culture?rel=emailNation#

.... I think I love you especially for the degree point
 

AshuraSpeaks

New member
Jun 12, 2008
93
0
0
Geo Da Sponge said:
...Seriously? Alright, time to bust out the image. I am busting out the image now.

The image has been bust out now.


I mean, just... What's the point? The purpose of this thread is literally point and laugh at people who think differently to you? About feminism of all things? Yeah, that'll end well.
Actually, a couple of them are wrinkling my brain, and I'm reaching for Poe's Law. Especially since the source is "a thread on 4chan" which, to be honest, is not a good source and should stay where it was. But, more to the point, how do I know that none of these are edited? Especially since in 2010 Adobe showed that Photoshop can do fucking magic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NH0aEp1oDOI

OP was in poor taste, partly for cross-posting from the hive of scum and villainy.
 

marcooos

Shit Be Serial Cray
Nov 18, 2009
309
0
0
Zenron said:


Can we talk about this I need feminism picture instead? Seems like it would be about as productive.

Sure, most of those pictures don't have much to do with feminism or are just fundamentally flawed but that doesn't mean it's not childish to laugh at them.
Goddamn bigoted meerkat hating on mens rights
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,907
1,774
118
Country
United Kingdom
Giftfromme said:
You look at a girl and she doesn't keep eye contact? She could be shy you know.
...Relevance to what I said? Because I'm not seeing any.

Forgive me if I sound a little condescending. I'm trying not to be, but I don't see how this is in any way difficult to understand.

Sexual harassment refers the act of making persistent and/or unwanted sexual advances. Sometimes, yes, you can't know whether an advance was unwanted or not, but you can usually have a pretty good guess. If you do something in full knowledge that it might make someone else uncomfortable, own your actions, don't push them off onto someone else because some bitches be totally down with that, accept that you were perfectly okay with the risk that you were making someone uncomfortable with your actions on the off-chance it might get you in their pants. What does that say about you? What does it say about the entire male gender role?

You're trying to break this down into "unacceptable" actions in order to demonstrate that having any kind of personal integrity in this regard is impossible. It's really not and I refuse to believe you're incapable of reasonable judgement in this regard. Staring at someone is fine. Staring at someone persistently when it's obvious (or should be obvious) that they don't want you to is pathetic. Hitting on someone is fine. Whipping your cock out at them or following them down the street is pathetic.

I'd say the worst part about being in any way pro-feminist is having to argue with men who will go to extreme lengths to defend the idea that they are fucking morons. Do you have any idea how insulting that is? Let's face it, you're perfectly capable of exercising sound judgement in this regard, and maybe the reason you sometimes don't is because sometimes the risk of harassing someone just doesn't seem like a very big deal to you, and why the fuck should it?

..unless of course you're willing to account for someone else's feelings as something more than a prolonged puzzle sequence with vagina as a reward.

If it's not obvious, I'm deliberately exaggerating. I'm not actually accusing you of anything, like I said I just have no fucking idea how anyone in the 21st century doesn't understand how to avoid harassing someone.

Giftfromme said:
But what is the point of enforcing equality in this arena?
Who is talking about enforcing equality?

Giftfromme said:
ou can't nor should you enforce people change their opinions on this arena.
I'm not. I'm arguing that they should.

Third time this thread, feminism is not mind-control.

Giftfromme said:
These opinions are formed over centuries and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand or considered irrelevant.
Why not? Is there some merit to these opinions? What do they actually do?

Giftfromme said:
You can negotiate gender roles and relationships over the course of a larger society, but you should never serve to neutralize these. That would defeat the ongoing negotiation in society on gender roles etc.
...

At this point, I'm really really confused as to what you think feminism is and, more importantly, what it does. Again, it's not mind control.

Giftfromme said:
These come with a long history and are not trivial or should be discarded.
Wrong on every count.

These ideas have always changed, were always trivial, and have always been discarded when they outlived their usefulness. Even today, there are multiple competing ideas about what constitutes each of these things, in fact our friend in picture number one represents just such a position. In terms of its mutability, our society is no different to any previous one. The only difference is that we have a new vocabulary with new concepts which enables us to actually talk about it.

Your logic, if I'm reading it correctly, is basically that society shouldn't change because it must be how it is for a reason. That's circular.

Giftfromme said:
It's not just men who decide social values, it's women too.
Relevance?

You're right, of course, but I don't see any relevance to anything.

Feminism, certainly modern feminism, isn't really about who "decides" social values, it's about who the beneficiaries are. Just because you're given a "decision" doesn't mean the decision is always fair.

Giftfromme said:
When we talk about evolutionary history, you need to understand that it's mostly institutions that we have put a blanket over our age-old ways that stops us from acting like we used to.
Oh right..

..so, if institutions can do that, why is evolutionary history even relevant?

Giftfromme said:
Surely in our new evolved society, such a trait, behaviour etc (or whatever you call it) that in fact evolved while we were on the savannah should have been wiped out by now?
Let me explain to me what you just did.

1) You took an incident which occurs in a modern society.
2) You randomly decided it is not only an instinct rather than learned skill (proposing a whole load of original assumptions in the process, which I'll cover in a second) but evolved in a very specific environment and for a specific purpose, all without any evidence beyond the fact that it exists and must have a cause.
3) You used this to make a broad claim about the nature of every single person in the world.

In order for this to be accurate, we have to propose several original or contested assumptions.

1) That early hominids formed long-term pair bondings.
2) That despite doing so, they would still mate with other individuals in secret.
3) That there was some reason why it was important to know when this was happening.

There's a much simpler explanation, which is generally when you marry someone you spend a large proportion of your time with them. It's very hard to lie perfectly to someone who knows you very well, particularly when said lie manifests in your behavior.

This is just random theorizing. I know it's bad form to critique a study you've never read, but I fail to see how this one could have produced the conclusion you stated scientifically.

Giftfromme said:
Dunno what else to say about the rape thing. Biological urges are powerful and any amount of mental acrobatics can be done to justify a particular act. A man might look at all the advertising and think that everyone bar him is getting laid. He might then use that as an excuse to get rape if he's desperate enough. Anything could be used as an excuse. Education will hardly stop that from happening.
If "biological urges" are so powerful that men simply can't control their urge to rape, then why don't all men do it? Why do some women? Why do so many men rape their current or former sexual partners? Why do men in seemingly healthy sexual relationships commit rape? Why do some rapists fail to ejaculate or get an erection during the act?

"Desperation" really doesn't seem to come into it for most people who commit the crime.

It's impossible to concretely say at this point to say if "education" can genuinely effect men's chances of committing rape, but there is too much evidence that it can to simply dismiss the possibility out of hand based on unwarranted personal conviction. There are plenty of studies suggesting rape myth acceptance as a strong predictor of the likelihood of someone committing rape, for example.
 

TheLion

New member
Apr 18, 2012
44
0
0
boots said:
TheLion said:
Feminism isn't the same thing as "what women think"
Which kinda begs the question; if the average woman isn't concerned with feminism beyond equal pay, body image, and sexual harassment, how relevant is this neo-feminist goal of destroying gender roles? Call me an idiot, but i very strongly believe in the Will of the People, and if women themselves are defending antiquated ideas like chivalry, I don't think feminist theory can touch it anytime soon. (I hold doors for everyone FWIW)
You're still caught up on the idea that feminism is a women-only club that only represents women.

There are many, many, many male feminists out there and - by the same token - many sexist women who genuinely believe that they belong to the inferior gender.
I was never caught up on that idea of it being a women-only club, in fact I am a feminist by the classical definition. I'm saying that it seems very few people want to apply the more esoteric aspects of feminist theory to everyday life, and unless The People choose to implement those ideas, they're going to remain in the Ivory Tower. In other words, I'm concerned that feminism is beginning to represent no one, male or female.

Feminism just means gender equality, not "female expowerment".
But what is the end game of gender equality? What is to be destroyed, what is to be created, how would we accomplish this, and most importantly, will these acts be popular enough to gain momentum? Until feminism can pin down all four elements of democratic social change, it's going to be limited to mental masturbation. Feminists are doing great with the abortion debate because there are clear legal goals to be made, and the popularity to accomplish them. However, gender is going to be much harder to deal with because it's so abstract and subjective.
 

Arqus_Zed

New member
Aug 12, 2009
1,181
0
0
OuroborosChoked said:
Arqus_Zed said:
Really? Women actually have preferences concerning something as mundane as a foreskin? Huh... How utterly trivial.

Anyway, where were we? Right. First, female circumcision is not exclusive to third world countries - it even happens here in Belgium. Sure, it's done by immigrants to immigrants, but it is still something done within the boundaries of a first world country!
Way to undercut your own point. You're admitting it's not a problem of your culture, but of the culture of those who immigrate to your country. Simple solution: pass a law banning the practice. While you're at it, ban all genital mutilation and see how far you can go with banning male circumcision before the religious segments of the population start raising specters of the Holocaust.

Second, saying that male circumcision is on par with female circumcision?
No, I'm not... but thanks for putting words in my mouth. What I was actually saying is that in YOUR OWN culture, male genital mutilation is considered normal... yet you're raising a stink over some other culture's norms. THAT is pretty fucked up: that you view men in your own culture as so entirely insignificant that you have to look to another culture to find things to get pissed about before fixing the problems within your own metaphorical house.

Yes, female genital mutilation sucks. It's utterly horrible and cruel. But how about setting aside the white world's burden for two seconds to show compassion for your own sons and husbands?

That said, I am not a fan of infant circumcisions with males either.
But not enough to actually do something about it...
1) They're part of the country, culture doesn't matter. Didn't you hear? Imperialism is dead, welcome to the 21st century! By the way - it IS illegal! And in most other countries, it is illegal as well. The places where it isn't... Well, sometimes, things get fucked up. Just do some research, most of the problems stem from a few so called "religious" nutcases that keep something in tradition that didn't even have anything to do with their religion to begin with. I'm just saying that I'm not okay that feminists tend to give more attention to stupid bullshit like "I'm not loved 'cause I'm fat" or "why don't I get praise for not shaving my armpits" instead of actual issues like this!

2) What? Dude.. I don't even... I view men in my country as insignificant? And I'm the one putting words in YOUR mouth? Seriously, if male circumcision was about cutting a hole in your sack and slicing of your glans penis, then yes, you would be hearing me rage like a ************. So, yeah, I'm sorry, but as is, male circumcision is just a tad lower on my priority list.

3) The truth? I haven't done shit about anything. I'm no doctor. I've never been to Africa to save lives. I'm not planning to actually go do something about female circumcisions either. This is all about typing opinions and taking pictures of yourself holding a piece of paper with some text scribbled on it. I'm not doing shit, you're not doing shit. Right now, my biggest worry is my internship that starts tomorrow - and I'm pretty sure that since you have time to post on the Escapist forum as well, you're not the type of guy to go to temple and make sure nobody cuts off their baby's foreskin. I was talking about how sad it was that the feminists in the posted pictures are holding up pieces of paper with text concerning such trivial matters.