Poll: Are you a feminist?

[Duggan1]

By those definitions, I am a feminist. However, I identify as a humanist, and I think you should too.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Well, I actually agree with you that quotas are basically a band-aid for a larger structural problem (i.e., the unofficial quotas in management/boardrooms/etc). But pretending that women are the sole beneficiary of gender quotas is an over-simplification, too - the effects of the quota depend on the applicant pool for whatever the quota's for.

Really? Forcing company to hire women without even looking at their qualifications can be beneficial?(not beneficial to company or even COUNTRY due to company making less profit thus paying less tax) And how is more qualified man that did not got job is "beneficiary of gender quota"?

A "beneficiary" of something is someone who benefits from something. Calling someone a "beneficiary" of a policy does not imply a value judgment on the policy's benefit (or lack thereof) to society.

Yes women benefit from gender quotas. And company, country, and males that did not get job suffers. Equal rights and opportunities benefits women.

Well, women are the immediate beneficiaries of some gender quotas, and men are the immediate beneficiaries of others. It depends on the applicant pool.

 

[JediMB]

I'm for equal rights regardless of sex, sexuality, race, etc.

So even if your definition of feminism doesn't cover all of those, I think I can safely say that it's one piece of the larger puzzle.

So, yes, I'm a feminist. As for doing anything actively... well... I argue on the Internet. >_>

 

[Evilpigeon]

Shit never mind. Sorry I'm tired -.-

 

[ThePS1Fan]

Nope. I think people should have equal rights. That's it.

 

[DeleteThisAcc]

I don't "mind" transvestites as long as they don't lie and hunt for mates. If you are transvestite and going to date someone - tell them "what" you are. (and " oh they are born that way" is BS. Really? Man that had wife and children and was cool all around suddenly decides that he is a woman?)

I've got a better idea. Why don't we, as a society, stop trying to micromanage the clothing and gender identification of people in our society? You know, treat people like people, even if they *gasp* don't conform to 19th century American/European gender norms?

or even better - why don't we stop *gasp* lying? Oh wait, that would kill feminism, prevent transvestites from ruining peoples lives (some transvestite kinda screwed someones I know life)

 

[Kahunaburger]

It honestly does not come off that way

Eh... people see what they want to see, and get offended by what they want to get offended by. Not much I can do to change that.

Yet you ignored a polite request to remove my quote from it so there was no miscommunication. So it is obvious you meant it as an insult.

You can think that if you want. It wasn't about you, but w/e. If you want to be offended, you'll find something that offends you.

intentionally outrageous strawman position of the other parties stance

Gee, I wonder why my line had very little do do with what Felix was saying? Could it be... because it wasn't meant to represent what he was saying? No, that's too obvious.

 

[DeleteThisAcc]

Well, I actually agree with you that quotas are basically a band-aid for a larger structural problem (i.e., the unofficial quotas in management/boardrooms/etc). But pretending that women are the sole beneficiary of gender quotas is an over-simplification, too - the effects of the quota depend on the applicant pool for whatever the quota's for.

Really? Forcing company to hire women without even looking at their qualifications can be beneficial?(not beneficial to company or even COUNTRY due to company making less profit thus paying less tax) And how is more qualified man that did not got job is "beneficiary of gender quota"?

A "beneficiary" of something is someone who benefits from something. Calling someone a "beneficiary" of a policy does not imply a value judgment on the policy's benefit (or lack thereof) to society.

Yes women benefit from gender quotas. And company, country, and males that did not get job suffers. Equal rights and opportunities benefits women.

Well, women are the immediate beneficiaries of some gender quotas, and men are the immediate beneficiaries of others. It depends on the applicant pool.

" It depends on the applicant pool."
ugh... explain. Give example or something. I am afraid you don't get what I am speaking about.

 

[Buleet]

I personally tend to have my doubts about feminists as the very loud minority tends to be, ironically enough, sexist towards men.
By now i think that in most countries women and men have the same rights. as far as i know with my ignorant brain.

 

[Steve Waltz]

Feminism is a very good idea in theory, but in practice it sometimes leads to pure stupidity.

Absolutely the way I feel. I've heard feminists complain about how society separates boys and girls from birth by the color pink vs. blue, and write essays (in my literary theory class) about how girls are not allowed to like certain cartoons because it's a "boy's show." Such incredibly trivial and selfish that it reminds me about that Resident Evil 5 racist malarkey.

I completely support equal rights, but that includes the equal right of women *and* men. Feminists only care about women's equal rights and that's why I think feminism is selfish and doesn't work. If feminists cared about women *and* men's rights it wouldn't sound so trivial and probably won't that "pure stupidity" you mentioned.

 

[IceStar100]

That at one time was the mean but like the word queer which at one time simply ment odd. The word has taken on a diffrent meaning. So no I'm an equalist.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Well, I actually agree with you that quotas are basically a band-aid for a larger structural problem (i.e., the unofficial quotas in management/boardrooms/etc). But pretending that women are the sole beneficiary of gender quotas is an over-simplification, too - the effects of the quota depend on the applicant pool for whatever the quota's for.

Really? Forcing company to hire women without even looking at their qualifications can be beneficial?(not beneficial to company or even COUNTRY due to company making less profit thus paying less tax) And how is more qualified man that did not got job is "beneficiary of gender quota"?

A "beneficiary" of something is someone who benefits from something. Calling someone a "beneficiary" of a policy does not imply a value judgment on the policy's benefit (or lack thereof) to society.

Yes women benefit from gender quotas. And company, country, and males that did not get job suffers. Equal rights and opportunities benefits women.

Well, women are the immediate beneficiaries of some gender quotas, and men are the immediate beneficiaries of others. It depends on the applicant pool.

" It depends on the applicant pool."
ugh... explain. Give example or something. I am afraid you don't get what I am speaking about.

See also: three pages back. [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20111646-503544.html] The female applicant pool is larger than the male applicant pool for college admissions in the states. So for the colleges that have gender quotas, males are generally the primary beneficiary of these quotas. Incidentally, this is why I don't like the quota system: the effects are pretty random, and it doesn't do much about the underlying causes of inequality.

 

[Kahunaburger]

I don't "mind" transvestites as long as they don't lie and hunt for mates. If you are transvestite and going to date someone - tell them "what" you are. (and " oh they are born that way" is BS. Really? Man that had wife and children and was cool all around suddenly decides that he is a woman?)

I've got a better idea. Why don't we, as a society, stop trying to micromanage the clothing and gender identification of people in our society? You know, treat people like people, even if they *gasp* don't conform to 19th century American/European gender norms?

or even better - why don't we stop *gasp* lying? Oh wait, that would kill feminism, prevent transvestites from ruining peoples lives (some transvestite kinda screwed someones I know life)

Wait... what? You're gonna need to elaborate on this one a bit.

 

[Olas]

The word feminist was clearly meant to have a female bias, just look at the word! What's next? Should believing in equality of races make you a negroist? This is stupid.

What then do you call the subcategory of people who specifically seek out and fight all perceived sexism against women? Are they femifeminists?

 

[orangeban]

I don't "mind" transvestites as long as they don't lie and hunt for mates. If you are transvestite and going to date someone - tell them "what" you are. (and " oh they are born that way" is BS. Really? Man that had wife and children and was cool all around suddenly decides that he is a woman?)

I've got a better idea. Why don't we, as a society, stop trying to micromanage the clothing and gender identification of people in our society? You know, treat people like people, even if they *gasp* don't conform to 19th century American/European gender norms?

or even better - why don't we stop *gasp* lying? Oh wait, that would kill feminism, prevent transvestites from ruining peoples lives (some transvestite kinda screwed someones I know life)

When I tell you I'm a woman (I'm a transgender woman), I'm not "lying", I'm telling you the truth. Why shouldn't it be your responsibility to tell all your partners that you don't like transgender people?

If someone doesn't like bisexuals, and dates a bisexual without knowing it, is the bisexual a liar for not telling them they were a bisexual?

 

[Product Placement]

I find those definitions of feminism to be sorely lacking. Feminism is the crazy idea that everybody deserves to be treated like a human being, regardless of things like age, race, gender or sexual orientation.

No. That's being an egalitarian (equalist for short).

Feminist fights for equal rights, solely by combating sexism. Egalitarian would fight for equal rights in all fields; political, financial, racial, sex and anything else. You will find an egalitarian supporting feminist movements, gay rights, racism and anything else that fits that bill.

So in short, an egalitarian is a feminist but not all feminists are egalitarians.

 

[Sparrow]

I don't identify as feminist because the word holds lots of different connotations depending on whom you ask, and I believe I shouldn't have to specify that I want the sexes to be equal. It should be the default position.

This answer sums up my viewpoint quite nicely. I mean, when someone says feminist my mind always jumps to those men-hating nazi-feminists... not something I want to be identified with. Equality, however, is something I have no qualms with.

If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: it shouldn't be called feminism, it should be called equalitism.

 

[Evilpigeon]

Feminism is a very good idea in theory, but in practice it sometimes leads to pure stupidity.

Absolutely the way I feel. I've heard feminists complain about how society separates boys and girls from birth by the color pink vs. blue, and write essays (in my literary theory class) about how girls are not allowed to like certain cartoons because it's a "boy's show." Such incredibly trivial and selfish that it reminds me about that Resident Evil 5 racist malarkey.

It's actually very true that young children are brought up with different sets of social paragdigms based upon gender and that these paradigms often have long term consequences - physics and engineering courses at universities tend to be pretty lacking in female applicants for example. It'd be nigh impossible to say for certain to what extent this gap is due to women on average being mentally predisposed towards other sorts of subjects and how much is caused by social pressure to avoid these subjects however it'd be very naive to argue that people's upbringing doesn't affect affect them at all.

 

[orangeban]

snip

snip

Oh good gravy it's happened.

I implore you two, do not get into this.

That way madness lies. Madness and moderation.

But I'm bored and poking the trolls is fun!

 

[DeleteThisAcc]

Well, I actually agree with you that quotas are basically a band-aid for a larger structural problem (i.e., the unofficial quotas in management/boardrooms/etc). But pretending that women are the sole beneficiary of gender quotas is an over-simplification, too - the effects of the quota depend on the applicant pool for whatever the quota's for.

Really? Forcing company to hire women without even looking at their qualifications can be beneficial?(not beneficial to company or even COUNTRY due to company making less profit thus paying less tax) And how is more qualified man that did not got job is "beneficiary of gender quota"?

A "beneficiary" of something is someone who benefits from something. Calling someone a "beneficiary" of a policy does not imply a value judgment on the policy's benefit (or lack thereof) to society.

Yes women benefit from gender quotas. And company, country, and males that did not get job suffers. Equal rights and opportunities benefits women.

Well, women are the immediate beneficiaries of some gender quotas, and men are the immediate beneficiaries of others. It depends on the applicant pool.

" It depends on the applicant pool."
ugh... explain. Give example or something. I am afraid you don't get what I am speaking about.

See also: three pages back. [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20111646-503544.html] The female applicant pool is larger than the male applicant pool for college admissions in the states. So for the colleges that have gender quotas, males are generally the primary beneficiary of these quotas. Incidentally, this is why I don't like the quota system: the effects are pretty random, and it doesn't do much about the underlying causes of inequality.

look, first I am speaking about job quotas where MOSTLY only female quotas work (boss can have 100% female workers and noone will care, but he can have maximum like 70% of male workers)
In your example you have quota that goes both ways - rare example. Also I would like to know why "female applicant pool is larger than the male applicant pool for college admissions in the states" and what feminist is going to do about that.

Also Quota system IS BAD IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCE:
Even if quota works both ways: 50/50 - male/female it is still bad in universities and jobs BECAUSE you always need people that are best qualified (universities, jobs) and quotas prevent taking maximum capacity of best qualified people by forcing to choose from two different "pots" equally (one pot might be filled with good apples and other with rotten ones that year). Also quotas create bigger divide between sexes, oh wait, feminism want exactly that...