Poll: Are you a feminist?

[PurePareidolia]

Yes, but the word "feminism" as well as "feminist" has developed into a slur thanks to a very successful war on semantics run by some pretty sleazy folks. People become really quick to distance themselves from the terms and the concepts now equated with them.

True or not, I dislike the idea of giving up on a valid word because some people dislike it - distancing yourself from the word only gives it more of a stigma and frankly, it's letting a bunch of mysoginists win, which I refuse to do on principle.

 

[Kahunaburger]

gender quotas

Depends on what the quota's for, of course, but at least in American admissions men are a larger beneficiary of gender quotas than women. The female applicant pool is larger than the male applicant pool.

let me tell you what happens in rest of the world:
Boss opens small company, he needs 10 good workers.
20 men and 20 women come for job.
In boss puts them by qualification in hiring line.
He wants to take 8 men and 2 women - others are less qualified.
Gender quota says: "Thou shall have half of your workers female if your job is not coal mining or toxic waste disposal"
Boss drops 3 men that was more qualified for job and takes 3 women that were less qualified.
Company doesn't work as well because of workers not having best possible qualifications.
But! Lets say that qualification line was different!
What If all women were more qualified than men?
So boss wants to hire 10 women.
Gender quota says: " Well chosen"..
Yah, EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES AND RIGHTS... Thank you feminism.

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.

 

[DeleteThisAcc]

...but seriously, dude, finding a surprise dick somewhere doesn't justify transphobia, and transphobia doesn't help you establish your credibility as a genuine egalitarian.

"doesn't help you establish your credibility as a genuine egalitarian." Had to google that word. I am not trying to establish anything else than - feminism is not for equal rights and possibilities, it only tries to tilt field to favor females.

"finding a surprise dick somewhere doesn't justify transphobia" - Ok. I will have to explain myself then. 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?)

 

[Circleseer]

Back to topic: I don't think the word really applies to me. I'm just not a dick to women. To be a feminist, shouldn't you be actively involved in equalizing and fighting for rights and all that?

That'd be the people who introduce themselves as ", Feminist." ?

I wouldn't even put it in my profile on, say, facebook or the like. I see that at the time of writing this comment, 50% see themselves as 'feminist'. But aren't the majority of you just decent, non-sexist people, instead of active feminists?

My 2 cents.

 

[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"?

 

[Kahunaburger]

snip

Sounds like you'd rather be arguing against some comment other than the one I actually made. It was mostly a joke, directed towards the guy I was responding to, and the "purpose," if any, was to applaud him for using a definition of feminism gained from study of actual feminist philosophy.

 

[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.

 

[DeleteThisAcc]

gender quotas

Depends on what the quota's for, of course, but at least in American admissions men are a larger beneficiary of gender quotas than women. The female applicant pool is larger than the male applicant pool.

let me tell you what happens in rest of the world:
Boss opens small company, he needs 10 good workers.
20 men and 20 women come for job.
In boss puts them by qualification in hiring line.
He wants to take 8 men and 2 women - others are less qualified.
Gender quota says: "Thou shall have half of your workers female if your job is not coal mining or toxic waste disposal"
Boss drops 3 men that was more qualified for job and takes 3 women that were less qualified.
Company doesn't work as well because of workers not having best possible qualifications.
But! Lets say that qualification line was different!
What If all women were more qualified than men?
So boss wants to hire 10 women.
Gender quota says: " Well chosen"..
Yah, EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES AND RIGHTS... Thank you feminism.

And I'm sure this isn't a specious argument with no actual evidence behind it.

Google?...
gender quotas in france (put any eu name here)
gender quotas in politics...

you will find articles about forcing 50/50 in board rooms but nothing about hiring quotas since that is not news

 

[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?

 

[maninahat]

I would consider anyone a feminist, if they would like equal rights and treatment for women. And that goes without saying.

As for being actively interested, yes I am a feminist by that definition too. People are reluctant to admit it because of the stereotype of feminists being shrill, joyless, and uncompromising. Whatever grain of truth may be in those assumptions (I have encounted plenty like that), it is more than outweighed by the reasonable, sensible, happy feminist types.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Flames66]

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.

That's pretty much my reason for voting no. I'm for equal rights across the board, because it should be so already.

That's pretty much my opinion as well. I am not a feminist, I just think that all people are equal.

That's like saying "I don't subscribe to any particular religion but I'm not an atheist" -

That is pretty much my view on religion.

Feminism is implied by the whole "equal rights" thing. You can be a feminist and also support equal rights for men/minorities/pets/trees/whatever - in fact being a feminist necessitates men should have equal rights to anyone else because the word "equal" goes both ways. That's the point in fact.

I'm really not sure why half the people in the thread seem to think "feminism" precludes caring about about anyone else's rights because there's really no reason why it would. In fact I'd probably expect feminists to care more about other people's rights, given they're most likely aware of some disparities already.

The point I am making is that, while I believe in equal rights for women, you won't see me out at feminist rallies waving flags. For me, there are issues in the world that are more important, such as the institution of fear and surveillance that is constantly growing is society.