Poll: Are you a feminist?

[Epona]

I know men can be feminists. You can usually find them saying bad things about men while women are angels. I was one once, until the double standards become clear.

You are the one who complained about female genital mutilation in other countries but made no mention about it happening thousands of times per day right here at home. I guess it's ok though since it's only boys.

I capitalized "male children" to put stress on it. You obviously care about genital mutilation against girls but not boys.

Which country is "here at home"? I may not live there.

And I care about both issues equally.

(Your assertion about male feminists is baseless unless you have some statistics to show.)

It's anecdotal, remember, I was a male feminist. You need proof, maybe I'll point it out to you the next time a man bashes men in favor of women. It will be something like "men are stupid, women should rule the world".

Here, in the US or any western nation where circumcision is widely practiced. If you cared about both issues equally, then tell me why you didn't mention it alongside female mutilation in OTHER countries. You say OTHER, it means outside your home country.

 

[Moth_Monk]

I know men can be feminists. You can usually find them saying bad things about men while women are angels. I was one once, until the double standards become clear.

You are the one who complained about female genital mutilation in other countries but made no mention about it happening thousands of times per day right here at home. I guess it's ok though since it's only boys.

I capitalized "male children" to put stress on it. You obviously care about genital mutilation against girls but not boys.

Which country is "here at home"? I may not live there.

And I care about both issues equally.

(Your assertion about male feminists is baseless unless you have some statistics to show.)

It's anecdotal, remember, I was a male feminist. You need proof, maybe I'll point it out to you the next time a man bashes men in favor of women. It will be something like "men are stupid, women should rule the world".

Here, in the US or any western nation where circumcision is widely practiced. If you cared about both issues equally, then tell me why you didn't mention it alongside female mutilation in OTHER countries. You say OTHER, it means outside your home country.

I didn't mention it because it was not relevant to the point at that time. Besides that circumcision is not really an issue when compared to, which is what I meant, mutilating the genitals of women so that they can not experience sexual pleasure - this is carried out in some countries.

 

[Calibanbutcher]

@moopig66: You forgot the most important part for any story Michael Bay is involved in: Huuge Explosions.


ON topic:
I shall just leave this here:
http://thefemitheist.blogspot.de/2012/04/allow-me-to-introduce-myself.html

wow. My mind is actually blown. That is impressive in it's ignorance and pure hate.

maybe it's written by the same nice lady father_time linked to.

the one that the only mercy she can give men is to kill them quickly :/

You kids who don't recognise satire are so adorable

Yep, what a great satire, really.

A hate-filled piece of writing about violently assaulting and mutilating ca. 50% of earth's population.
What a great satire.
I bet, if I was to write a piece on how we should keep all women in cages as sex slaves and continue to explain how that would make the world a better place, you would enjoy that just as much.
If you had taken but a minute to read some of her other "work", you would recognize her as the hateful being she is.

Hey, I've got a shocking essay you should read about how the Irish should eat their children. Jonathan Swift should have been sent to Bedlam for it!

THAT was satire.
The author of the post in question however, asks for the castration of all men over and over again.
And I find it hard to believe that this is still supposed to be a satire.
Also, If I am to hold the essay up to the standards set for satire, we really don't get very far.
All she is conveying is "all men are all bad all the time" and "violence against men is ok because of that".
If you found this to be a good example of a satire well done, then we must have differing tastes.

 

[Darkmantle]

No, no you don't believe in equal rights, and don't insult my intelligence by asserting that you do in any way. Your pathetic, your not concerned about anyone other than yourself and how much attention you get from society. You pretend to be outraged by the abuse of men, an action that's so uncommon, so easily disputable by any journal or scientific inquiry, but your outrage is a last ditch cry for attention as you man babies whine your last days away as the ones on top, and we enter a world where true equality exists.

Please, don't you dare insult my ipntelagince with that pack of passive aggressive lies.

Awww, i worked hard on that short story, it took lots of time! Had to get all the imagery right.
Oh, and i did, im sad for her, something sad happened to her at some point and now shes all sad. Sadness is never good.

Oh, and respect, respect is something i reserve for those who earn it. You, you get nothing of the sort. You are the lowest common denominator in our culture at the moment, you will be remembered along side the likes of slave holders and KKK members come 2100. I would write a lengthy excerpt from a future textbook, but no one would appreciate it... sad

Ooh, i like that.

Me, alone in the night, adorned in a black silk cape and hood. A knife rests in my hand, hidden from the moons light beneath my cape. I stock a nearby bar, watching, waiting. A women walks out from the depths of the dank bar into the misty night that blankets the street. Her walk is awkward, her demeanor is intoxicated. Behind her walks a gentleman adorned in his most generic of white wife-beaters. His hand grasps her breast. POW! She smacks him across the jaw with her half broken purse, makeup containers shower the street. She walks off, angry and drunk.

The man stumbles toward the curb to tend to his wounds, empty beer bottle in hand, his eyes red, is speech slurred. He mumbles softly to himself for a moment whereupon he realizes that a cloaked presence has perched itself behind him. In one foul, murderous motion, the figure, the figure that is i, plunges his knife deep, deep into the mans heart from behind. Blood spills forth from the wound, splattering the still rolling containers of makeup. I pull my knife slowly from the newly formed cavity in the mans back. He falls, face first, into his victims long forgotten belongings. Lipstick intermingled with blood, blood intermingled with eye-shadow.

"wha-" the man moans

"vengeance..." i say softly to my latest victim, "... vengeance"

Written by Moopig66, story and characters by Moopig66, edited by Micheal Bay for some reason

And that makes misandry okay because? Are you one of these vengeance feminists?

if you read that rant posted by father time, it's basically her fantasy.

And mocking is also not a good way to show respect. Problem with many feminists, don't practice what they preach.

classy, comparing me to the KKK, I think Godwin's law needs an expansion. I am nothing of the sort by the way, I support equal rights. Yes for women too, but also for men. I don't exclude gays or anyone else for that matter.

Unlike you, who go out of your way to exclude male victims of violence perpetrated by women, only because it doesn't fit with your narrative.

There is literally nothing passive-aggressive about my posts and I doubt you know what that term means. And Abuse against Men is not uncommon. I have already posted multiple studies, including stats Canada who studies from about 2003 onward have found the rates to be equal. The evidence is stacking up that women can be just as violent as men, and someday, you're going to have to accept that people are people, and their genitals do not make them more likely to abused or less likely to be a victim.

I want to help the male victims of DV, of which there are more and more every year. That in no way makes me sexist, or means that I hate women.

but you can't accept that, it just doesn't fit with you preconceptions does it?

Do you need to see some real life victims before you give up your crusade?


This is not a bullshit issue. Stop minimizing others suffering. How many studies? How many testimonies? How much evidence will you need to see that men are frequent victims of domestic violence? What will it take?

Tell me, I will do my best to provide.

 

[Epona]

I know men can be feminists. You can usually find them saying bad things about men while women are angels. I was one once, until the double standards become clear.

You are the one who complained about female genital mutilation in other countries but made no mention about it happening thousands of times per day right here at home. I guess it's ok though since it's only boys.

I capitalized "male children" to put stress on it. You obviously care about genital mutilation against girls but not boys.

Which country is "here at home"? I may not live there.

And I care about both issues equally.

(Your assertion about male feminists is baseless unless you have some statistics to show.)

It's anecdotal, remember, I was a male feminist. You need proof, maybe I'll point it out to you the next time a man bashes men in favor of women. It will be something like "men are stupid, women should rule the world".

Here, in the US or any western nation where circumcision is widely practiced. If you cared about both issues equally, then tell me why you didn't mention it alongside female mutilation in OTHER countries. You say OTHER, it means outside your home country.

I didn't mention it because it was not relevant to the point at that time. Besides that circumcision is not really an issue when compared to, which is what I meant, mutilating the genitals of women so that they can not experience sexual pleasure - this is carried out in some countries.

You just made my point for me. You think male genital mutilation is not as bad as female mutilation. Cutting the foreskin cuts many nerves that also affect sexual pleasure.

 

[Moth_Monk]

I know men can be feminists. You can usually find them saying bad things about men while women are angels. I was one once, until the double standards become clear.

You are the one who complained about female genital mutilation in other countries but made no mention about it happening thousands of times per day right here at home. I guess it's ok though since it's only boys.

I capitalized "male children" to put stress on it. You obviously care about genital mutilation against girls but not boys.

Which country is "here at home"? I may not live there.

And I care about both issues equally.

(Your assertion about male feminists is baseless unless you have some statistics to show.)

It's anecdotal, remember, I was a male feminist. You need proof, maybe I'll point it out to you the next time a man bashes men in favor of women. It will be something like "men are stupid, women should rule the world".

Here, in the US or any western nation where circumcision is widely practiced. If you cared about both issues equally, then tell me why you didn't mention it alongside female mutilation in OTHER countries. You say OTHER, it means outside your home country.

I didn't mention it because it was not relevant to the point at that time. Besides that circumcision is not really an issue when compared to, which is what I meant, mutilating the genitals of women so that they can not experience sexual pleasure - this is carried out in some countries.

You just made my point for me. You think male genital mutilation is not as bad as female mutilation. Cutting the foreskin cuts many nerves that also affect sexual pleasure.

I would like to see something to back up that last claim since I did not realise that (if it's true).

The difference between the two situations is that for the women it is done to try and prevent infidelity where as removing the foreskin may be for real medical reasons in some cases (as opposed to simply cultural).

 

[Darkmantle]

Modern feminism would have us believe that men imprisoned women and raped them constantly until the feminist movement came along.

...No.

What you are probably referring to is a vocal minority that are bringing bad press on all of the the feminists that are trying to get the serious stuff done.

"Modern Feminism" is what's known as Third Wave Feminism [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-wave_feminism] and claims nothing even resembling your claim.

Serious stuff done? Anything to help men gain equality listed in that serious stuff?

Feminism is equal rights for women. So that would be a major non-sequitur.

Equality for only one group = oxymoron.

You're assuming that a feminist can not also advocate equal rights for men at the same time.

I already asked if there was anything on the list to help men gain equality.

There does not need to be. Men's rights aren't somehow a "response" or counterargument to women's rights. They tend to be in different areas. The issue of, say, conscription during times of war, only affects men. The Beauty Myth mainly concerns women. Being against the beauty myth isn't denying any of men's rights.
Most feminist's are presumably against discrimination on the basis of age or race, but you aren't complaining that these feminists must be racist or ageist on the grounds that they aren't explicitly dealing with the issues of minorities or the elderly. Maybe they are socialist, capitalist, environmentalist, white supremacist, masculist or misandrist as well. However, saying describing someone as a feminist is merely stating their views on one issue, namely that there are certain ways in which society oppresses women or deny's them certain rights.

I understand your argument (and no I'm not the guy you replied to) but look at this thread. I have brought up a very real issue, domestic violence against men, with all kind of supporting evidence and several self-proclaimed feminists keep trying to suppress it, and call me sexist, and a crying baby for bringing it up.

This is the problem I have with many feminists. The suppression of real issues men face, or the re-framing of these issues to somehow make women the victim. I've already given you a suppression example, so take conscription.

Men are sent over seas and forced to fight and die for cause they probably don't want any part of. I believe the is was Mortai Gravesend who turned it around saying that it was because the patriarchy thinks women are incompetent. Oh look, the women are the victims again. If that's what he believes, shouldn't he be advocating for women to be in the draft as well as men, or to do away with the draft for EVERYONE? You would think right?


I have nothing but respect for those feminists who live up to your ideal, but I've met few who do, or even try.

 

[Epona]

I know men can be feminists. You can usually find them saying bad things about men while women are angels. I was one once, until the double standards become clear.

You are the one who complained about female genital mutilation in other countries but made no mention about it happening thousands of times per day right here at home. I guess it's ok though since it's only boys.

I capitalized "male children" to put stress on it. You obviously care about genital mutilation against girls but not boys.

Which country is "here at home"? I may not live there.

And I care about both issues equally.

(Your assertion about male feminists is baseless unless you have some statistics to show.)

It's anecdotal, remember, I was a male feminist. You need proof, maybe I'll point it out to you the next time a man bashes men in favor of women. It will be something like "men are stupid, women should rule the world".

Here, in the US or any western nation where circumcision is widely practiced. If you cared about both issues equally, then tell me why you didn't mention it alongside female mutilation in OTHER countries. You say OTHER, it means outside your home country.

I didn't mention it because it was not relevant to the point at that time. Besides that circumcision is not really an issue when compared to, which is what I meant, mutilating the genitals of women so that they can not experience sexual pleasure - this is carried out in some countries.

You just made my point for me. You think male genital mutilation is not as bad as female mutilation. Cutting the foreskin cuts many nerves that also affect sexual pleasure.

I would like to see something to back up that last claim since I did not realise that (if it's true).

The difference between the two situations is that for the women it is done to try an prevent infidelity where as removing the foreskin may be for real medical reasons in some cases (as opposed to simply cultural).

Oh right, now it's the intention that matters? WOW!

Circumcision Removes the Most Sensitive Parts of the Penis
A sensitivity study of the adult penis in circumcised and uncircumcised men shows that the uncircumcised penis is significantly more sensitive. The most sensitive location on the circumcised penis is the circumcision scar on the ventral surface. Five locations on the uncircumcised penis that are routinely removed at circumcision are significantly more sensitive than the most sensitive location on the circumcised penis.
In addition, the glans (head) of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The tip of the foreskin is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis, and it is significantly more sensitive than the most sensitive area of the circumcised penis. Circumcision removes the most sensitive parts of the penis.
This study presents the first extensive testing of fine touch pressure thresholds of the adult penis. The monofiliment testing instruments are calibrated and have been used to test female genital sensitivity.

http://www.circumcision.org/studies.htm

http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_lost.html

Plenty more links for your Googling pleasure.

 

[the Dept of Science]

Modern feminism would have us believe that men imprisoned women and raped them constantly until the feminist movement came along.

...No.

What you are probably referring to is a vocal minority that are bringing bad press on all of the the feminists that are trying to get the serious stuff done.

"Modern Feminism" is what's known as Third Wave Feminism [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-wave_feminism] and claims nothing even resembling your claim.

Serious stuff done? Anything to help men gain equality listed in that serious stuff?

Feminism is equal rights for women. So that would be a major non-sequitur.

Equality for only one group = oxymoron.

You're assuming that a feminist can not also advocate equal rights for men at the same time.

I already asked if there was anything on the list to help men gain equality.

There does not need to be. Men's rights aren't somehow a "response" or counterargument to women's rights. They tend to be in different areas. The issue of, say, conscription during times of war, only affects men. The Beauty Myth mainly concerns women. Being against the beauty myth isn't denying any of men's rights.
Most feminist's presumably against discrimination on the basis of age or race, but you aren't complaining that these feminists must be racist or ageist on the grounds that they aren't explicitly dealing with the issues of minorities or the elderly. Maybe they are socialist, capitalist, environmentalist or white supremacist as well. However, saying describing someone as a feminist is merely stating their views on one issue, namely that there are certain ways in which society oppresses women or deny's them certain rights.

This is all of waste of your time, they admit that they are only interested in "equality" for women. That is not in dispute at this point.

Fair enough, so long as they don't claim they are about equality for all.

Just like men's rights movements are seeking equality for men.

Each one of these schools of thought focuses on the needs of one group of people. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are against other groups, they most likely support them. It's generally just a better use of one person's time and energy if they focus on one group. Naomi Wolf or Germane Greer (presumably) support racial equality as well, they just aren't putting books out about it because that's not their area of expertise. If feminism is anti-man, then the civil rights movement is anti-white.

Well, as long as this idea that feminism is about equality for all dies, I am happy.

Take The Beauty Myth as an example. International bestseller, on Times 100 Greatest Non-Fiction Books, one of the most influential feminist books of all time.
The thesis of the book is that our current notions of beauty means that women are held back in their romantic and career aspirations by their looks. Furthermore, to compensate women are far more prone to eating disorders and a perceived reliance on expensive cosmetic products and surgeries.
This is definitely a feminist idea, that women should be free to live without a constant pressure to be physically attractive (y'know, like men do). I ask, how is this idea anti-men?
It doesn't deny us any of our rights. There's no right to deny women work based on their appearance. Wolf acknowledges that some men are affected by the same things (some men suffer eating disorders as well). However, it really is a woman's issue. It barely even occurred to me that there even was a problem, because I'm pretty sure I've never been denied anything significant due to my looks.

 

[Moth_Monk]

I know men can be feminists. You can usually find them saying bad things about men while women are angels. I was one once, until the double standards become clear.

You are the one who complained about female genital mutilation in other countries but made no mention about it happening thousands of times per day right here at home. I guess it's ok though since it's only boys.

I capitalized "male children" to put stress on it. You obviously care about genital mutilation against girls but not boys.

Which country is "here at home"? I may not live there.

And I care about both issues equally.

(Your assertion about male feminists is baseless unless you have some statistics to show.)

It's anecdotal, remember, I was a male feminist. You need proof, maybe I'll point it out to you the next time a man bashes men in favor of women. It will be something like "men are stupid, women should rule the world".

Here, in the US or any western nation where circumcision is widely practiced. If you cared about both issues equally, then tell me why you didn't mention it alongside female mutilation in OTHER countries. You say OTHER, it means outside your home country.

I didn't mention it because it was not relevant to the point at that time. Besides that circumcision is not really an issue when compared to, which is what I meant, mutilating the genitals of women so that they can not experience sexual pleasure - this is carried out in some countries.

You just made my point for me. You think male genital mutilation is not as bad as female mutilation. Cutting the foreskin cuts many nerves that also affect sexual pleasure.

I would like to see something to back up that last claim since I did not realise that (if it's true).

The difference between the two situations is that for the women it is done to try an prevent infidelity where as removing the foreskin may be for real medical reasons in some cases (as opposed to simply cultural).

Oh right, now it's the intention that matters? WOW!

Circumcision Removes the Most Sensitive Parts of the Penis
A sensitivity study of the adult penis in circumcised and uncircumcised men shows that the uncircumcised penis is significantly more sensitive. The most sensitive location on the circumcised penis is the circumcision scar on the ventral surface. Five locations on the uncircumcised penis that are routinely removed at circumcision are significantly more sensitive than the most sensitive location on the circumcised penis.
In addition, the glans (head) of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The tip of the foreskin is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis, and it is significantly more sensitive than the most sensitive area of the circumcised penis. Circumcision removes the most sensitive parts of the penis.
This study presents the first extensive testing of fine touch pressure thresholds of the adult penis. The monofiliment testing instruments are calibrated and have been used to test female genital sensitivity.

http://www.circumcision.org/studies.htm

http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_lost.html

Plenty more links for your Googling pleasure.

Thanks for the links I shall give them a read. As for intentions, I always thought that was what morality was about: The intention behind the action. Otherwise how would we differentiate between accidents and things done on purpose?

 

[averydeeadaccount]

in my humble definition of the word, feminism is the belief that women are better then men, the opposite being masculinism, the belief that men are better then women. if you believe the genders are equal, you are neither, because that is the default position.

the reason being that while historically feminists aim to increase womens rights to be equal to mens, they have now reached that goal, and any further feminism is unjust.

 

[Epona]

Modern feminism would have us believe that men imprisoned women and raped them constantly until the feminist movement came along.

...No.

What you are probably referring to is a vocal minority that are bringing bad press on all of the the feminists that are trying to get the serious stuff done.

"Modern Feminism" is what's known as Third Wave Feminism [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-wave_feminism] and claims nothing even resembling your claim.

Serious stuff done? Anything to help men gain equality listed in that serious stuff?

Feminism is equal rights for women. So that would be a major non-sequitur.

Equality for only one group = oxymoron.

You're assuming that a feminist can not also advocate equal rights for men at the same time.

I already asked if there was anything on the list to help men gain equality.

There does not need to be. Men's rights aren't somehow a "response" or counterargument to women's rights. They tend to be in different areas. The issue of, say, conscription during times of war, only affects men. The Beauty Myth mainly concerns women. Being against the beauty myth isn't denying any of men's rights.
Most feminist's presumably against discrimination on the basis of age or race, but you aren't complaining that these feminists must be racist or ageist on the grounds that they aren't explicitly dealing with the issues of minorities or the elderly. Maybe they are socialist, capitalist, environmentalist or white supremacist as well. However, saying describing someone as a feminist is merely stating their views on one issue, namely that there are certain ways in which society oppresses women or deny's them certain rights.

This is all of waste of your time, they admit that they are only interested in "equality" for women. That is not in dispute at this point.

Fair enough, so long as they don't claim they are about equality for all.

Just like men's rights movements are seeking equality for men.

Each one of these schools of thought focuses on the needs of one group of people. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are against other groups, they most likely support them. It's generally just a better use of one person's time and energy if they focus on one group. Naomi Wolf or Germane Greer (presumably) support racial equality as well, they just aren't putting books out about it because that's not their area of expertise. If feminism is anti-man, then the civil rights movement is anti-white.

Well, as long as this idea that feminism is about equality for all dies, I am happy.

Take The Beauty Myth as an example. International bestseller, on Times 100 Greatest Non-Fiction Books, one of the most influential feminist books of all time.
The thesis of the book is that our current notions of beauty means that women are held back in their romantic and career aspirations by their looks. Furthermore, to compensate women are far more prone to eating disorders and a perceived reliance on expensive cosmetic products and surgeries.
This is definitely a feminist idea, that women should be free to live without a constant pressure to be physically attractive (y'know, like men do). I ask, how is this idea anti-men?
It doesn't deny us any of our rights. There's no right to deny women work based on their appearance. Wolf acknowledges that some men are affected by the same things (some men suffer eating disorders as well). However, it really is a woman's issue. It barely even occurred to me that there even was a problem, because I'm pretty sure I've never been denied anything significant due to my looks.

I don't know who you are debating here? I don't even care about this Beauty myth but I will say that men face something similar, a good salary.

Men chase pretty women, women chase rich men. It isn't true in all cases.

So, what was the point of you post exactly? I never said the Beauty myth was anti-male, I never said a damn thing about it and I am not interested in talking about it further.

 

[the_bearpelt]

Everyone who believe in the equal rights of men and women is a feminist. This is fact.
For more info: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnJxqRLg9x0&list=UU7Edgk9RxP7Fm7vjQ1d-cDA&index=9&feature=plcp

 

[Moth_Monk]

I like women.

I wouldn't mind keeping them around, they make the best squadmates.

This the best comment in this thread.

 

[Epona]

I know men can be feminists. You can usually find them saying bad things about men while women are angels. I was one once, until the double standards become clear.

You are the one who complained about female genital mutilation in other countries but made no mention about it happening thousands of times per day right here at home. I guess it's ok though since it's only boys.

I capitalized "male children" to put stress on it. You obviously care about genital mutilation against girls but not boys.

Which country is "here at home"? I may not live there.

And I care about both issues equally.

(Your assertion about male feminists is baseless unless you have some statistics to show.)

It's anecdotal, remember, I was a male feminist. You need proof, maybe I'll point it out to you the next time a man bashes men in favor of women. It will be something like "men are stupid, women should rule the world".

Here, in the US or any western nation where circumcision is widely practiced. If you cared about both issues equally, then tell me why you didn't mention it alongside female mutilation in OTHER countries. You say OTHER, it means outside your home country.

I didn't mention it because it was not relevant to the point at that time. Besides that circumcision is not really an issue when compared to, which is what I meant, mutilating the genitals of women so that they can not experience sexual pleasure - this is carried out in some countries.

You just made my point for me. You think male genital mutilation is not as bad as female mutilation. Cutting the foreskin cuts many nerves that also affect sexual pleasure.

I would like to see something to back up that last claim since I did not realise that (if it's true).

The difference between the two situations is that for the women it is done to try an prevent infidelity where as removing the foreskin may be for real medical reasons in some cases (as opposed to simply cultural).

Oh right, now it's the intention that matters? WOW!

Circumcision Removes the Most Sensitive Parts of the Penis
A sensitivity study of the adult penis in circumcised and uncircumcised men shows that the uncircumcised penis is significantly more sensitive. The most sensitive location on the circumcised penis is the circumcision scar on the ventral surface. Five locations on the uncircumcised penis that are routinely removed at circumcision are significantly more sensitive than the most sensitive location on the circumcised penis.
In addition, the glans (head) of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The tip of the foreskin is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis, and it is significantly more sensitive than the most sensitive area of the circumcised penis. Circumcision removes the most sensitive parts of the penis.
This study presents the first extensive testing of fine touch pressure thresholds of the adult penis. The monofiliment testing instruments are calibrated and have been used to test female genital sensitivity.

http://www.circumcision.org/studies.htm

http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_lost.html

Plenty more links for your Googling pleasure.

Thanks for the links I shall give them a read. As for intentions, I always thought that was what morality was about: The intention behind the action. Otherwise how would we differentiate between accidents and things done on purpose?

I have heard a few things over the years about the reasoning behind circumcision:

- It was for religious reasons (Jewish)
- It was because women liked circumcised penises
- It was for health reasons

None of those reasons justify strapping a baby down and cutting him with no painkiller! You know though, he's male, he can take it!

 

[Moth_Monk]

*double post*

 

[Epona]

Everyone who believe in the equal rights of men and women is a feminist. This is fact.
For more info: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnJxqRLg9x0&list=UU7Edgk9RxP7Fm7vjQ1d-cDA&index=9&feature=plcp

No, feminists are only concerned with the rights of women, mens rights aren't their problem.

 

[Hjalmar Fryklund]

Thanks for the links I shall give them a read. As for intentions, I always thought that was what morality was about: The intention behind the action. Otherwise how would we differentiate between accidents and things done on purpose?

Morality of action, intention and character are different beasts, though linked with each other.

CAPTCHA: of course

 

[the Dept of Science]

Modern feminism would have us believe that men imprisoned women and raped them constantly until the feminist movement came along.

...No.

What you are probably referring to is a vocal minority that are bringing bad press on all of the the feminists that are trying to get the serious stuff done.

"Modern Feminism" is what's known as Third Wave Feminism [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-wave_feminism] and claims nothing even resembling your claim.

Serious stuff done? Anything to help men gain equality listed in that serious stuff?

Feminism is equal rights for women. So that would be a major non-sequitur.

Equality for only one group = oxymoron.

You're assuming that a feminist can not also advocate equal rights for men at the same time.

I already asked if there was anything on the list to help men gain equality.

There does not need to be. Men's rights aren't somehow a "response" or counterargument to women's rights. They tend to be in different areas. The issue of, say, conscription during times of war, only affects men. The Beauty Myth mainly concerns women. Being against the beauty myth isn't denying any of men's rights.
Most feminist's presumably against discrimination on the basis of age or race, but you aren't complaining that these feminists must be racist or ageist on the grounds that they aren't explicitly dealing with the issues of minorities or the elderly. Maybe they are socialist, capitalist, environmentalist or white supremacist as well. However, saying describing someone as a feminist is merely stating their views on one issue, namely that there are certain ways in which society oppresses women or deny's them certain rights.

This is all of waste of your time, they admit that they are only interested in "equality" for women. That is not in dispute at this point.

Fair enough, so long as they don't claim they are about equality for all.

Just like men's rights movements are seeking equality for men.

Each one of these schools of thought focuses on the needs of one group of people. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are against other groups, they most likely support them. It's generally just a better use of one person's time and energy if they focus on one group. Naomi Wolf or Germane Greer (presumably) support racial equality as well, they just aren't putting books out about it because that's not their area of expertise. If feminism is anti-man, then the civil rights movement is anti-white.

Well, as long as this idea that feminism is about equality for all dies, I am happy.

Take The Beauty Myth as an example. International bestseller, on Times 100 Greatest Non-Fiction Books, one of the most influential feminist books of all time.
The thesis of the book is that our current notions of beauty means that women are held back in their romantic and career aspirations by their looks. Furthermore, to compensate women are far more prone to eating disorders and a perceived reliance on expensive cosmetic products and surgeries.
This is definitely a feminist idea, that women should be free to live without a constant pressure to be physically attractive (y'know, like men do). I ask, how is this idea anti-men?
It doesn't deny us any of our rights. There's no right to deny women work based on their appearance. Wolf acknowledges that some men are affected by the same things (some men suffer eating disorders as well). However, it really is a woman's issue. It barely even occurred to me that there even was a problem, because I'm pretty sure I've never been denied anything significant due to my looks.

I don't know who you are debating here? I don't even care about this Beauty myth but I will say that men face something similar, a good salary.

Men chase pretty women, women chase rich men. It isn't true in all cases.

So, what was the point of you post exactly? I never said the Beauty myth was anti-male, I never said a damn thing about it and I am not interested in talking about it further.

I'm simply giving an example of a feminist idea that isn't anti-men, merely pro-equality. Feminist ideas can be equality for all. It's just that certain issues effect certain groups.

 

[Keoul]

snip

What are you referring to by "you do this to every group then?", If you mean recognize that the group can be split up into smaller groups of people with different opinions on the matter then yes.