Poll: Are you a feminist?

[Calibanbutcher]

A lot of people seem to be saying that men's rights aren't a feminist issue. Of course they are. Any unequal rights between men and women are a result of gender roles, which is something that feminists try to break down.

Men aren't allowed custody of their children because women win by default? A result of women being seen as child rearers while the men don't have to have anything to do with them: a sexist notion that feminists should address.

Men aren't allowed to hit women or speak up when women hit men? A result of men being seen as stronger than women: a sexist notion that feminists should address.

Even if a woman doesn't even like men very much, she ought to be breaking down these stereotypes for the sake of women as well as men.

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.

I don't agree with circumcision but the sensitivity issue is panicked about more than necessary, I think. Having been in relationships with uncircumcised guys and a circumcised guy, the latter didn't suffer from pain or uncomfortable over stimulation (which also lead to premature ejaculation problems in one of the former) and generally seemed to enjoy himself a lot more, so lessening the sensitivity can be a blessing in some cases.
While I don't think this is a reason to go around cutting up babies, trying to compare a man with not too much sexual sensitivity to a woman with no sexual sensitivity at all is perhaps not the most reliable argument.

Juust a second:
PAIN during intercourse is not a common problem, neither with circumcised nor with uncircumcised guys. He might have some other issues.
And you do realize, that cutting of a woman's "foreskin", aka the hood covering the clitoris does not mean "no sensitivity", only lessened sensitivity in that specific area?

 

[jurnag12]

Well, going by that definition, yes. But I've never really done anything to actively promote the whole equality thing besides just abiding by it myself.

 

[Whateveralot]

No.

I simply do not advocate a difference between sexes. Logic states that this ought to be enough.


People should seriously stop giving a fuck. This is exactly why the difference is still there.

 

[DevilWithaHalo]

Its really sad that you cant just man up and admit you are wrong.

This statement supports the patriarchy! Why do men have to admit their wrong? Are women always right? Is humility a masculine trait and forgiveness a fem? Down with the system! Viva la revolution! Gender equality! Cake for all!

Sorry... I couldn't help the sarcasm today.

 

[gazumped]

Juust a second:
PAIN during intercourse is not a common problem, neither with circumcised nor with uncircumcised guys. He might have some other issues.
And you do realize, that cutting of a woman's "foreskin", aka the hood covering the clitoris does not mean "no sensitivity", only lessened sensitivity in that specific area?

The pain in question was caused by phismosis (where the foreskin is too tight to pull back over the head), but yes indeed it's not too common a problem and I certainly hope other uncircumcised guys I might be with in the future aren't going to suffer as much as the previous ones I've been with!

And female circumsicion does sometimes just mean removing the hood, but often means removing the entire clitoris (and in very extreme cases, all of the external genetalia)
http://www.siue.edu/~jfarley/nicho490.htm

 

[togutas]

No, in most cases I reject it.

BUT NOT IN ALL !!! I AM ALL FOR EQUALITY!

Anyone who isn't is an idiot plain and simple. I just think that the idea of gaining equality by only focusing on only one of two sexes is about as stupid an idea as it gets. Both genders have problems with representations, expectations etc but feminists seem to reject this notion, believing in a patriarchy that no longer exists. Sure woman are sexualised more and have higher expectations of beauty, but men are constantly displayed as these authoritative, body builder, smouldering types as well who are called pussies if they can't bench press 60. For every ying there is a yang. And you know what? male sexism happens too duh duh duh!!!!!! I know right!!!!! For an example. remember the whole OMG MASS ERECT 2 SEX SIMULATUUURRRR media coverage where people were disgusted that woman were being objectified when they completely forgot to mention that you could play as a woman and do the exact same? On the other hand Sharon Osborne can make fun of a traumatised man who penis was cut off by his wife all in the name of female empowerment on national TV and no one bats an eyelid. If thats not a case of sexism I don't know what is.

Also it woud be stupid to say that female discrimination does not happen far more overtly in other cultures such as in middle eastern countries and features prominently in a whole load of religions which i personally find morally reprehensible and disgusting. And if feminism is applied gaining equality in areas that actually have problems such as these I would be in full support but, lets face it, living in an country like America and complaining because boobs are shown on TV is just stupid.

I don't think most feminists see themselves as better than men but and like I said I am all for equality but I just view the core principles of feminism to be overtly the opposite of equal as it focuses on only one gender. Unless there is genuine need of female uprising and empowerment in other situations/cultures/religions

I am a 17 year old British male and would quite like some feedback on my views as I am always open to criticism in order to change my opinion.

 

[RafaelNegrus]

Here's an idea, maybe someone if for equal rights, but already believed they are achieved? That the sexism today is based purely on an indivual level which is unchangable? Is that even possible?

Well if they believed that then they would just be delusional. Sure its far far better now then it was even ten years ago but men and women still do not have equal rights. In some cases women have more rights then men and it others men have more rights then women.

Actually, equal rights is rather easy to achieve, and we basically already have done that. That's because rights are all spelled out in law. Most issues nowadays are about privileges and practices, not actual rights.

For example, the issue of the pay gap. This is an unequal practice, but doesn't really infringe on people's rights because people (at least in the US) don't have a RIGHT to equal pay for equal work. This was actually an issue 20-30 years ago when the Equal Rights Amendment was on the table, which would have given everyone a right to be free from discrimination, but it did not pass.

 

[Calibanbutcher]

Juust a second:
PAIN during intercourse is not a common problem, neither with circumcised nor with uncircumcised guys. He might have some other issues.
And you do realize, that cutting of a woman's "foreskin", aka the hood covering the clitoris does not mean "no sensitivity", only lessened sensitivity in that specific area?

The pain in question was caused by phismosis (where the foreskin is too tight to pull back over the head), but yes indeed it's not too common a problem and I certainly hope other uncircumcised guys I might be with in the future aren't going to suffer as much as the previous ones I've been with!

And female circumsicion does sometimes just mean removing the hood, but often means removing the entire clitoris (and in very extreme cases, all of the external genetalia)
http://www.siue.edu/~jfarley/nicho490.htm

I am aware of the fact, that the clitoris is often removed, but I wouldn't refer to that as "circumcision". In that case, I prefer the term "genital mutilation".
Of course, a "circumcision" is always a genital mutilation, but that counts for men as well.

 

[Zero_ctrl]

I'm all for equality.
The problem is when feminism gets associated to the belief that women are superior to men. There should be word for that.

 

[Lonewolfm16]

I am no more a femminist than I am a masculinist because i find the femminist movement to be very very frustratingly stupid. I have heard femminists argue that prostitution is the same as rape because "money takes the same role in prostitution as physical violence does in rape". By which logic all work is slavery. I believe in the equality of the genders but to label myself with a term from a movement I disagree with is simply stupid. So I suppose I am a equalist.

 

[Lonewolfm16]

I call bullshit, as do a lot of people on this forum.

Calling bullshit. Sure is easier than refuting arguments, amiright?

But you go on, keep believing that women are universally hated and maybe you can get a few sympathy points on the backwater of the the internet.

If you look up the meaning of 'universal,' you will find that it doesn't apply to the figure of 45%. And I don't think most of the 45% hate women, in fact they probably like them quite a bit, so long as they don't make any troublesome noises about equality and human dignity and activate your pathetic adolescent persecution complex.

PS, I'm a man.

Now now we all know the Tropes vs women thing doesnt prove that the majority of men are sexist pigs, just male gamers.

Naturally. I was referring to the poll results on this website.

And there are plenty of people who do believe in equal rights and aren't feminists, fancy that.

They're feminists and don't know it or deny it, just like there are so many sexists on this website that deny it.

I am not a femminist. I cannot support or abide by a movement all too often voicing opinoins and arguments grounded in pure stupidity. I am if anything a anti-femminist. I also belive men and women should have equal rights. I fancy the term equalist but how about this, masculinist. If femminist means men and women should be equal than masculinist should mean the same thing just in oppostion to femminism.

 

[Lonewolfm16]

I call bullshit, as do a lot of people on this forum.

Calling bullshit. Sure is easier than refuting arguments, amiright?

But you go on, keep believing that women are universally hated and maybe you can get a few sympathy points on the backwater of the the internet.

If you look up the meaning of 'universal,' you will find that it doesn't apply to the figure of 45%. And I don't think most of the 45% hate women, in fact they probably like them quite a bit, so long as they don't make any troublesome noises about equality and human dignity and activate your pathetic adolescent persecution complex.

PS, I'm a man.

Now now we all know the Tropes vs women thing doesnt prove that the majority of men are sexist pigs, just male gamers.

Naturally. I was referring to the poll results on this website.

And there are plenty of people who do believe in equal rights and aren't feminists, fancy that.

They're feminists and don't know it or deny it, just like there are so many sexists on this website that deny it.

I am not a femminist. I cannot support or abide by a movement all too often voicing opinoins and arguments grounded in pure stupidity. I am if anything a anti-femminist. I also belive men and women should have equal rights. I fancy the term equalist but how about this, masculinist. If femminist means men and women should be equal than masculinist should mean the same thing just in oppostion to femminism.

 

[lunavixen]

Great answer, I didn't expect that.

You're right, people don't want to hear it. Men are just supposed to take whatever come to them and whatever comes to them is always less important than if the same had happened to a woman. Rape, genital mutilation, domestic violence, losing everyone you love in divorce court, etc...

exactly, women are victimised and treated like they are weak and need protecting and in some cases overly so, men are expected to stay silent and endure, the male victims of DV assault and sexual assault are often not seen or payed attention to, and it shouldn't be like that, even before I started doing my studies on this in late high school and uni I knew there was such a differential in the treatment, but until I started studying Criminology, I never knew just how substantial that difference is.

 

[Snack Cake]

I'm a straight white male, and in the past, I probably would have responded "yeah, I guess so" to whether I'm a feminist. I supported equality for women, and I could see that in a lot of the world (e.g. Afghanistan), there was a lot of change needed before that could happen. On the other hand, I thought, at least in the US (where I live), that equality was pretty much accomplished, so I wasn't that passionate about it. In the last year or so, however, seeing intense misogyny in politics and on the internet has really dissolved my illusions that feminism can be a back burner cause.

These days, I'll respond "Hell yes, I'm a feminist".

 

[pppppppppppppppppp]

While I'm not one to stereotype feminists as man-haters or whatever, I think the whole thing is silly, if not in practice at least in concept.

It'd be like if you started a group that advocated racial equality among all races, then called it "negroism". You can define it how you want, but connotatively, it sounds like you're just looking out for black people.

Same concept here. If anything, feminism needs a brand overhaul.

 

[Rule Britannia]

A little adrift from the topic:

I feel both sexes have their disadvantages. I believe that equality should be found within both sexes...otherwise it would be equality, by only fixing the problems women have, it can't possibly be equal.

Just to push the obvious argument of "masculinists are doing the same thing as feminists":
I feel masculinists are being masculinists to be ironic 90% of the time as well as masculinists hardly exist in the first place.

OT:
Yes, a little. If there is an obvious equality flaw with one of the sexes, in this case female, then it should be fixed/balanced.

 

[xorinite]

I have and do call myself a feminist. Despite the fact that many people here have stated that its meaning has changed and now includes a bunch of connotations, mostly due to it being used as a shield to cover up for sexism and sexually repressive attitudes and behaviour.

Our choices appear to be either to fight to keep possession of that word to its dictionary definition or abandon it to those who would use it as a cover for their performance of the very antithesis of what the term actually means, or some unrelated activity. So far I'd rather attack those people and correctly identify them as the sexists, repressive or nuts as it applies.

I can understand the argument that the term is has a focus problem, it says female equality, which in logical terms is the same as male equality, or gender equality, but carries with it, the sniff of the Orwellian concept that some are more equal than others.

That it should perhaps be given over and a new term employed by those serious about feminism; humanism being given as one example, gender egalitarianism as another.

However I have a concern about this:
If you say, ah we'll abandon this word to the fringe lunatics and sexists masquerading as egalitarians then will you have to make the same surrender when they eventually want to use your next term for gender egalitarianism as a cover for their sexist and/or oppressive attitudes?

So far I have acted to fight for ownership of the term, I could be convinced that its focus limitation, its misuse, and its lack of integration with other important concepts like freedom, mean gender egalitarianism (for focus solely on equality) or humanism (for focus on a broader range of human centric issues) should be employed instead yet as I stated I can see some problems with such a choice.

Edit: As for activism, it depends what counts. I have advocated publicly (edit 2: I mean in the talking about, rather than legal sense) for various matters of gender equality. Retirement age, working conditions, parental access, other issues tied largely to humanism and children's rights like being against genital mutilation of children although unlike some I don't only focus on one gender.

 

[Whateveralot]

No.

I simply do not advocate a difference between sexes. Logic states that this ought to be enough.


People should seriously stop giving a fuck. This is exactly why the difference is still there.

Logic states that? Eh, that statement says that you do not actually know what logic *is*. Take a course on it before trying to talk about it. Not everyone needs it, but with a mistake like that...

Logic has some rules to it. None of them gives a statement of value like that.

You're trying to pin me down on a single word: That's a flawed excuse for not willing to understand my point.

I believe I'm fully clear on what I'm trying to point out to you. Either face my point head-on, or troll someone else.

In case you didn't understand me (which is entirely possible):
Feminism is kind alike to anti-racism. It used to work back when the majority of the people were actively limiting the freedom of woman and that of other races, but right now, it's just better to stop whining about it. You're only making the little discrimination there is seem a lot worse.

Just watch this video of what Morgan Freeman has to say about racism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2d2SzRZvsQ

Basically saying: get over it. All of us.

 

[Epona]

Great answer, I didn't expect that.

You're right, people don't want to hear it. Men are just supposed to take whatever come to them and whatever comes to them is always less important than if the same had happened to a woman. Rape, genital mutilation, domestic violence, losing everyone you love in divorce court, etc...

exactly, women are victimised and treated like they are weak and need protecting and in some cases overly so, men are expected to stay silent and endure, the male victims of DV assault and sexual assault are often not seen or payed attention to, and it shouldn't be like that, even before I started doing my studies on this in late high school and uni I knew there was such a differential in the treatment, but until I started studying Criminology, I never knew just how substantial that difference is.

Things are so pro-female (and anti-male) that when a female teacher molests a male student, many people say that he got lucky!

Can you imagine a male teacher molesting a female student and people saying that? There would be riots! However, when the victim is male...being a child doesn't even seem to matter!

 

[CentralScrtnzr]

There are people who self-label as "feminist" who advocate the wholesale murder of men, boys, and male newborns. That they may also be denoted as "radical" is here meaningless. Feminists, pure and simple, are a hate group. Anyone that identifies as feminist, regardless of their pure motives, should they actually possess them, nevertheless aids the man-loathing feminist in her campaign to debase, endanger, defame, and murder all men everywhere.

I'm not usually someone to become too emotionally moved, but feminists do genuinely arouse in me real, heavy, sinking disgust.

It is important for more people, male and female, to give voice to their opposition to feminism and not allow the vitriol and ad-hominem so common to feminist argument to silence and censor them.