Poll: Are you a feminist?

[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.

 

[PrinceOfShapeir]

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.

So...basically, they have to stop calling themselves feminists because a few nutcases have co-opted their ideology to suit their own insanity? -Really-?

 

[Kahunaburger]

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.

That is, IMO, is the perfect example of why feminism is still important. Patriarchy screws everyone over.

 

[Eynimeb]

I am in favor of equality for women in all things. Rights, priviliges, responsibilities, respect, empathy, etc etc.

Feminism ultimately, is a word. For every person, it has the meaning that person gives it. What they've been told it is, what they've seen done in its name, what they themselves think it should mean, etc.

To say that 'feminism = X' doesn't do the complexity of the word justice.

People have different ideas on what equality entails. I've met plenty of women who want equal treatment and better treatment at the same time. To be considered equal in every way, but still enjoy the benefits of 'chivalry'. I've met a few women who would be offended if offered any chivalry, because they consider it demeaning. Every possible permutation of ideas regarding equality, hostility or empathy towards the other gender, and desire for independence or not, as well as any other factor exists.


Ultimately, how they perceive themselves and what people want has nothing to do with what's between their legs, and everything to do with what's between their ears.

If you tell people they are inferior, they may internalize that, and/or become resentful. If you put them on a pedestal, they will start believing they deserve to be on that pedestal. If you treat them a certain way, they will consider that normal, take it for granted, and disapprove of suddenly being treated differently, even if the initial behavior was in your eyes unfair, for better or worse.

Until both the term 'feminism' gains a single accepted meaning, like say 'oxygen', and those who consider themselves feminists agree on the ultimate goals, it's pointless to ask someone if they are one.

 

[UncleAsriel]

I identify as this I'm a humanist, and the focus on treating folks with respect regardless of their genitalia' shape strikes me as a rational way to approach the world.

It also helps that I'm a John Stuart Mill fanboy, and find his theses on gender-equity (as well as diversity in general) to be attuned to my values.

 

[maturin]

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.

Feminism isn't a movement anymore. The Sixties and Seventies were a long time ago. As the dictionary pointed out, the simple belief in gender equality makes you a feminist or at least a fellow traveler. Feminists haven't done or said anything nearly so outrageous as the wingnuts of the Republican and Democratic parties, but that doesn't stop millions of moderates from identifying with them. Same with Christianity.

The term originates from a time when advocating equal rights explicitly meant the advancement of women over men because of the great disparity that had persisted since the beginning of Western civilization, and when complaining about the male place in society would have been a silly extravagance by comparison.

'Men have it hard too' is an argument with a lot of merit. Now if only it could get a movement that wasn't like Sexists for Don Quixote. Anyone looked at the Senate and Fortune 500 lately?

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

Yup, I devote way to much thought to improving the depiction of women in gaming and the equality of women in society to be anything else. Also who doesn't want to be counted with Patrick Stewart, Alan Alda and Adam Yauch as male feminists? I mean seriously.

 

[Schadrach]

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.

To quote myself from another site:


You'll find very few people who disagree with the statement "Women are people too and should have the same rights as any other person."

If that's the total definition of feminist you want to go with, then sure, why not, I'm a feminist.

If you go from there to "therefore women should be given special preferential treatment and/or lowered standards to do things that aren't already at least 50% women, and possibly even then", then I stop agreeing. Equality doesn?t mean special explicit systematic privilege for one group.

Or perhaps an argument that relies on the assumption of women as always victims and never perpetrators, or of women as never being deceitful, malicious, cruel, or otherwise horrible, you've lost me again -- those are human traits, not gendered traits. A lot of feminists particularly engage in this one, for example claiming that women are never violent, or only men rape (or separating "rape" from merely being forced to have sex in order to make it more gendered), or women never falsely accuse.

Or maybe, "we need to discriminate regarding victim services with respect to gender." Or to go all radfemhub on you, "therefore we need to employ biological solutions to dealing with the male problem." Or that "when women are behind in some field or activity it shows that there is something wrong with that field or activity; when men are behind, it shows that something is wrong with men." Or that gender privilege is a one-way street (it shocks me that feminist women [the only women you ever hear talk about male privilege] can claim that "privilege blinds" when referring to men not seeing advantages, but then not realize the same statement applies to women).

The three above paragraphs all reflect things I've heard feminists argue in the past. All pretty terrible. All stuff I disagree with. That's one of the problems with "feminism." "Feminism is not a monolith" lets you get away without having to defend feminist positions by simply claiming that you don't hold them and they don't really count as "feminist". At the same time, it lowers the bar to be a feminist essentially to the point of meaninglessness.

Personally, I believe women are people too and should have the same rights and responsibilities that men do, or equitable ones in any case where identical rights and responsibilities are literally impossible. I also believe that men are people too and should have the same rights and responsibilities that women do, or equitable ones in any case where identical rights and responsibilities are literally impossible.

That means holding both to the same standards and requirements, everywhere.

That means giving men some means through which to opt-out of the rights and responsibilities of parenthood, and the mother having no say in that choice.

That means enforcing custody arrangements as strongly as child support.

That means taking accusations of sexual violence seriously regardless of the genders of perpetrator and victim, investigating it thoroughly, trying it properly on the basis of actual evidence corroborating testimony like any other crime, and it means taking the possibility of false allegations seriously as well.

 

[Schadrach]

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!

You can go a step further than that -- if a female teacher has a child by an underage male student (which is if nothing else clear proof of statutory rape, his sperm didn't get there by magic), he can look forward to paying his rapist for two decades (and being jailed if he can't keep payments up), and she can look forward to having no punishment for committing statutory rape, because it's totally OK so long as the victim is male, they aren't *real* victims.

EDIT: I figure someone will ask for an example, so http://67.21.3.118/research/CaseLevel3/74059

 

[the doom cannon]

snip

I love you. Seriously. Finally someone agrees with me that minority groups, whether they be race, gender, or whatever, should not be given special privileges in order to make an institution equal in the number of people represented by each group. If you aren't qualified, then you shouldn't be allowed to take the same position as someone who IS qualified. This happens way too much in the world because the "oppressed" groups want equal REPRESENTAION, not just opportunity. And the fact of the matter is that many people get away with significantly lower standards just because they are a woman, they are a minority race, or some other discriminatory factor.

 

[itsthesheppy]

In it's current state... No.

Feminism has changed so much from its original cause (equal rights) and is now the very thing that it used to despise IE: a form of sexism.

I still remember how the feminist community verbally attacked Gloria Steinem when she got married saying that she was betraying the movement.

They all did? I'm not aware personally of any feminists who claim that marriage is bad or that relationships with men are bad. Or even that all men are necessarily inherently bad. And I follow quite a few. Networks of them, even.

Well I can't be sure that every single feminist in the entire world was enraged by it but certainly the ones that the clowns at FOX chose to show were.

BTW there are some groups of feminists that, hand on heart, believe that marriage is a legalized form of slavery, oppression and even rape.

I don't really believe you.

Also, I would be careful about trusting anything at all you see on Fox News. I mean, at this point, if you don't know enough to distrust what you see in news media, there isn't much I can do to help.

 

[Calibanbutcher]

In it's current state... No.

Feminism has changed so much from its original cause (equal rights) and is now the very thing that it used to despise IE: a form of sexism.

I still remember how the feminist community verbally attacked Gloria Steinem when she got married saying that she was betraying the movement.

They all did? I'm not aware personally of any feminists who claim that marriage is bad or that relationships with men are bad. Or even that all men are necessarily inherently bad. And I follow quite a few. Networks of them, even.

Well I can't be sure that every single feminist in the entire world was enraged by it but certainly the ones that the clowns at FOX chose to show were.

BTW there are some groups of feminists that, hand on heart, believe that marriage is a legalized form of slavery, oppression and even rape.

I don't really believe you.

Also, I would be careful about trusting anything at all you see on Fox News. I mean, at this point, if you don't know enough to distrust what you see in news media, there isn't much I can do to help.

Well, if you choose to distrust all the news-media all the time, what do you still trust for news?

 

[itsthesheppy]

snip

I love you. Seriously. Finally someone agrees with me that minority groups, whether they be race, gender, or whatever, should not be given special privileges in order to make an institution equal in the number of people represented by each group. If you aren't qualified, then you shouldn't be allowed to take the same position as someone who IS qualified. This happens way too much in the world because the "oppressed" groups want equal REPRESENTAION, not just opportunity. And the fact of the matter is that many people get away with significantly lower standards just because they are a woman, they are a minority race, or some other discriminatory factor.

While I agree that hiring lesser-qualified minority groups to grant them status is putting the cart before the horse, you have to at least recognize that there are fewer 'qualified' candidates for those positions because of the unequal manner in which we educate and prepare people for life.

There may be more 'qualified' white male candidates for Job A because white men are more likely to be privileged with the training and opportunity for Job A than other groups. Suggesting that the playing field is totally level is to suggest that there's more white men in these positions because being a white man somehow makes you more competent, which we know to be false.

So I feel the anger is a bit misdirected. While people rail against 'affirmative action', they rarely qualify that anger by suggesting comprehensive change to the systems that make such programs needed. Most just stop at the anger.

 

[itsthesheppy]

In it's current state... No.

Feminism has changed so much from its original cause (equal rights) and is now the very thing that it used to despise IE: a form of sexism.

I still remember how the feminist community verbally attacked Gloria Steinem when she got married saying that she was betraying the movement.

They all did? I'm not aware personally of any feminists who claim that marriage is bad or that relationships with men are bad. Or even that all men are necessarily inherently bad. And I follow quite a few. Networks of them, even.

Well I can't be sure that every single feminist in the entire world was enraged by it but certainly the ones that the clowns at FOX chose to show were.

BTW there are some groups of feminists that, hand on heart, believe that marriage is a legalized form of slavery, oppression and even rape.

I don't really believe you.

Also, I would be careful about trusting anything at all you see on Fox News. I mean, at this point, if you don't know enough to distrust what you see in news media, there isn't much I can do to help.

Well, if you choose to distrust all the news-media all the time, what do you still trust for news?

The news media. I didn't say they were 100% distrustful. They aren't. They're only maybe... 50-75% distrustful.

What I do is I follow CNN (not perfect but meh) and reddit and a few other sources. If I see something interesting, I usually google up a bunch of articles on it and read the story from a number of different angles. Then I draw my own conclusions, based off the information I've heard from numerous sources.

There's no single source people can get their news from and call it reliable. To me, the news media is a canary in the coal mine. They sound the alarm when something is worth knowing, but they won't tell you everything you need to know.

Only in the case of Fox News I feel it's more likely to be bullshit just based on my experience.

 

[itsthesheppy]

In it's current state... No.

Feminism has changed so much from its original cause (equal rights) and is now the very thing that it used to despise IE: a form of sexism.

I still remember how the feminist community verbally attacked Gloria Steinem when she got married saying that she was betraying the movement.

They all did? I'm not aware personally of any feminists who claim that marriage is bad or that relationships with men are bad. Or even that all men are necessarily inherently bad. And I follow quite a few. Networks of them, even.

Well I can't be sure that every single feminist in the entire world was enraged by it but certainly the ones that the clowns at FOX chose to show were.

BTW there are some groups of feminists that, hand on heart, believe that marriage is a legalized form of slavery, oppression and even rape.

I don't really believe you.

Also, I would be careful about trusting anything at all you see on Fox News. I mean, at this point, if you don't know enough to distrust what you see in news media, there isn't much I can do to help.

1st: I naver asked for your help or any help for that matter.
2nd: reread the line "clowns at FOX chose to show".
and
3rd: IDC if you believe; it still happened.

If you don't care whether or not I believe you, why bother saying anything? Because if you say something, and I say "I think you're full of it" and you just shrug your shoulders, then you've pretty much wasted our time. I can't trust you as a reliable source of information, and you failed to communicate anything of value. So what's the point?

If you say a thing, you have to be prepared for people to ask you to back it up. That's that responsible, adult communication is all about. Otherwise we're just spinning wheels.

 

[Schadrach]

While I agree that hiring lesser-qualified minority groups to grant them status is putting the cart before the horse, you have to at least recognize that there are fewer 'qualified' candidates for those positions because of the unequal manner in which we educate and prepare people for life.

There may be more 'qualified' white male candidates for Job A because white men are more likely to be privileged with the training and opportunity for Job A than other groups. Suggesting that the playing field is totally level is to suggest that there's more white men in these positions because being a white man somehow makes you more competent, which we know to be false.

So I feel the anger is a bit misdirected. While people rail against 'affirmative action', they rarely qualify that anger by suggesting comprehensive change to the systems that make such programs needed. Most just stop at the anger.

Of course. The real question is, where does an actual difference in opportunity following those demographic lines exist? That's where the effort needs to be placed, and that's also why affirmative action as it is actually practiced is ridiculous, sexist, and racist, and also *maintains* the idea that those people aren't as capable, because they're not being held to the same standard.

 

[itsthesheppy]

While I agree that hiring lesser-qualified minority groups to grant them status is putting the cart before the horse, you have to at least recognize that there are fewer 'qualified' candidates for those positions because of the unequal manner in which we educate and prepare people for life.

There may be more 'qualified' white male candidates for Job A because white men are more likely to be privileged with the training and opportunity for Job A than other groups. Suggesting that the playing field is totally level is to suggest that there's more white men in these positions because being a white man somehow makes you more competent, which we know to be false.

So I feel the anger is a bit misdirected. While people rail against 'affirmative action', they rarely qualify that anger by suggesting comprehensive change to the systems that make such programs needed. Most just stop at the anger.

Of course. The real question is, where does an actual difference in opportunity following those demographic lines exist? That's where the effort needs to be placed, and that's also why affirmative action as it is actually practiced is ridiculous, sexist, and racist, and also *maintains* the idea that those people aren't as capable, because they're not being held to the same standard.

I will say that the criticisms of such programs are undermined somewhat by being conjured largely, I've found, from individuals to whom the program gives no benefit. As in, white people.

Speaking as a white guy, I don't bother to speak out against them. I instead endeavor to do my part to make this world one in which those programs will not be a necessity. Whining about them focuses the conversation on a symptom and not the disease. In fact all it does is reinforce the idea that minority groups have, that we white folks are always trying to keep them down, to maintain our comfortable majority and position of privilege. I feel effort is better spent ignoring things like affirmative action and instead focusing efforts on making them obsolete.