Okay, you win. I do not want to argue about it. I have seen feminists and most of them seek dominance over men. I have yet to see one that only acts with equality in mind.
-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Feminism
- Thread starter Wstfgl
- Start date
- Status
well this is true. but notice how it says seeking the betterment of the female gender, instead of seeking the betterment of the female gender over the male gender.
although i do find it true, that most of the "feminists" that ive met are they kind that think women are and should be better than men.
When feminists seek the end of Lady's Night at bars, where women get discount drinks because they are female I will believe feminists are truly interested in equal rights and not just keeping all the benes of being female, but attacking any benefits, real or percieved, given to men on the basis they are men.
The feminists will counter this "isn't really a big deal," of course. It's never a big deal when it is women who are getting a better shake. If you can't trust them in little things on principle, you shouldn't trust them on big things.
Btw. Surgo, does the dictionary definition of communism include setting up gulags and mass-murdering people? Because thats what communism has always promoted and involved, dictionary definition aside. Feminism, like communism, is not just the dictionary definition, it's the baggage that goes with it, and modern-day feminism has a lot of baggage.
Since the beginning of time, men have always complained about women, and women have always complained about men. Well, "since the beginning of time" may be an exaggeration, but I've talked to people who have reported that it was true in the 1950's, and I think my extrapolation isn't unreasonable.
What seems to be a relatively new advent is that women's complains of men are becoming accepted as scientific fact. If you go to a bookstore, I guarantee that you'll find entire rows of books about how men are unloving, cold, calculating, violent, heartless robots with complete disregard for the emotions of others and commitment.
My major gripe with this is that unlike statistical comparison, a lot of it isn't actually scientific. For example, I have never seen a PSA about domestic abuse on the part of women, when numerous studies have concluded that women engage in domestic abuse as often as men. The reason for the stereotypical image is also somewhat based on difference between men and women; women are more willing to admit being abused, but no man wants to admit that his wife abuses him. But it is an interesting point: the campaign against domestic abuse is built on the image of an abusive husband (which I don't need to describe further because of the images that the phrase "abusive husband" conjures up on its own, further emphasizing my point).
There's also a huge problem with using a mean of any sort (be it statistical or inferred) to measure the individual. For example, if a woman says that her partner isn't intimate, she'd likely get a response along the lines of, "Of course he isn't intimate. He's a man." Even if we can say that most men are not intimate (which I'm not), it's an entirely different thing to say that ALL men are incapable of intimacy. Yet for some reason, this seems perfectly acceptable, but ONLY when applied to the male gender. It's okay to say that all men are poor communicators. It's not okay to say that all women are poor communicators.
What really gets my dander up is that if people applied this same logic to race, it would be quickly attacked as bigoted. Even if there's statistical evidence that blacks, on average, have lower IQ than whites no one will allow you to say that someone is intellectually inferior simply because of his race. However, it's okay to say that all male stereotypes (proven or assumed) apply to all men.
While feminists were once part of a civil rights movement pushing for equality, they are now extending far beyond that. And in fact, they already have inequality in their favor. When Betty Friedan gives a speech about how men are morally inferior to women, she receives a standing ovation from both men and women. If I gave a speech about how women are morally inferior to men, I'd probably be booed off the stage by both men and women.
It's probably worth mentioning that the threat of gender-discrimination suit makes it much harder for a woman to lose her job than a man, which is definitely an inequality in my book. Also, at trial, women are more likely to be acquitted than men regardless of their guilt or innocence.
So yeah. I think that racism is definitely rampant in the western world. But I'm pretty sure that women are getting the better end of the bargain in pretty much every case. And I think that any woman who wants more than what she has right now is pretty unreasonable.
What seems to be a relatively new advent is that women's complains of men are becoming accepted as scientific fact. If you go to a bookstore, I guarantee that you'll find entire rows of books about how men are unloving, cold, calculating, violent, heartless robots with complete disregard for the emotions of others and commitment.
My major gripe with this is that unlike statistical comparison, a lot of it isn't actually scientific. For example, I have never seen a PSA about domestic abuse on the part of women, when numerous studies have concluded that women engage in domestic abuse as often as men. The reason for the stereotypical image is also somewhat based on difference between men and women; women are more willing to admit being abused, but no man wants to admit that his wife abuses him. But it is an interesting point: the campaign against domestic abuse is built on the image of an abusive husband (which I don't need to describe further because of the images that the phrase "abusive husband" conjures up on its own, further emphasizing my point).
There's also a huge problem with using a mean of any sort (be it statistical or inferred) to measure the individual. For example, if a woman says that her partner isn't intimate, she'd likely get a response along the lines of, "Of course he isn't intimate. He's a man." Even if we can say that most men are not intimate (which I'm not), it's an entirely different thing to say that ALL men are incapable of intimacy. Yet for some reason, this seems perfectly acceptable, but ONLY when applied to the male gender. It's okay to say that all men are poor communicators. It's not okay to say that all women are poor communicators.
What really gets my dander up is that if people applied this same logic to race, it would be quickly attacked as bigoted. Even if there's statistical evidence that blacks, on average, have lower IQ than whites no one will allow you to say that someone is intellectually inferior simply because of his race. However, it's okay to say that all male stereotypes (proven or assumed) apply to all men.
While feminists were once part of a civil rights movement pushing for equality, they are now extending far beyond that. And in fact, they already have inequality in their favor. When Betty Friedan gives a speech about how men are morally inferior to women, she receives a standing ovation from both men and women. If I gave a speech about how women are morally inferior to men, I'd probably be booed off the stage by both men and women.
It's probably worth mentioning that the threat of gender-discrimination suit makes it much harder for a woman to lose her job than a man, which is definitely an inequality in my book. Also, at trial, women are more likely to be acquitted than men regardless of their guilt or innocence.
So yeah. I think that racism is definitely rampant in the western world. But I'm pretty sure that women are getting the better end of the bargain in pretty much every case. And I think that any woman who wants more than what she has right now is pretty unreasonable.
As a former bartender, bars do this to attract more customers. Bars draw mostly male customers, many in search of loose women, so by increasing the amount of females you get more people into the bar as more women means more men. Thus more money is made. It's economics, not sexism.
And it's funny that you'd complain about women getting those kind of perks, most of the men who do those kind of things have an obvious agenda and make the conscious decision to do so. No one forced him to buy a girl drinks or presents or treat her nicer because she's attractive- he does it because he's a hornball. So don't blame the player here.
Kikuichimonji, the reason that the image of domestic violence is based on the man abusing the woman is because it was for such a long time. In the middle ages, for example, men could get away with doing anything to a wife, and a lot of the times even murder if they wanted to go that far! In Roman times, women were for fucking, men were for loving, so who cared if you hit a woman? That viewpoint is ingrained in the minds of a lot of men, and needing to protect themselves from that, even in a usually more levelheaded and rational present, is ingrained into the minds of many women. I am have been party to plenty of disgusting high school conversations where it was a bunch of women talking about how completely inferior and just for fucking women were!
No one claims it is sexism.
However, by very definition of the act, it is discrimination based on gender. You cannot deny that fact.
Discrimination has been getting a bad connotation in recent years... but I can't think of a better way to say it. Bars are literally giving discounts to women for the only fact because they are women. Economics or sexism, it is discrimination.
Is this discrimination wrong? I don't think so, especially in this case. But you cannot claim that it is equal treatment. And by the very definition of discrimination, you cannot deny that what happens at bars is in fact discrimination based solely on Gender.
Anyway, economics is a pretty crap reason. Bar tenders in the 50s would have lost their business if they let Blacks in and treated them equally as whites. Earlier vaudvile shows did not want Black Actors, but clearly prefered white actors with a charcoal face. It was economics that drove these decisions, but that does not stop the fact that it was also racism.
Actually, your first issue was a saterical / ironic part that I realized probably wouldn't be so clear. I erased it before you posted. So I'll ignore your response to that part if you don't mind.
---------
Food for thought to feminists going for equal treatment between genders out there.
How about another example then that is clearly not beneficial? Car insurance. Young men pay more for their car insurance than young women because we are more "aggressive".
---------
Food for thought to feminists going for equal treatment between genders out there.
Insurance companies are money making machines that go by statistics, so you can't argue with numbers; it certainly isn't arbitrary and with the intention of giving women special treatment, if that's what you're trying to say. Notice how many more boys are into cars and racing, which a lot of high schoolers do in the street and get in wrecks, and you have a very plausible reason for the higher rates, even if it is unfair to the boys who are good drivers. They also discriminate by age for the same reasons, I guess young people should be crying out in revolt despite the fact that we do get in a lot more accidents.
Yet somehow, with a better driving record, I pay more for my insurance than my boyfriend and we're both 22. Hmm.
And if you want to know what real discrimination is, be a minority or a woman. Have people snap judge you, exclude you, or sexually harass you based on your race or gender. That is a lot more hurtful than paying more for car insurance for a few years. Either way, if you think women get special treatment in society you are deluded, there are more than enough obstacles to make up for any minor perks. Some workplaces still only hire men or people of specific races, but to avoid being persecuted they won't outright tell you. I read an article where there was a secret word used that basically meant the applicant was black.
I love how you want to avoid the stereotype that women aren't competitive but see no problem with the stereotype that men are aggressive and cause more accidents.
My viewpoint is that feminism in the US is complete idiocy. Sure, drunk college kids may think that women are stupid, and perhaps there's a store somewhere that discriminates women. But generally, women are given equal rights and viewed as intellectually equal by sensible people. If you want to be a feminist, go to Jamaica or to a country like that, where there actually is real discrimination against women (like when we went to Jamaica when I was younger, there was one of the resort workers talking to my sister, giving her his phone number and some money O_O)
My viewpoint is that feminism in the US is complete idiocy. Sure, drunk college kids may think that women are stupid, and perhaps there's a store somewhere that discriminates women. But generally, women are given equal rights and viewed as intellectually equal by sensible people. If you want to be a feminist, go to Jamaica or to a country like that, where there actually is real discrimination against women (like when we went to Jamaica when I was younger, there was one of the resort workers talking to my sister, giving her his phone number and some money O_O)
Shut the fuck up and stop posting. It takes an ignoramus of astronomical proportions to actually allude to communism as something which works in theory but does not work in practice; first of all, it's a flawed analogy, and second of all it's completely incorrect.
Just to clarify what I said earlier: I have nothing against feminism, and I would classify myself as a feminist. I believe that males and females are different, that these differences need to be acknowledged and understood, as opposed to ignored, but I do believe that men and women should be granted equal opportunity, which is really what this argument's about more than anything else.
My problem, as many people have said, are the feminists who walk in false doctrine, pretending to be advocates of sexual equality, but who simply spread meaningless rhetoric, and are hateful of men.
If there wasn't a good reason for men paying more for their car insurance I don't think they would. I've roughly what, 10 female friends that drive? None of them have ever been in an accident, or damaged their car in any way (other than one who had it stolen by boy racers and burnt out, but that's actually not her fault.)
I've I think 5 male friends that drive. Four of them have been in accidents. Three of them have been in serious accidents (in which their cars were complete write-offs) and one of them managed to cause a pile up on the motorway.
This is because men, especially young men, do drive like idiots.
I will quite happily admit I don't much like men. And yes, I'm a feminist.
Having said that, I don't like a lot of women either.
I have never and wouldn't ever say that women deserve superiority over men. And just because I come from a white middle class background doesn't mean what I have to say is any less relevant.
I've I think 5 male friends that drive. Four of them have been in accidents. Three of them have been in serious accidents (in which their cars were complete write-offs) and one of them managed to cause a pile up on the motorway.
This is because men, especially young men, do drive like idiots.
I will quite happily admit I don't much like men. And yes, I'm a feminist.
Having said that, I don't like a lot of women either.
I have never and wouldn't ever say that women deserve superiority over men. And just because I come from a white middle class background doesn't mean what I have to say is any less relevant.
Say that to my perfect driving record for 4+ years.
I'll make the same response that feminists make. Insurance rates should be based on merit, and not gender. Yet clearly, we have you here basing this statistic on gender and gender alone. Remember, there are other, perhaps more useful, statistics that insurance companies collect. They collect grades, age, driving records and so forth. Why do you prefer to base this decision on gender when clearly insurance companies have the ability to base the decision on merit and merit alone?
For anyone truly interested in the subject: http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm
It says all I have to say about the issue.
It says all I have to say about the issue.
You need to correct that with how many men and women at that age have driving licences. I don't know, but I think many women care far less about driving than most men do. It's logical that more men die in an accident if more men are bothered to get their licence.
There is one woman who writes for a newspaper in the UK that has called herself a "feminist". Every time she has a page to herself she will have at least one snide comment about a male celebrity but on the same page pledge her support for a famous woman. I can't stand this version of a "feminist" where at every opportunity they must get a "one-up" for their "side".
I can't understand why in a society where sexual discrimination is clearly unlawful and fortunately rare that the need to advertise yourself as a feminist exists. By the same token there's something quite wrong with "hating" the opposite sex unless you have had some sort of terrible experience which in a case of a lot of men-hating feminists, doesn't seem to be the case.
I can't understand why in a society where sexual discrimination is clearly unlawful and fortunately rare that the need to advertise yourself as a feminist exists. By the same token there's something quite wrong with "hating" the opposite sex unless you have had some sort of terrible experience which in a case of a lot of men-hating feminists, doesn't seem to be the case.
Umm, you kind of missed what I meant there. By saying feminists are nearly female chauvinists, I meant the attitude most feminists have about men in general. If I would've meant that they practiced chauvinism, I would've said so.
I understand and IMO, that is a perfectly acceptable claim. However, I'm trying to note the inconsistancy here. Generally speaking, even if women statistically did worse in Math subjects, we still give them an equal chance. Why? Because as a culture, we believe in equal opportunity.
How do we make an equal opportunity? We become blind to gender, or at least, for many people, that is the ideal. Instead of looking at gender, we look at more appropriate statistics, such as the actual score on a test and so forth.
However, Car Insurance is one of those cases where we look at gender, and that if two people who drove the same car, had the same driving record, the same age, and same driving experience, you will find that the male driver will be paying more for car insurance.
I'm all for the idea of a meritology, which is where equal opportunity truely is. I'm simply pointing out that here, instead of basing a decision on merit, we are basing a decision on gender. Regardless of the statistics, there are better statistics to base this decision on: again, merit. Aka: grades in school, driving records, and driving experience.
That is a very interesting article. I don't have the time to read it right now... but the first few paragraphs were certainly very interesting.
I can quite categorically say I've had several awful experiences with men.
And sexual discrimination isn't rare in the slightest.
I can also classify myself as a feminist and I do believe there's many, many things that need changing about our society - the biggest being the abysmally low conviction rate for rape [amongst several other issues surrounding the subject - the basic attitude of the public needs to change, as well as the blame being placed immediately on the victim by our legal system.]
And sexual discrimination isn't rare in the slightest.
I can also classify myself as a feminist and I do believe there's many, many things that need changing about our society - the biggest being the abysmally low conviction rate for rape [amongst several other issues surrounding the subject - the basic attitude of the public needs to change, as well as the blame being placed immediately on the victim by our legal system.]
And blame the strict college standards on women-- after all, all those high school idiots test poorly on the SATs, and I hate to break it to you, but they're just about always female.
Also, I'm about to open a book store. But I'll be charging women 50% more for their books they purchase, because that'll drive away the brain-dead housewives that probably don't know how to read, so more intelligent males will come. Sexism? It's economics. ;)
</satire>
...Just to show how hypocritical you've been sounding. No, I'm not a chauvanist...
Also, I'm about to open a book store. But I'll be charging women 50% more for their books they purchase, because that'll drive away the brain-dead housewives that probably don't know how to read, so more intelligent males will come. Sexism? It's economics. ;)
</satire>
...Just to show how hypocritical you've been sounding. No, I'm not a chauvanist...
- Status