Feminism

Wescli Wardest wrote: I have a question to anyone that cares to answer….

What good does arguing amongst ourselves, on an internet site, do to improve the situation?

All I see is finger pointing, opinion flinging and flagrant attempts at alienating each other. And I was curious as to what good was coming from this? I mean, obviously the people discussing their views have strong opinions and strong personalities and have decided that hay are right and no one is going to convince them otherwise. And no one else has figured this out? Or is it ego and the need to be right that is fueling this?

the need to be right that is fueling this?

I think you answered your question. At times this obsessively fuels the fire and the last one to post wins the argument or so they think.

Abhaya Budhil wrote: The problem is that you can't really advocate for everything all at once because the issues are not the same.

Why? Can we not say that we are all equal and will be each other’s equal in all that we do and don’t do?

People of color need to be treated equally in the justice system. Women need to be treated equally in the workforce. Same-sex couples need marriage rights and adoption rights. Transgender people need access to surgeries that they can't afford because they aren't covered by healthcare. Since the problems are very different, they cannot be argued all at the same time.

For someone claiming to advocate equality, that was a very “unequal” statement in my opinion. Are there no colored women who are gay cross-dressers that might want to get married?
Are we not all people? Should we not all be governed by one rule which sees everyone as people and not a part of some group?

Some people are looking for rights that have to be provided by someone else.

They got theirs, I want mine.

I believe that we are entitled to the same treatment. Black, white, Jew, Gentile, Man, woman, straight, gay… I don’t care. We should all be governed by one standard which does not see difference.
One doesn’t just receive a paycheck, we earn it. We can either choose to “fight” the system or we can work the system.

Of course, that is just my opinion.
I don’t know how much simpler I can make it then that.

Of course there is intersectionality, but there are people who only fit one oppressed category. Each category of oppression faces different problems. I am lucky that my family can afford to pay for me to take hormones and have surgeries, but many people cannot afford that. There are a lot of trans people, especially transwomen, who cannot even get a job. They need the insurance companies to pay for their surgeries so they can transition.

Gay couples need rights granted to them because simply saying they are married won't change the reality. It is more complex than just changing your opinion. It is a system that is oppressing people and keeping them down. It needs true changes in policy. Many people can get a paycheck and do just fine, but that doesn't change the fact that they can't adopt children, they don't have end of life benefits, they often aren't even allowed to see a dying partner in the hospital, etc. Those things have nothing to do with paychecks, but everything to do with a system that needs real change.

Rickie, I can't speak for anyone else on this thread, but I don't think there is any winning in this conversation. We will all come away from it with different opinions, but maybe those opinions will be newly shaped by some of what has been said. It isn't winning, it is just progress and change.

Well, to be honest all I'm hoping for is that Abhaya retracts his statement that men aren't and cannot be dicriminated against. (because not only is it untrue, but it is sexist -- I'm sure he doesn't mean to be)

My initial statement that we're better off not having sexist/racist/[...]ist groups hasn't really been discussed.

As I was trying to tell Adder in chat, it is impossible to attain equal right only by granting more rights to one group.

group A must acquire all of group B's rights, and groups B must acquire all of groups A's rights.

Feminism is exclusively about giving women additional rights. by definition, i mean, the NAME ITSELF is sexist.

If you wish to explain and give me examples of how feminism has helped men get the rights that women have, I'm all ears.


And for the record, the very reason I despise feminism is because I believe in equal rights, duties and privileges, and not in discrimination or segregation. feminists lobby for legislation that gives women and women only additional rights or privileges.

Why is "Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women" not called "Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Gender Discrimination"? I'll tell you why: because men aren't protected from discrimination. And this is the UN.

Also, people discuss things they want to discuss. This is a discussion forum after all. I enjoy the exercise.

I may have used the wrong word when I said that men can't be discriminated against. Certainly individuals discriminate against men. However, the majority of politicians are men themselves. That means that if men are being discriminated against it isn't really sexism in the same way. It isn't a case of "Men are inherently weak and incompetent so we need to keep them from doing things." It is just another product of the patriarchy that feminists fight against. I'm talking about things like alimony, lack of resources for mental health, the draft. These are all aimed at men because of the patriarchal assumption that men are stronger than women. If feminists have their way and we break down the patriarchy, those things would include women. The wealthier partner would be paying alimony, not just the men. Men would be able to show emotion and seek help for depression and anxiety without fear of being ridiculed. Women would be able to be drafted. I still haven't seen any laws against men that wouldn't be taken care of with the abolishment of the patriarchy.

I think groups are needed because humans like to define themselves. They want to know where they fit in. And since the problems faced by different groups have different solutions, you can't really lump them all together.

Abhaya Budhil wrote: I think groups are needed because humans like to define themselves.

We are all able to form our own opinions, and the "best" way to deal with something is probably speculative.

I will say this, many people like to set on the couch, watch TV and eat potatoe chips... sometimes what we like isn't what we need.

I think categories are useful for helping us understand the world and how it fits together. I advocate for women's rights, therefore I am a feminist. If I advocated strictly for the oppression of women, I would no doubt be labelled a sexist. A carrot is a vegetable. A cow is an animal. A women who wants relationships with men is a heterosexual. A man who wants relationships with men and women is a bisexual. We are Jedi. We might also belong to other religions that have their own names. If we just did away with labels, we would have a very hard time describing the world.

Do animal rights activist fight only for the rights of cows? Or do they fight for the rights of all animals?

I don’t fight for the rights of any one group. Rather I work towards the equality of all people.

A carrot is a vegetable, just as all the other vegetables are vegetables. Just as it takes all people to make the world go round, we can not have a balanced diet only eating one vegetable or vegetables only.

My point was just that we put things in groups to be able to understand the world. You said that what we want isn't always what we need in response to my saying we need groups as humans. Animal rights activists advocate for the rights of all animals, just as women's rights activists advocate for the rights of all women.

When I was talking about cows and carrots I was only giving examples of other things we label and put into groups.

Abhaya Budhil wrote: I may have used the wrong word when I said that men can't be discriminated against. Certainly individuals discriminate against men. However, the majority of politicians are men themselves. That means that if men are being discriminated against it isn't really sexism in the same way. It isn't a case of "Men are inherently weak and incompetent so we need to keep them from doing things." It is just another product of the patriarchy that feminists fight against. I'm talking about things like alimony, lack of resources for mental health, the draft. These are all aimed at men because of the patriarchal assumption that men are stronger than women. If feminists have their way and we break down the patriarchy, those things would include women. The wealthier partner would be paying alimony, not just the men. Men would be able to show emotion and seek help for depression and anxiety without fear of being ridiculed. Women would be able to be drafted. I still haven't seen any laws against men that wouldn't be taken care of with the abolishment of the patriarchy.

I think groups are needed because humans like to define themselves. They want to know where they fit in. And since the problems faced by different groups have different solutions, you can't really lump them all together.

politicians serve the people and lobbyists, the majority of whom are women and feminists. Looks to me they don't really care about gender, unfortunately those who really are calling the shots do. you can't expect me to believe the UK parliament decided to only make prison harder for men because of the patriarchy, when it's the feminist lobby that's pushing for it. it's the feminist lobby that's responsible for the constant introduction of special programmes reserved to women in areas where men are the ones who need them most.

It doesn't matter anyway, if feminism doesn't stop soon there'll be a major backslash anyway. You can already see it. Young men have no repsect for women anymore. kids make "sandwich" and rape jokes. Our reproduction rates will dramatically drop and the muslims will probably take over. (That's pretty much what is already happening in europe right now).