Feminism

[silverchris9]

Of late, I've been reading a little about feminism, which increasingly seems like a social revolution. I also increasingly see it as inherently agnostic, insofar as it seems to me that the demands of feminism that help women can also harm women, and that the demands of, what, "becoming a man" maybe, tend to result in harm to women (meaning emotional/social harm, rather than physical harm).

I think it's good that we've come to the point where it's not OK for men to harm women physically for any reason, because physical violence by men against women is disgusting. But I think a lot of the social demands of women revolving around objectification, the "male gaze," etc., are at the very least a lot more difficult that feminists realize, maybe?

I dunno. Anyway, the point is that I've been thinking a lot about feminism and how to achieve a fair relationship between the sexes, especially as it relates to the media, and I'd like to instigate some discussion here! So, discuss!

[Valori]

I can't speak well for societies outside of America, but the sort of female oppression that most feminists I have encountered are taking issue with do indeed seem to be disgustingly deeply rooted into our social habits. I'm curious as to what you mean by the demands of feminism harming women though? Do you mean that it might make women uncomfortable if they have already been programmed to believe that they are not being objectified and oppressed? I think those fighting for the cause are already aware of its immense difficulties.

[ashlesha]

i have a viscerally positive emotional reaction to a lot of the messages in feminism but when it comes to what should actually be expected from society i'm kind of ambivalent because its complicated. like, is the feeling of resonance i get when i listen to bikini kill something that translates to the real world? when i look at the media, for example, i can see how negative messages about women are put out there, but i also see negative messages about men. so i don't know. i don't think the reality of it can be condensed into a simple thing like "american society favors men" - even though that is probably true on the whole - without leaving out a lot of stuff and i don't know if that stuff can be left out with integrity or not.

i don't know if the math holds up that men earn more than women when everything is taken into account and frankly i don't even know if i should care about seven cents or whatever. but i know that when i hear guys talking about rape like its not a serious thing or insinuations that some girl was asking for it, it seriously fucking pisses me off and i feel indignant not just as some pissed off person but as a woman, and i feel like that's important.

i'm curious why you see the social demands around objectification as complicated. i remember you saying something about this before that i found super interesting but i can't remember where.

[silverchris9]

I can't speak well for societies outside of America, but the sort of female oppression that most feminists I have encountered are taking issue with do indeed seem to be disgustingly deeply rooted into our social habits. I'm curious as to what you mean by the demands of feminism harming women though? Do you mean that it might make women uncomfortable if they have already been programmed to believe that they are not being objectified and oppressed? I think those fighting for the cause are already aware of its immense difficulties.

Oh, no I meant the demands of feminism harming men.

I realize that at first this sounds horribly insensitive or something like that: it's not about men, etc., that's like saying that getting rid of slavery hurt the south, etc.

But then, the analogy to slavery and the south is pretty apt. The south had an entire economy built around slavery. Then they couldn't have slaves (granted, they had sharecropping, but whatever). So the South kind of stumbled around confused for fifty years before getting back on its feet around a new system that wasn't based on the systematic oppression of blacks. (And then another fifty years after that to actually give blacks rights. ARGH).

The south was still wrong, but the ripping out of the slave system and the massive social changes that Lincoln (and later, in a massive fail, Johnson) tried to put in really hurt the south.

Similarly---and this is where the thoughts from that old post come in laghlagh---a lot of the ways men treat women serve a psychological purpose. Men need ways a) to establish our manhood, and b) to bond with other men. But many, or even most, of the ways men have of meeting these needs are contrary to the goals of feminism.

For instance, with the very just demands of women to be let into "boys clubs" socially (largely because of the economic and commercial decisions that are made, for better or for worse, in "boys clubs"), men now have to find new ways to establish their own manhood within a group of men.

And of course, what guy hasn't bonded with other guys over one of the few things that most (heterosexual) guys have in common, attraction to women? Well, for better or for worse (probably for worse) those sorts of conversations tend to revolve around objectification of women and other things that feminists rightly take men to task for. But if we're going to get rid of those behaviors, how are we going to find new ways to still meet the root, healthy needs that these damaging behaviors help to meet.

I'm just saying that in some ways the interests of men and women are contrary at a deep level, even if they're complementary/the same in most ways. And so that's the aspect of feminism, the place where two legitimate but contrary impulses/needs/desires meet, that I'm interested in.

[Begoner]

I'm just saying that in some ways the interests of men and women are contrary at a deep level, even if they're complementary/the same in most ways. And so that's the aspect of feminism, the place where two legitimate but contrary impulses/needs/desires meet, that I'm interested in.

I suppose the standard reply would be that there are no fundamental conflicts of interest between men and women, and that strife results from social conventions that alter the behavior of men and women to fit preconceived ideas. However, this turns the question strictly into an empirical issue (of whether such male behavior stems from biology or culture) and fails to resolve anything. More generally, the philosophical question is this: suppose that one group can only increase its well-being only by decreasing that of another group; under what conditions is such action justified? This is an "insensitive" question to ask whenever the losses of the latter group vastly overwhelm the gains of the former (as in the case of slavery) and absurd to ask when the benefits greatly outweigh the losses. Is there any reason why the issue shouldn't again boil down to empiricism and the logic of cost-benefit analysis? I'm sure some optimal level can be reached with the help of social psychology, but I think a good first step is to ensure that we're at the point where cultural norms don't contribute to any division between genders. Afterwards, when the problem has been whittled down to the level of biology, more fundamental trade-offs can be discussed as necessary.

[strrrng]

The problem with feminism, is that it perpetuates what it seeks to abolish in taking a contrary stand towards it. Viewing both sides as the same 'pendulum,' if you will, the basic desire of each becomes clear: males seek to retrieve the sense of security that the feminine force in its pure form carries; yet in a society that brands darwinian capitalism into the unconscious (hindbrain translation: 'I must kill to justify my existence'), their projection becomes that of bread-winning daddy figure who masochistically protects little princess from the cold, hard world (which they have raped ceaselessly, 'to carry on the act'). The same conditions instill in the female unconscious a sense of lost worth, as Nature itself is feminine, and so being provided for by daddy essentially says: you are not a victim of this ravishing. Material objects are the symbols, and you can see the most pathetic example of this in the 50's when the idea of a quaint little house that the wife tended to with robotic devotion became the ideal—'if this space is secure by my hand, then I am no longer fragile' (see Amanda Palmer, 'What's the Use of Wondering'). Anyway, the inverse to these aspects is that men, on a very instinctive level, feel quite helpless, hence how the alpha male is typically determined by verbal bravado; they desperately reach out, yet due to not fulfilling their natural role, are faced with the reflection of their futility, and in order to compensate, force females into this role; the latter, in a sense, has an immense, latent strength (as Nature carries the burden, so will it in time be reciprocated), because after all, they're letting men carry on the facade, almost as if the last hope is granted so that it may be shattered.

That all being said, if females want respect, quit spewing envious, self-righteous bullshit out of your nonexistent phallus to your 'oppressors' and find it within; it always shows through.

[Cat King Cole]

Oh dear God, Silverchris. I thought you were independently going to move toward the concept of masculism. Then you ruined it. Your analogy with the American South is awful! Men aren't being hurt by having some kind of illusory social construct that oppresses women for the sake of servicing mens' needs overturned, men are being hurt by having discrimination against them glossed over "because women matter more" or "there are no social problems that disadvantage men".

There are equality issues for both men and women. Male rights are also starting to lag behind due to all the attention being placed on womens' rights.

[Valori]

Similarly---and this is where the thoughts from that old post come in laghlagh---a lot of the ways men treat women serve a psychological purpose. Men need ways a) to establish our manhood, and b) to bond with other men. But many, or even most, of the ways men have of meeting these needs are contrary to the goals of feminism.

For instance, with the very just demands of women to be let into "boys clubs" socially (largely because of the economic and commercial decisions that are made, for better or for worse, in "boys clubs"), men now have to find new ways to establish their own manhood within a group of men.

And of course, what guy hasn't bonded with other guys over one of the few things that most (heterosexual) guys have in common, attraction to women? Well, for better or for worse (probably for worse) those sorts of conversations tend to revolve around objectification of women and other things that feminists rightly take men to task for.

How would you define "manhood", exactly?

I don't find myself bonding with other men or establishing the apparently fragile state of manhood in treating women in the ways that the feminists I have read about seem to oppose. It's been thrown at me since youth, but I've never felt right playing along with all of the loud, chest-thumping manly-man banter regarding who's got the best tits or how "I'd hit that". I get what you're saying here, but I think a lot of this feeble grasping for manly purpose is exactly the sort of nonsense feminists are saying that we could do without.

I guess I'm curious as to what sort of specific actions might necessarily establish manhood?

But if we're going to get rid of those behaviors, how are we going to find new ways to still meet the root, healthy needs that these damaging behaviors help to meet.

I certainly don't think there's anything wrong with being attracted to women. I just don't think it's necessary to broadcast it in such a demeaning, dick-waving contest while flooding the world with double standards that seem to revolve around this simple sexual attraction. How do you suppose women meet their similar root, healthy needs of bonding and sexual expression?

I'm just saying that in some ways the interests of men and women are contrary at a deep level, even if they're complementary/the same in most ways. And so that's the aspect of feminism, the place where two legitimate but contrary impulses/needs/desires meet, that I'm interested in.

I'm not sure what you mean by their base interests being contrary?

----------

I suppose the standard reply would be that there are no fundamental conflicts of interest between men and women, and that strife results from social conventions that alter the behavior of men and women to fit preconceived ideas. However, this turns the question strictly into an empirical issue (of whether such male behavior stems from biology or culture) and fails to resolve anything.

&

I'm sure some optimal level can be reached with the help of social psychology, but I think a good first step is to ensure that we're at the point where cultural norms don't contribute to any division between genders. Afterwards, when the problem has been whittled down to the level of biology, more fundamental trade-offs can be discussed as necessary.

I would agree that a lot might be gained if some hard evidence could be found one way or another - it might give a point with which to start diffusing the situation. The problem lies in the fact that many cultural norms are subtle and so deeply rooted that the vast majority of the population does not even notice them, let alone question them.

More generally, the philosophical question is this: suppose that one group can only increase its well-being only by decreasing that of another group; under what conditions is such action justified? This is an "insensitive" question to ask whenever the losses of the latter group vastly overwhelm the gains of the former (as in the case of slavery) and absurd to ask when the benefits greatly outweigh the losses. Is there any reason why the issue shouldn't again boil down to empiricism and the logic of cost-benefit analysis?

Increasing womens' well-being at the cost of males' is not at all what feminists are after. Think of it as a defensive or reactive movement, not some sort of diabolical plot of conquest.

----------

That all being said, if females want respect, quit spewing envious, self-righteous bullshit out of your nonexistent phallus to your 'oppressors' and find it within; it always shows through.

So basically, "there's nothing wrong here, accept your role, and go make me a sammich because I'm insecure"? Self-respect has limited effect in combating blatant and unnecessary objectification and degradation present in society - a demand for retaliation is hardly unsurprising.

Like so many things, I perceive this sort of gender conflict as but a smaller avatar of the human problem of imposition of will.

----------

Oh dear God, Silverchris. I thought you were independently going to move toward the concept of masculism. Then you ruined it. Your analogy with the American South is awful! Men aren't being hurt by having some kind of illusory social construct that oppresses women for the sake of servicing mens' needs overturned, men are being hurt by having discrimination against them glossed over "because women matter more" or "there are no social problems that disadvantage men".

There are equality issues for both men and women. Male rights are also starting to lag behind due to all the attention being placed on womens' rights.

Could you clarify? Do you view it as it a matter of loss of rights, or a loss of privilege? Serious question. I'm not denying that there can be social problems that disadvantage men, but most of what I see feminists emphasize don't seem to overlap with them. I'd be curious to know what you have in mind.

[strrrng]

His analogy was correct.

"I don't hate the slave, I hate his master."

"I don't hate my inferior status, I hate my oppressor."

Do the math, nigga.

[Valori]

His analogy was correct. Perturbing a functional, albeit morally unequal situation only makes it worse.

"I don't hate the slave, I hate his master."

"I don't hate my inferior status, I hate my oppressor."

Do the math, nigga.

What would you see done then? Nothing?

[Cat King Cole]

Long story short: society is built on men and all the assumptions they make. This as much bites the men who have to live in it in the ass as much as it may disadvantage women--though I'm not educated on any fair issues the latter face. And I specify fair because I hear a lot of feminazi noise about nothing, such as the study of ODWGs in philosophy or literature being "male-centric"

The scope of what I'm commenting on is largely limited to US/Australia. There are genuine concerns for the welfare and rights of women in other parts of the world and I won't deny that.

[strrrng]

So basically, "there's nothing wrong here, accept your role, and go make me a sammich because I'm insecure"? Self-respect has limited effect in combating blatant and unnecessary objectification and degradation present in society - a demand for retaliation is hardly unsurprising.

Like so many things, I perceive feminism as but a smaller avatar of the human problem of imposition of will.

Right, because an intelligent, self-respecting female will be oh-so-offended when the construction worker yells "nice ass, bitch." The issue isn't whether or not a man objectifies a woman, but how she reacts to it, hence respect built from within.

[Valori]

I was wondering more about specific "social problems that disadvantage men".

Right, because an intelligent, self-respecting female will be oh-so-offended when the construction worker yells "nice ass, bitch." The issue isn't whether or not a man objectifies a woman, but how she reacts to it, hence respect built from within.

Why should they have to put up with the harassment at all? What is the purpose of the construction worker's comment? I should think that part of being an intelligent, self-respecting person is to question the necessity of such a pig's existence?

[strrrng]

What would you see done then? Nothing?

Are women inherently inferior to men? I tend to think it better to let ignorance rot of its own accord. Hence, turning within for self-respect, instead of looking for a new group to define yourself by.

[Cat King Cole]

Could you clarify? Do you view it as it a matter of loss of rights, or a loss of privilege? Serious question. I'm not denying that there can be social problems that disadvantage men, but most of what I see feminists emphasize don't seem to overlap with them. I'd be curious to know what you have in mind.

I don't view it as a "loss". I view it as a lack of attention and awareness to fairly resolving issues both sexes face. Our current social systems have pre-existing discriminations against men (and all males).

Relative to women, who started off way behind (like lack of women's suffrage) and have historically received much more attention, men have received little attention to social and legal biases against them.

Honestly, "feminism" and "masculism" are ridiculous and divisive terms. "Gender equality" is much more constructive and highlights the point that society needs reform such that there is genuine equality. The problem is far beyond just discrimination against women, that's merely a symptom of an archaic and unjust social order.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculi...ulist_concerns

[Valori]

Oh, I'm not denying that it's important for individuals to turn within for self-respect, but why is it just as necessary to tolerate the existence of another seeking to impose their will upon them?

[strrrng]

I was wondering more about specific "social problems that disadvantage men".



Why should they have to put up with the harassment at all? What is the purpose of the construction worker's comment? I should think that part of being an intelligent, self-respecting person is to question the necessity of such a pig's existence?

Such a question is irrelevant to one's existence, as all exists by necessity, no matter how grotesque in form. The construction worker is there to reveal the degree to which masculinity has degraded itself in a futilely self-destructive plunge back into the womb, and so the woman who recognizes this knows that it is not she who is being harassed or demeaned, but that her physical form is simply what the construction worker sees as a vessel for all the ignorant, preconceived notions he harbors toward females in general. Thus, her self-respect isn't actually threatened, if it has a solid foundation within.

[Valori]

Are women inherently inferior to men? I tend to think it better to let ignorance rot of its own accord. Hence, turning within for self-respect, instead of looking for a new group to define yourself by.

Oh, I'm not denying that it's important for individuals to turn within for self-respect, but why is it just as necessary to tolerate the existence of another seeking to impose their will upon them?

Such a question is irrelevant to one's existence, as all exists by necessity, no matter how grotesque in form. The construction worker is there to reveal the degree to which masculinity has degraded itself in a futilely self-destructive plunge back into the womb, and so the woman who recognizes this knows that it is not she who is being harassed or demeaned, but that her physical form is simply what the construction worker sees as a vessel for all the ignorant, preconceived notions he harbors towards females in general. Thus, neither her self-respect nor her self-image is actually threatened, if they have a solid foundation within.

So as long as you exist, any level of constant harassment is a-okay! We'll just ignore it. Until it stops!



Not everyone's existence is necessary. In fact I would ask if this disgusting species as a whole is "necessary". There is a very thorough and satisfying way for human imposition of will to cease, after all.

----------

I don't view it as a "loss". I view it as a lack of attention and awareness to fairly resolving issues both sexes face. Our current social systems have pre-existing discriminations against men (and all males).

Relative to women, who started off way behind (like lack of women's suffrage) and have historically received much more attention, men have received little attention to social and legal biases against them.

I see.

Honestly, "feminism" and "masculism" are ridiculous and divisive terms. "Gender equality" is much more constructive and highlights the point that society needs reform such that there is genuine equality. The problem is far beyond just discrimination against women, that's merely a symptom of an archaic and unjust social order.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculi...ulist_concerns

I tend to agree, but do not necessarily feel the problems are equal. I'll take a look at the link's contents.

[strrrng]

Oh, I'm not denying that it's important for individuals to turn within for self-respect, but why is it just as necessary to tolerate the existence of another seeking to impose their will upon them?

Tolerating an individual's existence and allowing them to impose their will upon you are two different things.

[Valori]

Because it's always a choice, right? Perhaps humanity's very existence is an imposition.

[strrrng]

So as long as you exist, any level of constant harassment is a-okay! We'll just ignore it. Until it stops!

Read my previous post.

Not everyone's existence is necessary. In fact I would ask if this disgusting species as a whole is "necessary". There is a very thorough and satisfying way for human imposition of will to cease, after all

Your speculations are as irrelevant as asking why the universe is the way it is. There is nothing that evolves because it isn't necessary, as a part in the larger operation.

Because it's always a choice, right? Perhaps humanity's very existence is an imposition

How one reacts to others' actions is a choice, which is what's relevant to the example I gave.

[Valori]

Your speculations are as irrelevant as asking why the universe is the way it is. There is nothing that evolves because it isn't necessary, as a part in the larger operation.

I said before, "Like so many things, I perceive this sort of gender conflict as but a smaller avatar of the human problem of imposition of will."

It's not a speculation, it is an amusing and spiteful suggestion I like to extend to the world.

EDIT: Having remembered that I forgot to address this before, it is true that nothing evolves because it isn't necessary. The reverse however, is also true: nothing evolves because it is necessary. Evolution has no plan, it's just by random chance what happens to be the most beneficial at the time.

How one reacts to others' actions is a choice, which is what's relevant to the example I gave.

Your attitude smacks of one who benefits and sees no reason to alter his advantageous position. Demanding equality in situations more imposing than your conveniently minor example is hardly to be criticized when overall quality of life is at stake. Or perhaps you feel that others should be content to merely exist. "Accepting one's plight" is simply not a comfortable alternative to most. This is about as idiotic as the market manager where I work trying to convince a room full of disgruntled employees that "morale starts in the mirror". Unless you're about to offer a means of convincing every human on Earth to voluntarily enter a perpetual Zen-like state in which to co-exist, such a "choice" is a lot more muddled than you are presenting it.

[strrrng]

I said before, "Like so many things, I perceive this sort of gender conflict as but a smaller avatar of the human problem of imposition of will."

I don't disagree with this.

It's not a speculation, it is an amusing and spiteful suggestion I like to extend to the world.

I was referring to the comment about the "disgusting humans."

Your attitude smacks of one who benefits and sees no reason to alter his advantageous position. Demanding equality in situations more imposing than your conveniently weak example is hardly to be criticized when overall quality of life is at stake. "Accepting one's plight" is simply not a comfortable alternative to most. This is about as idiotic as the market manager where I work trying to convince a room full of disgruntled employees that "morale starts in the mirror".

I'm not criticizing the pursuit of an equal state of affairs between genders, but merely pointing out the only means by which it can be attained. The psychic condition of genders is a net sum of individual projections; to change precepts with such influence requires a reexamination starting at the individual level. "Accepting one's plight" is an identification with external circumstance, which goes against everything I've been saying.

Unless you're about to offer a means to convincing every human on earth voluntarily entering a permenant Zen-like state, such a "choice" is a lot more muddled than you are presenting it.

I'm not the one who can provide the answer to any individual – and that is precisely why attempting to change the inherent condition with picket waving and defiant protest is futile.

[Valori]

I was referring to the comment about the "disgusting humans."

Oh, I know. What do you suppose my suggestion is?

The psychic condition of genders is a net sum of individual projections; to change precepts with such influence requires a reexamination starting at the individual level. "Accepting one's plight" is an identification with external circumstance, which goes against everything I've been saying.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a person who never identifies with external circumstance, whether with it or against it.

I'm not criticizing the pursuit of an equal state of affairs between genders, but merely pointing out the only means by which it can be attained.

&

I'm not the one who can provide the answer to any individual – and that is precisely why attempting to change the inherent condition with picket waving and defiant protest is futile.

"Shut up and deal" is hardly going to alert those that are unaware of their own oppression, which is why feminism is a movement. I see it as being about as much alerting as it is protesting. People don't live forever - what good would it do anyone to have maybe made some small progress after their own deaths? They're probably taking what they believe to be the loudest path, hoping it will also be the fastest. Which way is their "only means" is not for me to judge, because there is probably some degree of overlap.

[strrrng]

Oh, I know. What do you suppose my suggestion is?

I'm not especially concerned with what you deem "a thorough and satisfying way to cease the imposition of the human will" – a comical impossibility, the abstraction of which only provides satisfaction to those thinking about it.

Consider what you're actually implying when you refer to "this race" as "disgusting."

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a person who never identifies with external circumstance, whether with it or against it.

Hence external circumstance being "the net sum of individual projections." The human mind is constantly differentiating itself from itself; it's a 'game' of sorts that consciousness plays to know itself by forgetting. The whole point of looking inward, is to better clarify what the actual relationship between oneself and the environment is.

"Shut up and deal" is hardly going to alert those that are unaware of their own oppression, which is why feminism is a movement. I see it as being about as much alerting as it is protesting. People don't live forever - what good would it do anyone to have maybe made some small progress after their own deaths? They're probably taking what they believe to be the loudest path, hoping it will also be the fastest. Which way is their "only means" is not for me to judge, because there is probably some degree of overlap.

For the last time, I am telling no one to "shut up and deal with it." Along that line, it'd be more appropriate to say, "make sure you know what you're saying, and speaking out against." If a bunch of females want to congregate for a cause – great. It will only give them a false sense of identity and perpetuate a conceptual gender war that will solve none of their problems, but merely give them a transient sense of strength in the face of their 'phalluc oppressors.'

"This is a problem to me, so you need to change your behavior or I'm going to yell."

[Valori]

I'm not especially concerned with what you deem "a thorough and satisfying way to cease the imposition of the human will" – a comical impossibility, the abstraction of which only provides satisfaction to those thinking about it.

Consider what you're actually implying when you refer to "this race" as "disgusting."

Connect the dots yourself.

Hence external circumstance being "the net sum of individual projections." The human mind is constantly differentiating itself from itself; it's a 'game' of sorts that consciousness plays to know itself by forgetting. The whole point of looking inward, is to better clarify what the actual relationship between oneself and the environment is.

The actual relationship is what they already know. They are striving to make their world more comfortable - an imposition of will in itself, but it can at least be said that it is reactive rather than a brainless dick-waving agenda. If someone is repeatedly smacking you with a 2x4, do you stop to think that it's just your fault for feeling the pain, or do you retaliate? I suppose given post #6, it might translate more to "what did you do to make them want to hit you"?

For the last time, I am telling no one to "shut up and deal with it." Along that line, it'd be more appropriate to say, "make sure you know what you're saying, and speaking out against." If a bunch of females want to congregate for a cause – great. It will only give them a false sense of identity and perpetuate a conceptual gender war that will solve none of their problems, but merely give them a transient sense of strength in the face of their 'phalluc oppressors.'

"This is a problem to me, so you need to change your behavior or I'm going to yell."

You can stop talking around in circles any time. But I suppose that's all well and good for you if all you are interested in is sparing yourself the noise of unwanted protesters trying to alert others - something that "inner resolve" has trouble doing. Oppression starts in the mirror, right?
If anything is pointless, it is this discussion. You are very clearly fixated on your way being the single and only way with zero other options, so why bother?

[strrrng]

Connect the dots yourself.

It's already obvious. A trivial, quasi-morbid reaction to a collective driven by an ignorant assessment of its nature. Laughable.

The actual relationship is what they already know. They are striving to make their world more comfortable - an imposition of will in itself, but it can at least be said that it is reactive rather than a brainless dick-waving agenda.

Registering a reaction hardly implies understanding the relationship.

You can stop talking around in circles any time. But I suppose that's all well and good for you if all you are interested in is sparing yourself the noise of unwanted protesters. Oppression starts in the mirror, right?
If anything is pointless, it is this discussion. You are very clearly fixated on your way being the single and only way with zero other options, so why bother?

Oppression doesn't start in the psychic mirror, it's just an inevitable result of the actions someone takes towards you.

We are agreed that the discussion is going nowhere.

[Valori]

Everyone else is ignorant and women have it coming.

M I RITE?

Why don't you go off somewhere and cease to exist? Prove how little you identify with external circumstances, i.e. the world around you.

[Jimbean]

There are many problems with feminism.

It is hard for me to justify posting on this topic, but I'll just state that feminism is at its philosophical base promotes collective "rights" over individual rights.

Feminism is a colossal scam, along with the college scam, the monetary and banking scam and many, many others. None of these are obvious unless you study them.

[marooned]

I think there are a lot of different branches of and kinds of feminism. So I couldn't just reduce it all to one thing: "feminism". It's like many strands overlapping in different places, some leading to the same point, others to different points... rather than just one unified stream going to one single point.

In any case, of course I don't want to have to be a "man" or be anything other than what I am, whatever that is. That's usually at the heart of most movements against oppression... just wanting everyone to have the right to just be what they are. But it often ends up getting more complicated than that.

I'd also note that oppression against one sex affects the other as well. If women are "less than" people then men must be "more than" people (super-humans) to make up the deficit which can create a lot of pressure and strain. You must "be a man" and capable of amazing feats but never show any pain about it (just as an example of a manly role).

[Absurd]

It is hard for me to justify posting on this topic, but I'll just state that feminism is at its philosophical base promotes collective "rights" over individual rights.

All swell and terribly sound but you're not an individual.

[Jimbean]

Take this for example:

There is a girl at my work that used to call me about every other day, (and still does sometimes) obsessing over me, and wanting me to go out with her. She is not a very smart girl, and therefore I don't find her attractive. One day, I am standing in line to get my paycheck, and as she walks up behind me, and then grabs me. I told her to "GET OFF OF ME!" The female who was handing out paychecks insisted that I apologize to her. I didn't. Supposedly this situation is cute and all according to my female co-workers. Think about this, what would happen if it was the other way around? Would the female co-worker insist on making a woman apologize for yelling at a man grabbing her? Would it be cute if a man obsessed over a woman and would not stop?

Both men and women naturally have social restrictions and responsibilities; remember that. Feminism attempts (and partially succeeds for a couple of generations) to upset nature and the old society to free women of responsibilities while keeping men enslaved. There is also a very pervasive conspiracy at work to create and ensure that men stay enslaved while women have less social standards to follow.

[Jimbean]

All swell and terribly sound but you're not an individual.

I am too an individual.

[ashlesha]

everybody has a story

[Absurd]

I am too an individual.

I don't think you are a single celled organism but I can be wrong. Thing is, you're an aggregation of cells gathered together to form one organ or another of the body.

[Jimbean]

I don't think you are a single celled organism but I can be wrong. Thing is, you're an aggregation of cells gathered together to form one organ or another of the body.

I am a soul that occupies a body that has many, many cells

[Absurd]

I am a soul that occupies a body that has many, many cells

You free to believe in what you want to believe in. Faith never was my strong side.

[strrrng]

M I RITE?

Why don't you go off somewhere and cease to exist? Prove how little you identify with external circumstances, i.e. the world around you.

Or you could learn how to read, since my original post specifically alluded to men being the ones who 'have it coming.'

There are many problems with feminism.

It is hard for me to justify posting on this topic, but I'll just state that feminism is at its philosophical base promotes collective "rights" over individual rights.

Feminism is a colossal scam, along with the college scam, the monetary and banking scam and many, many others. None of these are obvious unless you study them.

Agreed.

[Absurd]

You see Kassie, I can't be Se ego, for strrrng just agreed with Jimbean, which makes both Se valuing.

[woofwoofl]

First things first - Bikini Kill rules!

Anyways, I never saw guys and girls as separate, warring factions if such lines exist with any relevance to them, they're thankfully blurred by intersex people, transgender people, androgynous, sexually ambiguous people, etc., and I hope for that blurring to continue further and further

Girls should do kickass things as much as guys do. I want more girls in NASCAR or other related sports - their bodies are generally lighter, so they should be able to whoop the butts of lots of tubby guys out on the track! That'll shake things up - especially due to the dudeliness of cars and all...

On the other side of things, guys should do girl things (whatever those happen to be), and be able to do them on the same level as girls in lots of cases!

As far as being objectified goes, so what? I know there's a lot of people that have more of an interest in my body than in the contents of my mind, and I'm alright with that people are part of the physical world, and it seems ridiculous at best, and dehumanizing at worst, to try to chop that all out of the human experience (I have a huge problem with "fairness" too, but that's a whole other can of worms )...

All people have to do is to look out for other people, it's pretty simple