Printable View
I am definitely not a feminist, I am for equality between the sexs, but I would love for someone to worship me like I worship my wife when I am in Femme mode! Open my doors, hold my hand when I step in or out of a car, buy my meals and drinks...sighs
If I were a feminist I could dye my hair purple, wear a vagina suit and pussy ears. The Patriarchy™ would tremble in fear. We would finally get the respect we truly deserve. :heehee:
Although imperfect. I am a feminist (or try to be). I would not dye my hair purple (pink maybe) or dress as a vagina. I will resist transphobia, homophobia, and misogyny as well as patriarchy and toxic masculinity.
I will always be against homophobia,transphobia but I can also say "hey ladies stop with the man hating which is the same as misogyny just on the other gender".
All thru that march I saw man hating at a worse level than I have ever seen against women by men.
This whole patriarchy argument argument is silly so you want change history now?
Toxic masculinity is a made up term for men being men which is something they have always been thru history.I don't see that changing anytime soon.
Several million years of it so to think its just going to go away because you don't like it?
I don't care much for toxic people either but they are out there and all the screaming about how much you don't like it isn't going to change the fact they will always be out there.
Toxic femininity is just as bad IMO so I stay away from those types as well.
You can gather up all your buzz words carry your signs and march all you want its not going to change anything.
Tracii: I agree with your point about toxic femininity.
I would agree with your answers, but my wife shoulders the bulk. Very much a feminist
Megan, every so called family court on the east coast or the west coast of the U.S.. I know for example, that the Massachusetts Probate and Family Court is controlled by a group of females who hate men more than name your best known hate group and their victim group. Nationally, this court is so well known that attorneys tell their clients not to open divisions in the state because it exposes their executives to too much liability if they get divorced. When lawyers advise corporations to avoid a state because their family court is so anti-male that it must be avoided to protect their executives, there is a case where men are victimized.Quote:
Originally Posted by Megan G
Divorce court is a prime example.
The woman gets the alimony the man pays both that and child support and has very little money left over and usually not enough to keep a roof over his head.
Anytime the woman gets pissed over something she can go back to the court and cause the man more trouble.
That alone is victimizing the man is it not?
The most basic, and accurate definition of a feminist, is somebody who believes in equality between a man and a woman. That being the definition, of course I'm a feminist, and I am proud to say it. I come from a working class type of community that would mock me (many women included) for saying that - but people very easily let the media, selective stories and general political agendas cloud their judgement - and yes, there are bad feminists who do not do this cause any favors - but nonetheless, it is an extraordinarily worthy cause.
FWIW you meet all the conditions for feminism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandy Storm
Like all things feminism is a broad church.
Wanting equality is a sufficient and necessary condition.
After that it all becomes a matter of degree.
None of your preferences are mutually exclusive of a feminist belief system
This is sadly the problem... just like not all Christians are Westboro Baptist Church nut jobs, not all feminists are hairy man haters despising all things feminine. You CAN reconcile femininity AND masculinity with feminist ideology, even with radical feminist ideology.
It has become a buzzword as of late, but what exactly the definition of "toxic masculinity", and who gets to define it? There are obvious examples like rape, harassment etc, but what about other things? Is being competitive toxic? Is being rough and tumble toxic? Is just being sexually attracted to women toxic? Are boys being rambunctious and hard for female teachers to control toxic? Where is the line between toxic and men just being what they were naturally designed to be?
From Wikipedia (not the be all and end all, but a good starting point): 'The concept of toxic masculinity describes standards of behavior among men in contemporary American and European society that encourage domination and control of others while being opposed to intellectualism and emotional sensitivity.'Quote:
Originally Posted by Vickie_CDTV
So most of your examples are benign but they could easily go over the edge. No 'normal' or standard male behaviour is not the issue... It is when this steps over the line that it becomes a problem. So ALLOWING boys who are 'rambunctious' to dominate a class at the expense of girls and their (legitimate) needs IS toxic masculinity at play. Saying 'boys will be boys' and thus ENABLING boys to be total arseholes when they verbally (or physically) assault girls is toxic masculinity at play. Allowing boys/men to think that they can control what girls/women wear is toxic masculinity at play...
Basically when you put the needs/wants/desires of men/boys ahead of those of women/girls and JUSTIFY it, then you have toxic masculinity... The key word is TOXIC, not masculinity... There is nothing wrong with the occasional ingestion of moderate amounts of a alcohol, drinking to the point of inTOXICation is the problem. Similarly, there is nothing wrong with males expressing their masculinity but it should nit be at the expense of the rights of others and that expression should be kept within the bounds of what is 'good' for society.
I am not sure that there is such a thing as toxic femininity, I would argue that those things that are seen as such are really just masculine traits being exhibited to the point of toxicity by people with vaginas (note gender and sex are different, people with vaginas CAN be masculine)... But if such a thing (toxic femininity) did exist it would also be wrong.
In my country we have a president who thinks it is not only ok, but desirable and 'good' for women to literally prostrate themselves en masse when male elders walk past, regardless of the status of the women. THAT is toxic masculinity.
Men who justify sexual assault are exhibiting toxic masculinity.
Men who can't handle the fact that they may be attracted to a women who has (or even had) a penis and who then think it is ok to assault the owner of said penis are exhibiting toxic masculinity.
Men who rape lesbians in an attempt to turn them straight are exhibiting toxic masculinity.
Behaviours that encourage men and boys to start to think that any of these behaviours are ok are exhibiting toxic masculinity...
Note: I use the words masculinity and femininity advisedly...
Since my essence is female, I would have to say yes. :battingeyelashes::)
I find the current vogue for men to claim they are feminists to be nonsense.
If a man wants to stick up for women's rights, fine, that's his choice, bravo. But he can't be a feminist for the same reason a woman can't be a mannist: because she isn't a man. It's all just PC posturing, virtue signalling, and IMO it's patronising to women.
Tracii is right, it is not equality, anymore the extreme female radicals want. The "puppet masters" above them, want a complete and total destruction, of all western society, and replace it with a "new world order" where all the poor sheeple are under total government control. These females are not true feminists. at all. They are totally miserable females, who hate that they are female, really, and they hate men, also. There is no natural love in them. They are the true "hater,". They hate themselves, too.
So, my best friend was divorced late last year. She was 39 at the time and was married to her husband for nearly 20 years with two daughters 18 and 20. She works at a local hospital and earns more than him, about 35-40k/year more (plus pension contributions). One daughter stayed with him and one with her.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracii G
At the end of the divorce she was ordered to fork over 80k of her pension to him, has to pay child support to him as long as that daughter is in school, plus alimony since he earns less than her until daughter #1 leaves school. This all went down even tho she has one daughter living with her.
So by your therory my friend was the victim in all this?
[SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE]
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 are you serious? That's the most rediculous thing I have read here in a while...Quote:
Originally Posted by Alice Torn
What proof do you have that they hate they ar women, and they are miserable females to boot....OMG 😞
Megan, I have no doubt that what you have said is true. However, you pick the exception that proves the rule. In the vast number of cases it is men who are the victims of family law that has been set up to punish men for the benefit of women.Quote:
Originally Posted by Megan G
Megan if she makes more than her ex husband she should pay the brunt of the expenses. Thats fair under the eyes of the law.
Men are forced to do that all the time but since you I assume are post op you have forgotten all about that.
Now you say you want equal rights for women yet when its not in the females favor you scream foul.
I'm sorry your friend had to get divorced but somebody always gets screwed in divorce cases and this time it was her.
When I divorced my first wife I was the sole bread winner and kept custody of both my daughters because their Mom wasn't willing to work and essentially walked out and didn't have contact with her kids for nearly 10 years.
I raised both of them and put them thru college all on my own.I never asked for anything from her in alimony because I knew I would never see it.
Rape and vile acts against women are already against the law so thats a moot point.
So in a situation where person A earns more than person B and they get divorced, person A ends up paying a bit more. And in situations where person B has custody of a child (and associated costs) person A ends up paying more. It's almost like a conspiracy to make sure that both person A and person B end up having pretty similar living standards after they get divorced.
It is almost like the law demands fairness or something. The inhumanity...
Long before I even secretly acknowledged to myself that I had any feminine aspects - literally decades earlier, while I was just starting to date the lady who eventually became my wife - she and I went to see a music performance by a lesbian friend of hers, who was an ardent feminist. (My girlfriend was also a feminist.) We chatted for a while back stage, and my girlfriend commented happily that I was a guy who could, and happily would, cook and sew and help with the laundry and other housework. The lady joked, "Any more like him at home?" She chatted with me some more on various topics, and after a bit she looked at me and asked me, "How long have you been a feminist?" I paused and said, "I guess all my life? I was raised by my parents to believe that all people should be treated equally, regardless of gender or other differences. Mom taught me to sew and do housekeeping, just like she did for my sister. Dad taught my sister how to fix car stuff and camping and fishing skills, just like he did for me. My sister and I both learned the same stuff, from both our parents, and we lived by pretty much the same rules."
Today I am an activist for LGBTQ, women's, minorities, and religious group's rights, seeking fair and equal treatment for everyone. And that certainly also includes fair and equal treatment for my cisgender sisters in our society, be they straight or LGBTQ. I understand that "feminist" is often seen as a synonym for "female superiority", but in my experience, that really isn't how most feminists see it - not even most of the lesbian feminists who I know.
I refer you to Eliza Shlesinger's routine, where she perfectly describes how the worst thing in the world is being sexually harassed by a guy....and then corrects it to be, sexually harassed by an UGLY guy, otherwise it's just flirting (her words, NOT mine!). So many women complain fiercely about guys looking them over 'like a piece of meat', yet, if the guy is someone they find attractive, they will go out of their way to expose even more of themselves to him. This is the reality we live in; women are just fine with being the sexually desired object of a rich, handsome, famous celebrity, loving the attention, eating up the comments, actually hoping that such a man would be interested in her, actively exposing more of herself, adding more wiggle to her walk, or even going to the ladies room to remove her bra in order to gain more attention. But if she doesn't find him attractive? OH NO! THEN IT'S SEXUAL HARASSMENT! And then that woman even has the gall to try to make the guy the victim of all this. If you dress to get attention, you can't complain when you get it. I know this borders on crossing the feminist line of blaming the woman for her own problem, but so be it. Because I've been called out on the receiving end of an angry woman, dressed in quite a sexy way, complaining of the way I was looking at her. There's no way for us to know beforehand whether the woman thinks we are 'good enough' to be flirting instead of just harassing. With all the emphasis women put on wanting men with confidence, assertiveness and ambition, I'd think they'd understand that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sometimes Steffi
I am not a feminist. If someone thinks that makes me A Bad Person (tm), they are welcome to their opinion.
What I see a lot of in this thread is the motte-and-bailey argument being used to defend feminism. This blog post, by Scott Alexander, explains it in more detail, but in essence it is claiming a lot of things you'd like, but that others don't necessarily agree to, hold true, and then when challenged, claiming you only mean something obvious, uncontroversial, or that No Good Person (tm) would object to. The author gives feminism as one example of this:
Just so. I've heard people (elsewhere) claim that supporting all sorts of things from amnesty to veganism is necessary to be a feminist (usually to people who care whether they're thought of as feminists). Then when others use "feminist" as an insult, it's back to asserting that "if you believe men and women should be equal, that makes you a feminist".Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Alexander
This is the point in the debate when someone comes in and says "that's a straw man, no one, or no one but fringe extremists, actually believes that." My experience is different, but let's not get into the details of that. The aforementioned blog post refers to this as an accusation of the weak man fallacy:
That is, I claim, based on experience with self-identified feminists who may or may not be unrepresentative extremists, that they are asserting things that are indefensible, or controversial at best -- men as a class oppress women as a class; no woman should ever be sent to prison, regardless of her crime; if you're not a vegan you're literally raping more females than there are human females -- while claiming they only believe things that are easy to defend. Those defending feminism claim I am only using the most unrepresentative examples to attack something good -- the political changes that have led to a society where women can vote, own property, have their own bank accounts, etc. You can judge for yourself who is in the right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Alexander
In the end, "feminism" refers to an ill-defined bag of beliefs and is a word used by some as a badge of virtue and others as a term of disparagement. If, instead of "feminism", we picked out particular things to discuss and said what we meant, this thread would be a lot clearer. Probably you would see most of us on the side of "men and women should be equal under the law" and a lot fewer on the side of "men are systematically oppressing women in 2017 in Western countries". But there would be something to debate there, rather than debating what we are debating (i.e., what "feminism" actually means).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Alexander
I have no idea who Scott Alexander is and his blog is just his opinion and psycho babble.
He wants you to think he is intelligent by repeating his point using a different set of words in each sentence while essentially saying the same thing.
I don't need to have someone explain to me what a feminist is I have seen plenty of them and know I want to stay as far away from them as I can.
Very well said Sometimes Miss. Men are in double binds, SOCIALLY HAMSTRUNG today. "The masses pf men lead lives of quiet desperation." The masses of women lead lives of "girls just wanna have fun."
If being a feminist is to allow women to just be themselves without judgement than I am One. If being a feminist is to support a woman's right to choose and equal pay for equal work than it's ditto again. I have 2 daughters and 3 granddaughters who I always tell that there is nothing that they can't do if they want it bad enough. They should never think that they can not do something because of their gender.
Stephanie sadly that is not what feminism is these days.
yes of course and there seems to be some interesting stereotypes floating about here. feminism like many things is a broad church and has many different currents some great some terrible. what im saying is it's not one hamogenous thing.
What really is a feminist? I guess,anyone that believes in equality.... which I also believe for all people. Equality being rights and laws. I don't personally view this as liberal or feminist, but most others tend to see it that way.
I define feminism as not only equality between the sexes, but also the ability for women to choose their own lives outside of male dependence and approval.
A woman who is a housewife or a stripper can absolutely be a feminist if that's the life that she freely chooses for herself. Being a true feminist does not imply that you're anti-male at all, it just means that you want and expect the same freedom of self-determination that men do.
So yeah, I'm very much a feminist.. all the way.
Eva I agree.
But what is passing for feminism these days is of a radical mindset and very anti male.
When you say you are a feminist these days the image you are projecting is this radical anti male, pussy hat wearing hot pink haired I am a nasty woman crowd.
Women like what I have seen on TV back in Jan are not feminists at all.
Yes, but you're talking about extreme viewpoints, and most importantly, you're quoting what you see on TV. And I agree, those people are not true feminists.
With media so incredibly fragmented, most mass communication is polarized to a ridiculous degree. Right wing media frames feminism as man-hating extremists. Left wing media declares "the future is female" and celebrates the downfall of the patriarchy. Neither viewpoint is true or even accurate. Although I'm sadly way out of my 20s, I work with a lot of people in that age group, and it's wonderful: they're growing up all on their own without all of the baggage and petty hatred that my generation and the ones before me did. They're sure as hell not getting their viewpoints from TV or the likes of Fox, MSNBC, or CNN. Those places have to maintain eyes on their advertisements, and the best way to do that is fear and outrage. It's literally their business. You can be a proud feminist without harboring any disdain for men. I'm proud of my Italian heritage.. that doesn't mean I look down on people of other ethnicities.
Modern feminist thought is simply granting women the same freedom for self-determination as men have. And elevating feminine viewpoints to the same level as masculine ones. I think that anyone on this site can agree with that.