Your opinion on feminism?

KetsuekiR · Feb 1, 2018

Star-Lord said:
As for what my actual goals and intentions are, I think I've made it clear that I'm trying to make us as a society think critically on the notion of consent in the first place. A theme that is present in this thread (that you yourself are not guilty of, actually) is that "Yes means yes and no means no". On paper that sounds great, and of course I agree with empowering people so that they have the ability to say yes and no clearly. That would be an ideal world, but the reality of the world we live in is that it's obviously not ideal. It's already been explained in this thread that context is important when analyzing behaviors in situations-- A woman saying"yes" to consent to sex because she's too afraid to be subjected to violence (despite the fact she doesn't want to have sex in the first place) needs to be examined critically. Can it be prosecuted under a statute? That's debatable, but I'm really not interested in debating in, as I've said.

I'll avoid responding to your earlier comment on my previous response. You've perhaps misunderstood/conflated my ideas and I think Vragon explained that well.

Moving on, my point actually goes fairly well with yours. The world is not ideal. This is exactly why I'm against someone misreading a situation to be put on the same level of severity as serious sexual assault. As much as I am against victim blaming, attacking men who took yes as a yes and didn't notice the woman wasn't enthusiastic enough doesn't seem like a very good idea to me.

We're reaching a point now where if a guy doesn't pick up on small "non-verbal cues", he can be branded a sexual predator and his career and life ruined (see, again, Aziz Ansari). How is this helpful?

Psychic · Feb 2, 2018

Wow, there sure is a lot of strawmanning feminism in this thread. It's interesting that so many people are defining feminism by ideas they dislike. I wonder how many people have in good faith gone out and read a variety of feminist literature written by different feminists. If you want to learn some feminism 101, there is no shortage of blogs, YouTube videos, podcasts and more to learn about this stuff in 2018.

Let's be clear: feminists are not a hive mind. We don't all agree. The same way you get tons of Christians with different ideas about what Christianity means and how to practice it, with plenty of well-meaning people and a minority of loud obnoxious people making the rest look bad, so do you have the same with feminism. I don't assume all Christians are like the Westboro Baptist Church; imo it's ridiculously naive to believe such things about any group, feminists included. There are plenty of crappy feminists with beliefs I don't agree with, but it's silly to define it from that alone or pretend nothing good has come out of the movement.

Anyhow, here are a few feminist ideas that I like, agree with, and think benefit our society:

All genders deserve equality and equity
Sexism is a powerful institutionalized part of our society that needs to be removed
Anyone of any gender can have sexist beliefs, often subconsciously
Sexism creates double-standards that hurt all genders
All genders face different problems
Intersectional feminism explains how we need to understand other forms of bigotry (racism, xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia, abelism, classism, ageism, etc.) to solve these problems
These problems are unique to different groups and need specific solutions
These problems are all worth combatting, and you get to choose what battles you want to fight
The struggles of one group does not cancel out the struggles of another (but be tactful for goodness' sake)
Most societies function under patriarchal systems that value the masculine over the feminine and are deeply unfair and problematic
Most societies unfairly uphold and value certain voices over others - usually not the marginalized
Rape culture is real and results in "victim blaming, 'slut shaming', sexual objectification, trivializing rape, denial of widespread rape, refusing to acknowledge the harm caused by some forms of sexual violence," etc
Transgender and non-binary people are valid and face unique struggles
Sex positivity is important and people should be empowered to make their own decisions about their sex lives without stigma
All people deserve bodily autonomy - we should teach consent from an early age
Pregnant people should be able to decide what happens to their bodies
Femininity is not inherently good or bad
Gender and sexuality is a spectrum
Earlier waves of feminism were deeply problematic, but that doesn't mean nothing good came from them

I think most of this is pretty common sense and not all that radical or controversial. I imagine most people here will agree with most of them; a lot of these ideas are already mainstream (because of feminism). I came to some of these conclusions through feminist texts and perspectives, which I have found eye-opening and empowering.

It's super edgy these days to be anti-feminist/anti-SJW. There's a popular narrative of how those fighting feminism are real progressives, defending society from oppressive man-haters who want to turn society into a dystopian matriarchy. To which I say...you caught us, that's the real feminist agenda, and we've already won; that's why Hilary Clinton is President and Oprah is the head of the CIA, intersectional feminism is beloved and accepted (and understood) by the entire galaxy, we're the oppressive Empire and you're the plucky Rebels, you figured us out.

~Psychic

PS: For the love of all that is good, don't have sex with people who are not clearly enthusiastic about having sex with you. Especially if it means you might mentally and physically harm someone, and possibly face criminal charges and everything that entails. Getting some lackluster sex is very little reward weighed against some pretty significant risks. This is a ridiculous thing to defend imo.

Vragon · Feb 2, 2018

Fair enough, Psychic. I'm pretty sure anyone with a lick of sense (or wit enough to be observant) would be able to conclude that not all peeps in a group are the same and not a couple of a group speak for the group as a whole.

I can say I do agree with some of your list not all of it, but let's agree to disagree. Just one thing though I do want to mention.

Psychic said:
PS: For the love of all that is good, don't have sex with people who are not clearly enthusiastic about having sex with you. Especially if it means you might mentally and physically harm someone, and possibly face criminal charges and everything that entails. Getting some lackluster sex is very little reward weighed against some pretty significant risks. This is a ridiculous thing to defend imo.

I'm pretty sure no one is defending having sex with someone that isn't enthusiastic as a good thing. If something about what I said or someone else said seems that way, let the person know and we'll try to clarify if we are of merit.

But overall, I think I've made my points clear and see no reason for myself to continue unless I'm asked to clarify something. I wish you all well.

withheld · Feb 2, 2018

I used to support a feminism (i'm male btw) until i found out
feminists are pro choice.

silvershred · Feb 2, 2018

withheld said:
I used to support a feminism (i'm male btw) until i found out
feminists are pro choice.

Pro choice isn't just in favour for the mother. If a woman is pregnant and know that there's no way for her to give the child a good life, it's hard just living with that knowledge. That's a whole other discussion though, but forcing women to have a child they can't care for or a labour that might kill both mother and child isn't really pro-life.

luuma · Feb 2, 2018

withheld said:
I used to support a feminism (i'm male btw) until i found out
feminists are pro choice.

Read up on the famous violinist argument, it explains my beliefs on pro-life versus pro-choice better than I ever could.

KetsuekiR said:
I can get behind all of this except on the part where this is equivalent to genuine sexual assault. This is its own kind of problem and yes, perhaps society could be educated on it, but what good does it do for the people victims of serious sexual assault if these cases are treated the same?

I'm genuinely not sure what you're referring to here, so I might have gotten the wrong end of the stick in your argument.

Unwanted sexual contact IS sexual assault in the eyes of the law, so BOTH the bad cases I've give here are defined as a form of "genuine" sexual assault. Suggesting this is not a form of "genuine" sexual assault is both false and probably harmful to its victims.

How do you suppose "sexual assault" being an umbrella term rather than a narrow one actually causes some form of harm? We are fundamentally debating semantics here! Seriously.

If you're suggesting that victims of more serious sexual assault will somehow be degraded or maltreated by having the term cover a broad range of crimes rather than a narrow one, I genuinely don't know why or how that would ever be the case? If I'm a victim of assault and battery and I came away badly bruised, I doubt I'd feel degraded by the fact that assault and battery also covers people who got nasty things shouted at them. I also doubt that my injury case would be treated the same as the others' shouting match case, even if the two come under the same legal terminology.

Law courts aren't full of idiots blind to nuance, sentencing isn't done based off the title of the offence, and cases have ALWAYS been treated on a case by case basis. In the real world, the cases I gave are NOT being "treated the same" as more serious forms of sexual assault, and for my part I have never suggested they should be. I don't think you've identified any issue here.

KetsuekiR · Feb 2, 2018

luuma said:
-snip-

I made a response earlier to a different user that is applicable to your statements as well.

KetsuekiR said:
... Moving on, my point actually goes fairly well with yours. The world is not ideal. This is exactly why I'm against someone misreading a situation to be put on the same level of severity as serious sexual assault. As much as I am against victim blaming, attacking men who took yes as a yes and didn't notice the woman wasn't enthusiastic enough doesn't seem like a very good idea to me.

We're reaching a point now where if a guy doesn't pick up on small "non-verbal cues", he can be branded a sexual predator and his career and life ruined (see, again, Aziz Ansari). How is this helpful?

----------------------------------------------------

Read up on the famous violinist argument, it explains my beliefs on pro-life versus pro-choice better than I ever could.

I think I can address this without it going too far off topic seeing as it's a big part of modern feminism.

To start off, the entire argument is full of holes in its incomparability to pregnancy. Being connected to another adult human is not quite the same as having a baby. I think we can safely agree it's vastly less inconvenient (which is such a bad word to use when discussing life) to have a baby than connected to walking, talking individual. I don't know how you can see this argument as a very valid one, in all honesty.

Let's move on imagining it is valid though. I'm not actually sure what your stand on it is, but seeing as the violinist argument is one for abortion, I'll go with that (correct me if I'm wrong). If this violinist was connected to you, and you knew that unplugging them would be killing them, would you really unplug them? Really think about it. This living human, who has done nothing wrong, and doesn't deserve to die, should die because it's inconvenient for you?

If it were me, the answer would be no. I wouldn't be okay with unplugging the violinist.

luuma · Feb 2, 2018

KetsuekiR said:
... I'm against someone misreading a situation to be put on the same level of severity as serious sexual assault.

I just explained that this isn't the case in the very comment you quoted.

KetsuekiR said:

As much as I am against victim blaming, attacking men who took yes as a yes and didn't notice the woman wasn't enthusiastic enough doesn't seem like a very good idea to me. We're reaching a point now where if a guy doesn't pick up on small "non-verbal cues", he can be branded a sexual predator and his career and life ruined (see, again, Aziz Ansari). How is this helpful?

Click to expand...

Of course it sucks, but in this case one man's screwup has resulted in someone's personal space and intimacy being compromised, in a way that has various psychological impacts. Manslaughter is a crime, even if it is a mistake. It sucks, but something obviously should be done in this case to dissuade people from screwing up in the same way.

Now, as I spent my first comment explaining, it is better that we come down on the assaulter rather than the victim. You need to come up with an alternative. There is no perfect solution, but the current solution is better than your one of "just put more of the responsibility on victims", because that one does not work.

Final thing, aziz ansari's career and life have not been ruined. Those who commit this crime do not have their life ruined. You need to stop making false equivalences.

KetsuekiR · Feb 2, 2018

luuma said:
-snip-

I don't see how this was a man's screw-up and only a man's screw-up. Both of them screwed up.

I'm not saying Aziz Ansari couldn't have read the situation better, or that it's fair to say it's all her fault. However, I don't think to label him a sexual predator for misreading it is fair either. This isn't a false equivalence, this is something multiple feminist media sources did. I will digress, however, that later on, most media outlets agreed this wasn't sexual assault, but rather a jerk and a bad date.

The alternative you asked for is what I've been pushing here; put more responsibility on both parties to ensure they know what they're doing.

luuma · Feb 2, 2018

KetsuekiR said:
I don't see how this was a man's screw-up and only a man's screw-up. Both of them screwed up.

The alternative you asked for is what I've been pushing here; put more responsibility on both parties to ensure they know what they're doing.

But that's not really an alternative, is it? That's just a compromise midway between a view I put forward as better and a view I explained was worse. Why on earth would incorporating facets of a worse system do anything good? In my mind this supposed alternative is merely partially removing power from victims rather than doing so fully.

Here's another example: If me and someone else are lifting a box, and we both drop it on the other guy's foot, we "should" both accept blame equally, absolutely. But we should not be punished equally. Punishment and persecution should only fall to me, because for the other guy, having a box dropped on your foot is bad enough. That is how the current system works, and I think it's absolutely fit for purpose.
In continuation, out of respect, I would accept blame for the whole thing. Our opinions just differ fundamentally here, and I'm not going to try and convince you of this personal belief, but I think my points about punishment only falling on one party work well regardless of what your feelings may be.

Then we go about telling people not to drop boxes on other people's feet. We could tell people not to drop boxes on their own feet, but as I say, dropping a box on your foot is bad enough. People intuitively don't want to drop boxes on their own feet anyway, it's bloody obvious. Let's return to the analogy. TW:

Spoiler:

KetsuekiR said:
aziz ansari stuff

He shouldn't have been heavily defamed, no. but A: his career is fine, B: only niche outlets and angry twitter mobs were bothered, and C: what he did was sexual assault under many accepted legal definitions, because (regardless of whether she gave verbal consent) it was against the other person's will.
What a great example for my points! He's not being persecuted for it because (as I have explained) most people aren't dumb as hell, and understand some forms of sexual assault are more serious than others.

anastasija · Feb 2, 2018

Arsenic said:
I prefer to call it female supremacy.

Anyone interested in true equality would be campaigning for equality for all, not just a single group. Same with things like BLM, LGBT, "Restoring white equality", so on and so fourth.

How about Humanism.

We already adopt humanism in modern society.

eeveetree9 · Feb 2, 2018

Feminism is (or should be) campaigning for gender equality and working to bring down the patriarchy. And bringing down the patriarchy should mean making the world an equal place for all genders, not placing women on top. I am a feminist, but I definitely don't hate men, as the stereotype seems to be. And, yes, there are probably a lot of women like that, but that's not was feminism is. Anyone who thinks that really needs to go and read Holly Bourne. And if you don't, read her books anyway. They show feminism pretty accurately.

Miss Wendighost · Feb 2, 2018

gimmepie said:
Feminism is and always has been about elevating the status of women in pursuit of equality. Let us not pretend, in any way, that it's something it isn't.

As for my own thoughts, I am all for the core belief behind feminism - equality of the sexes. I do not however consider myself a feminist nor do I support feminism as a movement for a few reason. I won't sit here and make outrageous claims that all feminists are feminazi sjw anti-man supremacist whatevers, because that simply isn't the case. The majority of the movement are probably perfectly normal people. Is there extremism in the movement? Yes, but it's not an extremist movement.

That being said, I do have problems with the movement. Firstly, I feel like it pushes beliefs that simply are not factual. The idea that there is a collective patriarchy oppressing women, the idea that there is a culture that encourages rape or sexual assault or that there is an ever-present wage gap (although I'm sure some assholes will go out of their way to under pay don't you worry - this is still too prevalent). I don't for one second doubt that there is a lot of injustice and inequality against women in our society, but I do not believe we have a society centred around the systematic oppression of women. Are women often marginalised, yes. Is there a patriarchal conspiracy against women, no.

Secondly, I do not support any group that only seeks to benefit themselves (or otherwise focuses only on the rights of one group). That means feminism, BLM, MRAs, whatever twisted group think white people need to take back America - all of them. If the very nature of your movement is exclusive, then it isn't promoting equality. If you feel like your work s done when problems facing women are dealt with but issues facing men, racial issues, LGBT issues, class issues and so-forth aren't something you speak out against then you never wanted equality. Equality has to be for everyone. As Bay mentioned, even in the feminist movement itself, the focus is very clearly on what benefits middle-upper class white women compared to other females.

I consider myself egalitarian. Not as a thinly-veiled way to do nothing and maintain the status quo like some conservatives use the term, I want equality for everyone and I think the sooner there is a global initiative for equal rights for all, the better.

I agree with you. Thanks for being logical in your response.

KetsuekiR · Feb 2, 2018

luuma said:
Here's another example: If me and someone else are lifting a box, and we both drop it on the other guy's foot, we "should" both accept blame equally, absolutely. But we should not be punished equally. Punishment and persecution should only fall to me, because for the other guy, having a box dropped on your foot is bad enough. That is how the current system works, and I think it's absolutely fit for purpose.

Here's a slightly more accurate scenario.

If me and someone else are lifting a box and I wanted to drop it, I'll check with them to see if it's okay. They say give me consent to drop the box and I drop it. Turns out they hadn't moved their foot and perhaps I didn't double check because I figured when theybsaidbyes, they would've made sure to move it.

Also, all I've been saying is that the fault lies in both parties. I don't think I ever said the woman should be punished.

luuma · Feb 3, 2018

KetsuekiR said:
Here's a slightly more accurate scenario.

If me and someone else are lifting a box and I wanted to drop it, I'll check with them to see if it's okay. They say give me consent to drop the box and I drop it. Turns out they hadn't moved their foot and perhaps I didn't double check because I figured when theybsaidbyes, they would've made sure to move it.

same principle applies

KetsuekiR said:
Also, all I've been saying is that the fault lies in both parties. I don't think I ever said the woman should be punished.

First off, stop treating consent as a FEMALE ONLY THING! my GOD! Men can be asked for sex too.

No you're right, you didn't say the woman should be punished, you said education should fall on both parties. That is what I am addressing in the next paragraph. The bit you quoted is not my entire point, it is the basis of my entire point, as you can see in the subsequent seemingly unread parts I've quoted below

luuma said:
Then we go about telling people not to drop boxes on other people's feet. We could tell people not to drop boxes on their own feet, but as I say, dropping a box on your foot is bad enough. People intuitively don't want to drop boxes on their own feet anyway, it's bloody obvious. Let's return to the analogy. TW: If I was sexually assaulted, that is a lesson in giving precise consent. It is not a bearable, forgettable thing.

For the love of god please read, man. it's such a drag having to repeat myself like three times to get you up to speed on why I think you're wrong.

KetsuekiR · Feb 3, 2018

luuma said:
-snip-

Mybpoint was that your analogy implies the party that asked if they can drop the box and did, only for accidentally land on the other's foot, is as bad as the person who slammed it onto another's foot on purpose.

I think we came to an agreement when you stated that the blame should go to both parties and that both sides should be more educated.

I'll end this here, seeing as we've begun to say the same thing back and forth.

luuma said:
For the love of god please read, man. it's such a drag having to repeat myself like three times to get you up to speed on why I think you're wrong.

I apologize that that's too much of a bother for you, but seeing as I've had to repeat myself as many times, if not more, I'm sure you'll survive.

luuma · Feb 3, 2018

KetsuekiR said:
Mybpoint was that your analogy implies the party that asked if they can drop the box and did, only for accidentally land on the other's foot, is as bad as the person who slammed it onto another's foot on purpose. .

This is not something I feel like I implied here at all. Where does this suggest it was done on purpose?

luuma said:
Here's another example: If me and someone else are lifting a box, and we both drop it on the other guy's foot, we "should" both accept blame equally, absolutely. But we should not be punished equally. Punishment and persecution should only fall to me, because for the other guy, having a box dropped on your foot is bad enough. That is how the current system works, and I think it's absolutely fit for purpose.

KetsuekiR said:
I apologize that that's too much of a bother for you, but seeing as I've had to repeat myself as many times, if not more, I'm sure you'll survive.

thanks so much for being so cloyingly civil. Every time you've "repeated yourself" thus far I have just been forced to quote the part of my previous posts where I addressed that point. You haven't "had" to repeat yourself, you've just done so anyway.

But not gonna lie, we are both kinda ruining a thread here, I am indeed going to drop it now. I'm sure you'll survive : ) ) )

Vragon · Feb 3, 2018

KetsuekiR said:
I'll end this here, seeing as we've begun to say the same thing back and forth.
I apologize that that's too much of a bother for you, but seeing as I've had to repeat myself as many times, if not more, I'm sure you'll survive.

luuma said:
thanks so much for being so cloyingly civil. Every time you've "repeated yourself" thus far I have just been forced to quote the part of my previous posts where I addressed that point. You haven't "had" to repeat yourself, you've just done so anyway.

But not gonna lie, we are both kinda ruining a thread here, I am indeed going to drop it now. I'm sure you'll survive : ) ) )

I'll say you both kinda ruined it, and not because you've had to repeat your points over and over, but that you both didn't seem get that perhaps, "What I'm saying isn't being received as the exact same way."

I've just been observing since I made my points and left out of disinterest, but I might as well as point out that both of you have been saying stuff and that both of you are interpreting each other differently. In any case, I have to say that about 2 comments in, perhaps the idea of "clarification by questions" would have clicked or something.

Okay so turning off my annoyance. You both mean well and I think I get the brunt of your arguments. However, amid that I can say that both of you misunderstood to the point that is seems like you both were taking each other out of context. Do whatever you will after this, but I thought it fine to point out that explaining your points can only go so far and sometimes you need to other person to ask questions/tell what they hear.

and no, it isn't only on the speaker but the listener too. Both of yo- no everyone in this entire thread should practice reading a comment more than thrice to ensure they get the message. If there are parts that are unclear/don't make sense, then clarification may be needed and that's done by asking.

And let me point out that I'm against peeps having condescending attitudes towards their fellow speakers. (If you bring up my thing from earlier, I apologized that wasn't the intention and that if I did I apologize for)
I think you both bring up good arguments, but that's only after I read this thread like "Five times" to try and make sure I understood what you both were saying. Overall, it's fine, but please can we all stop treating miscommunication as the other person "Not getting it cause they can't think" or "are illogical and/or simple minded" instead of I dunno, actually trying to make sure we're on the same page.

Pardon the rant, I wish you both and everyone in this thread well.

Gigadweeb · Mar 10, 2018

Alright, so I fall into the situation where people would call me an extreme feminist, SJW, 'third-wave' (using it as a derogatory term instead of its actual definition), whatever.

It's honestly really disappointing looking at this thread and the misconceptions of modern feminism, and also a bit funny considering people seem to like the 'older' feminists, which is really weird considering second-wave is where a lot of the actual man-hating feminists and TERFs fall into.

No shit we support the equality of both sexes. Along with the recognition of minority women, trans women and non-binary people. There's a reason third-wave is known as intersectional feminism.

Personally, I have no problem with men, as I am a guy myself, and pretty much every feminist I've talked to on Leftbook and the meta+left circle of reddit is the same. The reason discussion tends to focus on women is because there is still a shitton of imbalance between men and women. The Hollywood rape accusations that have come out in full force in the past 6 months or so is a good indication of that. Men in positions of power are protected by other influential men. It's as simple as that. Women are threatened that they'll be kept out of the industry if they don't have sex with them, have their life ruined, whatever. This isn't new, and happens everywhere on smaller scales. That's just one example.

My point is, legal rights don't mean shit when it comes to the culture of a society, and pretty much all of the world is still heavily dominated by wealthy men. That's why I'm a feminist. Not because I want to see all men castrated, toothbrushes seized, white genocide, whatever like a lot of reactionaries like to delude themselves into believing.

Vragon2.0 · Mar 11, 2018

Gigadweeb said:
Alright, so I fall into the situation where people would call me an extreme feminist, SJW, 'third-wave' (using it as a derogatory term instead of its actual definition), whatever.

It's honestly really disappointing looking at this thread and the misconceptions of modern feminism, and also a bit funny considering people seem to like the 'older' feminists, which is really weird considering second-wave is where a lot of the actual man-hating feminists and TERFs fall into.

I hate to be that guy, but what things in Second-wave if you can elaborate on them. This isn't sarcasm or a counter, I just would like to know which ones in particular you are referring to. Also, yeah I'm not for guilt by association or that everyone in a thing has the same opinions on every matter so I agree on that.

Gigadweeb said:
No muk we support the equality of both sexes. Along with the recognition of minority women, trans women and non-binary people. There's a reason third-wave is known as intersectional feminism.

So I read up a little on intersectional feminism from the Wiki (While it is prone to be written by anyone I doubt highly that it's been tampered to the point of blatant lying). It's an interesting concept that does have its share of criticism that also have good points to them. Also, I'd like to pose a question to you. "What is equality of the sexes in your eyes?"

Gigadweeb said:
Personally, I have no problem with men, as I am a guy myself, and pretty much every feminist I've talked to on Leftbook and the meta+left circle of reddit is the same. The reason discussion tends to focus on women is because there is still a mukton of imbalance between men and women. The Hollywood rape accusations that have come out in full force in the past 6 months or so is a good indication of that. Men in positions of power are protected by other influential men. It's as simple as that. Women are threatened that they'll be kept out of the industry if they don't have sex with them, have their life ruined, whatever. This isn't new, and happens everywhere on smaller scales. That's just one example.

So anecdotal testimony of talking with peeps on your end aside, I'd like to address all your points with, "where's your proof?". Call it a cop out if you will, but I honestly would like to see evidence of these claims you're making. I won't say anything you say is doesn't exist, that would be stupid of me, however if it is as frequent as it is preached, it's important to discuss it and know how prevalent it is. Not every rich person bangs a girl often and not everyone focuses on protecting ones that do. Also, if this is an issue with higher ups in business, then how is it a cultural issue on the scale os basics? I mean, rich people do things and have an easier time of getting away with it. I don't condone the actions nor do I think justice shouldn't be served, however I fail to see enough reason to say that "Not wanting to have sex is the reason women won't go into the industry".

Like, I hate to have to drive this, but where's the measures of this. How many women do go into the field and is it an increase? It's not so simple as 1 reason why this would be a thing, so I honestly find it kinda generalistic to say that for "Women" to be out of the "Industry".

Gigadweeb said:
My point is, legal rights don't mean muk when it comes to the culture of a society, and pretty much all of the world is still heavily dominated by wealthy men. That's why I'm a feminist. Not because I want to see all men castrated, toothbrushes seized, white genocide, whatever like a lot of reactionaries like to delude themselves into believing.

Okay, so men tend to have the higher levels in industry. Okay, so I have to ask why is that? I mean, sure we can go with that, but what are the factors for why more men are seen in the wealthy aspect compared to women? I think your question is fair and deserves to be talked about, however I think the basics of "more men are in the wealthy positions" isn't really a bad thing unless it's used for bad purposes. Like, more of something in one spot doesn't mean it's bad because there isn't a good parsed amount of other things across it.

I mean, yeah I could believe a lot of bad men are at the top, but the idea of there being more men up there isn't inherently bad likewise if more women were up there. Frankly, that's also saying that it requires cultural change when if you're talking about suites being in control would mainly focus on that higher class (if not a select few of them).

My point is that what they say does have merit to a degree, however I think both sides are overblowing the issue and honestly it hurts both of the sides credibility. I don't believe the feminazis are a true face of feminism (hell, I just get a laugh out of them), but at the same time, I can't really say I'd be a feminist. I agree in equality of the sexes, I just disagree with a bit of their agenda and ways of solving the issues that we still need to determine are at what level if even the right issues.

Your opinion on feminism?

More options

KetsuekiR

Ridiculously unsure

Psychic

Really and truly

Vragon

Guest

withheld

Banned

silvershred

luuma

searching for Meaning, offering HA numel

KetsuekiR

Ridiculously unsure

luuma

searching for Meaning, offering HA numel

KetsuekiR

Ridiculously unsure

luuma

searching for Meaning, offering HA numel

anastasija

Royalty

eeveetree9

Miss Wendighost

Satan's Little Princess

KetsuekiR

Ridiculously unsure

luuma

searching for Meaning, offering HA numel

KetsuekiR

Ridiculously unsure

luuma

searching for Meaning, offering HA numel

Vragon

Guest

Gigadweeb

[b][i]The Black Swordsman[/i][/b]

Vragon2.0

Say it with me (Vray-gun)