Feminism

According to the dictionary, feminism is:  "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes"

For 'economic equality', would you not require a Socialistic government that then redistributes income? Why should we have 'economic equality' among men and women? Men and women should make equal pay for an equal amount of work.  They should not make equal amounts of pay regardless of whether or not they work.

I think it is interesting to note that Friedan herself (the mother of feminism, essentially) was a staunch Marxist. 

http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/friedan-per-horowitz.html

http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2003/1125roberts.html

http://www.wpunj.edu/~newpol/issue35/boucher35.htm

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=1096

http://www.rense.com/general21/bettyfriedan.htm

What of 'social equality'? How will you achieve this 'social equality'? Are you going to ram this agenda down everyone's throat through government force, and social control?

According to webster online, the definition of fascism is:  "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"

Of particularly important note is the section that reads "economic and social regimentation".  Keeping in mind that feminism demands both economic, and social equality of the sexes, this begs the question:  'how will you attain this 'social and economic equality'?  Through use of the government. 

Political equality is something women in the USA already have.    So what is the purpose behind the feminist movement?

In light of these considerations, I am not a 'feminist.'  I am in favor of equal rights under the law for all people, regardless of sex.  Is this 'feminism'? No.  Not feminism by definition, anyway.

>>160
That is only one definition.  There are two.  One of them would entail the certainty that I am, at least to some degree, politically collectivist, and one would not necessarilly.  Given that this is a 'politics board,' I think it is pretty reasonable to make the assumption that you would be referring to the political definition, which I did.  I am not a 'collectivist' in a political sense.

Furthermore, if you can't draw a probable conclusion from past events, and notice similar traits or aspects of past actions, and predict what will happen when similar things manifest themselves in the future, you are just a dumbass.

If 999/1000 feminists you know advocate expanding the government, and one more feminist comes up and begins to argue with you, what do you suppose he will advocate? There's nothing wrong with noticing certain traits that tend to accompany others in individuals, and drawing generalizations of people like this. 

Furthermore, you are inconsistent in your criticism.  If I was sitting here bashing Bush, and I said 'neo-conservatives are corrupt assholes' based on some things I think I know of them - you wouldn't give a fuck about it one way or another, and wouldn't say shit, regardless of the fact that I am making a generalization.  Now as soon as I say 'feminists are feminazi bitches who want to ram their agenda down my throat,' you have something to say about it, and call me a 'collectivist scumbag.'  Hmm.. inconsistency, and bias.