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. 

>>159
"I have to side with >>157 here."

*gasps* I didn't see -this- coming..

"http://www.advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/";

So? I don't see how this proves what you are saying.  The NRA existed long before our gun rights were under serious national attack, and the simple fact that the NRA exists doesn't mean that our gun rights -are- under attack.  (I'm not saying they aren't, just using this as an example.)

Give me a *specific* link to an article proving that the USA generally hates women. 

"It still happens."

So? It is illegal.  Your average american isn't 'anti-women.' We have equal rights for women here.  Buy a firearm, stop voting for democraps who will disarm you, and learn to protect yourself. 

If we didn't have all these anti self defense people in office, nobody would think twice about you shooting a rapist who was trying to assault you.  Quit whining & learn to take care of yourself.

"1/100 men are raped and 1/10 women are raped in the military."

Well, your buddy Xel seems to think that men raping women is resultant from gender inequalities that *men* experiance.  In fact, I believe I remember him going so far as to say that *any* intelligent feminist would know this.  Hmm...

Furthermore, this doesn't prove that your average american is 'anti-women' or 'hostile toward women,' for that matter, and thus does not prove that your generalization is accurate or just.

"The Pentagon tries covering it up."

Not because they hate women, they cover it up because they don't want to look bad, or get caught.

Even if some of them were covering it up because they were just out to get women, its still only a minority of 'americans' so saying 'americans hate women' is really pretty inaccurate to say the least. 

>>161
Human beings are naturally a collectivistic group.  I won't deny having collectivistic thoughts myself, I am human also, but I try to limit this as much as possible out of respect for the individual.  Being an individualist certainly isn't easy.

Yes, if that 1 out of a 1000 feminist came to me, I would probably expect them to be like the others.  But that doesn't make judging them right and I would withhold my judgment of that person until I know more about them individually.

Yes, drawing generlizations of people is a bad thing because it is intellectually lazy. 

Liberty friendly feminists might not be the majority of feminists, but they are a sizeable minority.  Certainly not one out of a thousand.  I suspect you yourself could be one if you could just get over your group hatred and respect the individual feminist more. 

As for your last paragraph: This is the perfect example of what I am saying.  This is the first mention of neo-cons and you call me inconsistent and biased because you assume you know how I would react and basically making up shit.  Once again you make generalizations because it is convenient for you.  But ultimately you are simply arguing with yourself and your own prejudices.

>>161 So we care about if a sub-group of humanity is >50% good or not? It's impossible to make definitions like that. So we make cultural or political changes that chip away at what is unacceptable. I am against government intervention, even in order to strengthen gender equality. So I support socio-cultural changes instead, which is why I'll never side with social conservatives under any circumstances. Feminists don't need political changes now. They need equality, and *now*. Since official equal rights wasn't enough, they become angry and frustrated because they face rigidity, slander and a very nebulous yet powerful and almost ubiquitious enemy. It is horrible to be harmed and opposed by a faceless, non-entity enemy, whether you are a feminist or a pro-gun activist.

>>164
And with that said and done, this thread should now come to a close.

>>165 "No, because one feminist was a marxist and we need to complain a lot more."

>>166
Be careful, don't wanna attract any unwanted attention. :3

>>164
"I am against government intervention, even in order to strengthen gender equality."

A different horn than you were tooting from earlier. 

"So I support socio-cultural changes instead, which is why I'll never side with social conservatives under any circumstances."

Like granting them reparations in the form of rights? (abortion)  Screw that.  They shouldn't have any special rights they wouldn't have ordinarilly.  Reparational rights is not fair.

"They need equality, and *now*."

We have equal rights *now*.

"Since official equal rights wasn't enough, they become angry and frustrated because they face rigidity, slander and a very nebulous yet powerful and almost ubiquitious enemy."

What do you mean they aren't 'enough'? Equal rights is what people deserve, and they have them now.  Everything is fine and dandy.  I won't be 'rigid' when I don't see them trying to get something *more* than *equal* rights. 

"It is horrible to be harmed and opposed by a faceless, non-entity enemy, whether you are a feminist or a pro-gun activist."

What do you mean by this? I'm only their 'enemy' when they start pushing for more than *equal rights*.


>>166
I don't see what is wrong with complaining about people who push for something more than equal rights.  This is what people as individuals are rightly entitled to.

>>163
"Human beings are naturally a collectivistic group.  I won't deny having collectivistic thoughts myself, I am human also, but I try to limit this as much as possible out of respect for the individual.  Being an individualist certainly isn't easy."

I respect individuality.  I realize not all neo-cons are corrupt, or that all feminists are unreasonable feminazis.  Yet, when I see someone with said traits, of *either* kind, I don't think it is wrong to assume these things based on past experiances, assuming they have happened reasonably often enough.  However, I will give the individual the chance to show that they are different. 

Yes, if that 1 out of a 1000 feminist came to me, I would probably expect them to be like the others.  But that doesn't make judging them right and I would withhold my judgment of that person until I know more about them individually.

"Yes, drawing generlizations of people is a bad thing because it is intellectually lazy." 

No it isn't.  Drawing generalizations of people while not taking the time to judge every individual on an individual basis that you meet, regardless of whether or not they have said traits would be lazy and 'bad,' but I see nothing wrong with generalizations.

"Liberty friendly feminists might not be the majority of feminists, but they are a sizeable minority."

Again, I have yet to meet one.  Feminists I meet get judged as individuals though. 

"Certainly not one out of a thousand.  I suspect you yourself could be one if you could just get over your group hatred and respect the individual feminist more."

That depends.  I will say I am for *equal rights*.  Take that to mean what you like, but I wouldn't call myself a 'feminist.'

"As for your last paragraph: This is the perfect example of what I am saying.  This is the first mention of neo-cons and you call me inconsistent and biased because you assume you know how I would react and basically making up shit."

It was an entirely reasonable assumption.  Based on past threads discussing the neo-conservatives, I didn't see anyone stepping up to say 'BUT NOT *ALL* NEO-CONS ARE CORRUPT!', or 'cheaters' or something along these lines.  I forget exactly what the topic was about.  This happens quite often that people critisize entire political movements or groups - and nobody says a thing about it - until feminists are the target.

>>169
As long as you are willing to give them the chance to show themselves as an individual, that is good.

"That depends.  I will say I am for *equal rights*.  Take that to mean what you like, but I wouldn't call myself a 'feminist.'"

Would you call yourself an individualist feminist?

"It was an entirely reasonable assumption.  Based on past threads discussing the neo-conservatives, I didn't see anyone stepping up to say 'BUT NOT *ALL* NEO-CONS ARE CORRUPT!', or 'cheaters' or something along these lines.  I forget exactly what the topic was about.  This happens quite often that people critisize entire political movements or groups - and nobody says a thing about it - until feminists are the target."

If this was a regular board with registration and had seen me in such a thread, then yes it might have been reasonable.  But here on 4chan, we are all anonymous, so it was just stupid.

*yawn* this discussion is getting as lame and obring as that abortion discussion

Some poor guy started a thread which was about when it is moral to abort a fetus and aptly claimed it should be when the fetus's brain develops and can experience sufferring, but that thread was trampled all over by the extreme left and right.

>>170

"That depends.  I will say I am for *equal rights*.  Take that to mean what you like, but I wouldn't call myself a 'feminist.'"

"Would you call yourself an individualist feminist?"

Not really sure.  One of the definitions of feminism is something like 'organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests', which could easilly be taken above and beyond equal rights.  Based on that, no I don't think so.  I am not a 'feminist', I'm for *equal rights*, which I percieve to be something different.

"If this was a regular board with registration and had seen me in such a thread, then yes it might have been reasonable.  But here on 4chan, we are all anonymous, so it was just stupid."

No it wasn't.  You were here, you very likely read it, and thus what I said was very likely correct and accurate.

>>171
"*yawn* this discussion is getting as lame and obring as that abortion discussion"

So why don't you just quit bitching and don't read it? Nobody is forcing you to stay here.

>>172
Nope, never been in any neo-con bashing thread.  But it's okay, you go right ahead living in your little world where you have to make up things to be right.

>>173
I think *you* are the one making things up to be right.  Neo-con bashing seems to be one of this board's favored activities.

>>1

Because Nobody Likes Bras : http://www.bromygod.com/2013/06/24/because-nobody-likes-bras

PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS