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.

If you feel attacked by feminism, it is probably a counter-attack anyway. I dislike the marriage-hating, generalizing, symbol-loving, doomsaying, "LAWL Let's kick-em-all-in-the-groin!!!" hypocrites too but they are not the majority. Feminism as an idea is still justified, but it may not be used as a shield to hide pro-statism and unneccesary legislation.

>>41
>Feminism as an idea is still justified

You keep repeating this, I'd say it's time you backed it up with some proof now.

>>42 15 % of the elected national chamber seats in America have female butts on them in 2004. 49 % in Rwanda, 45,3 % in Sweden.

>>40
Most of said feminists support affirmative action, among other things, which are completely inconsistent with the ideas and values of liberty and capitalism.  These ideas are fundamentally unamerican.  People should be free to do as they please, and hiring should be on a voluntary private basis, in which the government has no say at all. 

>>43
Women have voting rights.  Just because there are more males in the government doesn't mean there is cause for concern.  Females have equal rights, and the system is relatively free and hands off.  What more do you want than equal rights? Are you not going to be happy until employment is exactly 50/50 man/woman, and that the government is completely 50/50? People have voting rights, and they have the right to vote prejudicially against women if they want.  Anything short of giving them the ability to do this is denying them representation in government, which is against the very the fundamentals of democracy and self-government.  It is denying people representation in government.  It is un-american.

The statistical effects of the equal rights laws will take decades to come into being. we can see the process beginning now. Most doctors are in their 30s and 40s and there are many non-white and/or female doctors, however in politics and big business you need decades of experience and a high level of education and most major positions are held by people in their 50s, 60s and 70s and women in their 50s, 60s and 70s were not afforded the same opportunities.

Margaret Thatcher is a good example, she was a brilliant leader, she toppled the soviet bloc saving god knows how many lives, freeing millions and ranks as high as Abe Lincoln, Washington and Churchill. The fact she was a woman in a high position proves that she was indeed there because she was a person of extraordinary intelligence, which fits in perfectly with my hypothesis and it should since my hypothesis was induced from the facts so it must be true.

lol feminazi

>>46
So give them decades.  Fuck affirmative action.

>>47 lol

>>47
>>49
lol lollers

>>48
Affirmative action is just a typical heavy handed unthought out response by the government, but it is with good intentions. You see the problem socialists have is that they are immoral, but the people generally have a sense of morality, so they have to distort reality in order to get people to support what they want. People need to realise that the real solution is libertarianism and voting libertarian.

>>43
O rly? That's tragic.

I also think we need more female steel workers.

>>52
Why do they have to be female? The worker's ability to operate machine tools determines how effective their steel working skills are, not their gender.

>>53
But clearly the absence of women in the steel worker business is a sign of gender discrimination. Some feminism is urgently needed here.

Well, obviously women don't have what it takes to be politicians either

>>54
There are many industries in which women are not very regularly seen in.  This is not necessarilly a sign of gender discrimination, and feminism is not needed.

>>51
I agree.  Libertarians FTW.


Speaking of female politicians & feminism, I was pretty disgusted to hear a few feminists saying they were going to vote for the governor we have of our state now, for no reason in particular other than that she was a woman, and that 'we need more women in the government'.  I guess they fail to see that this is just as sexist as those who would vote against her for the sole reason that she is a woman.

i wanna sex a feminazi

>>56
lol reverse sexism

Equal rights are already here.  The feminism movement is old, outdated, and needs to die - or at least to move to countries where women are /actually/ oppressed (note:  the USA isn't one of them.)

>>56
"I guess they fail to see that this is just as sexist as those who would vote against her for the sole reason that she is a woman."

Yeah.  If there was a political race between a man and a woman, and I voted for the man over the woman just because he was a man, and said so, everyone would be like 'ZOMG SEXIST CHAUVINIST PIG!'

I guess when feminists do it voting for a woman just because she is a woman, its OK, LOL!

>>54
It does not prove discrimination is occurring, it just states that discrimination may occur. If someone prefers an underqualified man over a qualified woman discrimination is occurring, that is proof since the chances of a board of 3 people involved in the decision making such a foolish mistake is next to 0. However if you have no proof that this has occurred, there is no proof that discrimination is occurring.

>>56
Correct, >>51 is correct and people should vote libertarian as they tend to be more congruent with people's reality.

I am aware that women have been severely discriminated against by men for 1000s of years, but I prefer egalitarianism to feminism. If the definition of feminism is the same as egalitarianism, then the majority of women who claim to be feminists certainly do not act as though they are feminists.

Libertarians by definition must open themselves up to criticism, thus contradictions such as this are few and far between. Not that it doesn't happen, no human or political opinion is perfect, but at least libertarians do not claim to be perfect.

>>61
Correct, >>51 is correct and people should vote libertarian as they tend to be more congruent with people's morality.**

>>56
>There are many industries in which women are not very regularly seen in.  This is not necessarilly a sign of gender discrimination, and feminism is not needed.

Good. Then the absence of women in management and government isn't necessarily gender discrimination either.

>>63
You should have read and understood my point. Disproportion in gender distribution doesn't prove discrimination is occurring, it means there is a higher chance of it occurring and if discrimination is occurring it doesn't tell you where and how discrimination occurred. Employers could be simply choosing the best person for the job on a meritocratic basis, whilst the real reasons for discrimination lie with the education given during the 50s and 60s.

>>63
That's right.  It isn't. 

>>64 is right.  Disproportion in gender distribution does not prove discrimination is happening. 

Feminism in a nutshell: a bunch of fish-smelling dykes with military haircuts who want to fix supposed sexual inequality by treating men like shit and becoming lesbians.

P.S.: Sexual inequality still exists, but now it's the other way around. Women:
- Decide who to fuck, when and how.
- Decide who to date, when and how.
- Decide who to marry, when and how.
- Decide how many children to have, when and how.
- Decide how to spend money, and are the head of the family.
- You have to be constantly making money for her, buying things and being a pussy if you don't want to get dumped the very second you show the barest sign of not being a completely pussywhipped slave.
- Women also get the most attention and help from males because of the remote possibility that they could lay any of them.

Let's admit it guys, our dicks made us slaves of women. Even though we are more mature emotionally-wise, more stable mentally-wise, and rational (not "more rational", just "rational", as opposed to fucking crazy, irrational bitches), we get wasted and pussywhipped by these stupid, illogical and obnoxious whores just because they can fix our biological need. Goddamn my dick. (And no, I'm not fucking a man, my dick wants whore, not fag.) I wish I were asexual. (And no, I'm not chopping it off.)

Women can make a lot of money very easily when they are at the ages 18-35.

>>66
Mostly true.

>>43
So women aren't popular politicians.  So what? You can't tell people what they can do with their votes. 

>>66 Oh yes, feminists approve of these inequalities. THEY. WANT. TO. GET. RID. OFF. ALL. GENDER. PREJUDICE. Rape is the result of men's sexual 'inferiority' to women, and educated, sensible feminists realize that the special treatment women get goes hand in hand with the special treatment men get.
"Fish-smelling dykes". Not all anti-feminists are idiots, but all idiots are anti-feminists.

>>70
Excuse me, but where are those magical feminists you speak of and why do you think they represent a majority of today's feminist movement?

>>70
You still have not addressed the fact that feminism and liberty are incompatible.  See >>1 and >>2.

>>71 Yeah really, maybe I just have not seen any "sensible" feminists yet, but I have no clue what he is talking about.  I honestly doubt if they even exist - and if they do, I have even greater doubts if they represent any kind of majority within the feminist movement. 

"For 'economic equality', would you not require a Socialistic government that then redistributes income?" - WTF? No you would not, just a lack of bias, which, by definition, would ensure economic equality.
>>39 >>35
Are you retarded, or trolling?
No society is totally free. In anarchy, one person limits the freedoms of another any time they want. In a classless democracy, one person's freedom would be limited by being unable to gain more than the next person (presumeably by taking it from them somehow).
Equality limits freedom.
Lack of equality limits freedom.
Here, you are not free to treat a woman like you would your dog and prevent them from driving on the basis of being a woman. That is a limit on your freedom.
In Saudi Arabia, THE WOMEN'S freedoms are limited by the men doing the things described above.
You can't NOT limit freedom, so your argument is a Doug point.

In conclusion: Your logic is retarded. Equality is better.

>>73
"For 'economic equality', would you not require a Socialistic government that then redistributes income?"


"WTF? No you would not, just a lack of bias, which, by definition, would ensure economic equality."

And how are you going to achieve this lack of bias? If you use any kind of force or government program to achieve it, which is part of the feminist agenda, it isn't compatible with liberty.

>>74
Did you read the rest of the post? Also, you act like equal pay is some horrible travesty being forced upon employers. I'm talking about fucking true egalitarianism. Not that that is the point. The point is the REST OF MY POST THAT YOU APPARENTLY DIDN'T READ.
I'll summarize it: You pay one person less than another, you limit their freedom. Someone makes you pay people without bias, they limit YOUR freedom. Conclusion: humans living in societies limit their freedoms inevitably. If you have a model where people's freedoms are not limited, yet they still coexist as some sort of cohesive group working for a common good, PLEASE LET ME KNOW.

>>73 here, woops, missed large part of this thread, so I am addressing >>72 as well.

Whats the point of calling it "feminazi" feminism is as communist as it gets. The women or nazi germany where dedicated to stay home and rasie their chidren.

>>77
How do I used english?

>>74 " If you use any kind of force or government program to achieve it, which is part of the feminist agenda, it isn't compatible with liberty." If these insidious programs you speak of do not force employers to affirmative action but instead try to move cultural barriers to equality out of the way, it is only incompatible with libertarian policy (the market will do anything and no money should be spent!) and that is not the same thing. Forcing employers to pay all employees equally is a stand for liberty, not against it.

>>79
What measures to "move cultural barriers" do you support?