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.

In order to move cultural barriers, unbiased education is needed. Also, there will have to be a deeper separation of church (responsible for subjugating women and gender roles) and state, since the two are slowly fusing together into one major dingpot. At least in my opinion.

>>80 I dunno, I'm but 17 and the upper echelons of feminist thinking and social sciences are undiscovered for me. All I know is that I don't approve of feminism just because it is labelled 'feminism', but that things need to be done. Affirmative action - stupid. Allowing women to prosecute employers if they pay inequally - fuck yes. Feminism doesn't mean what social conservatives tells you it does.

>>82 "Feminism doesn't mean what social conservatives tells you it does." Fuckery grammar.

>>83
Clearly you are too used to writing shopping lists.

>>84 AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHHAHAA that wasn't funny.

>>85
gb2 kitchen

Xel has no 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 PENIS

>>1
>According to the dictionary, feminism is:  "made of ugly dykes and Xel"

fixed

haha ugly dyke bitches have no sense of humour and neither does xel

Well humanity obviously hates me, and everything I do is void. Down the street right?

>>90
same male feminist

Aww. Don't let these penis-enviers get to ya, Xel. I still wuv ya. :D

>>90
By the way, male feminists are known as pro-feminists. :/

>>90
liberals and feminists don't hate you

>>92
>By the way, male feminists are known as pro-feminists. :/

The word you're looking for is 'self-hating castrates'.

>>94
I believe you mean phrase. Since that's more than one word. Troll, get the fsck out.

>>95
Yeah. I added 'self-hating' later and forgot to change the sentence.

Also, eat a dick, you feminist scum.

"Men of little mental caliber, self-esteem and openness of mind often uses a man's dick as the only defining characteristic. It is predictable, non-threatening and unbelievably sad." - Quoted for the truth. Please don't let your dick lead you, little boy.

Forgot to mention, what makes you think I'm a feminist? I haven't stated my position, nor have I made many posts. Before you act out, you better weigh your claims and back yourself up instead of making yourself appear idiotic. Tsk tsk tsk, only little, ignorant boys make insults that have something to do with genitalia. Please, save yourself any further trouble by throwing yourself off a cliff.

>>97
I'm so sorry that feminists cut off your dick and you're jealous of the other guys now who still have theirs.

>>98
>Forgot to mention, what makes you think I'm a feminist?

The fact that you're such a huge faggot.

>>99
You don't know what for gender I am, don't just automatically assume what people are over the Interwebs. Under what bases am I faggot to you? You have nothing to back yourself up. You made your own defeat here. GTFO.

>>100
Y did U let teh f3ministz cut ur dik off? Don't U need ur dik? LOL

equality = feminism ?!?!?!


wtf, if i want to advocate equality i dont want to be called a fcking feminist! I HATE YOU PMS BITHCES FOR RUINING EQUALITY!

Also, alll women should be eligible for REQUIRED drafts and the selective service! EQUALITY GOES BOTH WAYS BITCHES

>>95 Goog going, Kumori.
>>102 "Also, alll women should be eligible for REQUIRED drafts and the selective service! EQUALITY GOES BOTH WAYS BITCHES" We have here an encyclopedic definition of trollfail. Women who try to join the American Army are raped and harassed by the enrollers, their superiors and their compatriots. Americans can't even provide acceptable cultural atmospheres for its women when they are ready to die for it. You have failed and so has your nation.

>>103
THEY ALREADY SERVE IN THE MILITARY FAGGOT.

I DONT SEE ANY FAIL AT ALL.

>>103
After reading your military comment I don't believe that your dick was cut off anymore. It probably shriveled up like a dried out earthworm and crawled back into your body out of shame.

>>99 is the biggest asshole on these forums and the way his asshole got so big in the first place was from letting it get reamed by hairy-chested PE teachers. I'm sick of his stupid faggot ass running off at the mouth like his cheeks are filled with man ranch. I'm sick of him just blurting shit out without backing it up and daring to call it a "debate".

>>99, do us a favor you jizzfuck dickwipe....END YOURSELF.

>>79
"Forcing employers to pay all employees equally is a stand for liberty, not against it."

Using force or coercion to do anything is not compatible with the ideas of liberty.  The idea behind libertarianism is to force them to do only as much as is necessary for the preservation of their other freedoms.  Affirmative action, and forcing employers to give equal pay is a sick violation of their rights.  If I have 10 dollars, and I decide I want some work done, and I hire out workers, I can and should be able to pay them whatever I want, provided they agree.  This is entirely voluntary, and if they don't like it, they don't have to take the deal.  The government has no place in economics but to tax away the sum necessary to provide police, court systems, and a military to provide for the common defense.  Everything else should be left up to private individuals.  The right to property is the right to use and disposal as you please.  This includes the right to pay someone to do work, provided they voluntarilly agree.  This also includes the right of the employer to say he will pay certain classes of people less, for whatever reason if he wants to.  It is his money.  Said classes of people don't have to accept the bargain, if they don't want.  Using force or coercion to manipulate wages is not libertarian.  In a free society, all interactions outside of those practically necessary for the preservation of this relatively free state are to be done in a manner that is free of coercion and violence.  This includes employee-employer negotiations.

>>75
"Also, you act like equal pay is some horrible travesty being forced upon employers."

Forcing an employer to do something against his will with his property is a violation of his property rights, regardless of whether or not you see this action as morally right.

"I'll summarize it: You pay one person less than another, you limit their freedom."

Employers and employees both have a right to engage or not to engage in trade or in employment as they wish, provided it is voluntary.  Forcing employers to do something with their property, or to manage it a certain way, regardless of whether or not you see it as 'moral' or not, is wrong.  The only exceptions to this are that you are not allowed to use said property in a way that violates another individual's rights.  For example, you would be allowed to purchase a gun.  You would not be allowed to use said gun to shoot someone, or use it to force them to do things.  This would obviously be against the law.  As long as said activity doesn't cause direct harm to another individual, it should be allowed, within reason.  This obviously includes the right to engage in voluntary trade with other individuals, provided it is voluntary from both sides, employer, and employee. 

"Someone makes you pay people without bias, they limit YOUR freedom."

Yes they will.  Part of your freedom is the right to property.  The right to property entails the right to use and disposal, as you please.  To tell someone they cannot do something with their property if that action does not harm another individual, is violating their right to use and disposal of said property (their rights to property.) A right is a freedom of action.  You are violating said freedom of action when you violate their right to use and disposal of said property as they see fit.

"Conclusion: humans living in societies limit their freedoms inevitably."

An employer who discriminates against his employees is not limmiting their freedom in any way.  It is not their property, and it is thus not their choice to decide what to do with it, until it has voluntarilly shifted hands from employer, to employee.  The employee is not forced to take the bargain with the employer, and is free to take his labor elsewhere if he pleases.  Since it is not the employees freedom of action that is being limmited, his rights are thus not being limmited, and he is thus free.  Your ideas are wrong.

"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."

http://www.lp.org/
http://www.theadvocates.org/ruwart/categories_list.php

>>82
"I dunno, I'm but 17 and the upper echelons of feminist thinking and social sciences are undiscovered for me."

You might want to try out the writings of that Marxist Betty Friedan.

"All I know is that I don't approve of feminism just because it is labelled 'feminism',"

Really? It sure seems like it.

"but that things need to be done."

Yes.  Restrictions on business and private action need to be removed entirely.  Employment should be made entirely voluntary.  All minimum wages need to be removed.  All obviously unnecessary laws regarding private transactions and business should be removed, such as laws that force employers to pay employees specific wages, or to pay wages they may not agree with to employees.  We need to restore Capitalism and private property rights.

"Affirmative action - stupid."

I agree.

"Allowing women to prosecute employers if they pay inequally - fuck yes."

Part of your freedom is the right to property.  The right to property entails the right to use and disposal, as you please.  To tell someone they cannot do something with their property if that action does not harm another individual, is violating their right to use and disposal of said property (their rights to property.) A right is a freedom of action.  You are violating said freedom of action when you violate their right to use and disposal of said property as they see fit.  This idea is incompatible with liberty.  Wage and price controls in general are a violation of individual rights, and should be abolished at once. 

>>108 When you void part of a person's ability to earn a living because of their phenotype, you void your own birthrights. If libertarians think that discrimination is a right, I am not a libertarian. This may change in the future.

>>109
"When you void part of a person's ability to earn a living because of their phenotype, you void your own birthrights. If libertarians think that discrimination is a right, I am not a libertarian. This may change in the future."

No individual has the 'right' to business with another person.  Business is something engaged upon by voluntary consent by both parties.  If, for whatever reason, another party does not want to do business, or changes his mind, it is his right to do so.

"If libertarians think that discrimination is a right, I am not a libertarian. This may change in the future."

It has nothing to do with whether you are pro-discrimination or not.  How does one have the right to property if they don't even have the freedom to negoatiate wages with other people uninterrupted or intruded upon by the government? The ability to trade freely and peacefully with others in a voluntary manner, whether you discriminate or not is a basic human right.  If I was selling cookies on a street corner, and there was a kid I didn't like who came up and wanted to buy a cookie, should I be forced to sell it to him regardless of my dislike? Obviously not.  It is my property, and I can withdraw from the bargain at any time I wish.  Deals between private individuals must be entirely voluntary at all times.  Anything short of this restricts the right to property - a basic human right.

>>109
Xel, if this issue really bothers you that much, you may want to read this: 
http://www.theadvocates.org/ruwart/questions_list.php?Category=6

If that doesn't help you, there is a form there where you can ask questions, and they post them up there on said page.  Go to the "ASK YOUR QUESTION" area, and you will likely get a nice educated libertarian reply to whatever qualm you were having with libertarianism.  You will need an email address.

>>107
Why is that post so long? Your answer to everything is:
Step 1) Become an employer
Step 2) Job opening
Step 3) Hire Person1 - Offer pay, tell noone else what it is
Step 4) Hire Person2 - Offer pay < Person1, tell noone else
Step 5) Pretend it's okay, despite Person2 knew no better
Step 5) ??????
Step 6) Profit!

You are trying to claim that bias/discrimination is okay as long as the person either doesn't know about it, or has no choice because all other employers are doing it. People don't spontaneously decide they want to be payed less than the next person. When this happens consistently to people who have something like gender in common, it is called discrimination.

Also, that link doesn't answer my question.

>>111 Facts, reasoning and data leaves me defenseless and gladly ready to change my mind. Thank you.

>>111
Mmm, nothing like ordering answers like a Happy Meal from McD's.

Too many penis-loving, l33t-speaking children on this thread..

>>101 and other stupid morons blah blah.

I am a woman. Get out of here you troll.

>>102 and so forth yadda-yadda.

fem·i·nism    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (fm-nzm)
n.
1.  Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.
2.  The movement organized around this belief.

I can't believe these boys' penises are getting hurt just by the NAME of something that is good. So what if it has 'fem' in it? It's still good. Don't get your penises caught in a knot.

>>103

Umm, thanks? XD
No need to rub it in, some people just don't know how to be mature and non-hostile like cavemen.

>>115 Kumori is at it again, what with her "commie-sources" and "dyke-reasoning". You "libertarians" are obviously not insulting her enough. Then again I doubt your 'insults' will ever rattle her for a second. You can measure a human by the accuracy, credibility and intelligence of her critics, to a degree.

>>82
>Allowing women to prosecute employers if they pay inequally - fuck yes.

Uh, excuse me, but since when does everybody in a company earn exactly the same amount of money? Even men in the same position will usually earn different amounts.

>>115
"I can't believe these boys' penises are getting hurt just by the NAME of something that is good. So what if it has 'fem' in it? It's still good. Don't get your penises caught in a knot."

It has nothing to do with the name.  As a libertarian I have strong aversions to any kind of increase in government power, for whatever reason. 

>>115
>I am a woman. Get out of here you troll.

Haha, you have Internet in the kitchen? What the fuck.

>1.  Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.
>2.  The movement organized around this belief.

Reality check plz.

>>118
There are libertarian forms of feminism you know.  Despite what Jerry Falwell would like you to think, all feminism isn't limited to baby killing, man hating, Marxists.