And this isn't a sweeping generality in any way shape or form. No. Not at all. Because all I've ever done here in the forum is bemoan my 'perpetual victimhood'. Never once have I spoken of the life I lead as wonderful. Never have I mentioned the sense of professionalism and accomplishment I feel working at the DA's office. Not once have I done these things? Ever? And that's some slick wordplay there, slick: all banded together under the umbrella... Nice job of verbally, thus paradigmatically, lumping me in with racists. How very McCarthy of you.
Some worms can survive underwater. Surely that's good enough in this inclusive society. We can also fly (provided a bird is providing the wings, often in situations that don't end well).
Wolves swim in the sea. Actually I've just made that up, I have no idea if that is true of White Wolves.
Rule #4: There are always exceptions. Yes, it was a generalization. But if you look at something like the Feminist Majority Foundation over at feminist.org and take a look at their principles they align theirselves with pretty much every liberal cause out there. So we got abortion, racism, gay rights, environmental protection, de-nuclearization and unions. Tell me that isn't the whole liberal wet dream right there. I just find it humorous that a group dedicated to women's equality has denuclearization as one of its principles. When I say racism, I mean groups like the NAACP, and the most vocal minority 'leaders' such as Sharpton, Jackson and others. They are the most racist hate-filled folks I have ever seen.
Well, to play fair, I have to concede you this point here. There may have been a time and a place, but that time is past and these leaders need to modernize their motivation because, I agree with you, they sound embarrassingly anachronistic these days and too much like the very thing they say they stand against.
What if everybody was "free" to hire whomever they deemed desirable? Why doesn't the owner of the company have the freedom to make their own decisions? Why does an individual's rights to have a better chance at getting a job supersede the business owner's rights to hire how they want. The Bill of Rights guarantees the pursuit is an unalienable right not happiness.
I'm as guilty as anyone right now for helping sidetrack this thread, so this is not an admonishment to anyone, but lets see if we can't swing the conversation back to something like was originally proposed.
@@ JJ- Lumping in feminists with other civil rights groups was not very fair. In terms of this forum, I've seen no sort of sentiments expressed other than feminism, to be honest. Maybe it's because women represent ~50% of the population, maybe it's because the pendulum has swung the other way, and women are on a roll, but I get the impression that feminism has taken an agressive turn. I don't really know what feminism is, academically, to be honest. That's far outside of the range of my expertise and interest. In day to day life, however, which I can glean from sentiments expressed on and off line, feminism feels agressive. "If my son wanted to dance, I'd kill myself." OH MY GOD, HOW COULD HE SAY THAT? What if he said, "If my son wanted to become a sleazy lawyer, I'd kill myself." Or, "If my son wanted to work on Wall street, I'd kill myself." Would that mother still have gotten mad? So what, the guy is macho, or made a macho joke. Big deal. He doesn't have to want his son dancing if he doesn't want to. Parents have all sorts of stupid opinions. There is an agenda behind attacking such gender specific statements. A few posts back someone mentioned that the new feminist agenda is to alter old "patriarchal ideas" that have molded and constricted current society. If a specific group of people does not receive equal pay, I am all for fixing that. If a specific group of people does not receive equal education, or equal opportunities, I am all for fixing that. Changing the way people think about gender roles by shoving ideas down our throats and getting upset over jokes? No thanks, ma'am. If they really want to conquer gender roles, it's quite simple. No more dresses, lip stick, or high heels. Have a limited number of liberal arts spots in colleges for females, and make sure fifty percent of the science spots are for girls. Girls are just as good at science and math as men. This is absolutely true. Make 50% of the army female. What's-his-name already mentioned changing things in court, so I won't go there. Bam. No more gender roles. Well, we'd still need uterus transplants.
If you re-read my post, you'll see that it was the feminists that aligned themselves with these extraneous causes, not me.
Women are more likely to vote democratic than republican, so it makes sense that an organization dominated by women would lean that way. Not sure why that comes off as so shocking to you. It's a bit worrying how much you like to see things in black and white. You've already seen all the feminists here angry that you're trying to assign them personality traits and ideologies that they've made very clear they don't posses. When your view of feminists come from ranting women on YouTube videos and the people who feel strongly enough about it to lead the movement, you're forgetting what the world is. It's a place made of billions upon billions of people who all grew up differently, have different political and religious beliefs and not one of them will see things exactly the same way another person does. To be a feminist, there is no uniform. There is no required rhetoric. By focusing in the details you've forgotten the big picture. Feminists are composed of people, not caricatures. It's high time you put aside your anger and realized the world never has and never will be black and white.
I think this is a point that's been missing from the discussion. [MENTION=54840]IronPalm[/MENTION] posted that video of the woman reading out various quotes from prominent people who happen to identify as feminists as if their words had some sort of authority, as the pope would have in catholicism, for example. Sure, there are feminists, such as the woman with the red hair, who deliver their message in a counter-intuitive manner. But to assume all feminists are vile, hateful and misandric is prejudicial and inaccurate.
Huh, this thread has taken an interesting turn during weekend... Well said, and this is what you find e.g. in the classroom when you take gender studies. Unfortunately, yes, some feminists have given feminism a bad name, but we shouldn't forget the original idea; we fight for equal political, economic, and social rights for women.
The point you and everyone else rationalizing/defending that video keeps missing is that these aren't just random women identifying as feminists. These are the leaders of the movement and most revered, powerful feminists on the planet. And furthermore, other feminists have never condemned any of those quotes. Well, women presently have more social rights than men thanks to the divorce/custody/crime cases, the same economic rights (see studies/discussion on the last page), and ever since they gained the vote, I imagine the same political rights? Thus, feminism these days has become a very different beast than its laudable beginnings.
Considering you have an entire thread full of feminists telling you they don't agree with them, this is an exasperatingly ridiculous thing to say. But if you want to make it official: I, a feminist, would like to say I don't agree with everything she is saying and not all feminists share these women's views. Also, since when does famous equate to important? Random women identifying as feminists is exactly what got the feminist movement going, not a small group of women plotting in a room. A movement is something many people have to be involvd in, or it doesn't work. That's like saying without Ellen and other famous lesbians and gays, the gay rights movement would be over. Celebrities can become icons of a movement, but they cannot become the movement itself.
Do I need to copy and paste the names and quotes? Since you didn't watch/listen to more than a few seconds of the video? Or are you genuinely arguing that people like Hillary Clinton, Andrea Dworkin, etc. are irrelevant, powerless, and not influential in the feminist movement? I didn't realize professors of women's studies, editors/publishers of leading feminist magazines/journals, and feminists in the highest levels of government and law were so easily glossed over... Anywho, here is an awesome, hilarious video from the great Richard Dawkins, mentioning perhaps the dumbest (but also rarely condemned) feminist quote ever;
Most feminists frankly don't care about the feminist philosophers and leaders. Do people who support the abolition of slavery also have to support John Brown, who wanted to kill all white southernors? You keep linking to examples of stupid feminists quotes, as if to say 'Aren't all feminists stupid?' NO. You have not proven anything about feminists or feminism. You have proven that there are many highly publicized morons out there who are feminists.*Why is this shocking to you? Why do you think this is shocking to us? Do you think we don't realize there are stupid feminists? If lots of gay people are also pedophiles, does that mean all gay people are pedophiles as well? If a few Christians think all atheists should die, does that mean they all do? If a few feminists want to take away the rights of men, does that mean they all do? Frankly, feminists like that make me furious, because they're hurting the movement by being stupid and putting women's rights in front of equal rights.*It's difficult to explain to you that shades of gray exist because I really don't understand why YOU don't understand. Is it really so painful to admit that not every feminist is the same? Is it really so difficult to understand that feminists are people?
Jazabel said that the new feminist agenda is to uproot the "patriarchal" ideas that still exist in today's society. When I see a Dawkin's clip laughing at feminists for complaining that science is "male minded," yeah, I have to agree to with IronPalm. Like I already said, please, make sure pay is equal, make sure hiring is equal, make sure education opportunities are equal (they are, to say the least). But really, what else is there to complain about at this point?
Again, you're missing my point here. They have no authority over what other feminists think. They just happen to be more famous/powerful and they just happen to identify as being feminists. The fact that everyone who has identified themselves as feminists in this thread have opposed some of the views and/or some of the delivery of those views is evidence enough that other feminists have the freedom to disagree with these figures you think hold so much authority. To compare this with something else. I'm an atheist. This doesn't mean I take the words of Hitchens and Dawkins as the gospel truth, no matter how 'prominent' they are. I have the right to disagree with them if I find something I do disagree with. They aren't representative of anyones' views but their own. If the red-haired woman had presented her views in a level-headed manner instead of getting pissed off at the MRA dudes interupting her, maybe you would have actually listened. Feminists are fighting to create equality. As every other feminist has stated in this thread, no one agrees to favouritism in custody cases. To ignore any of the views from feminists stated in this thread is to be wilfully ignorant of any feminist who isn't "prominent".
If women are equal, why are there so few women in government? Why is it still not okay for women to not want children? Why do we slut shame women who are open about sex? Why is media still coming to terms with the idea of women as 'people' instead of women? Why did the Texas Governor just repeal an equal pay act? Why is still okay in so many places to sexually harass women if they're dressing like they 'asked for it'? You act as if feminism is a political issue, and in many ways it is, but it's also the little things. Like being told I'm too pretty to be in programming. Or that it's better to leave the 'hard sciences' to the men, because once I get married I won't need a job. It's being called a bitch for having breasts and not finding the catcalls funny. It's the way people talk about rape as if men can't be raped because only women are that 'weak.' Its that horrible feeling when someone explains that women just aren't as smart as men and are you SURE you want to get that degree? It's when the simple test of 'two women talking about something that isn't their relationship with men' is failed by most of the movies out there. Feminism is not just in our laws, it's in our culture. Affirmative action isn't always the way to solve something lots of people don't realize they're doing. Have you ever met someone who thought they were sexist? Sexist people, both men and women, never seem to think they're sexist. It's just 'the way things are' to them. Equal rights isn't something that can always be pointed at in a black and white way so it's easy to tell 'hey look, sexism!' It's in the subtle things and the way people treat you that fall into shades of gray. Some feminists respond with anger to every little thing, but that's not realistic or helpful. Sexism isn't a black and white issue as much anymore, but it's still an issue. You can't force video games and Hollywood to make more female characters that aren't just there to be the love interest. You can't get angry at every sexist joke. You can't freak out at every little jab that suggests you're a woman first, person second. But it has to change, because I don't want the next generation to grow up in a world where we said: 'good enough' and ignored the fact that it really really wasn't.
Feminism does not exist or is "needed" just here in the West. Just look at the rights of women in other countries than the US or Canada. Or the UK, France, Germany, the Nordic countries.
There is always more to complain about. If there wasn't, all the activists/women's studies professors/professional agitators would be out of a job, or in many cases, a world-view and way of life. Nothing will ever satisfy zealots. You should know that. You're the one who is severely missing the point. I'm talking about a movement and what it represents. You're mentioning individuals co-opted/encompassed by that movement disagreeing with aspects of it. So what? If still aren't understanding this, let's look at a movement that was vastly more evil and diabolical than modern-day, Western, liberal feminism. (Largely the work of upper-class and upper middle-class white women who could give a shit less about minorities or truly oppressed women in the Middle East) Namely, Nazis. They ruled Germany and determined their policy, but does that mean every German wanted the Jews exterminated?! No, not by a fucking long shot! Hell, that's not even true of the Nazi soldiers who died to make that dream a reality! Your argument about individual feminists not agreeing with aspects of the movement is the same thing. And considering your responses so far, I expect you to respond with outrage, claim this is a comparison (ignoring that I mentioned the Nazis were far worse), mention Godwin's Law, and totally miss the point. No they're not. Unfortunately, the influence of the opinions of the 4 feminists in this topic rather pales in comparison to the influence of Hillary Clinton, a British Supreme Court Justice, and even Andrea Dworkin, no?