Ladies on the forum, do you consider yourself to be a feminist?

[Me Myself]

I feel like you're still not getting that the crappy things you're talking about ("ladies first") are rooted in patriarchy, which is exactly what feminists are seeking to correct.

Patriarchy is not all high pay, good jobs, sandwiches and blow jobs on demand. It also being the last to get on the lifeboat, being mocked for being abused or raped by a woman, getting conscripted, having a hard time gaining custody of your kids, being mainly responsible for paying the bills and a whole lot of other things that suck if you're a man. That's part of the reason so many men are feminists.

Women don't demand any of those crappy things from men. Men simply feel like they need to do them to be considered "real men", because in a patriarchal system women are perceived as fragile, weak and helpless things that men need to govern, care for and protect. We've had very little say in constructing a social system which makes you the last into the lifeboat.

I'm fuzzy on the details, but I'm pretty sure someone already explained this to you. More than once, I believe.

Y see what you did there? You just blamed it all on the guys.

NO WOMEN would EVER ask for those htings, right? It is ONLY the GUYS, right? And ironically you made that whole paragraph about abusive men and women that as victims nodded and accepted their place because they couldnt have done anything differently.

As mystic and me were saying, the burden is on BOTH sexes. I dont remember of any women telling me in person that both men and women are equally responsible to pay on the first date or igeneral. Mind you I AM AWARE THEY EXIST. I assume you are one of those that dont buy into that, and I ve seemore of one video in youtube of women sick of feminism doing what you just did there : women are victims (of the patriarchal system perpetuated excclusively by males (you yourself just said that it is the MEN who think women want that) ) and men are opressors.

Of course, you dont think women are victims, in general you have an equal understanding of e rights and all, but your language betrays your ideologies.

You say MEN believe this is what women demand.

That is precisely the problem. Feminism is aainst gender roles, but assigned a rgender role to the problem ( patriarchism is obviously a male associative term)
And a gender role to the solution (feminism...) . So you have the polarity unwittingly perpetuated by e ideology that allegedly says that wans to end the injustice.

 

[dust1n]

What a shame to suffer the "dying respect" of someone who has jumped in at the end of the conversation, shared a couple "one-liners", and hasn't even begun to demonstrate that they've actually made an effort to read the thread and understand where people are coming from.

I've been in the thread since page 2 and have provided links and references when necessary. A lot of the one-liners come in response to either me some joking around with someone I agree with, or responding to arguments that are flawed from the beginning, or answering a question. I'm aware of the context of the conversation.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Avoid a real response with a personal attack. Classic.

I have reworded that statement to take out any implications about people's character. I also apologize for putting it so poorly and am grateful that you pointed it out.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

I don't know, but it's pretty obvious to me I could snap "peacemaker" like a twig, but I'd have a pretty hard time handling you. :flirt:

Have I told you what I believe women are really looking for deep down in a man?

 

[dust1n]

I have reworded that statement to take out any implications about people's character. I also apologize for putting it so poorly and am grateful that you pointed it out.

Cool. You just got a few drops of my respect back.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I honestly dont know what cant you make sense of :help:

You say feminism is against gender roles, right?

It is against legislated and mandated gender roles. Yes.

Well, it is perpetuating a gender as good and and other as bad by word association. "Feminism"(woman) means equality while "patriarchism" (man) means opression.

No. It is a recognition of gender inequality and responds to it according to whatever feminist subculture stands for.

Further, if you say the current gender roles assignment promotes damage to both genders and feminism =equality then I ask you , what has feminism recently done to combat the associations of man= abusive?

This is where I seriously doubt you have paid any attention to what I and other feminists have said in this thread, in other feminism threads at RF, and in the time we have all discussed/debated this to death over the course of months and years we've come to the table with. Feminists fully acknowledge patriarchy as a system that favors a few men - not all men - based on certain prescribed gender roles and stratification. But you're confusing feminism with misandry like others have before, and mistakenly believe that feminists are really associating men with patriarchy.

Get this clear, please........we DON'T.

YOU are the one who continues to complain about an association that doesn't exist in the vast majority of feminist thought. To bring up an earlier analogy involving the legal discrimination of homosexuals around the world, your complaints about how men are abused at the hands of women is much like heterosexuals complain about how they are disciminated against at the hands of queers.

I'm sure it happens, but to suggest that the gay rights movement isn't paying enough attention to these specific kinds of abuses is a really odd complaint to be airing here, and TO the queer community itself for not doing enough.

Besides, arguing about how much I as a feminist might not be paying enough attention to the abuse to men with a man who would gladly imprison a woman for getting an abortion is the very height of absurdity and abhorrence.

 

[Penumbra]

Can we agree that genders are differenciated by more than cosmetic qualities? Let's not pretend that the two are interchangeable apart from organs that hang off the body. We're talking about complimentary roles. And no one said women can't take roles of leadership, even in a family. We simply said the man has the final say assuming he is fulfilling his duties as a man.

There are some statistical differences in behavior of men and women, but culture plays a far larger role than biology. Because the inherent differences are not huge and there is considerable overlap, they are rather irrelevant when we're considering individuals.

More importantly, if your argument was really about personal characteristics rather than sexism then none of the earlier things would have been said. If it was about characteristics, then no social pressure would be needed for individuals to find their place. Dominant women could be dominant, dominant men could be dominant, submissive women could be submissive, submissive men could be submissive, people could form egalitarian relationships, etc. Whatever their characteristics lead them to do.

If it's about personal characteristics then the logical thing to do is to let the chips fall where they may, rather than try to force arbitrary gender roles on individuals via social shaming despite the huge overlap in personal characteristics between the sexes.

 

[Me Myself]

It is against legislated and mandated gender roles. Yes.



No. It is a recognition of gender inequality and responds to it according to whatever feminist subculture stands for.



This is where I seriously doubt you have paid any attention to what I and other feminists have said in this thread, in other feminism threads at RF, and in the time we have all discussed/debated this to death over the course of months and years we've come to the table with. Feminists fully acknowledge patriarchy as a system that favors a few men - not all men - based on certain prescribed gender roles and stratification. But you're confusing feminism with misandry like others have before, and mistakenly believe that feminists are really associating men with patriarchy.

Get this clear, please........we DON'T.

YOU are the one who continues to complain about an association that doesn't exist in the vast majority of feminist thought. To bring up an earlier analogy involving the legal discrimination of homosexuals around the world, your complaints about how men are abused at the hands of women is much like heterosexuals complain about how they are disciminated against at the hands of queers.

I'm sure it happens, but to suggest that the gay rights movement isn't paying enough attention to these specific kinds of abuses is a really odd complaint to be airing here, and TO the queer community itself for not doing enough.

Besides, arguing about how much I as a feminist might not be paying enough attention to the abuse to men with a man who would gladly imprison a woman for getting an abortion is the very height of absurdity and abhorrence.

You think the association doesnt exist? Did you read Alceste?

Women don't demand any of those crappy things from men. Men simply feel like they need to do them to be considered "real men", because in a patriarchal system women are perceived as fragile, weak and helpless things that men need to govern, care for and protect. We've had very little say in constructing a social system which makes you the last into the lifeboat.

Now I havent assumed she did it on purpose, she will attest to wheter it was on purpose or not later, but notice how e blaming went there. We are in the same page that both genders supported the unequal system that favored and disfavored each gender in different ways right?

Now, I know Alceste doesnt buy the females are fragile mentality and she is even saying so just there, yet she talks as if this was only men abusing women with no resonsability at all n thte side of women. She may know different, but look at that praragraph.

I am not talking about what is said by words, I am one very capable and even anoying in many times at to what is *technically* being said or what is being said by the logical meaning of the words and the concepts, but you must understand I am talking about associations here. We both know the associations of the public in general with feminism is not about equality.

While is doesnt necesarily happened beause of the names used, a simple review of them is enou to show they helped a lot. Do you derstand what I mean? I am not debating their concepts, I apointing out how their naming, or better to put it, eir "branding" cursed them to the very problem they face today.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

You think the association doesnt exist? Did you read Alceste?



Now I havent assumed she did it on purpose, she will attest to wheter it was on purpose or not later, but notice how e blaming went there. We are in the same page that both genders supported the unequal system that favored and disfavored each gender in different ways right?

Now, I know Alceste doesnt buy the females are fragile mentality and she is even saying so just there, yet she talks as if this was only men abusing women with no resonsability at all n thte side of women. She may know different, but look at that praragraph.

I am not talking about what is said by words, I am one very capable and even anoying in many times at to what is *technically* being said or what is being said by the logical meaning of the words and the concepts, but you must understand I am talking about associations here. We both know the associations of the public in general with feminism is not about equality.

While is doesnt necesarily happened beause of the names used, a simple review of them is enou to show they helped a lot. Do you derstand what I mean? I am not debating their concepts, I apointing out how their naming, or better to put it, eir "branding" cursed them to the very problem they face today.

You know, I'd give your complaints a shred of credibility if you put this much ire into your arguments with a member in this thread that argue for male headship. But you're barking up the wrong tree here, MM. You haven't even addressed those arguments once.

Alceste is not your enemy. She isn't suggesting anything your implying. Look again.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Because of the extreme importance of this issue of submission in marriage and the fact that it's a genuine cause of faith crises in many people's lives when it comes to Christianity, I'm going to take the next few days to really allow myself to put the maximum amount of thought and effort into creating a case for the model of family found in the NT. I realize I said this morning that I would have it up by today. I apologize for the delay but I promise you that it will be coming in a timely manner. I do ask that you wait for my thread you consider the fact that divorce rates have SKYROCKETED since the mid to late 60s' just around the same time the many of feminist ideas shared here were gaining traction. I believe it was called the "second wave of feminism"

from wiki: Second-wave feminism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Second-wave feminism is a period of feminist activity that first began in the early 1960s in the United States, and eventually spread throughout the Western world. In the United States the movement was initially called the Women's Liberation Movement and lasted through the early 1980s.[1] It later became a worldwide movement that was strong in Europe and parts of Asia, such as Turkey[2] and Israel, where it began in the 1980s, and it began at other times in other countries.[3]
Whereas first-wave feminism focused mainly on suffrage and overturning legal obstacles to legal gender equality (i.e., voting rights, property rights), second-wave feminism broadened the debate to a wide range of issues: sexuality, family, the workplace, reproductive rights, de facto inequalities, and official legal inequalities"


I contend that the model of marriage practiced in our society today is in a state of disrepair. While I'm putting a post together, let's look at the fruit of the past 40 or so years and be aware that every fool thinks he's right in his own mind but a tree is judged by its fruits.

 

[Rakhel]

This from Feminism - Definition of feminism

There are also different kinds of feminism, the most common being:

• Liberal feminism, which seeks equal rights through policy change but does not focus on cultural issues ;
• Radical feminism, which seeks the abolition of gender as we know it ; and
• Cultural feminism, which seeks to establish competing female power structures, traditions, and norms.

Based on those three(knowing there are probably more that about.com isn't mentioning), I see myself as a Liberal feminist.

 

[Me Myself]

You know, I'd give your complaints a shred of credibility if you put this much ire into your arguments with a member in this thread that argue for male headship. But you're barking up the wrong tree here, MM. You haven't even addressed those arguments once.

Alceste is not your enemy. She isn't suggesting anything your implying. Look again.

I am not eve nsure of what you are implyng, I dont see anone here as my "enemy"

I havent really seen the male headship member here, Ive noticed the thread has had heat for a while, but I just came to adress the thing I left some days ago and went directly to it when replying.

I have debated posters who talk about similar issues(male inherently b eing the head) in the past, with a lot of passion too (nnmartin for example) .

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Because of the extreme importance of this issue of submission in marriage and the fact that it's a genuine cause of faith crises in many people's lives when it comes to Christianity, I'm going to take the next few days to really allow myself to put the maximum amount of thought and effort into creating a case for the model of family found in the NT. I realize I said this morning that I would have it up by today. I apologize for the delay but I promise you that it will be coming in a timely manner. I do ask that you wait for my thread you consider the fact that divorce rates have SKYROCKETED since the mid to late 60s' just around the same time the many of feminist ideas shared here were gaining traction. I believe it was called the "second wave of feminism"

from wiki: Second-wave feminism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Second-wave feminism is a period of feminist activity that first began in the early 1960s in the United States, and eventually spread throughout the Western world. In the United States the movement was initially called the Women's Liberation Movement and lasted through the early 1980s.[1] It later became a worldwide movement that was strong in Europe and parts of Asia, such as Turkey[2] and Israel, where it began in the 1980s, and it began at other times in other countries.[3]
Whereas first-wave feminism focused mainly on suffrage and overturning legal obstacles to legal gender equality (i.e., voting rights, property rights), second-wave feminism broadened the debate to a wide range of issues: sexuality, family, the workplace, reproductive rights, de facto inequalities, and official legal inequalities"


I contend that the model of marriage practiced in our society today is in a state of disrepair. While I'm putting a post together, let's look at the fruit of the past 40 or so years and keep in mind that every fool thinks he's right in his own mind but a tree is judged by its fruits.

No worries. It's all good. Take your time to create the thread. I'm looking forward to it.

If I may, I'd like to inject a personal anecdote that relates something my grandmother, who is 94 years old, has said repeatedly since her husband died nearly 40 years ago (paraphrasing here, but she's said it a lot):

"People have asked me since John died if I would ever re-marry. I remained faithful while he enjoyed other women. I raised the children and took care of the house while he served overseas in WWII, and then watched him make decisions for our family when he returned in spite of the fact I knew more about us due to his absence. I pawned our typewriter dozens of times when he gambled our money away so the family could have dinner on the table when he returned at 5:30pm every day. It's not his fault by himself that he was so ignorant of his sins, it's just what people expected from me and from him.

That is why after he died I decided not to re-marry. It's part of my faith, anyway, so it accidentally fits, but truthfully I don't want a man to ever tell me what to do with the money in my purse ever again."

This is a woman who shook her head in disgust at the Sexual Revolution, and watched all four of her children become fans of The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, and Elvis, but also recognized the inherent abuse propagated by patriarchy itself. And she's talked with me many many times about it.

She's been in the quilting bee at her church for over 60 years - well before Second Wave Feminism and Gloria Steinem - and have heard the same stories told many times by the women there, too.

 

[dust1n]

That's not a very good definition for 'radical feminism,' but they other two are basically right.

 

[Rakhel]

That's not a very good definition for 'radical feminism,' but they other two are basically right.

There is always these definitions(which I'm not going to post the whole page).
It also adds a few I wouldn't have known about.
Kinds of Feminism

 

[dust1n]

There is always these definitions(which I'm not going to post the whole page).
It also adds a few I wouldn't have known about.
Kinds of Feminism

Oh ya, that's much better.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

No worries. It's all good. Take your time to create the thread. I'm looking forward to it.

If I may, I'd like to inject a personal anecdote that relates something my grandmother, who is 94 years old, has said repeatedly since her husband died nearly 40 years ago (paraphrasing here, but she's said it a lot):

"People have asked me since John died if I would ever re-marry. I remained faithful while he enjoyed other women. I raised the children and took care of the house while he served overseas in WWII, and then watched him make decisions for our family when he returned in spite of the fact I knew more about us due to his absence. I pawned our typewriter dozens of times when he gambled our money away so the family could have dinner on the table when he returned at 5:30pm every day. It's not his fault by himself that he was so ignorant of his sins, it's just what people expected from me and from him.

That is why after he died I decided not to re-marry. It's part of my faith, anyway, so it accidentally fits, but truthfully I don't want a man to ever tell me what to do with the money in my purse ever again."

This is a woman who shook her head in disgust at the Sexual Revolution, and watched all four of her children become fans of The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, and Elvis, but also recognized the inherent abuse propagated by patriarchy itself. And she's talked with me many many times about it.

She's been in the quilting bee at her church for over 60 years - well before Second Wave Feminism and Gloria Steinem - and have heard the same stories told many times by the women there, too.

I don't think the words exist to accurately convey my disgust for the many abuses that have been done to marriage partners (usually women) in the name of Scripture. I contend that a relationship in which the man acts as some slavemaster represents the height of brokenness. In way do I believe a woman is called by God to be some punching bag for the man.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I don't think the words exist to accurately convey my disgust for the many abuses that have been done to marriage partners (usually women) in the name of Scripture. I contend that a relationship in which the man acts as some slavemaster represents the height of brokenness. In way do I believe a woman is called by God to be some punching bag for the man.

I knew we'd find agreement somewhere....WHOOT!! :bounce

Somebody order a pizza. We're having a party!!

 

[-Peacemaker-]

I knew we'd find agreement somewhere....WHOOT!! :bounce

Somebody order a pizza. We're having a party!!

Let's dance!!!:dan::dan:

 

[Alceste]

Have I told you what I believe women are really looking for deep down in a man?

I can't speak for all of them, but I like an intellectual sparring partner who I'm confident can beat me at least 50% of the time, like Kilgore.

Oh wait, I forgot, only men are competitive. What am I even doing here?