Why Shouldn't Feminism Exist?

[crossfire]

If that is addressed to me, you missed the mark by a lot.

I can't BE a misogynist. Not physically possible.

Women can be misogynist, especially when Animus possessed.

 

[dianaiad]

What do you think about compromising with terrorists?

Are you equating feminism with terrorism, or any and all opposition to feminism, even the most extreme 'feminist' position, as terrorist?

I'm a bit confused here.

You need to understand that I grew up in a belief system that, even though it is SEEN from outside as 'patriarchal' and 'anti-feminist,' is actually nothing of the sort. Mormon women had the vote before any other American woman, for instance; did you know that the women of Utah had to give up their right to vote in order for Utah to become a state? They did so on the promise of the men that they would get it immediately back.

Now THAT'S equality and partnership, and trust. It was a trust well placed, as well, since the bit about women being able to vote was one of the first, if not THE first, items on the state constitutional convention, and passed unanimously. I was raised to believe that men and women are equal partners; if we have different roles in some things, that doesn't mean that the 'woman's role' is 'lesser.'

Nor did it mean that women couldn't be anything we wanted. Mormon women were among the first US doctors, lawyers, judges...Brigham Young sent women back east to medical school.

So you see that I might have a peculiar view here. We are PERCEIVED as "anti-feminist,' when in reality we are among the first Americans to BE 'feminist,' if 'feminism' means 'equality.' I do not feel one whit 'unequal' to any man, from within my culture. Now if only the rest of the world would catch up to us.....

But the rest of the world thinks that WE are reactionary patriarchalists who want women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.

I have pretty much given up arguing with people about it, and just figure that the 'feminists' who don't understand us are indeed extremists. (shrug)

Look, my dad told me when I was young that I could be anything I wanted to be, if I wanted it enough to work for it. Nobody in the CHURCH told me that I couldn't be an astronaut or a doctor or a lawyer or a mechanic or whatever floated my imagination. THAT took my high school counselor and my 'home-ec' teacher and my math teacher, none of whom were LDS.

Mind you, my math teacher was right; I had no business being an astronaut or anything which required arithmetic skills, but that's because I'm dyscalculaic, not because I'm female.

Hey. My sons won't ever be English professors at a college, either. That's because they are dyslexic, not because they are male.

 

[Left Coast]

Look, my dad told me when I was young that I could be anything I wanted to be, if I wanted it enough to work for it. Nobody in the CHURCH told me that I couldn't be an astronaut or a doctor or a lawyer or a mechanic or whatever floated my imagination. THAT took my high school counselor and my 'home-ec' teacher and my math teacher, none of whom were LDS.

What does your church say about becoming President of the LDS church if you wanted to be? Or an Apostle? Or bishop of your ward?

 

[crossfire]

Are you equating feminism with terrorism, or any and all opposition to feminism, even the most extreme 'feminist' position, as terrorist?

I'm a bit confused here.

No, I was equating terrorists to terrorism (threatened or actual use of force to intimidate or coerce individuals for political, religious, or ideological ends.) My question was about compromise.

You need to understand that I grew up in a belief system that, even though it is SEEN from outside as 'patriarchal' and 'anti-feminist,' is actually nothing of the sort. Mormon women had the vote before any other American woman, for instance; did you know that the women of Utah had to give up their right to vote in order for Utah to become a state? They did so on the promise of the men that they would get it immediately back.

Now THAT'S equality and partnership, and trust. It was a trust well placed, as well, since the bit about women being able to vote was one of the first, if not THE first, items on the state constitutional convention, and passed unanimously. I was raised to believe that men and women are equal partners; if we have different roles in some things, that doesn't mean that the 'woman's role' is 'lesser.'

Nor did it mean that women couldn't be anything we wanted. Mormon women were among the first US doctors, lawyers, judges...Brigham Young sent women back east to medical school.

So you see that I might have a peculiar view here. We are PERCEIVED as "anti-feminist,' when in reality we are among the first Americans to BE 'feminist,' if 'feminism' means 'equality.' I do not feel one whit 'unequal' to any man, from within my culture. Now if only the rest of the world would catch up to us.....

But the rest of the world thinks that WE are reactionary patriarchalists who want women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.

I have pretty much given up arguing with people about it, and just figure that the 'feminists' who don't understand us are indeed extremists. (shrug)

Look, my dad told me when I was young that I could be anything I wanted to be, if I wanted it enough to work for it. Nobody in the CHURCH told me that I couldn't be an astronaut or a doctor or a lawyer or a mechanic or whatever floated my imagination. THAT took my high school counselor and my 'home-ec' teacher and my math teacher, none of whom were LDS.

Mind you, my math teacher was right; I had no business being an astronaut or anything which required arithmetic skills, but that's because I'm dyscalculaic, not because I'm female.

Hey. My sons won't ever be English professors at a college, either. That's because they are dyslexic, not because they are male.

I didn't say or even hint that Mormans were anti-feminist.

So, do you believe that feminism is a cancer that should be eradicated?

 

[dianaiad]

Women can be misogynist, especially when Animus possessed.

I see. So I'm a misogynist because I'm not on the extreme end of feminism....that is, among those women who not only want to be seen as superior to men, but to put them in the position that women have been in for centuries?

That is NOT 'feminism." THAT is revenge. It's also stupid. The problem with the 'see-saw' method of doing things, where one side always has to be winning over the other side, is that true equality is never possible. One side will ALWAYS be on the 'top,' and doing nasty stuff to the other side.

I don't see how that fixes anything.

Equal pay for equal work? Absolutely.

Equal opportunities to GET that work? You betcha.

Maternity leave for fathers? Oh, my, yes.

Stopping workplace sexual harassment? Yeah. I don't know a single woman who hasn't experienced that particular bit of 'manliness.' I certainly have.

But what I see happening is that 'feminists' want women to have the power to do what men have been doing TO women for centuries; including sexual harassment, power over hiring, better pay, better opportunities....and please do not tell me that this doesn't happen. I've seen it.

Equality means....you fight until you get it, then....you stop.

 

[dianaiad]

No, I was equating terrorists to terrorism (threatened or actual use of force to intimidate or coerce individuals for political, religious, or ideological ends.) My question was about compromise.


I didn't say or even hint that Mormans were anti-feminist.

So, do you believe that feminism is a cancer that should be eradicated?

I do not believe in false dichotomies.

Nor was I accusing you of saying that Mormons were anti-feminist. I was explaining where I got my POV.

 

[dianaiad]

What does your church say about becoming President of the LDS church if you wanted to be? Or an Apostle? Or bishop of your ward?

Women do not hold the priesthood.

Men cannot do many of the things women can do. The difference here is that while it may be possible for women to hold the priesthood, and we can certainly do everything a man can do except for one thing, it will never be possible for men to do everything that women can do. The poor dears have to have something that will establish equality with us.

And holding the priesthood has absolutely nothing at all to do with equal pay, voting, sexual harassment or anything else that feminists have been fighting for.

Do you have a clue what the priesthood IS? Here is a hint: it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "power," or being 'superior' in any way whatsoever...and any man who begins to think so is in trouble. There is something called 'unrighteous dominion' that covers the matter.

 

[Enoch07]

What do you think about compromising with terrorists?

There is no compromising with terrorist.

The reason they are terrorist is because they refuse to compromise.

 

[crossfire]

There is no compromising with terrorist.

The reason they are terrorist is because they refuse to compromise.

Good answer.

 

[crossfire]

I see. So I'm a misogynist because I'm not on the extreme end of feminism....

No, my response was to your statement "I can't BE a misogynist. Not physically possible." It was stating that it is possible that women can be misogynist, not that you personally are misogynist.

You were so worried about me jumping to conclusions about you that you took the trouble to write out a discourse about Mormanism and jumping to conclusions that they are automatically patriarchal and misogynist, and now you are jumping to conclusions about me because I'm a feminist? Really?

...that is, among those women who not only want to be seen as superior to men, but to put them in the position that women have been in for centuries? That is NOT 'feminism." THAT is revenge. It's also stupid. The problem with the 'see-saw' method of doing things, where one side always has to be winning over the other side, is that true equality is never possible. One side will ALWAYS be on the 'top,' and doing nasty stuff to the other side.

I don't see how that fixes anything.

I agree "revenge" is stupid. "You can't hold the son guilty for the sins of the father" is a maxim I agree with.

Equal pay for equal work? Absolutely.

Equal opportunities to GET that work? You betcha.

Maternity leave for fathers? Oh, my, yes.

Stopping workplace sexual harassment? Yeah. I don't know a single woman who hasn't experienced that particular bit of 'manliness.' I certainly have.

Excellent.

But what I see happening is that 'feminists' want women to have the power to do what men have been doing TO women for centuries; including sexual harassment, power over hiring, better pay, better opportunities....and please do not tell me that this doesn't happen. I've seen it.

Equality means....you fight until you get it, then....you stop.

There are immature jerks in every group. Please don't jump to conclusions and mistake me for one of those immature jerks.

 

[Left Coast]

Women do not hold the priesthood.

Men cannot do many of the things women can do.

Oh ok, like what?

The difference here is that while it may be possible for women to hold the priesthood,

Wait, it is? Have they, ever?

And holding the priesthood has absolutely nothing at all to do with equal pay, voting, sexual harassment or anything else that feminists have been fighting for.

It does have to do with attainment of positions of power/leadership within social and religious groups. A group comprised of all-male leadership can hardly tout itself as a paragon of feminist equality.

Do you have a clue what the priesthood IS? Here is a hint: it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "power," or being 'superior' in any way whatsoever...

Really? So they are not the leaders of your church?

 

[PureX]

Isn't the obvious solution to this to demand that women be paid equally to men for equal work?

That doesn't solve the problem of all wages being low because women going to work doubled the size of the labor pool. It also doesn't solve the issue of the female middle-management wall.

 

[England my lionheart]

I'm seeing many claims of "we don't need feminism anymore," without any reasons given.

I'd like to hear the reasons for this statement.

I'm listening.

Personally I've never heard that,define "feminism" first and go from there,I'm listening.

 

[Stevicus]

Could you give an example of each so I can better understand? Thanks.

Well, when we're talking about equality in wages or equal treatment at the workplace - I would consider those to be legitimate class-related issues. When it comes to other things like "manspreading," "mansplaining," "**** shaming," etc. - those aren't class-related issues and ostensibly exist only to keep the working classes distracted and divided against each other.

Feminism today is symbolized by the likes of Hillary Clinton - corporate feminists talking about busting through glass ceilings while continuing to crap on the workers and act as toadies for Wall Street capitalists. That's the kind of feminism we can do without.

 

[Left Coast]

That doesn't solve the problem of all wages being low because women going to work doubled the size of the labor pool.

I thought you said the reason wages were low is because women accepted lower pay than men?

Do you actually want women to leave the labor force? The reason they started joining, as I recall, is because their husbands were at war overseas and someone had to get the work done.

It also doesn't solve the issue of the female middle-management wall.

I'm not sure what "wall" you're referring to. Are you saying people won't hire men for middle management positions because they're men? Anecdotally, I work in a predominantly female workplace (healthcare, like you) and the reason most of our employees are female is because most of our applicants are female. When qualified men apply, we hire them. There's no "wall" for men to climb aside from needing the requisite experience and qualifications to be hired, which would exist regardless of the gender dynamics.

 

[crossfire]

Well, when we're talking about equality in wages or equal treatment at the workplace - I would consider those to be legitimate class-related issues. When it comes to other things like "manspreading," "mansplaining," "**** shaming," etc. - those aren't class-related issues and ostensibly exist only to keep the working classes distracted and divided against each other.

Feminism today is symbolized by the likes of Hillary Clinton - corporate feminists talking about busting through glass ceilings while continuing to crap on the workers and act as toadies for Wall Street capitalists. That's the kind of feminism we can do without.

So focus only on legal issues and avoid critiquing the cultural nomos from which it arose, while using feminism as a political tool for class warfare? Is that correct?

 

[crossfire]

Personally I've never heard that,define "feminism" first and go from there,I'm listening.

You'd have to ask those who made the meme. (I know Milo Yiannopoulos helped to spread the meme, but not who authored it.) I can give you the descriptive blurb from the book of that name:

"Feminism is more than a political movement; it is a deadly cancer afflicting modern society with insanity, violence, and public degeneracy. In this brilliant tome Thomas Rogers holds nothing back in describing what the female supremacist group represents, while also providing actionable solutions to help save Western civilization from the pink scourge."
-sourced from Amazon-

 

[dianaiad]

No, my response was to your statement "I can't BE a misogynist. Not physically possible." It was stating that it is possible that women can be misogynist, not that you personally are misogynist.

You were so worried about me jumping to conclusions about you that you took the trouble to write out a discourse about Mormanism and jumping to conclusions that they are automatically patriarchal and misogynist, and now you are jumping to conclusions about me because I'm a feminist? Really?


I agree "revenge" is stupid. "You can't hold the son guilty for the sins of the father" is a maxim I agree with.



Excellent.


There are immature jerks in every group. Please don't jump to conclusions and mistake me for one of those immature jerks.

OK then. We're good.

My daughter works for a company that has a zero tolerance policy for harassment in the workplace. She has had to deal with more than one incident, but the one that made her the most furious was, believe it or not, was a case of a young man, just married, who was being, er...'importuned' by the woman in the next desk over.

She told the young man.."Mike," (that is NOT his name) that if he didn't do what she wanted, she would report him for sexual harassment. He wouldn't, and she did. The problem is, my daughter not only knew Mike, she knew him very well indeed; he and his wife were part of the community theater group she choreographed musicals for, and she'd taught him when he was in high school. She believed him. The afternoon after she reported Mike for harassing her, my daughter made it her job to be near the two...and overheard her gloating.

Stupid woman.

ANYway, she went to HR, told them what she had overheard, and RECORDED, (and since she's 'the boss', they sorta had to listen) and the woman was fired.

Of course, she sued.

And the company settled, as long as the woman signed a 'non-disclosure' agreement. If she says anything to anybody, well....

Except of course that the assumption is that she was the victim and this is just another case of patriarchal cover-up. The woman has, since this happened, been rather active in 'feminist' causes. I'm not sure SHE doesn't believe her own hype by now.

What makes my daughter furious is this: had the sexes been reversed; had Mike been female and the harasser been male, there would have been no settlement. That company has gone to court every single time--except this time, and now Mike has this report on his record, even though he is utterly innocent and his only 'crime' was being faithful to his marriage.

My daughter even bearded the CEO over this one, but the legal department has advised that it was best for Mike that the company settle, because if there was any chance at all that the woman could win, or get any publicity, Mike would be ruined.

And there is nothing anybody can do.

Now what would have happened to Mike if he had NOT been so well known by his boss? The woman might as well have threatened her brother, for crying out loud. What would have happened to him if the company weren't more interested in protecting him than in punishing the woman? How many men have had this happen to them, and how fair is it that in search of equality, this sort of thing can now happen?

BTW, my daughter is death on harassment. She won't put up with it from anybody, male or female. Period, and her people know it. At least, the women who work for her know it. She's not very happy that the men who work for her seem not to know that it means THEY don't have to put up with it either. Perhaps that will change now that they know she has their backs, too.

But in how many companies is that true?

 

[crossfire]

OK then. We're good.

My daughter works for a company that has a zero tolerance policy for harassment in the workplace. She has had to deal with more than one incident, but the one that made her the most furious was, believe it or not, was a case of a young man, just married, who was being, er...'importuned' by the woman in the next desk over.

She told the young man.."Mike," (that is NOT his name) that if he didn't do what she wanted, she would report him for sexual harassment. He wouldn't, and she did. The problem is, my daughter not only knew Mike, she knew him very well indeed; he and his wife were part of the community theater group she choreographed musicals for, and she'd taught him when he was in high school. She believed him. The afternoon after she reported Mike for harassing her, my daughter made it her job to be near the two...and overheard her gloating.

Stupid woman.

ANYway, she went to HR, told them what she had overheard, and RECORDED, (and since she's 'the boss', they sorta had to listen) and the woman was fired.

Of course, she sued.

And the company settled, as long as the woman signed a 'non-disclosure' agreement. If she says anything to anybody, well....

Except of course that the assumption is that she was the victim and this is just another case of patriarchal cover-up. The woman has, since this happened, been rather active in 'feminist' causes. I'm not sure SHE doesn't believe her own hype by now.

What makes my daughter furious is this: had the sexes been reversed; had Mike been female and the harasser been male, there would have been no settlement. That company has gone to court every single time--except this time, and now Mike has this report on his record, even though he is utterly innocent and his only 'crime' was being faithful to his marriage.

My daughter even bearded the CEO over this one, but the legal department has advised that it was best for Mike that the company settle, because if there was any chance at all that the woman could win, or get any publicity, Mike would be ruined.

And there is nothing anybody can do.

Now what would have happened to Mike if he had NOT been so well known by his boss? The woman might as well have threatened her brother, for crying out loud. What would have happened to him if the company weren't more interested in protecting him than in punishing the woman? How many men have had this happen to them, and how fair is it that in search of equality, this sort of thing can now happen?

BTW, my daughter is death on harassment. She won't put up with it from anybody, male or female. Period, and her people know it. At least, the women who work for her know it. She's not very happy that the men who work for her seem not to know that it means THEY don't have to put up with it either. Perhaps that will change now that they know she has their backs, too.

But in how many companies is that true?

Victim blaming is still very much a problem in our society, whether the victim is male or female. I would say the company was wise in making the protection of the victim a priority, imo.

 

[Shad]

I'm seeing many claims of "we don't need feminism anymore," without any reasons given.

I'd like to hear the reasons for this statement.

I'm listening.

Which version?