A Debate on Feminism

[MirahM]

Let us discuss the pro's and con's of feminism. But there will be rules!

Here are the rules:

Posts must alternate between pro and con. Whoever starts chooses pro or con. The next person must pic the opposite.

Post length: Not more than 4 sentences. For those that like to do run-on sentences I have limited it to not more than 80 words. I have done an average on post count of some posters here and that is a good amount to make a point. Basically there shouldn't be more than 5 lines in each post.

Also: No multi-posting. You cannot post a con and then turn around and post a pro. You must wait.

You can decide to site sources or just say, "This is my opinion" or "This is my personal experience"

Penalty for overposting or being an asshole or cunt will be severe.

Have Fun!

[HairOfTheDog]

Feminism:  the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes.

I'm for it. Women should have equal rights, get equal pay for equal work, have equal opportunity to acquire power/leadership if they want it and they're qualified, etc..........in my opinion.

I've seen some female and male feminists take it over the limit and come across as promoting female domination or male inferiority though, which I find annoying.  But, that's the minority and there are extremists within any cause/movement.

[BigMark]

In the trenches woman rule, pretty sure everyone knows this.

[Clang McFly]

Feminism is dumb. So what if women make a little less money than men. They have the best genitals, best clothes, multiple orgasms, soft squishy fun bags. Why complain?

[MirahM]

Says the man who dresses like a woman. Try wearing a dress and a wig for a week in public and see how it is. But you might enjoy it.
I agree with feminism and the need for it. If you dig deep you see the good it has done to give women a voice.


*********
Penalty to BigMark for not following the rules.
Gold Star to both HotD and Clang!
**********

[Fry Guy]

Feminism is a crock of shit and is one of the tranches the Progressive Stack of the polarised oppressor/oppressed ideological dogma that comprises Cultural Marxism. There is nothing empowering for many reasons.

The Marxists were trying to set up a class divide between the Proletariat and the Bourgeoisie. In this ideological narrative, the Bourgeoisie are the Oppressors and are by virtue of their class, immoral and their views and perceptions are wrong on the basis of their class. It is an original sin that could only be exculpated by divorcing themselves from their "oppressive" aspect of their identity.

The exactly opposite of course was true. The Proletariat because of their class were the oppressed and also the virtuous and moral. They were the ones to be elevated and believed and such. Any act by them to associate positively with the Bourgeoisie would be a taint and a sin or moral crime.

The Progressive Stack is an intersection of various tranches of similar binary and polarised divisions. There is Male/Female, Straight/Gay, Black/White, Cisgendered/Transgendered, and so on. All intersecting and building a Progressive Stack.

All these run under the same dogmatic and zealous divisiveness the identity politics of Marxism ideology promoted. The most successful of these in the Progressive Stack is Feminism. The reason Feminism is the most successful is because they have fostered a narrative very well and capitalised on an already evolving society to take credit for the changes wrought by such modernity.

If you are petitioning for differing rights and asking for more opportunities at a time that society is becoming more free then it is very easy to pretend that he CAUSE of the freeing up of society and all resulting opportunities given were as a result of the petitioning.

Do you know why Feminism does not work so well in Third World Countries? Same reason it did not work 200 years ago.

When the aspects of modernity that are existent in the Western World are not available in the past (or Third World) then society adjusts to the reality not of today but of then.

To put you in the right frame of mind. Everyone in your village knows the pain of a sister or brother or child of your own dying either in child birth or early infancy of accident, infection or disease. It is a communal pain and grief. Death of a mother in childbirth is a constant gamble.

In order for a couple to survive into old age they need to have many children. They have to run the odds that at least a couple of their 6-12 children will survive to an age that they can look after their parents.

But to get to this age and with so many children and with each birth being such a gamble, it means that the child bearing woman will need to be provided for and that she will spend pretty much all her fertile years either pregnant, nursing or raising these precious bundles and trying to keep herself and them healthy and not attacked by disease and such.

So she is out of the workforce.

What about the bloke? Well, if he has to support the whole ever growing family, he has to work. What kind of work? Well every child is an extra mouth to feed and so he will need to follow the pay rather ruthlessly. Extra mouth could be extra hours, or longer commute or more dangerous job or remote work.

Now we have painted a situation where rather unfortunate and restricted society roles are NOT a Patriarchal oppression but rather a couple working to mutual benefit and in the most reasonable and natural way, here comes another logical conclusion.

If women are staying at home looking after the kids and men are earning the money to support and look after the family, who should be responsible for all debt, taxes, court costs, fines, damages of whatever description? Who should not be? Who is given rights as needed to discharge these obligations and who has neither the obligations not the right to meet the obligations that they do not have? How's that Patriarchy looking?

So how might a society change from there to here?

How about.....vaccines? How about the pill? How about better pre and posts natal care? How about better sanitation? What about modern tampons? What about better child-birthing practices? What about social security? What about the Pension? What about Superannuation? What about time saving and effort saving domestic products? There are likely a lot of other wonders of modernity.

Without these things there would be no society as we have today and the social restrictions we had in yesteryear would be much as they were then and were for millennia. Feminists could have petitioned or burned their bras or burned themselves and it would have mattered little.

But society DID change and change for the better. These things in a span probably of about 40 years in scope of the backdrop of millennia is no time at all. To imagine we went a period of about 40 years when ALL of these things happened at the same time and ALL of them improved and freed up society to the point where restrictive roles were not necessitated and required AND in teh next 40 years here we all are is brilliant.

Society IS better. Perhaps the best it has ever been thanks to the benefits modernity have wrought.

Feminists quite humbly accept all of the benefit for the freeing up of gendered roles in society as a consequence of their actions and then blame men as the oppressors keeping them down.

Fucking idiots.

[HairOfTheDog]

Another 'pro' of feminism..................it irks misogynists so much that it sometimes motivates the most extreme among them to go off on long tangents about how feminism and  people who push for gender equality are somehow ungrateful, stupid, and ruining everything!%$!  

That's a helpful warning sign for confident women/girls and the men who love/raise them, like a flashing red light.

In my experience, men who rail against those who actively support equal rights for females...........often have a problem with equality in general because they believe they're inherently entitled to advantages over others  (women, immigrants, people in lower income brackets, etc).

[Maggot]

I believe it is impossible to have complete and utterly perfect equality. People male and female are to arrogant and selfish for it to be a possibility. Same thing goes with race. The "equality" of college admissions is proof.

[Duchess]

I was raised to know that I am as capable as my brothers are, I can do anything they can do and if it requires muscle, I can hire it.

[Maggot]

[HairOfTheDog]

I believe it is impossible to have complete and utterly perfect equality. People male and female are to arrogant and selfish for it to be a possibility. Same thing goes with race. The "equality" of college admissions is proof.

Yeah, not everyone has equal capabilities.  It's more about equal opportunities and equal rights, where gender (or race or income level or nationality...) isn't considered a drawback, a disadvantage, or a barrier for individuals to strive/thrive, in my view.  

It's not just genitalia that makes men and women different and I personally like the differences.  Equality and sameness are not synonymous.



Anyway, my favorite men have no problem using their physical and non-physical strengths to help elevate women (and other men) and have no problem appreciating women whose strengths can uplift others.

Women are not 'the weaker sex' in my experience, but there are still a lot of dinosaurs who clearly hold that view.

[Maggot]

male or female it doesn't matter to me, what pisses me off is if they quit before they even try. That bugs me. Or if they start crying over stupid crap.

[pyropappy]

Another 'pro' of feminism..................it irks misogynists so much that it sometimes motivates the most extreme among them to go off on long tangents about how feminism and  people who push for gender equality are somehow ungrateful, stupid, and ruining everything!%$!  

That's a helpful warning sign for confident women/girls and the men who love/raise them, like a flashing red warning light.

In my experience, men who rail against those who actively support equal rights for females...........often have a problem with equality in general because they believe they're inherently entitled to  advantages over others  (women, immigrants, people in lower income brackets, etc).

The fallacy of your argument is the genders or sexes (  and there are only two) are equal; never were, never will be. Nature made us different for a reason; we each have a role to play in course of human events. The fact as to which sex is superior is simply based on what task is being performed. Men are better suited at some things, women out perform men at many things and some tasks are gender neutral. To deny this simple fact is pure lunacy. I will agree there are exceptions to every rule.

Now please do not make me point out the hypocrisy of your argument by pointing out the Constitution already grants you equal rights; feminism is trying to carve out special rights, and that is not equal. Have inequities existed in the past, pf course, but not to the extent portrayed by the radicals today. Most women in the past, not all, cherished the role of wife, mother and nurturer. Many still do.

Every person on this planet has their own skill set; mine is to serve as a bad example. Any person who feels they are better than any other person is an idiot, and the good news, you get to make that decision who is and who isn't. Then cut those who are out of your life, again your decision.

[pyropappy]

this is for every one as it should be. this is what I taught my daughter.

[Fry Guy]

I think your point above is a good one. A lot of the Feminist fallback when critiqued is that of, "Feminism is just about wanting equality for both genders, and therefore if you don't believe in the virtues of Feminism you are an ignorant sexist".

See the shortcomings of this inane talking point is this, women have equality of opportunity. If the want for equality of opportunity is already there and we understand men and women are not the same and do have different strengths and weaknesses and different drives, then you are not a Feminist, you are an egalitarian. One who is celebrating that changes that society has had that allows this equality and those clever enough to have made those changes and those brave enough to try new things and those who once inequalities were found that hurt society, weremoral enough to legislate against them.

But an egaitarian is not going to entertain toxic masculinity, patriarchy, male privilege or Progressive Stack or the victim narratives demanding that minority ground have special treatment to obtain equal outcomes (not equality of opportunity). They will not pathologise one gender over the other or imply the other is oppressed BECAUSE THEY are about equality.

Feminism in anything but a superficial understanding is different from egalitarianism for all these reasons.

They are completely different ideologies with very little similarities

[Maggot]

I think clang should get on this just because pink razors are more expensive than blue. Remember me ladies when your in the store checking. 

[Clang McFly]

I think clang should get on this just because pink razors are more expensive than blue. Remember me ladies when your in the store checking. 

Pink razors? Never use them. I use Bic men's razors for my face and Nair for everywhere else.

[Duchess]

All of that kind of thing costs more when it's marketed towards women. I could be wrong but I think it may even be called the pink tax.

[HairOfTheDog]

Another 'pro' of feminism..................it irks misogynists so much that it sometimes motivates the most extreme among them to go off on long tangents about how feminism and  people who push for gender equality are somehow ungrateful, stupid, and ruining everything!%$!  

That's a helpful warning sign for confident women/girls and the men who love/raise them, like a flashing red warning light.

In my experience, men who rail against those who actively support equal rights for females...........often have a problem with equality in general because they believe they're inherently entitled to  advantages over others  (women, immigrants, people in lower income brackets, etc).

The fallacy of your argument is the genders or sexes (  and there are only two) are equal; never were, never will be. Nature made us different for a reason; we each have a role to play in course of human events. The fact as to which sex is superior is simply based on what task is being performed. Men are better suited at some things, women out perform men at many things and some tasks are gender neutral. To deny this simple fact is pure lunacy. I will agree there are exceptions to every rule.

Now please do not make me point out the hypocrisy of your argument by pointing out the Constitution already grants you equal rights; feminism is trying to carve out special rights, and that is not equal. Have inequities existed in the past, pf course, but not to the extent portrayed by the radicals today. Most women in the past, not all, cherished the role of wife, mother and nurturer. Many still do.

Every person on this planet has their own skill set; mine is to serve as a bad example. Any person who feels they are better than any other person is an idiot, and the good news, you get to make that decision who is and who isn't. Then cut those who are out of your life, again your decision.

 
Pappy, with the exception of the part about the Constitution, you just posted the exact same sentiments that I did upthread --  men and women are not the same, one isn't inherently stronger/better than the other overall, not everyone has the same capabilities, and equality is not synonymous with sameness.  Clearly, we're on the same page in those regards.

Regarding the Constitution, it only applies to people in the United States.  Feminism and equal rights are, of course, global matters  In any case, the general rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution aren't always applied equally to all U.S. citizens in practice.  Thus the need for amendments and/or court interpretations, activism, and laws to correct unequal application of rights (such as the right of women and black people to vote, the right of gay couples to marry, the right of women to serve in the military, etc).

[pyropappy]

All of that kind of thing costs more when it's marketed towards women. I could be wrong but I think it may even be called the pink tax.

thank you for making my point young lady. Caveat Emptor has been around for quite a while, money management is certainly a gender neutral task. Some folks are great at it, some suck at it. Gender got jack shit to do with it; personal choice does.