Feminism

[Harlequin]

Of course it's the fault of the women, she's the one who chooses to become pregnant, she's responsible for that choice and will have to take into consideration what that will do to her career. Employers cannot be expected to purposely employ someone they know will lose them money can they?

This is a great point that's lost on many a modern day feminist because of the bratty entitlement that comes from some within the movement. It would seem as if every woman is entitled to motherhood whether their position in life allows for it or not, but also that pregnancy is something a woman is powerless to prevent. Cue gynocentric laws such as maternity to prevent reality from rearing it's unforgiving head.

It's not the woman's fault men can't get pregnant. Moreover, a pregnancy, barring complications, is covered under short-term disability insurance, which all persons have access to through various means. Thus, there should be no differentiation between the genders in this regard.

Nor is it the man's fault that a woman can become pregnant, but it's certainly a woman's responsibility should she exercise the choice to become pregnant. Disability insurance for a selective process is absurd.

Yes it is.

No it isn't. It started off as a means to acquire the power males had in society but it's turned into a supremacy movement, not least because power is an illusion, a constant struggle. If feminism takes it's foot off the gas we will progress back into a patriarchy. Feminism needs to continue to degrade the culture of gender roles in order to inhibit humanity's natural inclinations.

Thousands of years of human societal understanding has been flushed down the toilet for a modern society that is essentially a luxury afforded by a strong power base bequeathed to us, ironically, by our patriarchal societies. The result is a society where men and women don't understand one another, refuse to collaborate and exploit and despise one another instead of looking to restore harmony. History is beset with examples of when the family unit was destroyed nations followed suit. Feminism is on course to do just that, the rot has set in on the edifice of society, our economies are giving way under the fantasies we insist on perpetuating and the collapse is inevitable. Reality hits like a freight train and it takes no prisoners.

 

[Shu]

I don't know where to start, though I might be reiterating what others have said here. I think gender roles play a huge part in today's society.

I've seen eye candy for the male's for the ages 38-64 hired to be an executive assistant in multiple organizations. This person has drive, don't get me wrong, but she didn't earn where she is at from her actual intelligence but rather from her emotional intelligence and her looks.

This person is purely there to be a "wing-woman" for the sales "man". Rather than having his wife, he brings this person along and she chats up the client. Though part of sales is appealing to the audience, and unfortunately gender roles play a lot into this.

That's the difference. As this beautiful woman, you don't even need a degree, as I have found out with a fitness instructor that was hired as a sales associate. You can't get a mediocre looking woman as a sales person unfortunately. You will find most mediocre women or lesser looking to be in the operation side where I work and have lot harder degrees. They either do some of the computer science, or deal with the cold calls (don't show their face) to our clients. I'm sorry, but that's just the name of the game in today's society.

Where the unfairness comes in are when woman who have high academic achievements can't find jobs, due to sexism and fear. Some men, just do not want to see successful women on top running things.

Men think the following:

1) Takes a hit on the manly pride
2) A woman's emotions will become a problem eventually. Instead of dealing with stuff directly, the female will instead employ tactless disrespect to get to her place of power.
3) Women will employ other women due to the need to have other "women" leader's instead of looking at actual IQ/Talent.

Though I can also switch the roles up. Most single men seen on top are seen as misogynists. Today's male executives of society are seen like below:

1) Supposed to be married with Kids
2) Supposed to be Coaches of Kids
3) Supposed to be the Higher Paid Parent and the provider

I'm not even factoring in the Gay community at this point, but even gender roles are played here too with "masculine and feminine" qualities.

Think of this.. when a man acts a certain "shyer way" or is "sensitive" what response does this invoke by society?

1) The dude is gay or impotent
2) The dude is a "pansy or p*ssy"
3) The dude is a girl / feminine

A woman who works in a managerial role is seen as:

1) The woman is so b*tchy
2) The woman is so manly
3) The woman is trying to prove herself, instead of trying to work as a team member.

These are just some of the things I've noticed.. you might or not agree. Though I'm telling you from an unbiased view what I've seen.

 

[greenyxi]

I don't really post in debate threads very much, but here are my thoughts on womens in the workplace at least, as I noticed it being brought up earlier on.

Women should be asked if they are pregnant. A boss needs to know if they're going to lose an employee for a hell of a lot of time. While there's also paternity vacation now, it's not even close to as long. Because of this, pregnant women should only be employed if the employer thinks it's cost efficient. If not, she's out and deservedly so. (This is all only referring to women just starting a new job...though I know someone at work who constantly gets pregnant as their last maternity leave ends so they don't have to work as much).

Feminism in terms of regular pay: If the woman is being employed to do heavy lifting and can't do it half as well as a built up bloke, then why should they get paid as much? They'd take much longer, probably injure themselves more and take more sick leave because of it. Of course, you can get built up womens too, but I'm talking about the average.

Either way, I work in a big company where the women are paid as much as the blokes wherever they work. Not very much .

I haven't read half the stuff in this thread (go figure), but they're my thoughts.

 

[CassinoChips]

This is a great point that's lost on many a modern day feminist because of the bratty entitlement that comes from some within the movement. It would seem as if every woman is entitled to motherhood whether their position in life allows for it or not, but also that pregnancy is something a woman is powerless to prevent. Cue gynocentric laws such as maternity to prevent reality from rearing it's unforgiving head.

61% of women who seek out an abortion in the US already have at least one child. A similar percentage are married. It's not that they're doing nothing to prevent pregnancy, it's that accidents/mistakes happen. The important thing is that the woman has the opportunity to decide whether it is the proper time for her to have a child. I agree that men should have an opt out clause in some fashion. The bitch of it is trying to find something that actually works and doesn't give deadbeats a loophole to skate.

Nor is it the man's fault that a woman can become pregnant, but it's certainly a woman's responsibility should she exercise the choice to become pregnant. Disability insurance for a selective process is absurd.

What's the difference between missing work for being pregnant and missing work for any other "elective" process?

No it isn't. It started off as a means to acquire the power males had in society but it's turned into a supremacy movement, not least because power is an illusion, a constant struggle. If feminism takes it's foot off the gas we will progress back into a patriarchy. Feminism needs to continue to degrade the culture of gender roles in order to inhibit humanity's natural inclinations.

Ah yes, the persecution complex. Just like the KKK isn't trying to keep the blacks down, they're simply trying to protect the honor of white women. Just because you're being forced to cede power to the powerless doesn't mean you are being attacked.

Thousands of years of human societal understanding has been flushed down the toilet for a modern society that is essentially a luxury afforded by a strong power base bequeathed to us, ironically, by our patriarchal societies. The result is a society where men and women don't understand one another, refuse to collaborate and exploit and despise one another instead of looking to restore harmony. History is beset with examples of when the family unit was destroyed nations followed suit. Feminism is on course to do just that, the rot has set in on the edifice of society, our economies are giving way under the fantasies we insist on perpetuating and the collapse is inevitable. Reality hits like a freight train and it takes no prisoners.

Yes, people earning more money is terrible for an economy.

 

[Harlequin]

61% of women who seek out an abortion in the US already have at least one child. A similar percentage are married. It's not that they're doing nothing to prevent pregnancy, it's that accidents/mistakes happen. The important thing is that the woman has the opportunity to decide whether it is the proper time for her to have a child. I agree that men should have an opt out clause in some fashion. The bitch of it is trying to find something that actually works and doesn't give deadbeats a loophole to skate.

Accidents do happen but we can take preventative measures. These days there are so many preventative measures (whether you like them or not) available to a woman that if she has a child she's shown either A. willingness to bear a child B. flagrant disregard for consequences or C. both.

I don't think there should be an opt out clause for males except in extreme circumstances. Not only is it entirely the woman's body but men should be taught more on the potential dangers of where they stick their genitalia. Pregnancy, diseases, false rape accusations, all these things can happen to a man who isn't careful.

What's the difference between missing work for being pregnant and missing work for any other "elective" process?

In today's times pregnancy is more of a choice than it's ever been, which makes pregnancy (with regards to one's ability to perform) a self imposed debilitation. It's akin to asking for paid time off to recover from cosmetic surgery.

Ah yes, the persecution complex. Just like the KKK isn't trying to keep the blacks down, they're simply trying to protect the honor of white women. Just because you're being forced to cede power to the powerless doesn't mean you are being attacked.

Except power doesn't work like that, it isn't something that is static it shifts constantly. Forget written definitions, how a movement manifests itself is what defines it. There are no lawfully enforced advantages of being a male and yet feminists would have you believe parity should be restored lawfully. That is supremacy. An equally qualified woman should get the job ahead of me, or should be paid as much as I was capable of selling myself to my employers simply because the workforce is saturated with white heterosexual men. Rest assured, the white heterosexual man across the street doesn't pay my rent nor does he put food on my table and depending on the circumstances, he'd likely exploit me to further his own gains.

If Feminism doesn't enforce equal outcome through bias laws the movement will regress. If maternity were abolished women would fall out of the workplace in their droves, feminism would lose ground and we'd progress into a patriarchy.

Feminism cannot lose the pretense of independence, women must be culturally coerced (apparently wanting to be an housewife is unambitious) into the workplace to demonstrate capability despite most women still clearly preferring the slavery of motherhood to the slavery of the corporate world. Feminism disguises this lack of willingness from women by framing the inevitable choice as unfair, then using that guilt as leverage to enforce bias gynocentric laws that allow a woman to play out both roles at the expense of an economy that's creaking under the weight of the illusions people in our society feel as if they're entitled to.

Yes, people earning more money is terrible for an economy.

People earning more money by bleeding the system is terrible for an economy. People bleeding an ailing system is fatal.

 

[Sheechiibii]

That's not what I was asking.

Sorry I misunderstood. I would say that one legal protection is one right. For example, as you said, Free speech: I would consider that one right.

But by scaling her pay because she MIGHT get pregnant is discriminating based on sex.

That's not what I was talking about. I was replying to the assertion that when in job interviews women are asked if they are pregnant or if they plan to become pregnant. I don't see anything wrong with this: it seems a logical thing for an employer to consider.

Yes, because it's that easy to just up and find another job. And they actually do give evidence that it's the exact same job. But the problem comes in the taboo about discussing one's salary in public with other employees. It's considered impolite. So there is little discussion about it. Moreover, employers may argue that they are paying different rates for reasons other than gender, but in reality, it's because women are valued less and thus paid less.

No, it's not the "exact" same job. It's the same type of job but in a different place under a different employer who pays a different wage. I've already shown you that it's illegal to pay a woman less than a man for doing the exact same job. Plus, as I said before, even if I agree that the pay gap is a very real issue that still doesn't make feminism an equality movement because that is only one right compared to the many women already have that men do not.

"Equality" must have a different meaning where you're from.

Equality, where I'm from, means being equal. Having the same opportunities, treatment, laws and regulations applied regardless of race or sexuality or gender. If you want to see what an equality movement is look at egalitarianism.

You should really read the things you link. This is the actual, gender-neutral, FBI definition of rape, found on Page 2 of what you linked: "The carnal knowledge of a person, without the consent of the victim, ... ." The one you quoted was sexual assault with an object.

No, that is the official definition. The second page which has a different set of definitions: that is for the NIBRS (The National Incident Based Reporting System). This is a different thing entirely from the main UCR's (Uniform Crime Reporting Program) summary reporting system. It has nothing to do with an object as you can clearly see from the quote it says "penetration of the vagina or anus" or "oral penetration" with "any body part or object". You're grasping at straws here.

Backtrack. Why is there a Battered Woman's Syndrome? Why do women need that defense?

Because there is such a thing as domestic violence, where men and women in relationships sometimes become violent and assault their partners often over a very long period of time. Both men and women suffer from this and yet only women have a defence for it.

Women just recently were officially allowed to serve in combat roles. What does that tell you about what value the military places on women as soldiers?

It's still a right women have that men do not. As is opting out of parenthood and not having their genitals mutilated as babies. So far you've given me one example of a right men have that women do not: equal pay. You've got to give me 4 more for men to even be on equal footing as women. Then it still wouldn't be an equality movement since that would only level the playing field.

 

[CassinoChips]

Accidents do happen but we can take preventative measures. These days there are so many preventative measures (whether you like them or not) available to a woman that if she has a child she's shown either A. willingness to bear a child B. flagrant disregard for consequences or C. both.

I don't think there should be an opt out clause for males except in extreme circumstances. Not only is it entirely the woman's body but men should be taught more on the potential dangers of where they stick their genitalia. Pregnancy, diseases, false rape accusations, all these things can happen to a man who isn't careful.

Again, not traipsing down the abortion rabbit hole, as that isn't what this is about.

In today's times pregnancy is more of a choice than it's ever been, which makes pregnancy (with regards to one's ability to perform) a self imposed debilitation. It's akin to asking for paid time off to recover from cosmetic surgery.

Which is often granted!

There are no lawfully enforced advantages of being a male and yet feminists would have you believe parity should be restored lawfully.

First, there are. Second, most of the enforced advantages are societal, and have shown to be resistant to change short of a forced change by law.

If Feminism doesn't enforce equal outcome through bias laws the movement will regress. If maternity were abolished women would fall out of the workplace in their droves, feminism would lose ground and we'd progress into a patriarchy.

I have no idea what this means.

Feminism cannot lose the pretense of independence, women must be culturally coerced (apparently wanting to be an housewife is unambitious) into the workplace to demonstrate capability despite most women still clearly preferring the slavery of motherhood to the slavery of the corporate world. Feminism disguises this lack of willingness from women by framing the inevitable choice as unfair, then using that guilt as leverage to enforce bias gynocentric laws that allow a woman to play out both roles at the expense of an economy that's creaking under the weight of the illusions people in our society feel as if they're entitled to.

"Bias" is a noun. Or verb, in some cases. "Biased" is the adjective. Sorry, pet peeve.

People earning more money by bleeding the system is terrible for an economy. People bleeding an ailing system is fatal.

If a job can pay $50k to a man, it can afford to pay $50k to a woman. That's not bleeding the system, that's equity.

That's not what I was talking about. I was replying to the assertion that when in job interviews women are asked if they are pregnant or if they plan to become pregnant. I don't see anything wrong with this: it seems a logical thing for an employer to consider.

The problem is twofold. First, it perpetuates the gender role of woman's primary (and in some cases, sole) purpose being that of bearing children. That is one aspect of being a woman. It is not the only one. Second, it's none of an employer's business what her future plans are. If you wouldn't ask a man, don't ask a woman.

Also, it's illegal to ask about any medical condition, with narrow exceptions. http://smallbusiness.chron.com/can-employers-ask-medical-conditions-4789.html

Equality, where I'm from, means being equal. Having the same opportunities, treatment, laws and regulations applied regardless of race or sexuality or gender. If you want to see what an equality movement is look at egalitarianism.

Egalitarianism would include many of the tenets of feminism. Social equality and equality of opportunity being foremost among them.

No, that is the official definition. The second page which has a different set of definitions: that is for the NIBRS (The National Incident Based Reporting System). This is a different thing entirely from the main UCR's (Uniform Crime Reporting Program) summary reporting system. It has nothing to do with an object as you can clearly see from the quote it says "penetration of the vagina or anus" or "oral penetration" with "any body part or object". You're grasping at straws here.

Not to be flippant, but no, you are. The thing you are quoting is only about reporting data. Individual states define rape as a criminal act. Here's North Carolina's definition: "First Degree Rape - a person is guilty of rape in the first degree if the person engages in vaginal intercourse: With another person by force and against the will of the other person and; employs a dangerous or deadly weapon or an article which the other person reasonably believes to be a dangerous or deadly weapon; or inflicts serious personal injury upon the victim or another, by one or more other persons."

Again, gender neutral.

Because there is such a thing as domestic violence, where men and women in relationships sometimes become violent and assault their partners often over a very long period of time. Both men and women suffer from this and yet only women have a defence for it.

Women are disproportionately the victims of domestic abuse. Staggeringly so. Do you know of a case where a man who was the victim of domestic abuse killed his significant other? I don't.

It's still a right women have that men do not. As is opting out of parenthood and not having their genitals mutilated as babies. So far you've given me one example of a right men have that women do not: equal pay. You've got to give me 4 more for men to even be on equal footing as women.

You were that kid that cried if your cookie was smaller than the other kids' cookies, weren't you? Feminism is about much more than a basic level of tit-for-tat.

The circumcision thing is a false dichotomy. FGM is much more brutal and invasive than is circumcision.

Then it still wouldn't be an equality movement since that would only level the playing field.

................ wait, what?

 

[Sheechiibii]

The problem is twofold. First, it perpetuates the gender role of woman's primary (and in some cases, sole) purpose being that of bearing children. That is one aspect of being a woman. It is not the only one. Second, it's none of an employer's business what her future plans are. If you wouldn't ask a man, don't ask a woman.

Considering most women do have children, this isn't exactly an unreasonable expectation. It's absolutely an employers business if it's going to impact the person's work, employers have to consider what is going to be best for their business, and employing people who are going to take nearly a year off work and get paid for doing no work within that time is not good for business. Medical conditions are not usually people's choice, pregnancy is.

Egalitarianism would include many of the tenets of feminism. Social equality and equality of opportunity being foremost among them.

Egalitarianism is about making things equal for everyone regardless of their race, gender, sexuality etc. Feminism is about giving rights to women because of their gender. Feminism is the opposite of egalitarianism. That wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, if feminism were in a place where giving women more rights would further equality. In western countries though, that is not the case. Giving women more rights creates further inequality because they already have more than men.

Not to be flippant, but no, you are. The thing you are quoting is only about reporting data. Individual states define rape as a criminal act. Here's North Carolina's definition:

"First Degree Rape - a person is guilty of rape in the first degree if the person engages in vaginal intercourse: With another person by force and against the will of the other person and; employs a dangerous or deadly weapon or an article which the other person reasonably believes to be a dangerous or deadly weapon; or inflicts serious personal injury upon the victim or another, by one or more other persons."

Again, gender neutral.

So in North Carolina someone who is anally raped hasn't been raped since there was no vaginal intercourse? Seems like there's more wrong with the definitions than simply being sexist.

Women are disproportionately the victims of domestic abuse. Staggeringly so. Do you know of a case where a man who was the victim of domestic abuse killed his significant other? I don't.

Actually about 60% of domestic violence is perpetuated by men, meaning 40% is perpetuated by women. Hardly 'staggering' especially considering a man who calls the police when he's been assaulted by a woman will likely be arrested for domestic violence himself. Also considering most male victims go unreported or are reported as being the perpetrators even when they weren't. If a man who was a victim of domestic abuse killed his partner guess what he'd be labelled as? An abuser. Not a victim like women are.

You were that kid that cried if your cookie was smaller than the other kids' cookies, weren't you? Feminism is about much more than a basic level of tit-for-tat.

Feminism is about gaining rights for women. That is what it's all about. If you want to say it's about equality then men need to have more rights than women already. Otherwise feminism is the opposite of an equality movement.

The circumcision thing is a false dichotomy. FGM is much more brutal and invasive than is circumcision.

Oh right, so because the mutilation isn't quite so bad it's totally fine for it to keep happening? That's like saying someone who didn't fight back when they were raped wasn't actually raped since they don't have the same injuries. We're talking about babies having their genitals cut up here. What possible reason is there for only one gender to be protected from such a thing?

................ wait, what?

If women and men had the same rights then they'd be on a level playing field, in which case there still would be no need for feminism.

 

[CassinoChips]

Considering most women do have children, this isn't exactly an unreasonable expectation. It's absolutely an employers business if it's going to impact the person's work, employers have to consider what is going to be best for their business, and employing people who are going to take nearly a year off work and get paid for doing no work within that time is not good for business. Medical conditions are not usually people's choice, pregnancy is.

In what world are women taking nearly a year off for a pregnancy? A co-worker of mine had premature twins and she was out for 8 weeks.

Egalitarianism is about making things equal for everyone regardless of their race, gender, sexuality etc. Feminism is about giving rights to women because of their gender. Feminism is the opposite of egalitarianism. That wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, if feminism were in a place where giving women more rights would further equality. In western countries though, that is not the case. Giving women more rights creates further inequality because they already have more than men.

Feminism is about making things equal. That's your misunderstanding.

So in North Carolina someone who is anally raped hasn't been raped since there was no vaginal intercourse? Seems like there's more wrong with the definitions than simply being sexist.

Stop moving the goalposts. It's classified as first-degree sexual assault.

Actually about 60% of domestic violence is perpetuated by men, meaning 40% is perpetuated by women. Hardly 'staggering' especially considering a man who calls the police when he's been assaulted by a woman will likely be arrested for domestic violence himself. Also considering most male victims go unreported or are reported as being the perpetrators even when they weren't. If a man who was a victim of domestic abuse killed his partner guess what he'd be labelled as? An abuser. Not a victim like women are.

"The data referenced, that approximately a third of victims of domestic abuse in the UK are male comes from data from the British Crime Survey. It contrasts significantly from data from police crime reports which estimate that between 80-90% of violence against the person reported is by women assaulted by men.The main problems with the statistic that a third of reports are by men are:

• • It is about domestic abuse and/or conflict, not domestic violence
  • The data does not differentiate between cases where there is one incident of physical conflict/abuse/violence or those where violence is repeated. If we look at the data for where there have been four or more incidents, then approximately 80% of victims are women
  • The data does not differentiate between incidents where violence and abuse are used as systematic means of control and coercion and where they are not
  • The data does not include sexual assault and sexual violence
  • The data does not take account of the different levels of severity of abuse/violence, ‘gender symmetry’ is clustered at lower levels of violence
  • The data does not take account of the impact of violence, whether the level of injury arising from the violence or the level of fear. Women are six times more likely to need medical attention for injuries resulting from violence and are much more likely to be afraid
  • The data does not differentiate between acts of primary aggression and self-defence, approximately three quarters of violence committed by women is done in self-defence or is retaliatory.

In fact, if these issues are taken into account, research consistently finds that violence is overwhelmingly perpetrated by men against women and levels are consistent with data of reports from the police. This is supported by data from the Crown Prosecution Service that shows that across the five years between 2007/8 and 2011/12, 93.4% of those convicted for crimes relating to domestic violence were men."

Feminism is about gaining rights for women. That is what it's all about. If you want to say it's about equality then men need to have more rights than women already. Otherwise feminism is the opposite of an equality movement.

It's not just about legal rights though. It's also about societal norms and values. Those need to change as well.

Oh right, so because the mutilation isn't quite so bad it's totally fine for it to keep happening? That's like saying someone who didn't fight back when they were raped wasn't actually raped since they don't have the same injuries. We're talking about babies having their genitals cut up here. What possible reason is there for only one gender to be protected from such a thing?

I don't see circumcision as mutilation, personally. But it's comparing apples and oranges on a lot of levels. Which is why I don't/didn't want to get into it.

If women and men had the same rights then they'd be on a level playing field, in which case there still would be no need for feminism.

But they don't have the same rights, so there is a need for feminism.

 

[Sheechiibii]

In what world are women taking nearly a year off for a pregnancy? A co-worker of mine had premature twins and she was out for 8 weeks.

Where I'm from you can take 52 weeks off work, just over a year, and you can get paid for over 9 months of that.

Feminism is about making things equal. That's your misunderstanding.

You've provided no reasoning for why this is true. Both the definition of feminism and what feminists actually do disagrees with you.

Stop moving the goalposts. It's classified as first-degree sexual assault.

Sexual assault is different from rape. You just said it was first degree rape, now you're changing your mind. And you say I'm the one moving goal posts? The fact is the official FBI definition (which considers the whole of the US, not state-by-state) does not include female on male forced sex to be rape.

"The data referenced, that approximately a third of victims of domestic abuse in the UK are male comes from data from the British Crime Survey. It contrasts significantly from data from police crime reports which estimate that between 80-90% of violence against the person reported is by women assaulted by men.The main problems with the statistic that a third of reports are by men are:

• • It is about domestic abuse and/or conflict, not domestic violence
  • The data does not differentiate between cases where there is one incident of physical conflict/abuse/violence or those where violence is repeated. If we look at the data for where there have been four or more incidents, then approximately 80% of victims are women
  • The data does not differentiate between incidents where violence and abuse are used as systematic means of control and coercion and where they are not
  • The data does not include sexual assault and sexual violence
  • The data does not take account of the different levels of severity of abuse/violence, ‘gender symmetry’ is clustered at lower levels of violence
  • The data does not take account of the impact of violence, whether the level of injury arising from the violence or the level of fear. Women are six times more likely to need medical attention for injuries resulting from violence and are much more likely to be afraid
  • The data does not differentiate between acts of primary aggression and self-defence, approximately three quarters of violence committed by women is done in self-defence or is retaliatory.

In fact, if these issues are taken into account, research consistently finds that violence is overwhelmingly perpetrated by men against women and levels are consistent with data of reports from the police. This is supported by data from the Crown Prosecution Service that shows that across the five years between 2007/8 and 2011/12, 93.4% of those convicted for crimes relating to domestic violence were men."

I already explained why police data is skewed. If the police write a report after being called to the scene of a domestic, the man will almost always be considered the perpetrator, not the woman, regardless of whether or not she was the instigator. That's the double standard society has. Besides, even if it were 80-90% female victims, does that mean those 10-20% of male victims should not be afforded the same rights a woman in their position would be?

It's not just about legal rights though. It's also about societal norms and values. Those need to change as well.

Sure, and I agree with that, hence why I'm an egalitarian. Feminism is and always has been about rights, and in recent years it's progressively becoming more and more about victimising women and criminalising men.

I don't see circumcision as mutilation, personally. But it's comparing apples and oranges on a lot of levels. Which is why I don't/didn't want to get into it.

It doesn't matter what you consider it to be. Medically it's the same, it's cutting up a babies genitals. No baby should have parts of their body cut up for anything other than medical reasons. Even if you disagree, you must admit that baby girls are afforded a right baby boys are not.

But they don't have the same rights, so there is a need for feminism.

You're right: they have more rights, which makes feminism even more redundant. You've yet to give me more than one example of a right men have which women don't (the pay gap, which there are even laws against already). I gave you 5 examples of rights women have that men do not. You cannot say women have less rights than men because it's simply not true.

 

[CassinoChips]

Where I'm from you can take 52 weeks off work, just over a year, and you can get paid for over 9 months of that.

Interesting.

You've provided no reasoning for why this is true. Both the definition of feminism and what feminists actually do disagrees with you.

Your interpretation of what feminists do disagrees with me. Their actual purpose does not.

Sexual assault is different from rape. You just said it was first degree rape, now you're changing your mind. And you say I'm the one moving goal posts? The fact is the official FBI definition (which considers the whole of the US, not state-by-state) does not include female on male forced sex to be rape.

The FBI definition is just how they aggregate the data that is reported to them. It has nothing to do with the criminal offense, and the FBI has nothing to do with simple crimes.

I said rape was rape, and that anal penetration was sexual assault. And it's the same for either gender, which is the point.

I already explained why police data is skewed. If the police write a report after being called to the scene of a domestic, the man will almost always be considered the perpetrator, not the woman, regardless of whether or not she was the instigator. That's the double standard society has. Besides, even if it were 80-90% female victims, does that mean those 10-20% of male victims should not be afforded the same rights a woman in their position would be?

Not always. It's only in about 12% of cases where the man is considered the perpetrator when he makes the call. Also, that again doesn't take into account retaliatory or self-defensive acts by the woman.


As for the rest, it's clear the persecution complex is entrenched, so I'm going to go ahead and pull chocks.

 

[Harlequin]

Again, not traipsing down the abortion rabbit hole, as that isn't what this is about.

Abortion skips quite a bit though doesn't it? What happened to contraception? What happened to not taking dick if you don't want to get pregnant?

Why does an employer have to pay for an employee's choice to either willingly compromise their availability and/or ability to perform for the company or their mistake that could have been prevented?

Which is often granted!

My point exactly, it shouldn't be unless we're aiming for inequality.

First, there are. Second, most of the enforced advantages are societal, and have shown to be resistant to change short of a forced change by law.

What are these laws that ensure males are given an advantage? As for social attitudes, whether people are allowed to or not they'll believe what they want regardless of whether the femme gestapo want to force their ideas down our throats or not via reeducation.

I have no idea what this means.

Put simply, when Feminism acquires power Patriarchy loses power and vice versa.

It means feminism must keep up the pretense that women not only are capable of sharing the workplace with men but that they're willing. Indeed it would seem as if the majority are willing until laws that protect a woman's biological shortcomings are abolished (such as maternity leave), thus exposing a woman to the inevitable choice of motherhood or career.

Feminism can't afford for that to happen. How many women are going to choose their careers over motherhood? The less women that are capable of staying in the workforce, the more will be dependent on men to support them.

An employer has to provide leave, some paid, to a worker who by her own accord has rendered herself unfit and unavailable to perform. The employer in turn may have to hire a replacement worker on a temporary basis to fill the position. When the worker on leave returns and the employer by law must reinstate the employee to her former position unless she relinquishes it and allowances must also be given to her personal schedule and adjustment period because if not then it's gender discrimination muh feminism.

Is it her fault she can become pregnant? No that's biology.
Is it her fault she became pregnant? If she willfully took dick, yes.

"Bias" is a noun. Or verb, in some cases. "Biased" is the adjective. Sorry, pet peeve.

That's fine but do you think you could address the main body of my argument instead of resorting to one liners to side step key issues?

If a job can pay $50k to a man, it can afford to pay $50k to a woman. That's not bleeding the system, that's equity.

Maternity leave is charity from the employer. It's bleeding the economy.

Feminism is about much more than a basic level of tit-for-tat.

Was it last week...? A scientist working on the Rosetta mission was blasted for having worn a shirt with the images of scantily clad (not really by today's standards) women during a press conference. Cue the femme gestapo and social justice warriors to rally in such force on twitter that rather than celebrating a culmination of ten years of hard work the scientist was apologising on television for offending the sensibilities of these nobodies.

Apparently he deserved the criticism too, because of what he wore. You couldn't make it up!

Feminism for equality? We're being sold a lie and I'm not buying it.

 

[Bambi]

I recently joined a "new" feminist society at my University, born out of the ashes of the traditional one, with the mantra that we were open to all discussion, and it was generally a more open society overall. This was true for a while, until things started to slip. On one occasion, it was suggested that all men, in order to become members of the student union, should be forced to attend "rape awareness training" - if they did not do this, they would not be granted access to the union. As a gay man, I asked if I, too, would be forced to go to this potential meeting, since I was very unlikely to rape a woman. The response I received was anger, hatred, dismissal, accusations of misogyny and victim-blaming, insensitivity to rape survivors and just all-round negativity. For the first time, they admitted that "rape isn't just a woman's issue", and said that I could rape another man. So, on top of being insensitive to rape survivors, I was called a rapist myself. Great.

I want to round off this post by saying that, while I have a lot of experience with nasty, negative, angry feminists, whom I believe have lost sight of the entire point of feminism, I also have experience with feminists who call out their peers and do not behave like this at all. Of course, they tend to be called "bad feminists" (what even?) as a result, but I believe it's women who stop and say "should we really pre-accuse all men of rape? Why are we doing this training?" who are the truly progressive thinkers.

Bit late to the party, but did the women involved in this themselves have to attend this meeting, as women are capable of sexual assault too?

 

[Rarity]

I feel kind of torn with Feminism. I believe it has it's place, but I also believe that it's gone beyond ridiculous. I'd say I'm more of an Equalist than a Feminist.

I've become tired with every tiny little thing being "derogatory" to women. The whole campaign about sexualising the female form, that there should be "real women" in advertising and less photo-shopping and cosmetics. Whilst I agree that it is a good thing to present people of different body types, race, background etc I think this whole sexualising thing has gone beyond ridiculous. In advertising, you're presenting the most perfect representation of the thing you're trying to sell to make it more appealing to the public. Like, for example, a McDonalds advertisement will be edited to hell to make it look more appetising. It isn't just females that are presented to be this unachievable form of tiny waists and large chests, but men are subject to the same treatment of overly muscular and lower-than-healthy body fat percentage. As for the sexualisation of the woman, men (again) get the same treatment. I'm sorry, but that's biology. Whatever gender you're attracted to, you will find either sexually appealing. You can't stop that and to protest against it is rather moronic and you're just repressing part of natural instinct (unless you're asexual or along the lines of).

Rad!fem's have ruined a lot of things for the feminist movement though. They push ridiculous expectations and thus discriminate men; they'll expect them to be chivalrous but then not, because they're "assuming they aren't capable of opening doors because they're a woman". I feel bad for men, they must feel like they can't do anything right without their heads getting bitten off.