• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is there an oversight by feminist upon societal bias towards female sexuality?

Are you familiar with Camille Paglia's argument that feminism is such a "big tent" that there is room for feminists who are pro-life?

Camile Paglia is a bit of a 'radical' and I don't particularly care for what I have read from her. When I googled "big tent" I did not find a quote that fits what you are talking about. I found a Salon article where she talks about respecting Sarah Palin's views and feminism. You'll have to direct me to something specific you are asking about since being a feminist does not mean adhering to every single person claiming feminism. Like all movements there are radicals, extremists and zealots, then there are the majority which are reasonable and working towards equality for everyone, one example is Audre Lorde.

The problem is that many anti-feminists have done a good job of finding the most extreme zealots possible then touted them as the "norm" for feminism, and people who don't bother to research for themselves. Much like many people have decided that all Republicans or Conservatives are exactly like Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck and any reasonable, intelligent person knows this isn't true.

As far as feminists being pro-life... I'm not sure what you are saying. It is impossible to be a feminist and support removing a woman's right to choose. Most people who are pro-choice mean that though they personally might not choose abortion, they support the right of a woman to choose for herself what is right. This is why the "pro-live" vs "pro-abortion" is a false dichotomy. Most people who are pro-choice aren't pro-abortion, they aren't forcing abortions on people, they are defending a right to choose.
 
You are gravely mistaken if you think that the feminist movement has not benefitted men. The gender roles and patriarchal societal expectations are harmful to both men and women. Men now have paternity leave, the stigma of men staying home to care for their children is dwindling, the expectation that men marry young and carry the full financial brunt of caring for a family is diminished. Because women have fought for work/life balance, fought for equality in the work place and education, men also benefit from a more balanced approach. Your changing room scenario is silly and I won't entertain such ridiculousness. I really have a hard time taking your stance seriously.

This is the internet you don't have to take anyone seriously. You mentioned paternity leave...Seriously? I work at a hospital actually you know how much time off a man gets? A few months as oppose to 6 months a woman gets. What about custody battles? Most of the time its awarded to the woman despite the man being responsible. I had to testify on behalf of my college friend because his ex-wife tried to claim he was an unfit parent. She was still awarded Full custody because the judge felt that its in the best interest of the child to be with the mother "for the time being."

As far as patriarchy harming men I believe we need to call it what it what it is white male privilege. On average white women make more than men of color still 2013. So um, where is this equality you are speaking of?
 
Camile Paglia is a bit of a 'radical' and I don't particularly care for what I have read from her. When I googled "big tent" I did not find a quote that fits what you are talking about. I found a Salon article where she talks about respecting Sarah Palin's views and feminism. You'll have to direct me to something specific you are asking about since being a feminist does not mean adhering to every single person claiming feminism. Like all movements there are radicals, extremists and zealots, then there are the majority which are reasonable and working towards equality for everyone, one example is Audre Lorde.

The problem is that many anti-feminists have done a good job of finding the most extreme zealots possible then touted them as the "norm" for feminism, and people who don't bother to research for themselves. Much like many people have decided that all Republicans or Conservatives are exactly like Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck and any reasonable, intelligent person knows this isn't true.

As far as feminists being pro-life... I'm not sure what you are saying. It is impossible to be a feminist and support removing a woman's right to choose. Most people who are pro-choice mean that though they personally might not choose abortion, they support the right of a woman to choose for herself what is right. This is why the "pro-live" vs "pro-abortion" is a false dichotomy. Most people who are pro-choice aren't pro-abortion, they aren't forcing abortions on people, they are defending a right to choose.

My argument is the humanist perspective. I believe equality does not exist, and we live in a society that is constructed off certain principles by those who felt it was necessary. Feminism does not solve certain social issues like racism and poverty. For example I mentioned Angela Davis who speaks at UCLA. I took a class of hers and I recall her stating:

"The state of the black family is the result of centuries old institutional mindset black men have adopted due to white male patriarchy since the 1600's."

What does a feminist know growing up in Compton or Watts California? Nothing except self proclaim feminists who are people of color. As a man, well, as a black man I saw no benefit of feminism when I was born, nor at my place of work, nor my college. I remember taking a woman's studies course in undergrad and surely everything is a man's fault. Forget the fact that women are autonomous beings rather women are automatons and that all men have women on puppet strings.

Just as black nationalism was beneficial to blacks in the civil rights era so too was feminism even though it benefitted white women than anybody else. I believe any philosophy that tries to benefit one group above all is not an inherently noble cause. If femenism is the betterment of women it must in unison, address all societal ills. Feminism does not. During the civil rights era did feminist come out to argue against Jim Crow laws or Emmitt Till or lynchings, or colored water fountains? No.


Did feminist protest against to allow male journalist to interview female athletes in changing rooms? No. Do feminist argue about judicial bias that benefits women? No. Want to know what should outrage feminist? Google the football player (I forgot his name) that was released from prison who was falsely accused of rape. He attended Long Beach Poly. He now plays for the Atlanta Falcons. Since rape statistically effects more women than men you would think a woman's rights group would show support for this man. But no. I don't need to look at hardcore feminists, I look at the real world.
 
But unfortunately meritocracy does not exist and if it does, it is localized not universal. I am a black man, and a graduate student, and in many areas of the united states regardless of being highly educated, my skin pigmentation restricts me from attaining basic things like "respect."

Let me also add that one of my main criticisms of feminism is the lack of knowledge regarding religion. For instance, certain feminist argued that Islamic society is sexually repressive towards women. Many feminist have targeted the Hijab, Niqab (burka) as sexually repressive. My main critique is if a religion who has operated for over 1,500 years develops a dress code based on moderation why would feminism challenge that? Especially since such a faith is centuries upon centuries older than the formation of feminism itself.

Ok. But here's the thing. You're talking to a feminist who believes in those things, and I learned some of these things from other feminists. So obviously this is not an oversight of "feminism" in its entirety, and the fact that it doesn't properly exist in society is not the fault of "feminism" in its entirety.

Being a woman often hampers me from getting respect too, dude. Been there, done there. Hell, I do it 50% of the time I step outside.

Your argument is based on the idea that all tradition is inherently correct. That is a ridiculous stance. And the irony of it is that, according to your stance, slavery should still be legal. After all, the Bible doesn't mind slavery in the least and even gives instructions on how to go about it.
 
When male sports journalist are barred from female changing rooms not only are such restrictions counter-productive, but it oversexualizes the female body which no contemporary feminist today has spoken out against. Why is it that a naked man's body is ok to display or seen by a female journalist but a woman's isn't? To me a feminist would speak out against it.

Which has nothing to do with bodies on display. It has to do with keeping men away from a situation where a woman will be isolated and undressed. Not because people shouldn't look at each other, but because these are historically places where women are in danger of being raped. The men are not in such danger.
 
This is the internet you don't have to take anyone seriously. You mentioned paternity leave...Seriously? I work at a hospital actually you know how much time off a man gets? A few months as oppose to 6 months a woman gets. What about custody battles? Most of the time its awarded to the woman despite the man being responsible. I had to testify on behalf of my college friend because his ex-wife tried to claim he was an unfit parent. She was still awarded Full custody because the judge felt that its in the best interest of the child to be with the mother "for the time being."

As far as patriarchy harming men I believe we need to call it what it what it is white male privilege. On average white women make more than men of color still 2013. So um, where is this equality you are speaking of?

I don't deny white privilege exists, and I already conceded that early feminism was geared toward upper middle class white women until women of color ensured their voices are heard. Who said the feminist movement was over or done? There is slow progress because people are resistant to changes to the status quo.

Maternity leave is not paid, women must use their accumulated vacation time. It is up to companies to determine the lengths of time for paternity leave versus maternity leave, but I would be surprised if there is a vast difference in mens vs women's amount of time allotted.

I will find you some statistics if you want, but overwhelmingly, custody is agreed to by parents most of the time in mediation before court hearings, so in most cases, the parents mutually agree to JOINT custody, then others agree to mom having custody. This is the parents' agreement, not the judges'. As far as in contested divorces where both parties cannot come to a consensus, judges have to pick which parent should have custody in the child's best interests. Those are decided individually, and although I know that it is still more often given to mom than dad statistically, I have trouble believing that it is automatically granted to mom. I also think that is gradually changing since there are more and more men seeking and being awarded custody. The system isn't perfect, and there are many working toward breaking down gender roles and biases about women being "better suited" to be primary caretakers, since that's not true. Men are perfectly capable of taking care of their children.

I'd like to see the statistics of white women making more than men of color, just for my own edification, I am pretty sure men of color still make more than women, in general, even though there is a pay gap between white men and men of color. There is also a general problem with the difference between the white middle class and black middle class that shows that white privilege very much holds sway.

I just think that it's silly to throw the "baby out with the bathwater" so to speak by saying feminism has done nothing just because it still has work to do.
 
My argument is the humanist perspective. I believe equality does not exist, and we live in a society that is constructed off certain principles by those who felt it was necessary. Feminism does not solve certain social issues like racism and poverty. For example I mentioned Angela Davis who speaks at UCLA. I took a class of hers and I recall her stating:

"The state of the black family is the result of centuries old institutional mindset black men have adopted due to white male patriarchy since the 1600's."

What does a feminist know growing up in Compton or Watts California? Nothing except self proclaim feminists who are people of color. As a man, well, as a black man I saw no benefit of feminism when I was born, nor at my place of work, nor my college. I remember taking a woman's studies course in undergrad and surely everything is a man's fault. Forget the fact that women are autonomous beings rather women are automatons and that all men have women on puppet strings.

Just as black nationalism was beneficial to blacks in the civil rights era so too was feminism even though it benefitted white women than anybody else. I believe any philosophy that tries to benefit one group above all is not an inherently noble cause. If femenism is the betterment of women it must in unison, address all societal ills. Feminism does not. During the civil rights era did feminist come out to argue against Jim Crow laws or Emmitt Till or lynchings, or colored water fountains? No.


Did feminist protest against to allow male journalist to interview female athletes in changing rooms? No. Do feminist argue about judicial bias that benefits women? No. Want to know what should outrage feminist? Google the football player (I forgot his name) that was released from prison who was falsely accused of rape. He attended Long Beach Poly. He now plays for the Atlanta Falcons. Since rape statistically effects more women than men you would think a woman's rights group would show support for this man. But no. I don't need to look at hardcore feminists, I look at the real world.

I think that you are really looking at a segment of things to make these accusations rather than looking at a bigger picture. We have a lot of societal ills, poverty, racism, sexism, etc. All of these things are further institutionalized and generational. So there is no one answer for everything. When people create a movement, they often address their own needs first, because they are in a unique position to speak to their own plight. It often takes time and diversity in a movement for it to realize how it can benefit others.

I didn't deny once that early feminists left out people of color. Since the movement originally started with white upper middle class women, but since, they have grown and progressed to include women of color, LGBT, and other marginalized groups. What I keep saying is that like with many movements, it has grown and progressed.

I consider myself a feminist and am a biracial woman. I would challenge you to look into more current forms of feminism that have moved away from the exclusion of people of color, because women of color spoke up. There is more and more focus on intersectionality and addressing the needs of more people and moving to inclusion versus exclusion.

I'm curious what you mean about "judicial bias"?

What kind of support are you suggesting that feminists should be showing to the innocent from Long Beach Poly? Has he been bashed by feminists?
 
Personally, I feel that the feminist movement needs to address sexuality more. I'm a man, I think about sex alot. I bet women would too, or atleast acknowledge it, if society didn't deem this unusual. This has caused a horrible imbalance between the sexes. Men are told that sexual conquest is the norm, and most men revolve their romances around having sex. Women seem to be told to reject sexuality, and believe in the "true love" side of romance. Although there are plenty of different kinds of romances, the ideal seems to be a little bit in-between the two. In my own personal dating experience, I've found women who expect me to be prince charming, a superhero, a sugardaddy, and allround lumberjack; but also caring, celibate, and essentially a woman. I'm not certain of how much we should blame modern feminism for this phenomena, but men are reporting from all over the USA that they are being expected to hold both gender roles of the romance, and simultaneously. I have nothing against macho men, or girly men, whatever floats your boat. But, how are we supposed to be both?
 
Personally, I feel that the feminist movement needs to address sexuality more. I'm a man, I think about sex alot. I bet women would too, or atleast acknowledge it, if society didn't deem this unusual. This has caused a horrible imbalance between the sexes. Men are told that sexual conquest is the norm, and most men revolve their romances around having sex. Women seem to be told to reject sexuality, and believe in the "true love" side of romance. Although there are plenty of different kinds of romances, the ideal seems to be a little bit in-between the two. In my own personal dating experience, I've found women who expect me to be prince charming, a superhero, a sugardaddy, and allround lumberjack; but also caring, celibate, and essentially a woman. I'm not certain of how much we should blame modern feminism for this phenomena, but men are reporting from all over the USA that they are being expected to hold both gender roles of the romance, and simultaneously. I have nothing against macho men, or girly men, whatever floats your boat. But, how are we supposed to be both?

Generally, there is a growing concern about "hypermasculinity" that is prevalent in our culture, glamorized by mostly commercials and other media. There are many feminist groups that have spoken out against these things. There are also a growing number of men who are working to redefine what "being a man" means. A large part of what most feminists want is to do away with gender roles completely. There is no expectation of your behavior as a man or as a woman, instead an expectation that each express their gender as they feel most comfortable.
 
I think it's all crap. Men should do what makes them happy, women should do what makes them happy, and they both should shut the hell up about a whole lot of crap.

There's my sex-based philosophy.
 
I think that you are really looking at a segment of things to make these accusations rather than looking at a bigger picture. We have a lot of societal ills, poverty, racism, sexism, etc. All of these things are further institutionalized and generational. So there is no one answer for everything. When people create a movement, they often address their own needs first, because they are in a unique position to speak to their own plight. It often takes time and diversity in a movement for it to realize how it can benefit others.

I didn't deny once that early feminists left out people of color. Since the movement originally started with white upper middle class women, but since, they have grown and progressed to include women of color, LGBT, and other marginalized groups. What I keep saying is that like with many movements, it has grown and progressed.

I consider myself a feminist and am a biracial woman. I would challenge you to look into more current forms of feminism that have moved away from the exclusion of people of color, because women of color spoke up. There is more and more focus on intersectionality and addressing the needs of more people and moving to inclusion versus exclusion.

I'm curious what you mean about "judicial bias"?

What kind of support are you suggesting that feminists should be showing to the innocent from Long Beach Poly? Has he been bashed by feminists?


My apologies for being late. To address your last paragraph by "judicial bias" I am referring to the problems of child support and custody. This is why there are men's groups that were created which seems to be the result at some unfairness in the court system regarding custody. For one, in order to gain custody of the child men often have to demonstrate whether the mother is an unfit parent. This process is very strenuous and lengthy in which many men give up. It seems nine times out of ten, especially in divorce proceedings women are often guranteed custody save if the woman is known to be unfit, an addict of some sort or otherwise. Another example would be paternity issues. There are women who have had men pay for child support for years and after so long and DNS test later, the man finds out its not biologically his, the state recoups the money not the man. It seems these elements in our judicial system favors women heavily.


With respect to the Long Beach Poly situation I mentioned feminist coming out because women's groups need to come to the defense of men against women who use rape and their sexuality to exploit others at their expense. There have been men whose lives have been ruined. To this day even though this football player was exonerated he has to wait a whole year until his record is expunged. That means he is still considered a felon.
 
First and foremost I would like to add that I am personally against feminism due to the idea that feminism does not universally address the problems of all women (hence the notion of Black Feminist, Muslim Feminist etc), rather I believe the women's suffrage movement was more appropriately in addressing the sexism portrayed by white patriarchy in its time of development. According to some feminist, feminist philosophy is about equality and about challenging patriarchy, however despite this noble cause, feminism does not challenge notions of social biases towards women such as child support (which displays a clear bias towards women)

I would say that it takes two to make a baby. It is completely "fair" for the other partner who helped create the life pay to help support that life. The money isn't supposed to go to support the mother of the child. Child support is for the CHILD. So I completely disagree with your opinions about child support. It is completely necessary.

journalism (male reporters are barred from entering the locker rooms of female athletes, but women aren't), and societal depictions of female frailty (men shouldn't hit women, but men are expected to take assaults from women).

I agree with this point. I also don't think women should be in the men's locker room and vice versa. I think that is inappropriate. I don't see why journalists have to go into the locker room at all.

I've even seen some hardcore feminist (most notably Catherine Mackinnon) assert that softcore pronography objectifies women, and that male objectification is not objectification because pornography is about enticing men and satisfying patriarchy

Meh, I don't know if I agree with that point. I think it depends upon the person and why they are viewing it.

I would like any self-acclaimed feminist if they would, address some societal double standards that feminism does not address?

Well, I wouldn't really call myself a "feminist" but I am a woman who does believe in equal rights.

I wonder why you didn't address the differences in pay rates between men and women. Men still get paid more a lot of times for doing the same job as a woman. That is more concerning to me than any of the points you made above.
 
I would say that it takes two to make a baby. It is completely "fair" for the other partner who helped create the life pay to help support that life. The money isn't supposed to go to support the mother of the child. Child support is for the CHILD. So I completely disagree with your opinions about child support. It is completely necessary.

Child support is necessary but there is no oversight into if in fact that it is being spent on child support as opposed to the lifestyle of the woman. There have been many cases where friends of mine have complained about their ex spending the money on themselves as opposed to the children. The judge in these circumstances put the burden of proof upon these men to demonstrate whether there is neglect. If the mother is doing the basics then of course there would be no further inquiry. There have been cases where the woman has asked for more money all because she wants to maintain the upkeep of her lifestyle.
 
I've had the hardest time trying to post this - the server keeps hanging up or my net keeps bottoming out. By now it's all repeated points, I'm sure. I'm stubborn and don't care. LOL

First and foremost I would like to add that I am personally against feminism due to the idea that feminism does not universally address the problems of all women (hence the notion of Black Feminist, Muslim Feminist etc), rather I believe the women's suffrage movement was more appropriately in addressing the sexism portrayed by white patriarchy in its time of development.

I don't believe you oppose feminism:

Do you believe that a man/woman who work the same exact job with similar employment history/credentials should receive the same pay?
Right to vote?
Right to attend college (or choose not to) for whatever degree said individual desires?
Career can be what one chooses?
Parenting is optional?
In regard to parenting - is it up to her to decide if she's going to parent at all while being stay at home mother / married / single / employed?
Right to own property (vehicles, land, etc).
Right to own/run one's own business venture?
Birth control (in general - not talking specifics of R40 vs R10 or something like that) - but in general, should birth control be legal? (because at one point in our history - it was 100% illegal, even condoms)

So on - so forth. These are the core elements of feminism in general. If you oppose any of these - then you oppose feminism in some sense. I doubt this applies to you. In fact - it doesn't apply to the average US citizen these days.

Also, if you took the time to learn about the history of feminism and racism - you'll realize that racism was never a blanket issue that all white people (or white women as you claim it applies) believed in or held onto. NOT EVERYONE was racist. To claim that it ignored minorities shows misinformation and false conclusions. It also shows that you don't fully understand the other things that DID affect women of minority in various parts of the country.

I think that studying such things would be very educational for you.

According to some feminist, feminist philosophy is about equality and about challenging patriarchy,

Studying all the many different 'views' of feminism - you'll see the things I mentioned above in the list are a standard that - no matter how nitty gritty, or simple, someone's views are - they still hold belief in these as a standard . . . and we deviate on all other things.

I agree to disagree with some of these more specific and less important issues that you raise (aka - the following)

feminism does not challenge notions of social biases towards women such as child support (which displays a clear bias towards women),
How exactly does it display a bias? I see bias in the default of giving custody (which is leaning away from the gender-standard of believing that women are always best for the child to be with)

journalism (male reporters are barred from entering the locker rooms of female athletes, but women aren't),

There's no reason for them to be THERE at all. . . so I disagree with permitting them in (if they really are - I don't keep up with sports enough to know)
So I agree to disagree with them on this - and wonder just how on earth it might have come about. But I don't care enough to research it.

and societal depictions of female frailty (men shouldn't hit women, but men are expected to take assaults from women).

I'm unfamiliar with this idea that it's ok for women to hit men as I don't support anyone going around smacking the other to begin with. However, men often encourage each other to tolerate more physical affronts and are less likely to report, take action, or take deep, personal offense in such situations. Women (not all - a generalized term, here) still cling to some views and men still cling to other views.

I classify this as a more serious concern because i just oppose violence as a solution or outlet of emotion aside organized sports.

The 'men shouldn't hit women' irritates me in particular because it just fosters females who look at their self as being incapable and less able no matter what - and thusly, self centered and conceited, stuck up, and rude.

Who fosters this more, though? Men - or women?

I started a related thread several months back - and men were more than likely to stand up and say 'yes, I hold to gender-biased views and I prefer it that way'

I've even seen some hardcore feminist (most notably Catherine Mackinnon) assert that softcore pronography objectifies women, and that male objectification is not objectification because pornography is about enticing men and satisfying patriarchy

Well she's a moron - I dig porn and I write erotica. . . and the majority of romance/erotica readers ARE female - though men indulge often, as well. Thus - I disagree with her on that. Porn isn't JUST for men . . . obviously she's assuming that all women look at porn the same way she does: assumptions are dangerous beasts.

Women like her I label as 'Femi-nazis' and they offend me because they assert their opinion and claim 'all women feel ___' or 'all women are ___' . . . Which I spite more than anything.

I would like any self-acclaimed feminist if they would, address some societal double standards that feminism does not address?

All of the things I could think of were small, minor - things like dating etiquette and such. The more important things (what I've mentioned) are taking a more balanced-stage these days and those are the things I'm more concerned with overall.
 
First and foremost I would like to add that I am personally against feminism due to the idea that feminism does not universally address the problems of all women (hence the notion of Black Feminist, Muslim Feminist etc), rather I believe the women's suffrage movement was more appropriately in addressing the sexism portrayed by white patriarchy in its time of development. According to some feminist, feminist philosophy is about equality and about challenging patriarchy, however despite this noble cause, feminism does not challenge notions of social biases towards women such as child support (which displays a clear bias towards women), journalism (male reporters are barred from entering the locker rooms of female athletes, but women aren't), and societal depictions of female frailty (men shouldn't hit women, but men are expected to take assaults from women). I've even seen some hardcore feminist (most notably Catherine Mackinnon) assert that softcore pronography objectifies women, and that male objectification is not objectification because pornography is about enticing men and satisfying patriarchy

I would like any self-acclaimed feminist if they would, address some societal double standards that feminism does not address?

I suggest you consider the core idea of the movement. Equality of opportunity. The movement may vary in its priorities from group to group but the core idea remains the same. The trunk, if you will, remains the same and the branches adapt to the weather. As for the "double standards" you point out.

1. Child Support; what exactly is your point here? That women "always" get child support regardless of the fathers income? As a divorced woman who was earning a very comfortable income I can tell you, the father of my children contributed according to his means and he should have. You wanna play you gotta pay man or woman.

2. Locker Rooms: Seriously?? We both know that men and women are very different when it comes to their sexuality.

3. Our frailty: You have to stay within the boundaries of reality. Men, generally speaking, have greater physical strength then women. You wouldn't strike a child would you? It's the same principal.

4. The pornography thing I might let you slide on. If you do pornography you are objectifying yourself and we can't argue that. Women are objectified through many other mediums however, magazines, movies, advertising. Men like women, and that's wonderful and no woman minds being admired. The problem is when men see ONLY that and do not step back and remember there is a person attached to that awesome rack or those hot legs. When men loose site of that it is easy to see the whole person as just the rack or just the legs. That's objectification.
 
As far as feminists being pro-life... I'm not sure what you are saying. It is impossible to be a feminist and support removing a woman's right to choose.

False. The perspective holds that women are scapegoated by having all of the responsibility dumped on them, thus benefiting a society in which men benefit disproportionately.
 
Child support is necessary but there is no oversight into if in fact that it is being spent on child support as opposed to the lifestyle of the woman. There have been many cases where friends of mine have complained about their ex spending the money on themselves as opposed to the children. The judge in these circumstances put the burden of proof upon these men to demonstrate whether there is neglect. If the mother is doing the basics then of course there would be no further inquiry. There have been cases where the woman has asked for more money all because she wants to maintain the upkeep of her lifestyle.

Most good mothers would spend the money on the child/children. Obviously your friends married assholes. :shrug: Sorry about that, but you can't possibly be suggesting we do away with child support because some of your friends are unhappy about it, are you?

Women who ask for money to maintain their lifestyle are asking for alimony. Perhaps you're confusing the two?
 
I suggest you consider the core idea of the movement. Equality of opportunity. The movement may vary in its priorities from group to group but the core idea remains the same. The trunk, if you will, remains the same and the branches adapt to the weather. As for the "double standards" you point out.

1. Child Support; what exactly is your point here? That women "always" get child support regardless of the fathers income? As a divorced woman who was earning a very comfortable income I can tell you, the father of my children contributed according to his means and he should have. You wanna play you gotta pay man or woman.

2. Locker Rooms: Seriously?? We both know that men and women are very different when it comes to their sexuality.

3. Our frailty: You have to stay within the boundaries of reality. Men, generally speaking, have greater physical strength then women. You wouldn't strike a child would you? It's the same principal.

4. The pornography thing I might let you slide on. If you do pornography you are objectifying yourself and we can't argue that. Women are objectified through many other mediums however, magazines, movies, advertising. Men like women, and that's wonderful and no woman minds being admired. The problem is when men see ONLY that and do not step back and remember there is a person attached to that awesome rack or those hot legs. When men loose site of that it is easy to see the whole person as just the rack or just the legs. That's objectification.



I will dissect this later
 
The following contains statistics (although from Wikipedia), and if you look at the bar graph which distinguishes mwn and women you will see white women slightly makes more than black, hispanic men (I believe asian men may make more or slightly less). Although all women across ethnic groups make less than men, white women tends to edge out men of coloe. Not grant it, this is 2009 but recent sources highlights the continuance of a widening eacial gap and if that is true white women will continue to make more than men of color.


See: Male


Now you mention the legal system is not perfect. Sure, I can accept that. I believe no system of governence overseen by falloble humans can attain a perfected impartial system. Although this is the axiom of judicial philosophy I cannot accept that an imperfect system allows itself to sustain its imperfection all because life isn't perfect. The goal of law is to right wrong and in this respect far too many men I know have to fight for there kids. Now I'm not talking about men who are part time fathers, I'm talking about men who have paid child support for years when come to find out the child is not theirs, or the men who buy diapers, formula, and clothes for there children but their ex, finding out they (the men) have moved on, they file for child support out of spite. Or the mwn who are hauled into court by their ex as she argues for an increase in child support yet she is wearing Gucci shades with fake nails and expensive jewelry. This is what I mean.
 
I've had the hardest time trying to post this - the server keeps hanging up or my net keeps bottoming out. By now it's all repeated points, I'm sure. I'm stubborn and don't care. LOL



I don't believe you oppose feminism:

Do you believe that a man/woman who work the same exact job with similar employment history/credentials should receive the same pay?
Right to vote?
Right to attend college (or choose not to) for whatever degree said individual desires?
Career can be what one chooses?
Parenting is optional?
In regard to parenting - is it up to her to decide if she's going to parent at all while being stay at home mother / married / single / employed?
Right to own property (vehicles, land, etc).
Right to own/run one's own business venture?
Birth control (in general - not talking specifics of R40 vs R10 or something like that) - but in general, should birth control be legal? (because at one point in our history - it was 100% illegal, even condoms)

So on - so forth. These are the core elements of feminism in general. If you oppose any of these - then you oppose feminism in some sense. I doubt this applies to you. In fact - it doesn't apply to the average US citizen these days.

Also, if you took the time to learn about the history of feminism and racism - you'll realize that racism was never a blanket issue that all white people (or white women as you claim it applies) believed in or held onto. NOT EVERYONE was racist. To claim that it ignored minorities shows misinformation and false conclusions. It also shows that you don't fully understand the other things that DID affect women of minority in various parts of the country.

I think that studying such things would be very educational for you.



Studying all the many different 'views' of feminism - you'll see the things I mentioned above in the list are a standard that - no matter how nitty gritty, or simple, someone's views are - they still hold belief in these as a standard . . . and we deviate on all other things.

I agree to disagree with some of these more specific and less important issues that you raise (aka - the following)


How exactly does it display a bias? I see bias in the default of giving custody (which is leaning away from the gender-standard of believing that women are always best for the child to be with)



There's no reason for them to be THERE at all. . . so I disagree with permitting them in (if they really are - I don't keep up with sports enough to know)
So I agree to disagree with them on this - and wonder just how on earth it might have come about. But I don't care enough to research it.



I'm unfamiliar with this idea that it's ok for women to hit men as I don't support anyone going around smacking the other to begin with. However, men often encourage each other to tolerate more physical affronts and are less likely to report, take action, or take deep, personal offense in such situations. Women (not all - a generalized term, here) still cling to some views and men still cling to other views.

I classify this as a more serious concern because i just oppose violence as a solution or outlet of emotion aside organized sports.

The 'men shouldn't hit women' irritates me in particular because it just fosters females who look at their self as being incapable and less able no matter what - and thusly, self centered and conceited, stuck up, and rude.

Who fosters this more, though? Men - or women?

I started a related thread several months back - and men were more than likely to stand up and say 'yes, I hold to gender-biased views and I prefer it that way'



Well she's a moron - I dig porn and I write erotica. . . and the majority of romance/erotica readers ARE female - though men indulge often, as well. Thus - I disagree with her on that. Porn isn't JUST for men . . . obviously she's assuming that all women look at porn the same way she does: assumptions are dangerous beasts.

Women like her I label as 'Femi-nazis' and they offend me because they assert their opinion and claim 'all women feel ___' or 'all women are ___' . . . Which I spite more than anything.



All of the things I could think of were small, minor - things like dating etiquette and such. The more important things (what I've mentioned) are taking a more balanced-stage these days and those are the things I'm more concerned with overall.



I like your response but dislike your comment about "me needing to educate myself further" as I have, not only taken an entire semester learning about the women's suffrage movement, but also I've done personal research of my own most recently feminist critique on theology and the issues on male/female deities. Do I believe in the listed ideals you mentioned in your post? Yes with one exception. I believe there are significant differences as to how men and women perform in certain job areas as there are jobs women can't do, an example is should a woman be allowed to be a Navy SEAL? I believe the physical regimen of joing this special forces group outweighs the psychological ability of a woman being able to perform the task of a teams member so yes I believe when it comes to ALL jobs I don't believe all women can do the same tasks as all men when it comes to certain jobs.

As far as the whole men can't hit woman issue, that largely deals with social etiquette in how men "are supposed" to deal with a woman this by and large relates to chivalry more than anything. Society belives women are the weaker sex and therefore by being the weaker sex, men shouldn't hit women. In this type of thought women buy into their own inferiority by condoning this thought, just as much as men. In certain areas of society, because women know men believe this philosophy, women will often physically challenge men. If a man gets beat up by a woman society says he is weak because he was bested by the weakest sex, or if he fights back he is not a man because he hit the weaker sex--mind you, I'm referring to defending oneself.

With respect to my example of the locker room and male journalists being barred, you said "they have no business being there" then you conceded to say you don't watch sports. Well sports journalism is about getting the facts. Now if feminist ideals are about equality within society and the occupational field then male sports journalist have just as much rights as women regardless of who goes in what lockeroom. If men have no business in female lockerooms then women don't either.

As far as child custody etc refer to the above
 
I suggest you consider the core idea of the movement. Equality of opportunity. The movement may vary in its priorities from group to group but the core idea remains the same. The trunk, if you will, remains the same and the branches adapt to the weather. As for the "double standards" you point out.

1. Child Support; what exactly is your point here? That women "always" get child support regardless of the fathers income? As a divorced woman who was earning a very comfortable income I can tell you, the father of my children contributed according to his means and he should have. You wanna play you gotta pay man or woman.

2. Locker Rooms: Seriously?? We both know that men and women are very different when it comes to their sexuality.

3. Our frailty: You have to stay within the boundaries of reality. Men, generally speaking, have greater physical strength then women. You wouldn't strike a child would you? It's the same principal.

4. The pornography thing I might let you slide on. If you do pornography you are objectifying yourself and we can't argue that. Women are objectified through many other mediums however, magazines, movies, advertising. Men like women, and that's wonderful and no woman minds being admired. The problem is when men see ONLY that and do not step back and remember there is a person attached to that awesome rack or those hot legs. When men loose site of that it is easy to see the whole person as just the rack or just the legs. That's objectification.

Going down the line by your numbered points....

1) By child support I'm referring to situations where women have utilized the system either of spite or personal gain. For example I have a friend who is an RN and was ordered to pay child support because his ex saw the new girlfriend and became jealous. Mind you, she too is also a nurse both with similar income, both have houses. Now who benefits the child? Or the mother? Sure the child benefits but at what cost? To satisfy some jealous woman and her inability to move on and get past a relationship that didn't work? "You have to pay to play" thank God my girlfriend does not think like this. A child is not an arcade game nor is it something you should treat as if you are paying for a car. A child is a sentiment being and any responsible adult knows that in taking care of a child comes with financial obligations.


2) So what does differences between male and female anatomy have to do with sports journalism? Are you indirectly implying a professional male journalist is incapable of maintaining professionalism while in a lockeroom full of half naked women?

3) "You have to stay within the boundaries of reality" So you've clearly demonstrated that there are women that buy into their inferiority especially when you said "you wouldn't strike a child would you? Seriously you're comparing apples and oranges. So I suppose you are against men defending themselves if a woman attacks them because as you say men are stronger?


4) Let me slide? So I suppose when women read playgirl and look at the different male penises while being aroused they are attaching personhood? I think whenever you are dealing with fantasy your pleasure tends to take precedence over the realization that the "object" whom your fantasizing over is a person.
 
Going down the line by your numbered points....

1) By child support I'm referring to situations where women have utilized the system either of spite or personal gain. For example I have a friend who is an RN and was ordered to pay child support because his ex saw the new girlfriend and became jealous. Mind you, she too is also a nurse both with similar income, both have houses. Now who benefits the child? Or the mother? Sure the child benefits but at what cost? To satisfy some jealous woman and her inability to move on and get past a relationship that didn't work? "You have to pay to play" thank God my girlfriend does not think like this. A child is not an arcade game nor is it something you should treat as if you are paying for a car. A child is a sentiment being and any responsible adult knows that in taking care of a child comes with financial obligations.


2) So what does differences between male and female anatomy have to do with sports journalism? Are you indirectly implying a professional male journalist is incapable of maintaining professionalism while in a lockeroom full of half naked women?

3) "You have to stay within the boundaries of reality" So you've clearly demonstrated that there are women that buy into their inferiority especially when you said "you wouldn't strike a child would you? Seriously you're comparing apples and oranges. So I suppose you are against men defending themselves if a woman attacks them because as you say men are stronger?


4) Let me slide? So I suppose when women read playgirl and look at the different male penises while being aroused they are attaching personhood? I think whenever you are dealing with fantasy your pleasure tends to take precedence over the realization that the "object" whom your fantasizing over is a person.

What is it with the people on this site. It's as if you are all just looking for a fight. No effort is made to understand someone else's point of view.

1. You want to play you gotta pay. I was saying that if a man choses to have sex with a women and a child comes of it then he has an emotional and financial obligation to provide for that child. And bitterness from an ex is not restricted to just women. PEOPLE are capable of petty behavior and my guess is you only heard one side of that story and I'm betting it wasn't hers. As with most disagreements I am certain he made his mistakes too. You have no way of knowing what motivated her "spiteful" behavior.

2. No I am not inferring it. I am saying it. Not in all cases but taken as a whole I'm guessing it would be more of a challenge for a man. I am also guessing that more men would be comfortable with the idea of parading around naked in from of a female journalist than the other way around.

3. Women are not as strong as men and yes men have an obligation to control themselves. Odds are you can stop a women if she gets carried away without even hurting her. The physical vulnerability is the point here I am not comparing women to children in any other way.

4. I agreed with you on this point when it comes to pornography. I was attempting to explain what DOES qualify as objectification....not to argue with you.
 
What is it with the people on this site. It's as if you are all just looking for a fight. No effort is made to understand someone else's point of view.

1. You want to play you gotta pay. I was saying that if a man choses to have sex with a women and a child comes of it then he has an emotional and financial obligation to provide for that child. And bitterness from an ex is not restricted to just women. PEOPLE are capable of petty behavior and my guess is you only heard one side of that story and I'm betting it wasn't hers. As with most disagreements I am certain he made his mistakes too. You have no way of knowing what motivated her "spiteful" behavior.

2. No I am not inferring it. I am saying it. Not in all cases but taken as a whole I'm guessing it would be more of a challenge for a man. I am also guessing that more men would be comfortable with the idea of parading around naked in from of a female journalist than the other way around.

3. Women are not as strong as men and yes men have an obligation to control themselves. Odds are you can stop a women if she gets carried away without even hurting her. The physical vulnerability is the point here I am not comparing women to children in any other way.

4. I agreed with you on this point when it comes to pornography. I was attempting to explain what DOES qualify as objectification....not to argue with you.

I'm fairly new, so I'm not familiar with the attitudes of people but I assure you, I'm not looking for a fight, I just strongly and passionately disagree with you.

1) I personally know the guy and his ex as we three work at the same hospital, and grant it, I don't know her outside of work, I did have the unfortunate experience of reading text messages from his phone of her exclaiming to him that "he isn't raising their daughter around a new tramp and he will start paying child support since he can afford a new bitch." As you say, people often become petty, but I assure you among the 48% reasons why people divorce or breakup, and have custody disputes, pettiness is one of the reasons.

2) You have a sexist attitude regarding this point. You're saying in the presence of a naked or half naked body a man must challenge his professionalism while being among half naked women? Then you go on to say men may feel more comfortable parading around a woman naked? Truly that is sexism at its finest. I would assume for female athletes there is a level of discomfort of male journalist in their personal dress rooms because its not of the norm.

Do you hold the same belief of a male gynocologist? Do you believe a male gynocologist has a tough time being a professional?

3) I would've thought a responsible adult would have an obligation to control themselves. Like point two you seem to miss the idea that no adult ought to put hands on another adult, but you seem to rather put the responsibility upon the man to have self control yet the woman or women are ok to put hands on a man?

I'm not calling you sexist but points 2 and 3 have sexist ideology.
 
I like your response but dislike your comment about "me needing to educate myself further" as I have, not only taken an entire semester learning about the women's suffrage movement, but also I've done personal research of my own most recently feminist critique on theology and the issues on male/female deities.

Well if you were better informed on the subject it didn't show in your OP. . . and I still don't think your an anti-women's rights/feminist individual. (and I've read your other posts)

Do I believe in the listed ideals you mentioned in your post? Yes with one exception. I believe there are significant differences as to how men and women perform in certain job areas as there are jobs women can't do, an example is should a woman be allowed to be a Navy SEAL? I believe the physical regimen of joing this special forces group outweighs the psychological ability of a woman being able to perform the task of a teams member so yes I believe when it comes to ALL jobs I don't believe all women can do the same tasks as all men when it comes to certain jobs.

As far as the whole men can't hit woman issue, that largely deals with social etiquette in how men "are supposed" to deal with a woman this by and large relates to chivalry more than anything. Society belives women are the weaker sex and therefore by being the weaker sex, men shouldn't hit women.

In this type of thought women buy into their own inferiority by condoning this thought, just as much as men. In certain areas of society, because women know men believe this philosophy, women will often physically challenge men. If a man gets beat up by a woman society says he is weak because he was bested by the weakest sex, or if he fights back he is not a man because he hit the weaker sex--mind you, I'm referring to defending oneself.

WEll - which is it: women either ARE the weaker sex or we just THINK we are the weaker sex?
Your statements regarding the former subject of 'Navy Seal' and this subject of 'men shouldn't hit women' could be considered in opposition.

But the military doesn't base pay on such things - your pay is based on your:
1) Years
2) Training
3) Danger exposure
4) Distance for travel / housing

And a few other things . . . equal pay for equal work within the military means equal pay for equal rank - regardless of job duties. There are a large number of jobs that you can do within the same rank . . . so long as you do the duties within your job you receive your pay.


With respect to my example of the locker room and male journalists being barred, you said "they have no business being there" then you conceded to say you don't watch sports. Well sports journalism is about getting the facts. Now if feminist ideals are about equality within society and the occupational field then male sports journalist have just as much rights as women regardless of who goes in what lockeroom. If men have no business in female lockerooms then women don't either.

I agree.

What I see happening is that in the push to 'better the field for women ____' they've overlooked some bare essentials in life like respect and common sense. . . The only sports I like are MMA fighting and hockey. There either are no female reporters - or going into the locker rooms just doesn't happen. I imagine that for basketball and football journalism the issue comes from the fact that these are male-dominated sports. The men are where the story/career is at. Thus, not being able to interview them is supposed to put these female journalists at a disadvantage in their career.

I don't agree with it, though - I side with you here, it's unfair.

I believe in the basic elements and when there are differences (between the sexes) - it better be for a good reason. Some arguments that are made (the journalism-locker room issue, for example) comes across to me as whining over a life-based inequality.

You know sometimes I want to say "we're not men, they're not women . . . tough it up" . . .Equal rights isn't the same as identical sexes. What do some people want: to create a neutral gender and all of us file into the same bathroom together? :roll:
 
Well if you were better informed on the subject it didn't show in your OP. . . and I still don't think your an anti-women's rights/feminist individual. (and I've read your other posts)



WEll - which is it: women either ARE the weaker sex or we just THINK we are the weaker sex?
Your statements regarding the former subject of 'Navy Seal' and this subject of 'men shouldn't hit women' could be considered in opposition.

But the military doesn't base pay on such things - your pay is based on your:
1) Years
2) Training
3) Danger exposure
4) Distance for travel / housing

And a few other things . . . equal pay for equal work within the military means equal pay for equal rank - regardless of job duties. There are a large number of jobs that you can do within the same rank . . . so long as you do the duties within your job you receive your pay.




I agree.

What I see happening is that in the push to 'better the field for women ____' they've overlooked some bare essentials in life like respect and common sense. . . The only sports I like are MMA fighting and hockey. There either are no female reporters - or going into the locker rooms just doesn't happen. I imagine that for basketball and football journalism the issue comes from the fact that these are male-dominated sports. The men are where the story/career is at. Thus, not being able to interview them is supposed to put these female journalists at a disadvantage in their career.

I don't agree with it, though - I side with you here, it's unfair.

I believe in the basic elements and when there are differences (between the sexes) - it better be for a good reason. Some arguments that are made (the journalism-locker room issue, for example) comes across to me as whining over a life-based inequality.

You know sometimes I want to say "we're not men, they're not women . . . tough it up" . . .Equal rights isn't the same as identical sexes. What do some people want: to create a neutral gender and all of us file into the same bathroom together? :roll:



My overall point in this is I believe feminist philosophy is like any other ideal. The intent is to break the glass ceiling, move past sex discrimination, and to be treated equal. However the philosophy of basic rights and equality are ideals not reality--at least in certain areas. I perhaps just have an issue with the word feminism as its a movement representative of women and given some of the arguments, its nothing more than a splinter group of the civil rights movement, which is why women benefit the most but that is a non-sequitor.

Now you're saying I'm whining over trivial issues? So be it. There are a lot of women that whine over trivial issues as well. The point, which surprisingly you failed to see, is if we are to get over trivial matters such as men being barred from interviewing female athletes in changing rooms, then we must make thing uncomfortable to us a norm in society. That means changing the way we think about each other, changing social standards such as the depiction of women as the weaker sex. I remember trying out for the LAPD and recall women allowed to do less push ups and sit ups and allowed more time to run the mile than men? That is a slap in the face to all women. You know who changed it? Men did. Several men complained it was unfair and it is. I saw no feminists arguing about equality there it was men. Although you may find arguing over pushups and situps as trivial, these minor things are what continues the perennial mindset that women are weaker.

Are women weaker?

I don't like the word weakness when referencing a person or a people. I do believe there are biological differences between men and women that allows men to do certain things women can't which is why I brought up the Navy SEALs example. Overall I think the issues that plague women are civil issues that ought to be treated as such, not a woman's issue, and if what plagues women today are women's issues then please explain why women of color go through racial discrimination as opposed to sex discrimination in some sectors of society?
 
Back
Top Bottom