Feminism is good for us

Post Reply New Topic

There are plenty of people against FGM, and even for equal rights of women, that don't specifically identify themselves as feminists.

I don't see how stating that there are overlaps between movements precludes stating that feminists are against FGM, nor that it precludes stating that feminism is the one movement focused on women's equality and welfare. There are, indeed, people who claim to be for women's equality while speaking against 'feminism,' but it is often the case that they are either calling something 'equality' that isn't actually equal, or that they are arguing against a straw-feminist that represents mainstream feminism about as well as the Wesbro Baptist Church represents mainstream Christianity.

I never said feminists never spoke out against FGM anyway. It's not that I'm here to deny reality. It's just that there's some unusual bias that goes on in favor of feminism where feminism does things for men that other movements supposedly don't. I'm all for equal human rights for both genders, and I know that you are the same. But this means, in my book, that you're a feminist and an egalitarian. I don't equate the two together. Whether men benefit or not indirectly from feminism, feminism has always been about women's rights. I still don't fathom what more do women want in the Western world, seeing how women have just as much freedom as men do now.

How many feminists you know speak out against male circumcision by the way?

Male circumcision when forced on infants and children is a barbaric custom. Particularly as a religious based practice, it makes no sense whatsoever to cut bits off your kid's crotch. If this god didn't want us to have those bits, why were we made with them in the first place? It's messed up.

The thing I'm not even particularly clear on - why do Christians do it? As far as my reading of the bible it seemed that yes - its required of Jews since Abraham but it seemed like for Christians it was optional at best and if anything Paul was chasing the legalists around for telling Christians that they needed it.

I actually agree with this. At this point in time, men and women are both affected negatively by societal pressures. I see their issues as being equally important. I feel we should be rising up above these labels and working together against sexism in general.

Warren Farrell anybody? He has some really good books out. Here's a couple links http://www.warrenfarrell.com/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6w1S8yrFz4

Warren Farrell has said some bizarre things in the past. That's part of the reason why many feminists don't like him very much.

Because they are trying to square the circle. It's like trying to erode the fear instinct. The roles exist because they had utility in earlier environments. The environment has changed, but the instincts are too deeply ingrained to be gotten rid of.

Pre-historic societies were mostly pretty much egalitarian.

Says you?

If women had fought past wars and the men had stayed home with the children, the human race would have died out. If women had been the leaders and merchants of earlier societies, the human race would not have been able to perpetuate itself. Men are designed to fight, build and lead. Look at our bodies, for heaven's sake. It's common sense.

You should see my body. It's a bit out of shape.

What things?

Agreed

See, that just doesn't make sense. If you claim that women are bad at fighting, then a war between women would NOT have made the human race die out. Quite the contrary. I don't see what leaders/merchants have to do with anything. Women in primitive societies worked full-time. They had children, and community day-caretakers raised children, not parents. The stay-at-home mom is a 20th century American invention that never existed in the past and hardly exists today.

And though there maybe an "average" difference between the sexes, there are plenty of puny little whiny men (most of the male virgins on this board who denounce feminism, for example) and plenty of strong fit women with good leadership skills. So making a distinction based on gender alone makes no sense whatsoever. The typical American 25-year-old male virgin is less capable at so-called "male" tasks than a good third to one half of American women.

About that other sexism ... I was an Army officer in the Corps of Engineers and 3rd level in combatives (hand-to-hand combat), qualified as "expert" marksman on the M4. It would appear that I am equipped to fight, build, and lead at 6'2, 200 lbs of muscle (well back then anyway, more like 190 lbs of fat now lol). I knew several women who were better at all three, however. I highly doubt most of the anti-feminist guys on this board would be any match for me at building, leading, or fighting, let alone these women.