Respect for Women

Post Reply New Topic

So we have a choice between obvious arse and less obvious arse, so basically we get sh*t on either way in november.

Trump got my imaginary vote as soon as he made conciliatory motions towards Russia and questioned what the hell NATO had been doing the last 10 years. Hillary if nothing else is a warmonger, she has never seen a war she didn't like. She is not going to do anything to prevent this coming war with Russia. If you would prefer a nuclear exchange with Russia to having an overt sexist in the White House, you deserve everything you get.

Fortune: Gloria Allred Calls on Mark Burnett to Release Trump 'Apprentice' Footage

Pretty much. It kind of forces the people who vote entirely based on muh feelings to out themselves.

Claiming that someone's not a feminist because she didn't make the choice YOU think she should have made is ironic.
Feminism is about women having the right to make their own decisions and live their lives as they see fit. It's also about other women (and men, hopefully) respecting that right. Hillary didn't want to leave Bill, so she didn't.
It's not the kind of choices a woman makes that show she's a feminist, it's the fact that she makes her own choices period.

That may be the least useful definition of a feminist that I've ever encountered.

Why? For hundreds of years women have been expected to marry, and expected to have children, and expected to be the primary caregiver to those children, and expected not to work outside the home (unless her husband allowed her!), and expected to cook and clean and be obedient. A woman who failed to marry might pursue one of a handful of "nurturing" occupations (nurses, teachers, etc.), but were thought intellectually, emotionally, or physically incapable of pursuing most careers.
How then, is acknowledging a woman's right to make choices about her own life a "least useful" definition of feminism?

We were discussing the definition of "feminist" not "feminism". It's a common mistake/wilful conflation.

In answer to the question I'll assume you intended to ask, it's least useful primarily because your definition enforces the title "feminist" on any woman who makes her own choices - including those who choose not to be feminists. It manages to be both nebulous and arbitrary. For context, 7% of people in the UK and 20% in the US are willing to call themselves feminists.

The most useful definition of a feminist is someone who adopts the label feminist, and even that is up for debate.

Incidentally, feminists do not hold exclusive rights to equality as if it were an IP.

As for your rhetoric regarding "hundreds of years". Universal men's suffrage in the UK occurred in 1918, with universal women's suffrage coming a decade later. Universal men's suffrage in America didn't happen until the 1960's (though it was near-universal for white property owners a century earlier).

Or, to echo your own sentiments:

For hundreds of years, men have been expected to marry, to sire children and to be the primary labourer who provides for their wives and children, and expected to die in the name of a privileged nobleman or a government which they had no say in.

Your right to autonomy and freedom of choice was bought and paid for with the blood of millions upon millions of men who were often legally obligated to unquestioningly obey people who were deemed their betters by accident of birth.

As your response contains a number of rude and condescending catch phrases, I'm done attempting to have civil discourse with you.

As responses go, this one is about as useful as your definition of "feminist".

Yeah, I've encountered the condescending teacher attitude from a few of the male members on this board, Yippy. I think you've got the right idea.

Direct your misandrist personal attacks at someone else, thanks. If you don't want your opinions to be challenged, don't post them on a board where politics, philosophy and religion are discussed and debated.

Nicely put and far too often overlooked.

Nothing is as grating as the manufactured outrage, people are such hypocrites and it confuses me how one can lack the awareness or be so disingenuous. This Obama administration has invited all types of rappers and entertainers to the White House who have made careers denigrating women, the same musicians they let their sons & daughters listen to and heap all kinds of praise on. Obviously, the long and storied history of the Clinton's does not seem to bother them so to draw such reaction comes off as contrived and desperate. It is an organized smear campaign and what the media is doing right now with the Clinton campaign quite frankly shouldn't be legal in my opinion. Basically almost everything they have been calling a conspiracy for so long has been proven correct by these leaks, don't be duped by the corporate fascists and propagandist media.

People need to consider the actions not the words, the context and the credibility matters, consider the fact the these accusers against Trump have waited so long before coming forward with hearsay allegations that in my opinion don't really amount to anything. Trump maybe was a bit of a womanizer possibly even a bit of a perv but there is a stark difference between the nonsense he has been accused of by the partisan New York Times and the sexual predatory Bill Clinton and his enabler wife. Hillary's entire career is built upon rape, from getting child rapists off & laughing as a young lawyer to sticking by & protecting her rapist husband. The power dynamics are completely different look at the women Bill targeted, actually read about the way he treated these women and you'll see things that if you attached "Donald Trump" in front of instead of Bill Clinton you would consider disqualifying but the so called mainstream media doesn't report it. The media has declared war on Donald Trump, they are another arm of the Clinton campaign and the real affront to our democracy, one candidate and the cartel of corporate interests which support her will rule this country with an iron fist with no regard to law or possibility of accountability. The most corrupt, the most lawless, the most dangerous candidate in history is Hillary Clinton.

Those dismissing Bill Clinton as irrelevant don't know what they're talking about, his position is unprecedented in the history of our constitutional system but not internationally so do make that comparison if you wish and get back to me since I think it's obvious the answer. As should be remembered Hillary was no ordinary First Lady and Bill most certainly will not be one either, they were billed as a co-presidency then so why would that be different now? Hillary's health should be a genuine concern, it's less than a month away from the biggest election in our life time and Hillary is nowhere to be found. Whatever the reason for her absence is a concern in my opinion if you make this defense that Hillary is the only one running because I don't see her campaigning; I see Bill, Chelsea, Barack & Michelle Obama, Joe Biden, and of course the full weight of the organized corporate media that undermines our democracy with their direct cooperation with the Clinton campaign. This election is literally being rigged in front of our eyes, if this were an election in any other country we would be decrying it as an affront to democracy.

also this is just a post of what I think based off the opening post and the topic I am interested in so whatever the discussion is afterwards I don't know so if there is some other point that I am missing or not addressing then I apologize, so ask away now if you wish. That's why it's a discussion board right?

Not really, it's about women having equal rights and equal status based on individual merit rather than being reduced along the lines of their sex.

Not about women making horrible choices just because "they can".

By that logic if a woman decided to make her daugher wear a burka and marry and Islamist, that would somehow be feminist just because she has a legal "right" to make her own choice. Nonsense.

The lowbrow branch of "feminism" which pretends that women acting like whores and the worst frat-boy stereotypes of men is "empowerment" is beyond pathetic, and an insult to actual feminists like Waris Dirie, and the suffragettes, all of whom would be rightfully ashamed of it.

It is empowerment to act like a whore or like the "worst"—as you call it—frat-boy stereotype if that's what you want and others want to prevent you from doing it. It's everyone's individual choice.