Feminism Has to Go...

Post Reply New Topic

The latter point is signficant. I have a hard time saying golly, everything's fine and we're all equal now when i know what women in some countries endure.

anyone can call themselves whatever they want. i can call myself a woodworker because i can do a few different types of joinery, but that doesn't mean that i don't usually f**k up or have the knowledge, skills, and dedication it takes to be an actual woodworker. its too bad that the word feminism has been s**t on because of the loud people who call themselves feminists while simultaneously prove that they are not, and there is no way to make these people re-identify in a way that accurately describes them. so in this way i understand the op, but, the history, accomplishments, and continued need of feminism are way too important to drop the term in my opinion. if we, as a group, changed our defined identity at this point because of straw "feminism" we would be backing down to anti-feminists. who is so concerned with these sensationalist and unintelligent opinions? who perpetuates the sensation? who makes them the star? and why? why not refer to real feminists as such and call these people something else? if i made a youtube channel saying i was a woodworker and i made instructional videos that showcased my lack of understanding, most people would not refer to me as a woodworker.

Jobs traditionally taken by men tend to make more, because either a) they're dangerous, or b) they require high math/technical skills that are harder to train. If you really think a secretary sitting in a comfortable office deserves to make as much as an underwater welder, that's just laughable.

Just to reiterate, I wasn't interested in yet another debate about the wage gap or other issues falling under the rubric of feminism/women's rights, I was talking about differentiating "feminism" from "women's rights" as a means of uncoupling the more laudable equality aspects from what another poster artfully termed the "SJW Tumblr idiocy", which I think many would agree has become a problem. I would think the most receptive audience for this would actually be the feminists of the former persuasion themselves, as groups tend to be judged collectively, and when everywhere one turns on the internet one encounters the SJW school of feminism, it would be very easy to come to the conclusion that the entire movement is more about weaponized shame, censorship, and erosion of due process (not to mention a LOT OF ALL CAPS RANTING) than any kind of women's rights.

Incidentally, this was really inspired by me getting accused of being anti-feminist in a way that suggested that the accuser really meant sexist but was trying to shade the issue, and my reply that it depended on what definition of feminism was being used. Far too often I find myself facing off with feminists for reasons having nothing to do with women's rights, and then trying to explain to people (mostly older people) the difference between what they think of as feminists, and the current mutant inter-sectional strain that leaves such a bad taste in my mouth. If I've got internet handy, a few student protest videos generally do the trick, but that's not always convenient, hence this thread.

Dox47 the word "sexist" has been replaced by Patriarchy™. Now come get your electro-shock therapy.

You will learn, any discrimination against man, woman or child is the Patriarchy™. ZAP!

Last edited by 0_equals_true on 07 Feb 2016, 5:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

Why can't we all just be concerned about humanity in general and stop focusing on which groups have it the worst? The world is full of injustices and I'd much rather focus on making things better for everyone.

So I'm not a feminist. I'm an everybody-ist.

Agreed.

It's complicated. In the UK, they changed the fireman tests to make them easier, so women could pass. That isn't feminism, that's insanity. They want both sexes at work for more taxes, it has nothing to do with "equality". In that instance, or in the army, there's no way that women should be on the same money as men. Also, if a boss takes the risk of employing a woman who will most likely be going off on paid leave for up to a year, why should the woman be paid the same? Who said you have to be housewives? And don't fall for the conditioning that has made being a mum sound so awful and degrading. We are heading right for the "Brave New World" here.

It's not obsolete for being intentionally vague, which seems to be a pretty common need, especially among neurotypicals.

Firefighter, right?

What exactly did they make easier in the tests so women could pass? Often, height is changed in physical jobs. Equipment compensates for out-dated rules. Are you sure it's easier?

I live in Quebec, Canada, where "parental leave" is the law. The family can choose which parent will take leave. This nullifies the question of paying women less because they take a year off. Although I should point out who is doing the paying - it is *not* the company that pays legislated leave. It's the same governmental agency that pays Unemployment.

Given the relentlessness of Health & Safety, I very much doubt there was any risk involved. Did they change them to get more people in, and this made it easier for women at large to pass? Or did they change them specifically to allow women in?

Could you describe the changes made? A few years back, I knew someone who wanted to join the local volunteer fire service. The conditions he described sounded quite rigorous to me.

And can you prove all this?



No, they want both sexes at work because there is no 'work' unless someone is paying someone else to do it. That's our neo-liberal philosophy. Someone looking after their own kid isn't work. Someone being paid (poorly, mind) to look after someone else's kid - that's employment!



Everyone should get paid leave. And not 'yeah, you can have paid leave but if you take it we'll hold it against you', either.



Mate, we're already in Brave New World. We always have been. There isn't a society in existence that doesn't have social conditioning.

It's why men think being a stay-at-home dad is so awful.

Pardon?

A woman could be given a choice

1 traditionally male role

The right to work
Eligible for military draft
No affirmative action policies
Or
2.
Housewife
Not eligible for military draft

Instead of forcing all women into a role which may or may not suit them.

Oh, ffs. Why? And would you offer the same thing to men?

Why not scrap the draft? I'm surprised you still have it.



A somewhat tongue-in-cheek response to JohnPowell's banalities. But also kind of true, at a 'social given' level.

Altering training requirements for women is silly. Real life situations can't be altered, that's why they trained for real life situations. There won't be a stool to help get over the wall in Iraq for example with the us army. Instead of lowering standards they should enhance their training style. The us arm pay did expire ends and found women could do most the same stuff as men they just had to do it differently. Different doesn't mean lower. Now I could be wrong but I think one example was loading shells into artility and they used more lower body strength instead of traditional upper body strength. They did find women had to spend more tim working out to build muscle to for example pull a wounded soldier, which I think is good. Women wanting such jobs should work to get In shape before trying for it. Year it'll be harder for them and take longer, but that's the reality if they want to compete with men who naturally are stronger. Plenty women do this already, lower standards isn an upfront to them. Hopefully the military realizes this and also allows women into combat roles finally.

More like decades. One of the side effects being the creation of so called "men's rights activists" which can tend to mirror radical feminists.


There are old school "equality feminists", but they are not that common and certainly nowhere near mainstream.


It's not uncommon for political groups to become to become radicalised. Often with moderate founders finding themselves expelled.
With the attendant issue that whilst the moderates tend want some kind of workable solution radicals may not. Indeed some of them end up looking more "part of the problem"...
Hence see hostility, blame and confrontation rather than negotiation and cooperation.