Does True Feminism Exist Anymore?

[Ordinary People]

So a woman's place in the world is in the bathroom?

Interesting...

well I was thinking more like the kitchens, the home with the children, nursing, maybe teaching... that sort of stuff. And maybe working the factories if all the men get drafted to war...

What's life like back in the 1930's? I hear the internet's hard to get back then.

Also, do people still listen to Jelly Roll Morton? He invented jazz, dontchaknow?

[Llamalandia]

Damn...MSNBC convinced me that Iraq War was fought for oil.

Well, it certainly wasn't fought for the reasons given by the Bush administration.

WASHINGTON, June 16 - Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester, a military police officer in the Kentucky National Guard, became the first female soldier awarded the Silver Star since World War II, for her role in thwarting an Iraqi insurgent ambush in March, the military said Thursday.

In a 90-minute firefight, Sergeant Hester and handful of other Guard soldiers fought off more than 30 insurgents armed with assault rifles, machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades after the force attacked a supply convoy southeast of Baghdad. The Americans killed 27 and wounded or captured 7 others, the military said. Sergeant Hester, 23, a store manager in Nashville in civilian life, and seven other members of her unit, the 617th Military Police Company, received medals on Thursday in Baghdad from Lt. Gen. John R. Vines of the Army, the American ground commander in Iraq.

She is believed to be the first woman to receive the Silver Star, the Army's third-highest award for gallantry, in more than 60 years, said Martha Rudd, a spokeswoman for the Army. Mary Roberts Wilson was the first woman given a Silver Star, for gallantry at the Battle of Anzio in World War II.

The rescue and Sergeant Hester's role in repelling the assault gained news coverage as Congress debated proposals to limit women's positions in combat zones.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/17/national/17medal.html?_r=0

And is the NYTimes, so if as you say "reality is bent left" then surely you wouldn't reject this source.

[God Kefka]

well I was thinking more like the kitchens, the home with the children, nursing, maybe teaching... that sort of stuff. And maybe working the factories if all the men get drafted to war...

What's life like back in the 1930's? I hear the internet's hard to get back then.

i can't say...

were you around?

[Ostroeuropa]

If only the Nazi's had dedicated themselves to nagging the Jew into submission, forming a hate cult around Jews that would insult them and label them all kinds of nasty shit, put pro-german quota's in banks and such, then wrote off the genociders as insane wingnuts.

What do you mean it's an unfair comparrison?
Don't you know that Jews have run the world for centuries? That makes what we're doing ok. We're just redressing the balance that is obvs out of whack.

Rule 1: You don't get to decide whether or not someone is facing discrimination, it's their experience and they are informing you of it.
Rule 2: You must not draw parallels to the way we loophole rule one not applying to white males on the spurious grounds that white males are in charge of a lot of companies, and the way that Jews apparently run a lot of companies. (Which makes anti-semitism non-existent or not a problem by the same warped logic they use.)
Rule 3: Keep quiet or we'll call you a sexist for daring to speak out about your experienced discrimination.
Rule 4: Do not, under any circumstances, bring up the "folk devil" and point out what they are doing to white males.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_devil

It's a vengeance ideology, pure and simple. It's a massive excercise in circular logic and special pleading, and a narcissistic horde.
It's time to ditch the baggage and focus on gender equality.

[Camicon]

Alright, you know what? Let's settle this. Name a single woman that was killed on the front lines, because they were not as physically able as their male fellows. If you can do that, then I will concede the point. If you can't (which you won't be able to), then you have lost the argument, as the entire crux of your position will have dissolved into so much hot air.
You're on the internet. Google is your friend. Get to know each other a little better.

Here's the first killed in Iraq.

And was she killed because of physical incapability? No? Well then, you best keep looking.

[Ordinary People]

If only the Nazi's had dedicated themselves to nagging the Jew into submission, forming a hate cult around Jews that would insult them and label them all kinds of nasty shit, put pro-german quota's in banks and such, then wrote off the genociders as insane wingnuts.

What do you mean it's an unfair comparrison?
Don't you know that Jews have run the world for centuries? That makes what we're doing ok. We're just redressing the balance that is obvs out of whack.

Rule 1: You don't get to decide whether or not someone is facing discrimination, it's their experience and they are informing you of it.
Rule 2: You must not draw parallels to the way we loophole rule one not applying to white males on the spurious grounds that white males are in charge of a lot of companies, and the way that Jews apparently run a lot of companies. (Which makes anti-semitism non-existent or not a problem by the same warped logic they use.)
Rule 3: Keep quiet or we'll call you a sexist for daring to speak out about your experienced discrimination.
Rule 4: Do not, under any circumstances, bring up the "folk devil" and point out what they are doing to white males.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_devil

It's a vengeance ideology, pure and simple. It's a massive excercise in circular logic and special pleading, and a narcissistic horde.
It's time to ditch the baggage and focus on gender equality.

This is equal parts adorable and insane.

[Ostroeuropa]

If only the Nazi's had dedicated themselves to nagging the Jew into submission, forming a hate cult around Jews that would insult them and label them all kinds of nasty shit, put pro-german quota's in banks and such, then wrote off the genociders as insane wingnuts.

What do you mean it's an unfair comparrison?
Don't you know that Jews have run the world for centuries? That makes what we're doing ok. We're just redressing the balance that is obvs out of whack.

Rule 1: You don't get to decide whether or not someone is facing discrimination, it's their experience and they are informing you of it.
Rule 2: You must not draw parallels to the way we loophole rule one not applying to white males on the spurious grounds that white males are in charge of a lot of companies, and the way that Jews apparently run a lot of companies. (Which makes anti-semitism non-existent or not a problem by the same warped logic they use.)
Rule 3: Keep quiet or we'll call you a sexist for daring to speak out about your experienced discrimination.
Rule 4: Do not, under any circumstances, bring up the "folk devil" and point out what they are doing to white males.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_devil

It's a vengeance ideology, pure and simple. It's a massive excercise in circular logic and special pleading, and a narcissistic horde.
It's time to ditch the baggage and focus on gender equality.

This is equal parts adorable and insane.

So you don't actually have any argument, just insults.
Well, good job proving me right I guess.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Here's the first killed in Iraq.

And was she killed because of physical incapability? No? Well then, you best keep looking.

She was in a situation wherein physical capability was necessary.

The fact that her not having the same capability as her male counterparts is an obvious negative to her, or any woman's, survivability on the battlefield.

Opposing equal standards across the board, male or female, is ridiculous claptrap you should be ashamed of spouting if you really think yourself a feminist.

[Avenio]

This is equal parts adorable and insane.

So you don't actually have any argument, just insults.
Well, good job proving me right I guess.

Would you like some help nailing yourself to that cross?

[Ostroeuropa]

So you don't actually have any argument, just insults.
Well, good job proving me right I guess.

Would you like some help nailing yourself to that cross?

Noone is forcing you to respond to me. It's just your typical cultish attitudes of demanding I conform to your nonsense that are making you do it.
If what I said is nonsense, leave it unanswered. Don't bullshit around trying to gather a posse to nag me into submission like you people always do.
Do you have an argument or just insults. That is the basis of my hatred for feminism.

[Llamalandia]

You are aware that the "frontlines" can in fact change. What was considered well behind the front lines one day, can in fact be overrun by the enemy the next day, every soldier in the US army is expected to be combat ready if they weren't there's no reason to teach them all how to shoot a freaking gun. Think about it.
Oh also I must have missed the part about the pentagon establishing a single standard (assuming it applies to all soldiers and not just combat mos) in that case I stand corrected, my bad. Of course if it's only the combat mos standards that are being standardized, then you still have the problem of non-combat mos's having two sets of standards.
Also, still waiting for you to name even one true feminist i should be listening to are you like the only one left or something?

Alright, you know what? Let's settle this. Name a single woman that was killed on the front lines, because they were not as physically able as their male fellows. If you can do that, then I will concede the point. If you can't (which you won't be able to), then you have lost the argument, as the entire crux of your position will have dissolved into so much hot air.
You're on the internet. Google is your friend. Get to know each other a little better.

Of course I can't prove that anyone has actually died as a direct result of being less fit there simply isn't enough data available especially from a war zone. But that in no way means I've somehow lost the argument. The whole point is that army sets standards for a reason, because they are necessary for a soldier to function and in extreme cases even survive in a war zone. SO for what reason would the army set seperate standards for men and women when either may find themselves in a combat (or even non-combat) role which would require them to utilize a certain amount of strength or retreat as quickly as possible when there position is about to be over run? How does that make any logical sense.

And also aside from this I'm still waiting to hear what well known feminists I should be listening to according to your standards.

[Camicon]

And was she killed because of physical incapability? No? Well then, you best keep looking.

She was in a situation wherein physical capability was necessary.

The fact that her not having the same capability as her male counterparts is an obvious negative to her, or any woman's, survivability on the battlefield.

Opposing equal standards across the board, male or female, is ridiculous claptrap you should be ashamed of arguing against if you really think yourself a feminist.

She was killed by a situation in which her physical capability could not have affected the outcome. She died from complications to a head wound, sustained via the blast from an RPG, which she occurred while she was driving a Jeep at high speeds (successfully avoiding the gunfire of their attackers). All things being equal, a man would have done no better than she did.

I do not oppose equal standards. I have never opposed equal standards. Why would you think that I do?

[Ordinary People]

This is equal parts adorable and insane.

So you don't actually have any argument, just insults.
Well, good job proving me right I guess.

The notion that I have to present an argument to prove that branding feminists as an ideological offshoot of Nazism is wrong is, again, adorable.

[Ostroeuropa]

So you don't actually have any argument, just insults.
Well, good job proving me right I guess.

The notion that I have to present an argument to prove that branding feminists as an ideological offshoot of Nazism is, again, adorable.

I never claimed they were an offshoot of naziism.
Just that they commit the same fundamental error (Folk deviling.)

[Camicon]

Alright, you know what? Let's settle this. Name a single woman that was killed on the front lines, because they were not as physically able as their male fellows. If you can do that, then I will concede the point. If you can't (which you won't be able to), then you have lost the argument, as the entire crux of your position will have dissolved into so much hot air.
You're on the internet. Google is your friend. Get to know each other a little better.

Of course I can't prove that anyone has actually died as a direct result of being less fit there simply isn't enough data available especially from a war zone. But that in no way means I've somehow lost the argument. The whole point is that army sets standards for a reason, because they are necessary for a soldier to function and in extreme cases even survive in a war zone. SO for what reason would the army set seperate standards for men and women when either may find themselves in a combat (or even non-combat) role which would require them to utilize a certain amount of strength or retreat as quickly as possible when there position is about to be over run? How does that make any logical sense.

And also aside from this I'm still waiting to hear what well known feminists I should be listening to according to your standards.

That's exactly what it means. When you make a claim that has absolutely zero evidence to back it, then the claim can be dismissed and the argument can be recognized for the complete and utter bullshit that it really is. Particularly because the Pentagon is actively revising the military's standards to find a uniform level of physical ability that all soldiers must meet, that assesses male and female recruits in an unbiased manner.

And I'll say this for the last time: use Google. I'm not going to hold you hand, so show a bit of initiative, show a bit of critical thinking, and go educate yourself.

[Avenio]

Would you like some help nailing yourself to that cross?

Noone is forcing you to respond to me. It's just your typical cultish attitudes of demanding I conform to your nonsense that are making you do it.
If what I said is nonsense, leave it unanswered. Don't bullshit around trying to gather a posse to nag me into submission like you people always do.
Do you have an argument or just insults. That is the basis of my hatred for feminism.

You know, the irony of this being posted by someone who has a long-winded definition of 'special snowflake syndrome' in their signature is just lovely.

[Betoni]

Care to tell us what "true feminism" entails, because that would make answering the question easier. You asking the question means that you aren't really familiar with feminism, and that belies your position to judge wich brand of feminism is "true" and which isn't. If you are looking for feminist movements or individual feminists that you would agree with I'd suggest using google. However, I did do some of the legwork for you. Here's a couple of links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_feminists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Feminist_organizations_in_the_United_States

[Occupied Deutschland]

She was in a situation wherein physical capability was necessary.

The fact that her not having the same capability as her male counterparts is an obvious negative to her, or any woman's, survivability on the battlefield.

Opposing equal standards across the board, male or female, is ridiculous claptrap you should be ashamed of arguing against if you really think yourself a feminist.

She was killed by a situation in which her physical capability could not have affected the outcome. She died from complications to a head wound, sustained via the blast from an RPG, which she occurred while she was driving a Jeep at high speeds (successfully avoiding the gunfire of their attackers). All things being equal, a man would have done no better than she did. (1)

I do not oppose equal standards. I have never opposed equal standards. Why would you think that I do? (2)

1) Physical fitness actually increases the chances of one surviving wounds in general.

2) See the underlined;

It absolutely does matter. You're upset that women do not need to meet the physical requirements that men do, in the context that it compromises the security of military forces in situations where physical ability becomes paramount and where physically less-able women are present. Those situations are found exclusively on the front lines, where women do not serve. Unless such a situation occurs, then your argument is a hypothetical, and bears no merit. And the discordance of having two separate fitness standards is exactly why the Pentagon is creating a single standard which all soldiers, male or female, must adhere to.

Seeing as how such is already occurring and women held to a lower standard of physical fitness are serving in the "frontline" (In this instance conflict zones wherein a 'frontline' is very fluid due to the nature of counter-insurgency operations), you're argument over the point is confusing.

I am also aware of no Pentagon movement towards standardizing all fitness requirements.

[Llamalandia]

She was in a situation wherein physical capability was necessary.

The fact that her not having the same capability as her male counterparts is an obvious negative to her, or any woman's, survivability on the battlefield.

Opposing equal standards across the board, male or female, is ridiculous claptrap you should be ashamed of arguing against if you really think yourself a feminist.

She was killed by a situation in which her physical capability could not have affected the outcome. She died from complications to a head wound, sustained via the blast from an RPG, which she occurred while she was driving a Jeep at high speeds (successfully avoiding the gunfire of their attackers). All things being equal, a man would have done no better than she did.

I do not oppose equal standards. I have never opposed equal standards. Why would you think that I do?

If you support affirmative action you necessarily are opposed to equal standards.

To expand, affirmative action is a policy meant to offset the systemic bias against women/minorities/etc.

Equal standards are equal for everyone regardless of any "systemic bias" which may or may not exist and may or may not have disadvantage any particular group of persons. Equal means equal. equality means that if men do 35 pushups then so do women, even if women are systematically excluded from gyms.

[Ostroeuropa]

Of course I can't prove that anyone has actually died as a direct result of being less fit there simply isn't enough data available especially from a war zone. But that in no way means I've somehow lost the argument. The whole point is that army sets standards for a reason, because they are necessary for a soldier to function and in extreme cases even survive in a war zone. SO for what reason would the army set seperate standards for men and women when either may find themselves in a combat (or even non-combat) role which would require them to utilize a certain amount of strength or retreat as quickly as possible when there position is about to be over run? How does that make any logical sense.

And also aside from this I'm still waiting to hear what well known feminists I should be listening to according to your standards.

That's exactly what it means. When you make a claim that has absolutely zero evidence to back it, then the claim can be dismissed and the argument can be recognized for the complete and utter bullshit that it really is. Particularly because the Pentagon is actively revising the military's standards to find a uniform level of physical ability that all soldiers must meet, that assesses male and female recruits in an unbiased manner.

And I'll say this for the last time: use Google. I'm not going to hold you hand, so show a bit of initiative, show a bit of critical thinking, and go educate yourself.

I'll note that I completely agree with you on this issue.
The problem is that once equal standards are in place, while some women are capable of performing at the level expected, many more men are capable.
If this is because of social conditioning or biology is a matter of debate, but as soon as the egalitarians (Some of whom labor under the ridiculous notion that they are feminists) finish up somewhere then wander off to the next profession engaging in nonsense, the feminists stick around.
And they wait.
And eventually some sub-par woman is flunked because of lack of physical ability.
AND UP GO THE PLACARDS.
The uniform standards oppress women. Isn't it obvious? 70% of the people in the job are men, and only 30% are women!
And the nagging begins.

Meanwhile, the people most likely to oppose them on this nonsense have wandered off to protest another job doing the same "Males only" shit.

[Ostroeuropa]

Noone is forcing you to respond to me. It's just your typical cultish attitudes of demanding I conform to your nonsense that are making you do it.
If what I said is nonsense, leave it unanswered. Don't bullshit around trying to gather a posse to nag me into submission like you people always do.
Do you have an argument or just insults. That is the basis of my hatred for feminism.

You know, the irony of this being posted by someone who has a long-winded definition of 'special snowflake syndrome' in their signature is just lovely.

I don't feel entitled to have you stop insulting me. I just think you aren't proving anything when you do. If that makes you butthurt, I don't care.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

And was she killed because of physical incapability? No? Well then, you best keep looking.

She was in a situation wherein physical capability was necessary.

The fact that her not having the same capability as her male counterparts is an obvious negative to her, or any woman's, survivability on the battlefield.

Opposing equal standards across the board, male or female, is ridiculous claptrap you should be ashamed of spouting if you really think yourself a feminist.

Keep in mind that women comprised 2.7% of the United States' front-line troops in Iraq and 1.9% of their combat deaths. That's by no means rigorous statistics, but from a cursory glance I'm not seeing anything out of the ordinary.

[Occupied Deutschland]

She was in a situation wherein physical capability was necessary.

The fact that her not having the same capability as her male counterparts is an obvious negative to her, or any woman's, survivability on the battlefield.

Opposing equal standards across the board, male or female, is ridiculous claptrap you should be ashamed of spouting if you really think yourself a feminist.

Keep in mind that women comprised 2.7% of the United States' front-line troops in Iraq and 1.9% of their combat deaths. That's by no means rigorous statistics, but from a cursory glance I'm not seeing anything out of the ordinary.

I suppose I should have added 'effectiveness' in as well.

[Shilya]

Well, what OP describes is more of an egalitarian than anything. A feminist - like the opposite, a masculinist - won't necessarily fight for equality, but usually for preferred treatment (which makes sense, really). To get there, you of course first need equal rights.

That isn't to say that egalitarianism is automatically the best approach in any situation. OP's "british police" example already makes sense, having any minority present gives you an easier time when you have to negotiate with members of that minority. That's just practical thinking.

When there isn't any such reason, then egalitarian treatment should be chosen.

[Phillippanoa]

Well, what OP describes is more of an egalitarian than anything. A feminist - like the opposite, a masculinist - won't necessarily fight for equality, but usually for preferred treatment (which makes sense, really). To get there, you of course first need equal rights.

That isn't to say that egalitarianism is automatically the best approach in any situation. OP's "british police" example already makes sense, having any minority present gives you an easier time when you have to negotiate with members of that minority. That's just practical thinking.

When there isn't any such reason, then egalitarian treatment should be chosen.

yes, I agree with this, why do there have to be "feminists" or "masculinists" or whatever? Why not humanists?