Does True Feminism Exist Anymore?

[Camicon]

I never contested that physical ability is important in military combat roles. I contested your assertion that such requirements were lowered for women who want to serve on the front lines. That has never been the case in the USA. By the way, your source fails to mention a single woman that was killed by an enemy combatant in open conflict. Of all the causes of death mentioned, not a single one involved shooting at and being shot by an enemy combatant.
The judicial system, like everything else in society, suffers from a systemic discriminatory bias against women and minorities, in almost all cases. And while you are correct that the percentages of men and women completing post-secondary education has changed dramatically, what should be of note is that the workforce does not reflect this dynamic.
You seem to be confusing the term "physically fit" with "fit". The first refers to physical ability. The second refers to one's overall ability. Overall ability is what matters. The physically less-able firefighter may be a more able firefighter overall than their muscle-bound companion, due to that fact that firefighting involves far more than chopping down doors with axes, and hauling dead weight for fifty-some yards (also, we don't live in a meritocracy).
If you absorb news without critically examining it, regardless of the source, then your perceptions and opinions of many things (essentially everything) will be horribly distorted. MSNBC is as biased as FOX, though in a different way. Neither can be taken at face value (though MSNBC slightly moreso than FOX, who has had longer to hone their bullshit-fu). No, it isn't necessarily a left-right thing, but through the red-blue-and-white glasses that American media views the world, reality has a distinctly "left" bent to it.

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.

[Ordinary People]

r/mensrights is *that way*, yo.

[Oaledonia]

Equality = Equalism
Feminism =/= Equalism
Feminism's name by itself gives the perception of entitlement, whilst Equalism considers that no one is entitled. That it the key difference.

Feminism gives the perception of entitlement only to the ignorant, as you aptly displayed yourself to be, by demonstrating a lack of understanding of the word "synonym".

That's all good and all, but Feminism is still derived from the word female. And Equalism is derived from the word equal.
Tell me again which one is entitlement without the sneaky flame?

[The United Colonies of Earth]

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.

True.

[Ordinary People]

You're so funny. Not.

Seriously every MRA is just a bitter virgin .

r/mensrights user survey

[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.

Man bush sucked, though Obama almost makes me kinda miss the GWB. That said, still waiting for you to tell me who the good reasonable feminists are (or rather the big name good feminists). No rush I'm just really curious as to whom I should listen if i want to hear from "true feminists".

[Avenio]

I'm always amused by the fact that the people that are most 'concerned' about feminism are almost always the people that know the least about it, are the least interested in its goals and the most concerned with hijacking its progressive aims and co-opting it away from dealing with real systemic issues of gender, class and social hierarchies and towards indulging the pet causes of the very people that perpetuate those systemic problems.

Well, amused may not be the right word. Unsurprised by the predictability, maybe? Browbeaten into absolute and utter indifference at the Usual Suspects complaining about things like how feminism can't possibly be egalitarian because it has the word 'fem' in it, 200 years of literature and theory be damned? Something like that.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

Well, gender quotas can be an effective tool in producing better social outcomes. There's this paper by Esther Duflo (2004) which analyses the imposition of gender quotas in local governments in rural India. The paper estimates that the quotas were associated with more policies that took into consideration problems that commonly affect women and children (such as access to water, child health, etc.). It's correlated with less satisfaction with government, but it's difficult to disentangle the implication that "these women are less effective leaders" (because of lower human capital development on average) from "the respondents are biased against female leaders". The latter is what the paper concludes is more probable.

[God Kefka]

so long as women aren't ready to accept their place in the world, feminism will continue in some form or another I think...

WHAT?! Nobody has a place in life defined by, of all things, genitalia!

the bathroom signs disagree...

[Camicon]

Have any women served on the front lines yet? No? Then this isn't an issue. If they do end up serving on the front lines, while simultaneously being assessed by different standards than men are, then and only then can you make a stink about this. The criteria have not been met, nor are they ever likely to be, as the Pentagon is well on their way to revising the male and female physical fitness standards to a uniform baseline, so you can consider this line of support to be cut.

It doesn;t freaking matter whether or not your on the front line that's not he only time you are attack nor the only time physicality comes into play while soldiering. Besides, what is the rational basis for having two seperate sets of standards anyway? I mean people have to do plenty of routine manual labor in various non-combat military mos's why in the hell shouldn't everyone be held to the exact same standard? How does that make any logical sense. Either you need to be able to do 35 pushups to be a soldier or you don't. One way or the other.

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.

I don't understand what you're having trouble understanding about this.

[The New Lowlands]

WHAT?! Nobody has a place in life defined by, of all things, genitalia!

the bathroom signs disagree...

Bathroom sign =/= life

[Llamalandia]

I'm always amused by the fact that the people that are most 'concerned' about feminism are almost always the people that know the least about it, are the least interested in its goals and the most concerned with hijacking its progressive aims and co-opting it away from dealing with real systemic issues of gender, class and social hierarchies and towards indulging the pet causes of the very people that perpetuate those systemic problems.

Well, amused may not be the right word. Unsurprised by the predictability, maybe? Browbeaten into absolute and utter indifference at the Usual Suspects complaining about things like how feminism can't possibly be egalitarian because it has the word 'fem' in it, 200 years of literature and theory be damned? Something like that.

Well in fairness the suffregette movement was concerned more with advancing women's rights to level that they would be equals to mens at least in terms of voting. Also they were as many second wave feminists have pointed out primarily concerned with advancing the causes of white middle class heterosexual women so at least historically the feminist movement hasn't exactly been the most egalitarian (not that the rest of of society particularly embraced these other marginalized groups either but still).

[Oaledonia]

the bathroom signs disagree...

Bathroom sign =/= life

It is to me.

[Mandicoria]

Yes, and there are still some goals to go who need to be done.

However, in this times we did seen also the fake feminists, you know, those who in fact ruins the points of feminism.

[Ordinary People]

WHAT?! Nobody has a place in life defined by, of all things, genitalia!

the bathroom signs disagree...

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

Interesting...

[Camicon]

Feminism gives the perception of entitlement only to the ignorant, as you aptly displayed yourself to be, by demonstrating a lack of understanding of the word "synonym".

That's all good and all, but Feminism is still derived from the word female. And Equalism is derived from the word equal.
Tell me again which one is entitlement without the sneaky flame?

Feminism is derived from the word female. Yes. Good job. Here's a gold star. Yay for you.
How exactly does that give preference to women, when the social movement which bears it's name is devoted to equal rights? It's a name, a word. It carries only as much meaning as we give it. And we give the same meaning to feminism as we do to equalism. This is why they are synonyms.

[Llamalandia]

It doesn;t freaking matter whether or not your on the front line that's not he only time you are attack nor the only time physicality comes into play while soldiering. Besides, what is the rational basis for having two seperate sets of standards anyway? I mean people have to do plenty of routine manual labor in various non-combat military mos's why in the hell shouldn't everyone be held to the exact same standard? How does that make any logical sense. Either you need to be able to do 35 pushups to be a soldier or you don't. One way or the other.

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.

I don't understand what you're having trouble understanding about this.

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?

[God Kefka]

the bathroom signs disagree...

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...

[Llamalandia]

the bathroom signs disagree...

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

Interesting...

No a woman's place is wherever she damn well pleases to be and is most qualified to be in life.

[Big Jim P]

True feminism never left. Some of us do and always have considered women to be our equals.

[Occupied Deutschland]

the bathroom signs disagree...

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

Interesting...

Of course not.

Making sandwiches in the bathroom is just downright unsanitary, and novel the experience may be the first few times making babies in the bathroom is just uncomfortable. *nod*

[Camicon]

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.

I don't understand what you're having trouble understanding about this.

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.

[Occupied Deutschland]

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.

Here's the first killed in Iraq.

[Tahar Joblis]

I'm always amused by the fact that the people that are most 'concerned' about feminism are almost always the people that know the least about it

I have long ago ceased to be amused by the fact that this claim still circulates.

The fact of the matter is that there are plenty of people who know a lot or a little about feminism, and critics of feminism may be readily found in both groups.

Phyllis Schlafly knows a lot about feminism; she's been fighting it for decades. Her values, not her understanding, divide her and feminism; she views the pursuit of equal treatment of the sexes to be abhorrent. She looks at the commonly espoused end goal of treating women as men are treated, and wants no part of that loss of female privilege and protection.

Warren Farrell knows an enormous amount about feminism. He was deeply involved with the movement and was elected to N.O.W.'s board of directors three times. Unlike Schlafly, he values equality between the sexes; and it is on these grounds that he has been critical of feminism, because his prognosis of the direction of feminism is different from Schlafly's.

And then there has also been plenty of critique that has remained internal to the movement, ranging from small turf wars to the occasional schism (e.g., over pornography). The idea that only people ignorant of feminism express concern about the current state or direction of the movement is very obviously false.

[Zombie Liberonscien]

True feminism never left. Some of us do and always have considered women to be our equals.

For example, me.