Feminism and How I don't Care

[Treznor]

Here's my thing on the whole, "If a man has many sexual partners he's a stud, if a woman does the same she's a slut" thing. If a key can open multiple locks, it's a great key. If a lock can be opened by multiple keys, it's a shitty lock.

Thank you for this classic example of chauvinist attitudes.

[Central Slavia]

Here's my thing on the whole, "If a man has many sexual partners he's a stud, if a woman does the same she's a slut" thing. If a key can open multiple locks, it's a great key. If a lock can be opened by multiple keys, it's a shitty lock.

I love that quote - when i heard it the first time i LOLLED - except that the proper version is it's a master key,

[Ifreann]

Here's my thing on the whole, "If a man has many sexual partners he's a stud, if a woman does the same she's a slut" thing. If a key can open multiple locks, it's a great key. If a lock can be opened by multiple keys, it's a shitty lock.

Because obviously women don't ever want sex, they have to be "opened" by the right man. Nice attitude.

[Hathradic States]

I get tired of hearing about the oppressed minority.

What, just because somebody is the Majority they must be evil? That's **cking bul***it.

I believe in equal rights, but it gets real ***king old.

Women are actually the oppressed majority, IIRC.

And you'll stop hearing about them being oppressed when they are no longer oppressed. Pretty simple really. If you want to stop hearing about it, work towards legal and societal equality.

Why, when complaing about it is so much fun

Are you making the idiotic suggestion that women complain about oppression because they enjoy complaining rather than that they dislike being oppressed?

No, I said I why fix it when I can complain about it. And incase you didn't quite get it, I was joking. I live to joke and be sarcastic. What else is there in life for me but my sarcasm and my several failed attempt at relationships.

[Jordaxia]

quote is too crappy to be worth replicating

That's not your take on things at all. That's someone elses that you stole. Not only that, it's not funny in the first place, so you stole something not worth stealing. I mean, what does that say about you?

[Novograd IV]

No, I said I why fix it when I can complain about it. And incase you didn't quite get it, I was joking. I live to joke and be sarcastic. What else is there in life for me but my sarcasm and my several failed attempt at relationships.

lol, I don't think the people hell-bent on complaining to us about women's rights and whatever they face are here to joke...

seriously, most people here need to lighten up, i'm not going to say who, because i'll get flamed into the dust by those people.

edit: by lighten up, I mean less anger, it's evident that its touched a lot of people sensitive to the issue, but you don't need to be over defnensive about it to people you'll probably never meet.

[The Cat-Tribe]

The feminist foremothers were vocally pro-life,

So? I am not making a definitional argument.

and plenty of feminists today are too.

There probably are some. I said "nearly all", not "each and every one."

But I sense some "No True Scotsman" logic here.

Not at all (though in some cases, like Sarah Palin, non-feminists should be called out for being what they are.) It's just an observation of the contours of what the modern feminist movement is and what it stands for. Abortion is not a live debate among feminist theorists, or feminist activists, the way pornography was or aspects of multiculturalism are. This is not a point about the merits, it is just a recognition of where the movement is today (and has been for a few decades.)

The modern feminist movement may be largely pro-choice, hence my identification as a "paleofeminist". The definition of the word remains the same, hence "dictionary feminist". Abortion is not a live debate among feminists because pro-life feminists were forced out or accused of not being "true" feminists, so the two camps became pretty isolated.

Now, I disagree with Palin on many things, but how is she a nonfeminist? The only "evidence" I've seen cited can be attributed to free-market-ism.

By what stretch of the imagination is Sarah Palin a feminist? What feminist positions does she support?

On the other hand, even setting aside her pro-life views (including even her views on contraception and stem cell research) and her running with John McCain (whose record on gender equity was abyssmal), you are still left with:

• While mayor, supported change in rules so that Wasilla charged rape victims for rape kits.
• Opposes pay equity laws
• Opposes hate crime laws
• Supports "traditional" marriage
• Opposes comprehensive sex education
• Claims there no longer is a glass ceiling
• Wants to cut funding to the Violence Against Women Act
• Targets for defeat a number of female House Representatives -- including Republicans

1. She doesn't want the government giving people anything.
2. Opposing government regulation
3. Because it's already illegal to commit crimes. "Hate" itself should not be illegal.
4. She opposes gay AND lesbian marriage. What's your point?
5. Right, because this only hurts women.
6. So maybe she's wrong or uninformed.
7. I'm pretty sure she wants to cut funding everywhere.
8. She happens to disagree with some women, so what?

1. You didn't offer a single bit of evidence of Ms. Palin's alleged feminism. (See bold in my post).

2. You offer some extremely lame excuses for a host of anti-feminist positions. I won't bother rebutting each of them, but charging VICTIMS FOR RAPE KITS because "government should [not] giv[e] people anything"? Also, hate crime laws don't make "hate itself" illegal. The enhance sentences for crimes committed based on certain motives.

[Hydesland]

Capitalists might want to promote that, but they don't. The market has had over a century to address this inequality and has done nothing. The only reason wage discrimination is less than it was before is largely due to government interference, and it still isn't finished. So I'd say feminists have a legitimate beef with an economic principle that doesn't care about unequal compensation.

Uuuh.. this is utterly false. Government has had a very little role in increasing employment rates for women and reducing wage inequality, it is almost overwhelmingly a cultural effect, championed by many capitalists for a very long time, since increased female employment rates sees a direct increase output. Furthermore, the main reason for gender inequality has almost certainly been from aristocratic and religious suppression for centuries (which pre-dates capitalism for a long time). Further still, the causes of wage inequality today have very little to do with direct discrimination by employers, but almost entirely (again) due to cultural attitudes to female education and work, as well as perceived gender roles in the family.

[Central Slavia]

quote is too crappy to be worth replicating

That's not your take on things at all. That's someone elses that you stole. Not only that, it's not funny in the first place, so you stole something not worth stealing. I mean, what does that say about you?

That you can't take a joke aimed at those such as you.

Not to mention that his take means he identifies with the opinion.
Is like saying my take on religion is as karl marx said: "religion is the opium of the masses'

[Jordaxia]

quote is too crappy to be worth replicating

That's not your take on things at all. That's someone elses that you stole. Not only that, it's not funny in the first place, so you stole something not worth stealing. I mean, what does that say about you?

That you can't take a joke aimed at those such as you.

Not to mention that his take means he identifies with the opinion.

Haha, this is why I love NSG. No matter what you say, someone is going to take it as the height of seriousness. I don't know where you got the idea that I can't take a joke, because there's no way putrescence like that qualifies as humour. It's like the Frankenstein's monster of a joke, stitched together out of joke material but falling short of the mark itself. Actually, I take that back. Frankenstein's monster was quite pleasant by all accounts, and wouldn't appreciate what I'd just said..

But seriously, you shouldn't be so mean to the guy. Saying he identifies with that statement? I mean really? That's quite an accusation to be flinging around. If people actually thought he considered that a funny joke his reputation would be irreparably tarnished.

[Bottle]

No, I said I why fix it when I can complain about it. And incase you didn't quite get it, I was joking. I live to joke and be sarcastic. What else is there in life for me but my sarcasm and my several failed attempt at relationships.

lol, I don't think the people hell-bent on complaining to us about women's rights and whatever they face are here to joke...

seriously, most people here need to lighten up, i'm not going to say who, because i'll get flamed into the dust by those people.

edit: by lighten up, I mean less anger, it's evident that its touched a lot of people sensitive to the issue, but you don't need to be over defnensive about it to people you'll probably never meet.

I've always found this attitude to be such bullshit. "LAWL can't u take a joke?! Chill out! It's not like systematic discrimination is something to get all MAD about!"

Being angry doesn't remove one's ability to think rationally, or to have a sense of humor, or anything else, so I really don't see what's wrong with being angry. Frankly, I think there's something pathetic and broken about a person who DOESN'T feel angry when they think about how female human beings have historically and routinely been treated as subhuman things.

[Treznor]

Capitalists might want to promote that, but they don't. The market has had over a century to address this inequality and has done nothing. The only reason wage discrimination is less than it was before is largely due to government interference, and it still isn't finished. So I'd say feminists have a legitimate beef with an economic principle that doesn't care about unequal compensation.

Uuuh.. this is utterly false. Government has had a very little role in increasing employment rates for women and reducing wage inequality, it is almost overwhelmingly a cultural effect, championed by many capitalists for a very long time, since increased female employment rates sees a direct increase output. Furthermore, the main reason for gender inequality has almost certainly been from aristocratic and religious suppression for centuries (which pre-dates capitalism for a long time). Further still, the causes of wage inequality today have very little to do with direct discrimination by employers, but almost entirely (again) due to cultural attitudes to female education and work, as well as perceived gender roles in the family.

Really? Well isn't my face red!

[Iniika]

In Western culture, gender roles are a zero-sum game. Masculinity is defined as being not-feminine. Men's roles and men's spaces are defined by the extent to which they exclude women. Men are defined by the ways in which they are different from women. This means that every time women gain more access to the world, or begin to enter into a previously-male-only space, masculinity is threatened. The more free women are to participate in various spheres of life, the more the masculine spheres must shrink. It's natural for people to be unhappy if they feel that their space in the world is shrinking.

Wow. I'd really never thought about it like that before. I mean, it makes perfect sense to me, I'd just never considered it in that way.

I had an "Ah-ha!" moment when somebody pointed it out to me, too. It really helps to understand why there are so many guys who are otherwise pretty cool people, yet have great big glaring sexist blind spots.

I took a really awesome Gender & Literature course and came to the same conclusion. I focused my report on it. Even cross dressed for the presentation. It was full of awesome. It's because Masculinity enjoys a position of superiority that it must partially define itself by what it isn't.

[Hathradic States]

No, I said I why fix it when I can complain about it. And incase you didn't quite get it, I was joking. I live to joke and be sarcastic. What else is there in life for me but my sarcasm and my several failed attempt at relationships.

lol, I don't think the people hell-bent on complaining to us about women's rights and whatever they face are here to joke...

seriously, most people here need to lighten up, i'm not going to say who, because i'll get flamed into the dust by those people.

edit: by lighten up, I mean less anger, it's evident that its touched a lot of people sensitive to the issue, but you don't need to be over defnensive about it to people you'll probably never meet.

True, everybody needs to lighten up a little. Look at all of my non-RP post and you will see that I am just full of humor. To quote the Comedian (i think) "the world if just one big **cking joke, you just have to find the punchline".

Besides, does what we think really matter?

[Central Slavia]

quote is too crappy to be worth replicating

That's not your take on things at all. That's someone elses that you stole. Not only that, it's not funny in the first place, so you stole something not worth stealing. I mean, what does that say about you?

That you can't take a joke aimed at those such as you.

Not to mention that his take means he identifies with the opinion.

Haha, this is why I love NSG. No matter what you say, someone is going to take it as the height of seriousness. I don't know where you got the idea that I can't take a joke, because there's no way putrescence like that qualifies as humour. It's like the Frankenstein's monster of a joke, stitched together out of joke material but falling short of the mark itself. Actually, I take that back. Frankenstein's monster was quite pleasant by all accounts, and wouldn't appreciate what I'd just said..

But seriously, you shouldn't be so mean to the guy. Saying he identifies with that statement? I mean really? That's quite an accusation to be flinging around. If people actually thought he considered that a funny joke his reputation would be irreparably tarnished.

I myself agree with it, and honestly , i care little what reputation i have between the kind of people who don't.
It is humorous since it is a good analogy, both in physical terms, and in terms of what is happening - if a woman sleeps around her husband is going to be raising else's children, which is shameful

[The Congregationists]

Here's my thing on the whole, "If a man has many sexual partners he's a stud, if a woman does the same she's a slut" thing. If a key can open multiple locks, it's a great key. If a lock can be opened by multiple keys, it's a shitty lock.

Interesting quote, but not really relevant to the discussion at hand.

You see, expecting women to remain monogomous while giving men free reign to sleep around actually can't work, except at the glaring and horrendous expense of the male of the species.

Women can remain monogamous while men be given free reign to sleep around only if a minority of men are actually able to utilize such license. Let's say you have a hundred men and a hundred women, and say, if each woman can sleep only with one man while each man is allowed, say, ten women, than 90% of the men in this picture end up without a partner. So most men really have no business endorsing this kind of sexual system.

[Hydesland]

Really? Well isn't my face red!

Right, and yet many countries in Europe (including the UK) experienced rapid declines in gender income inequality without having such explicit laws, furthermore the existence of a law itself does not prove itself to have any significant impact against the counter-factor.

[Novograd IV]

Being angry doesn't remove one's ability to think rationally, or to have a sense of humor, or anything else, so I really don't see what's wrong with being angry. Frankly, I think there's something pathetic and broken about a person who DOESN'T feel angry when they think about how female human beings have historically and routinely been treated as subhuman things.

@ bolded:
I believe that actually, it does affect these, both. When angry, you tend to look at things through a different viewpoint and act in a different manner.

continuing:
I contain my anger at situations worse than this, why don't other people?
also there's the 'I haven't been affected or noticed the effect of this in others' factor.
Trust me, tolerance goes a long way.

[Treznor]

Really? Well isn't my face red!

Right, and yet many countries in Europe (including the UK) experienced rapid declines in gender income inequality without having such explicit laws, furthermore the existence of a law itself does not prove itself to have any significant impact against the counter-factor.

They're also not as rabidly capitalist as the US, and there's less resistance to social programs designed to support and educate the public. They literally haven't needed to regulate worker compensation issues the way we have in the US.

[Bottle]

Being angry doesn't remove one's ability to think rationally, or to have a sense of humor, or anything else, so I really don't see what's wrong with being angry. Frankly, I think there's something pathetic and broken about a person who DOESN'T feel angry when they think about how female human beings have historically and routinely been treated as subhuman things.

@ bolded:
I believe that actually, it does affect these, both. When angry, you tend to look at things through a different viewpoint and act in a different manner.

And when you're not angry you tend to look at things with a different viewpoint and act in a different manner.

Sorry, friend, but you ain't a Vulcan. We always have emotional states, and it's no big deal.

Maybe YOU are incapable of being rational, or witty, or anything else while angry, but I'm not.

continuing:
I contain my anger at situations worse than this, why don't other people?

Because they don't feel like it? Maybe you have emotional control issues, I really don't know (or care), but I don't see why anybody else should be expected to repress or express emotion based on how YOU are feeling.

[Jordaxia]

I myself agree with it, and honestly , i care little what reputation i have between the kind of people who don't.
It is humorous since it is a good analogy, both in physical terms, and in terms of what is happening - if a woman sleeps around her husband is going to be raising else's children, which is shameful

Snore.

firstly, you're outright wrong. the "joke" says that men who sleep with multiple partners are good and women who sleep with multiple partners are bad. It says nothing about parenting, cheating, or anything else. In fact, here's a shortlist of times where a woman might be sleeping with other people and -not- causing her husband to 'raise someone elses children' which, as a shameful act is interesting. Does that mean any man that has a relationship with a woman who has already had children is shameful? Is there a reason for this belief? It only seems to exist in order to cause unhappiness when there needn't be any. Why would you want that?

Anyway, list!

The woman might not have a husband to cheat on.
The woman might be polyamorous.
The woman might not be straight.
The woman might not have children.

But do continue with your blanket generalisations. They're really a good point, well made.

[Hydesland]

They're also not as rabidly capitalist as the US, and there's less resistance to social programs designed to support and educate the public. They literally haven't needed to regulate worker compensation issues the way we have in the US.

You're missing the overriding point, you're claiming that markets can't do anything to address wage inequality which is patently untrue. That essentially says that without government people will always discriminate and choose to pay women less or refuse to employ them, and that it will never get better. This ignores the effect of cultural change and an increased flow of information and awareness, which is central to any capitalist democracy.

[The Congregationists]

I took a really awesome Gender & Literature course and came to the same conclusion. I focused my report on it. Even cross dressed for the presentation. It was full of awesome. It's because Masculinity enjoys a position of superiority that it must partially define itself by what it isn't.

At the root of this 'superiority', however, lies a fatal weakness. This weakness being that women can encroach upon what is considered "masculine" while the masculine cannot do likewise if the masculine is defined by being "non feminine." So we've had a lot of female encroachment into male territory without as much of the reverse, because there's still a kind of stigma attached to that which is traditionally feminine. For a man to, say, be a stay at home parent would be considered a step down in this definition of masculinity. So what is considered "masculine" just gets narrower and narrower all the time.

[Bottle]

I took a really awesome Gender & Literature course and came to the same conclusion. I focused my report on it. Even cross dressed for the presentation. It was full of awesome. It's because Masculinity enjoys a position of superiority that it must partially define itself by what it isn't.

At the root of this 'superiority', however, lies a fatal weakness. This weakness being that women can encroach upon what is considered "masculine" while the masculine cannot do likewise if the masculine is defined by being "non feminine." So we've had a lot of female encroachment into male territory without as much of the reverse, because there's still a kind of stigma attached to that which is traditionally feminine. For a man to, say, be a stay at home parent would be considered a step down in this definition of masculinity. So what is considered "masculine" just gets narrower and narrower all the time.

Of course...because "feminine" is inferior and "masculine" is superior, so a woman (or man) who tries to be masculine is trying to move UP in the world. But a man who tries to be "feminine" is (GASP!) trying to move down in the world!

This is why a lot of people don't have a problem with their daughters playing sports or engaging in traditionally masculine activities, but they will flip their shit if their son wants a dolly or asks to wear pink clothes. They know, subconsciously, that feminine=bad. Females, being already inferior by definition, aren't hurt by being feminine, because they're already tainted with femaleness. But males will definitely be hurt if they engage in feminine behaviors, as they will be moving down the ladder.

[Jordaxia]

Of course...because "feminine" is inferior and "masculine" is superior, so a woman (or man) who tries to be masculine is trying to move UP in the world. But a man who tries to be "feminine" is (GASP!) trying to move down in the world!

This is why a lot of people don't have a problem with their daughters playing sports or engaging in traditionally masculine activities, but they will flip their shit if their son wants a dolly or asks to wear pink clothes. They know, subconsciously, that feminine=bad. Females, being already inferior by definition, aren't hurt by being feminine, because they're already tainted with femaleness. But males will definitely be hurt if they engage in feminine behaviors, as they will be moving down the ladder.

This. This this this this this this. I know all about it like you wouldn't believe. It's possibly the least fun ever.