Feminism - What it means to me

[Marxist ßastard]

Sexism will never disappear, ever, it is far too deeply ingrained in the minds of men through culture and tradition and religion

Slavery will never end, ever; it is a tradition enshrined by law and the Bible, and the white's nature commands subjugation of weaker races.

 

OR, Become one of "them" and behave like a man to be "in" with them and lose your identity ... one of my customers a woman, acts just like a man, she curses and swears and it's nothing but F's & B's everytime I see her, she's not butch she's just raw ... and the men in my company spit on her name as a female ... and the women, well we are so ashamed whenever she comes around ... it's natural for a man to be "earthy" but not you... women are wired differently

Exactly! It's abominable and foolish for a black to act white. The black's features just do not include a strong intellect – so why go against nature?

 

I don't think that men are better at maths or that females are better cooks

Okay, I'm just curious: What jobs do “equal but different”–brand sexists think women's 1950s gender ideal savanna ancestry prepares them for?

 

Because if women are supposed to be better cooks, most gourmet cooks are male. So too with cooks and chefs, nurses and doctors, and teachers and professors. It's a system which treats women as deficient even in the areas it says they're good at.

Edited November 9, 2011 by Marxist ßastard

[Lisnpuppy]

It was an example of generalization Marxist...or may I call you Bastard? Where I come from the women were the cooks and cooking was womans' work.

 

Move past it as you are missing the point, most likely deliberately so.

[Marxist ßastard]

Yes, I know you were just using it as an example. I'm using your example to ask a question to the “equal but different”–brand sexists, which seem pretty well-represented here. I didn't imply you were one. Edited November 9, 2011 by Marxist ßastard

[DeadMansFist849]

I think this "equal but different" thing is very confusing. It is not a justification for bashing women who are sexual beings, or any other kind of sexism for that matter. Evo Psych (which is completely Caucasian-centric) can take a hike, as far as I'm concerned, because all that gender essentialist bull just doesn't seem to be playing out as they think it is. Not all women coo over babies or see a single and/or childless life as the worst thing ever, for example. So, I agree with Marxist here.

 

No, this does not mean I believe that men and women are the same. I just believe that 1950s gender ideals are complete bull and not a long way off from the medieval ones that certain people are trying to institute in the US, and that are being played out in certain parts of the world. We're all people, and your gender identity and your bits don't actually determine how capable you are. If these 1950s gender ideals are ingrained into us, then I'm a freakish anomaly because I'm a guy and I have quite the nurturing instinct towards small, furry animals.

[Lisnpuppy]

Who other than MB brought up any 1950s ideals? I certainly don't have them. However I also don't think there is anything wrong with a woman that stays home with the kids (by choice, or in fact a dad that does either.) Feminism should be at foremost about offering more choices in life than women in the past have had.

 

Also I am not sure this is a debate topic as we were asked to express what feminism meant to us, not to argue the semantics or validity of our views.

[DeadMansFist849]

Well, your being quite mean about another woman just because she isn't a "proper lady" did prompt it, I must say. bben also mentioned the "different but equal" thing.

 

I see nothing wrong with people choosing to be stay-at-home parents, regardless of gender, just as I also don't see a problem with people choosing to be demure, or sexual, or what have you, provided that 1) nobody gets hurt and 2) they don't use their life choices to tell others what to do. Nobody should be put on a pedestal, or treated like mysterious (and weak and conniving) aliens by the other half of the population. Nobody should be defined solely by body parts either, for another thing.

[Lisnpuppy]

Well, your being quite mean about another woman just because she isn't a "proper lady" did prompt it, I must say. bben also mentioned the "different but equal" thing.

 

I see nothing wrong with people choosing to be stay-at-home parents, regardless of gender, just as I also don't see a problem with people choosing to be demure, or sexual, or what have you, provided that 1) nobody gets hurt and 2) they don't use their life choices to tell others what to do. Nobody should be put on a pedestal, or treated like mysterious (and weak and conniving) aliens by the other half of the population. Nobody should be defined solely by body parts either, for another thing.

 

Who are you talking about in that first part because you have confused me. :unsure:

 

Also I agree that a person should not be ultimately DEFINED by their gender but accepting physiological differences is not the same to me. I for one, don't think being different means being LESS.

 

edit: spelling

[ginnyfizz]

Yeah I just went through the thread again and couldnlt find where you said that Lis...

[Lisnpuppy]

Here is a quote I like...and pretty much sums up how I feel about it. I guess I am saying that I do not believe "gender neutralizing" people will solve the issue and why should a woman do this to be treated equally. I should be able to celebrate my differences as female and still be treated as an equal. I am not saying it happens, but in my opinion it should.

 

Scratch most feminists and underneath there is a woman who longs to be a sex object. The difference is that is not all she wants to be. ~Betty Rollin

[Marxist ßastard]

I want progress on gender issues because our broken gender dynamics hurt men just as much as women.

 

Scratch me and you will not find a woman longing for sexual objectification.

 

Just thought I'd point that out.