I toned this thread down a bit before posting, but I dunno if it might still be too mean - I don't really post in General often enough to know the social norms and such, so if I'm going overboard, someone toss me a PM so I can edit this.
Rehash wrote:Feminism, as it stands today, is the radical idea that all women should be giant children, provided for without condition.
That's an interesting view.
Rehash wrote:On the back of planned parenthood pamphlets it lists one of the possible reasons you should consider an abortion, verbatim, "because he forced you." As if men are these primal creatures that lurk in the shadows awaiting the chance to pounce and impregnate the weak, powerless females.
Have you seen the rates for rape in this country? They're disgusting, and quite possibly still underreported.
Here you go, courtesy of the Federal Government
, since you seem to be unaware of them.
Rehash wrote:While feminists claim to fight sexism, latent sexual comments like "a woman's touch" or "the fairer gender" still are Basically Decent.
So's "Housewife". Your point?
Rehash wrote:It's still common practice to reduce men to nothing more than beer drinking, football watching imbeciles who like to tinker with their little power-tools and toys, while the women must slave away to keep the men functional in all public media. Ever seen a commercial? Ever watched a sitcom? Hell, men still don't get paternity leave. It seems that the only social obligation of a father is a child support check. Because god knows men never get custody.
All of this has been touched upon in the thread repeatedly. You should have read that thread. That is to say, this thread. You should have read this thread.
Rehash wrote:Edit; For those of you who want to claim that this isn't "feminism" - go to hell. It looks like a dog, it smells like a dog, hell it even calls itself a dog. Don't go calling it something else.
Congratulations, you have succeeded in describing the version of feminism that is promoted by people who oppose feminism. Good job!
After all, if all your friends who also aren't feminists claim that this is what feminism is, it totally must be right! Because you're too smart to not have done the research beyond asking people who also don't agree with feminism.
Rehash wrote:"If he forced you"
I think I might see your problem with the term 'feminism' - English seems to be a second language for you!
You see, in English, the word "If" describes a conditional situation, a possibility.
Like, "if I won the lottery, I would quit my job". Am I quitting my job? No, because I haven't won the lottery. My statement doesn't even imply that it's likely
for me to win the lottery, now does it?
Rehash wrote:Having the words "because he raped you" on a pamphlet is akin to putting any other prejudicial line.
Wait, what happened to 'if'? Did that pamphlet get changed from not accusing all men of being rapists, to actually accusing all men of being rapists, or did you decide to write that line in a way that made you less obviously wrong?
Because personally, I would call something like that having no integrity and being a failure as a person.
But that's just me.
Rehash wrote:They outright said that men were not allowed to be in the back, even on request, because it was assumed men would coerce women into requesting that partners would be allowed to join them, just so that the men could force abortions on unwilling women. To assume that of all men, and make a default policy barring all males from a clinic... That makes me so upset.
Here we come across another ESL problem. There's this word, "Ethics", that describes constraints on people's behavior in certain situations even if they wouldn't do anything wrong.
Example: If my boss is female, we can't just up and get a hotel room together. Do you know why? Here's a hint: It's not
because anyone assumes she'll use her position to rape me. It's because of ethics - it's good to avoid the appearance of an unprofessional relationship.
Rehash wrote:To top that off, Feminists often blame men for the social problems they encounter.
Well, yeah. It kind of is the men who have the lion's share of the ability to change things, because we don't have nearly as many of said social problems.
Rehash wrote:That's what I was pointing towards when I said that feminists don't accept accountability for their own actions.
Quoted because three lines down this line's going to be relevant.
Rehash wrote:Whatever sexism is latent in our world is partially due to the willingness, or even support, of the females involved.
Apparently you're having a problem distinguishing the difference between a woman
and a feminist
You see, A feminist
is a person (not
always a woman) who does not support sexism.
So you're blaming people who by definition
do not support sexism, for supporting sexism.
You don't have a clue as to what you're talking about. I know, that seems harsh. But it isn't, I toned this post down a lot
from what I think you deserve.
Rehash wrote:You can't approach the issue of the entire social structure regarding gender is broken, with let's all work to fix the issues with only one gender. By default the solution to sexism needs to be bi-gender.
Read the thread.
Read the thread.Become literate in English
and read the thread.
Rehash wrote:Given the disposition I have, the reaction I'd take should be simple. Bi-gender application of all rights, without question.
Congratulations, if you could be moven to give a damn about what's actually going on, you could have been a feminist. Instead, you're not, because apparently you couldn't even be bothered to read a thread on the internet
for the sake of gender equality.
Way to go, buddy.