Is it evil? Is it a conspiracy? Has it improved or made lives of women more harsh? Do women expect the same level of responsiblity as men, or just a little less since they are women? What proof do you have of this? I believe that the movement has been to the detrement of the female, sure they have more rights and equality but they live worse lives, jobs, kids, and lazy husbands. Are women better off now or back before the 70's?

Wow, let's see how fast this attracts hysterical, irrational judgements.

yea, we aught to keep them women where they belong, its for their own good! Get in the kittchen and make me a sammich woman!(this is me being sarcastic)

how can somone think that feminism is a bad thing? Unless your goal its to have some kind of woman-slave to do your domestic chores for you, what is it that a woman cant do that a man can?

No i support the basic theory behind feminism but it has done bad, for every good there is a bad. Women are more stressed, women are more divided btwn home and work. Sex has become something you can sue for, if a guy says you look pretty it's a law suit. I think that feminism has gone too far, or is leading down that role. Women deserve better then they get but they shouldn't have to choose.

Originally posted by nico
Women deserve better then they get but they shouldn't have to choose.

what choice are you refering to? I also higly doubt that you could prove that women are more stressed, maybe people in general are more stressed, but maybe an impression like that is just due to the fact that our lives now seem a lot more stressed than the passed because its going on NOW and we care more about it than past stress.

woman are torn between work and home? are men, or do men have no domestic responcibilitys so who cares about work or home? and i assume this only applys to people raising familys.

nico:
Women are more stressed, women are more divided btwn home and work

Right. Absolutely sucks for them that they chose to be slaves to consumerism.
It's called responsibility. If you decide to work a job you hate so that you can dress the kids you rarely see in Tommy Hilfiger, you'll get no sympathy here.
Nor does this have anything to do with feminism.

Sex has become something you can sue for, if a guy says you look pretty it's a law suit.

Interesting. I presume you have an example of this happening?
Sexual harassment cases are actually notoriously difficult to win.

Until very recently I had a very innaccurate view of the aims of the feminist movement (I probably still do, but less so). I think that any male who feels the need to comment on feminism should learn something about it first.

I'm currently reading "Nattering on the Net" by Dale Spender as part of my masters degree. The things that Ms Spender discusses as important to the feminist movement are wildly different to my previous ideas of the aims of feminism.

I think feminists are cute.

Feminism is evolving, so it is a moving target to try to judge.

In the early 1960s it was militant male-bashers saying that women could get along without men and that might be a good thing. In the late 1960s it was free-lovin' hippie chix burnin' their bras and saying we can be just as promiscuous as the boyz. In the 1970s it was intellectual women saying they should have equal opportunity to enter all professions, sports, and other institutions. In the 1980s it was ball-busters again, saying they could be just as macho as the men but this time in the office rather than the bedroom. In the 1990s it was single mothers saying they needed affirmative action in order to achieve parity with men. I'm not sure what its profile is in this decade.

Besides, those were all vastly oversimplified stereotypes anyway, but I think I captured some of the spirit of the movement during those eras.

My point is that we just need to give feminism and feminists more time to see what happens and how whatever happens goes down with both women and men. We've had thousands of years to sort out "masculism." Let's give the women a bit more than a mere half century before expecting a coherent philosophy with results to be proud of.

Your poll needs a third choice: None of the above.

Depends on what you mean, the social movement? I don't really think it was necissary I think it would have happened even without it. I don't think the feminist culture did really anything.

All things being equal schooling, exsperiance and such would you pay more for a man then a women? There will always be tiny inequalities though thats a given weather it is in men's favor or women's favor dosent concern me at low levels.

The social movment though I think didn't go so well. I don't think I will see most women holding doors open for men in my life time nor do I exspect women to give there seat up for a man. So economically I think women and men are pretty much the same, socially I dunno its up for grabs.

Thaug:
All things being equal schooling, exsperiance and such would you pay more for a man then a women?

http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/796/%20

Apparently, the average employer doesn't share your rather enlightened views.

There will always be tiny inequalities though thats a given weather it is in men's favor or women's favor dosent concern me at low levels.

At low levels, I'd agree. This, however, is worrisome. What's the current figure, 80 cents to the dollar?

ahem, i always hold doors open for men and women alike.

it was mentioned above that males should learn something about feminism. i would extend the same advice to women. most people are sadly misinformed about feminism and do not understand what it is. i'm definitely not an expert but i did minor in women's studies so i probably know a little more than your average person. i'd be happy to answer any questions or counter any wrong information about it.

the most general basic definition of feminism is the belief in absolute equality between men and women. this does not mean having your cake and eating it to. it means perfect equality, not holding the door for your little woman but she still gets to make as much as you. it means no social/cultural differences. the most modern concept is "feminisms". notice the plural to set it apart from other names. this is pretty much the same thing but instead of just men and women, it specifies equality for all people of all groups.

my own opinion: the problem with reaching this social nirvana is that not everyone is on board. so it becomes necessary to make certain allowances in the interim such as maternity leave to protect pregnant employees in a time when fathers don't make the same sacrifices (they will one day i hope :) ). just my opinion, but if you're not a complete feminist, you owe at least old fashioned respects like the don't hit girls policy (i think hitting girls is ok for complete feminists).

Feminism fights for the notion of true equality. True equality can only occur when the notions of difference between the sexes are erased. In this I mean that society recognises that men and women are the same in value (that a man is as different to a woman as a woman is as different to a man, ie. the only difference is one that is biological and apart from that, men and women are the same). It is not the notion that a woman can do a man's job as well as a man or vice versa.

While many feminists are always pushing for women's rights, writers such as Catherine MacKinnon point out the obvious fact that women's rights do not materialise out of nowhere but are given to women by men. Therefore, the notion of women's rights and equality are only available to women when men allow them to have it.

It's an interesting thought though when you think about it. Most of the people who are in a position to grant women such rights are usually men. And while I am far from complaining about the little rights that women have (yes we do need them and more), it is something that stays in the back of my mind. True equality, according to writers such as MacKinnon, is a possibility only when society stops being patriarchal. Therefore, women must continue to fight for their rights and hopefully, one day, there wont be a need to fight anymore as it would be only natural that a woman be the same as a man in every sense, except in the biological sense.

:eek:

I completely agree with the goals of feminism in its original and pure form--gender equality--but what people have made it into is far from that. The name feminism has the connotation of female superiority which pisses most guys off (that's why most male antifeminists exist), but if you can get past the name, it still isn't quite right because many women who call themselves feminists are just looking for a way to be superior to a man or to show that they hate men. In no way does this mean that all feminists are like that, but it has created a series of gender battles to determine the stronger sex, but there is no stronger sex. Feminism does not go over very well with a lot of people because its ideals have become skewed by both men and women. If a group of guys were to create an ideal called masculinism based on promoting gender equality, women would think that men were just trying to be selfish and empower themselves; masculinists would be seen as completely ridiculous by a heel of a lot of women, but men would probably love the idea. I believe in equal rights and I would consider myself a feminist based on that principle, but modern feminism in my opinion is corrupt.

I think that women represent a segment in society that have been for too long a object of sexual and phyiscal oppression. Feminism is as a ideology divided into many factions, socialist, lesbian, liberal, third world. What I think feminism greatest fault is that it strives to make women into what they are not. Men. We must work in the same lines of work that men do. Construction, military, etc. But women aren't built for that, women are generally more social not physical people. So for women to do things that don't require social but instinct they are less able to react. Women have a different thought process then males. They are more worrisome, more analytical, more hesitant. Also women reach stages in their lives where they aren't stable physically or mentally. I can't imagine a woman in the trenches in WWI. Not because I am a male shovanist pig, but women are to analyitcal of the situation will I die, I can't do this, why am I here? Men asked these questions as well but women obess with these things. They would begin to lose concentration, especially if they aren't able to communicate with all the loud noise.
What Feminism should do is strive for noble female jobs. Things that men can't really do. Like be social workers, or the most important job of all a Mother. What Feminism has done has made the mother (housewife) into something of contempt. She is not advancing herself, she is working so the man get's ahead and she stays home a drifts away into the abyss. In the west IMO women have to really consider job, or child. A child is not something that can be done "part-time" they are expensive, they demand a lot of attention and they are the next generation. Now men should ask these questions but they won't. Let's stay realistic here. The male then has the duty to make sure that the family is fed, and the rest. Granted in today's world there is divorce and low income jobs and single parents. But women should before they have children ask that very crucial question. The thing I fear is that women would mostly choose career.

That is a good point that men have strengths that women lack, and the women have strengths that men lack, as with weaknesses, but I think that idea feminism is there to make the same options available to both men and women. I think that there are areas that should be more geared towards the average female or the average male; however, the average is not the individual--an truly equal opportunity in every field is what I believe to be the answer to finding the balance between men and women and the maximum efficiency of humanity.

I agree but the thing is that women cannot do certain things. Males as well, women can carry guns and go into war but they will not physically be able to handle it. Same with men, they really couldn't handle a J.K class or to handle young children. Women were given a special gift that men lack. Compassion, men really don't have that, (trust me since I am one). Women have that special thing, it's unexplainable. Women have to understand that they are special, different but equal. Not as some Fems believe equal and the same.

Nico,
You generalize and simplify way too much. Your stereotypes between men and women exist because of social conditioning. By believing in them, you contribute. I am not saying that man and woman are the same. But to say that women cannot carry a gun into war or a man cannot be compassionate is ridiculus, though sadly common. Feminism hopes to end some of the very prejudices you proclaim!

Is it really? That is why women aren;t allow to go on the front lines in war? Or male teachers are taught not to hug or even touch children?

Yes, I think this is because of faulty social conditioning. I would expect more men than women on the frontlines of a war...but there are women there for the US now and they should have the equal opportunity to be there as a man. It should be performance based. As for the male teacher...I do not think this is true but if it were it would be a ridiculus rule as men are just as loving to children as women.

That is the problem with feminism, it dosen't ask for the women who can it's for all women. Let's say WWI had women conscripted, more women would fail then males do you deny that? Insecurity, and confusion. I live with 3 women, I know. It's not meant to be sexist, but it is reality. Women work differently then men. Men are built for war, men are now renderred useless. They can make babies with skin cells. We are not needed, females are the epitome of human development.

If you are talking quotas, yep I agree. To say the frontlines of a military must be 50/50 is just as faulty as the opposite. Thats where the original intent of feminism has sometimes been blurred by the overzealous. Still, all in all I do think feminism has been helpful to women in immeasurable ways.

But you see that is not what I am deabting what I am saying is that Feminism has gone too far. That all women are like men and all men are like women. That is incorrect there are differences btwn male and female. I think that Lesbian feminism is a good example of a bit too far. That the woman is not dependant on a male, but she is, visa Versa as well. I hope some true feminists can post here and give me examples.

My posts were geared at answering the question in the title and poll. Pardon the intrusion :)

That the woman is not dependant on a male, but she is, visa Versa as well.
Ahh.. but they aren't always dependent, are they? I have lesbian and gay neighbors that are doing quite well without the opposite sex. Just because I am dependent on a female doesn't mean all men are!

I hope some true feminists can post here and give me examples.
A true feminist I most definately am not.

Now this shocked me about Feminism:

Conservative Feminism
Conservative feminism criticizes the feminism which "adopts a male model of careerism and public achievement as female goals, thereby denying women's need for intimacy, family, and children." They fear that "equality means death to the family." They often reject the popular feminist epigram, "the personal is political."


Some women fell the same way that I do. Now I think that women should have careers, they are better then males in many subjects. Just like males are better than females.

Ahh.. but they aren't always dependent, are they? I have lesbian and gay neighbors that are doing quite well without the opposite sex. Just because I am dependent on a female doesn't mean all men are!


I am glad to see that they are open to who they are but they aren't being productive are they? They will never be able to have a child, and they can't be depedant on each other. We are all dependant on a female we all come from one. We were or we are.

I am glad to see that they are open to who they are but they aren't being productive are they? They will never be able to have a child, and they can't be depedant on each other. We are all dependant on a female we all come from one. We were or we are.
Not sure what you mean by being productive. About as productive as me I guess. Some them have children, either from previous marriages or adoption. And of course they can be dependent on each other if they are in a relationship as such. We are are all dependent on women and men in the sense that it is necessary for procreation. But beyond that...??? Are you suggesting that someone cannot be productive unless they are actively seeking to procreate? We have population issues as it is man. :p

.... amidst this titanic, apocalyptic struggle between man and woman .... however improbable, however impossible it may seem, the world moves on, unconcerned.

-- Zero

But beyond that...??? Are you suggesting that someone cannot be productive unless they are actively seeking to procreate? We have population issues as it is man.

Ohhh don't get me wrong I have no problems with homosexuality, I am not a baptist bible pusher. But since I am catholic i am bias. Now I don't want children so i can't really say anything, but talking in the 3rd person here, we are made for one thing only really, Pro-creation. We in the west do have population problems yes, we aren't having enough kids believe it not. In Hungary, Russia and other eastern states there will be population declines, as in Spain, and Germany. It's in India and Africa where you see the major population increases.

Originally posted by nico
Now this shocked me about Feminism:

Conservative Feminism
Conservative feminism criticizes the feminism which "adopts a male model of careerism and public achievement as female goals, thereby denying women's need for intimacy, family, and children." They fear that "equality means death to the family." They often reject the popular feminist epigram, "the personal is political."


Some women fell the same way that I do. Now I think that women should have careers, they are better then males in many subjects. Just like males are better than females.

Ahh.. but they aren't always dependent, are they? I have lesbian and gay neighbors that are doing quite well without the opposite sex. Just because I am dependent on a female doesn't mean all men are!


I am glad to see that they are open to who they are but they aren't being productive are they? They will never be able to have a child, and they can't be depedant on each other. We are all dependant on a female we all come from one. We were or we are.

I apologize for being so blunt, but don't you think that you are being rather ignorant? The goal of feminism should not be to say that males and females are equal on all levels, but neither should it say that one or the other is incapable of something. Granted men cannot have children, but that does not mean that men cannot have just as much compassion for a child as a woman.

As for the conservative feminism thing, that is a nice thought, but to say that the ideal career model is a man does not mean that there is no woman anywhere that could fit that model of success. Furthermore, I think the idea that equality will lead to the death of family is just plain stupid.

Finally, the thing about the gay couples...Who are you to say that they are not productive? So they can't have children--that does not make them useless. Men and women are dependent of each other, but there is no problem with gay people. If the last people on Earth were gay, humanity would be doomed, but I don't think that is the case.

Let me make that clear, god that is the last thing I wish upon anyone.

I apologize for being so blunt, but don't you think that you are being rather ignorant

And who are you to decide that you side is right? There is no true right or wrong in this debate. Are you being a little elitist and egotistical? Do you disagree that all mankind is dependant on females? Mankind wouldn't exist if it wasn't for females. With the new advancements in cloning and the like with conception with cells not sperm the man is in terminal decline. The epitome of Primate physical and mental development is in the female. Men are going to become a play thing, needed for fun sex. Just like women were treated before. Women are going to in the future going to control the bedrooms of the west. That will mean a systimatic shift in power.

Furthermore, I think the idea that equality will lead to the death of family is just plain stupid.


As do I but I think they phrased it incorrectly instead women forced to work is wrong. My sister had a child and she wants to take of it all day, she dosen't to work, but feminists would view that as being weak and as subserviant to the male stereotypes.

Who are you to say that they are not productive?

My friend I am not saying it, we all know it.

:bugeye: Unless of course they can have children?

Originally posted by Xev
Thaug:


http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/796/%20

Apparently, the average employer doesn't share your rather enlightened views.



At low levels, I'd agree. This, however, is worrisome. What's the current figure, 80 cents to the dollar?

Those statistics aren't exactly the most accurate in the world.

It mentions some, but ill get into why its not what I was talking about.

Ed Hudgins, director of regulatory studies at the conservative Cato Institute, added that the survey also failed to take non-tax benefits, such as vacation time and retirement savings plans, into account. And he added that the survey relied on self-reporting, a methodology technique that leads to a relatively high number of errors.

Martha Farnsworth Riche, an economist and former director of the Census Bureau who vetted the study for the accounting office, acknowledged that the data used by the study do not take years of experience into account, which employers often use to determine salary levels. She called for further analysis of more detailed data from the 2000 Census to assess how education and years of experience affect salary differentials.

Farnsworth Riche added, however, that the broad definition used to define management positions might have skewed the results in the opposite direction.

"By looking at the industries that employed nearly three out of four women managers, and by having a broad definition of management, we definitely did not come up with as dramatic results as we could have," she said.


Don't get me wrong its a good article I ususally can never find an article on the internet that admits statistics arent 100% correct.

It goes on some more but I can note something things it didn't really take into account such as education level and what that education is in. A higher percent of women go into social sciences then men. The men that do go into social sciences more often then women go into economics. Also there are more men on the PhD level then women. When you get to the higher levels you have to make personal sacrafices. Women also are the only people that give birth, how nice that maybe it will almost always hurt your career. For months you will be out of the work force and it will take even longer to catch up to male counterparts that stayed in the rat race. Later on ill try and find some stats on the internet that try and take these into acount.

Originally posted by SwedishFish
(i think hitting girls is ok for complete feminists).
Oh, cool.
well I can deal with feminists if its ok to hit them:)

whoa whoa too many myths to tackle at one time. please remember that this is a forum roughly related to science so let's keep it in that realm. if you are going to make generalizations about the sexes, back them up with unrefutable scientific evidence, not cultural fictions.
the only difference between the sexes is a small amount of sexual dimorphism. and even this is not so significant since there are species that can change sex at need. any differences in behavior are learned. this can be backed up by examining different societies and the behavior of the sexes therein. mead provides a good analysis of just three different cultures and the rolls of men and women within them and their beliefs about how men and women are different. look at the senecas- in their tribe, only women are allowed to handle any aspect of food production (farming, hunting, harvesting, cooking). look at how that is broken up by early americans. in some western cultures, children are the property of their fathers and belong to them in case of divorce. not so in some more familiar ones. i believe this matter can be resolved by looking at the wealth of biological, psychological and anthropological knowledge.


and yes dr lou, i'm up for a good 'rassle' anytime :)

I think feminsism is cool so long as it's equality, not female superiority. I mean, equality is the most important thing, isn't it?

Originally posted by daydream_believer
I think feminsism is cool so long as it's equality, not female superiority. I mean, equality is the most important thing, isn't it?

absolutely. the criticism is that there is currently male superiority and has been for a while. no amount of pushing has helped this. i think some versions of feminism seek to overshoot in order to end up somewhere near the middle.

i don't know about you guys but i'm glad for feminism.
i'm also glad for the polite gentlemen who open doors for me, i'd do the same for a guy of course.

women are generally more apt to understanding "balance" when it comes to living life, inside and out more so than men. Although men i feel have more blood energy to do certain things that women can't do. and the idea that ms mackinnon said about men giving the acceptance in the first place, is basically close to the truth but it's more intricate. it's a shared feeling, you men give me what i want and we women, for example, give you what you want.

i'm going to admit it, emotionally and sexually (doesn't mean i want sex all the time, but generally speaking) men are a good shoulder and arm to hang on (dependency if need be) but yeah, girls can live on their own, hold on to a good career, live their lives without the company of a man. feminists want to be considered that they're worth more than they were years before, that they can do the job just as good. doesn't mean they want to be better than a man although there are some men who aren't worth their lot. ha. girls don't get paid the same as a man in the same field, not really, and that's another issue. women have got to work harder and pump out more energy than the average man. it's been done to a degree but biologically speaking, it's generally not able: ie, men have at least 10 percent rbc's more than the avg girl. that's a fact. i'm in awe at what a man can do! it gets me hot and bothered sometimes. haha. but in a virtuous way.

while nico says that mankind couldn't exist without woman, woman couldn't exist without man. after all, it's your sperm that carries the life, we just keep, nurture it, love it, all in the name for you guys. damn you. lol.

I have nothing against feminism, unless (as one person says) it is made into female superiority.

I think that sometimes a few women are aiming for superiority, not equalism.

It is hurtful when extremist women put down ALL men. They forget that it was decent MEN who struggled against the majority to change the traditions. To give them the right to vote, equality, work, etc.

Are they better or worse off to what???

That's the problem nowadays. People cannot seem to communicate clearly.