Hello everybody!

This isn't a proper news, and I'm posting it here because I'd like to hear about personal opinions on the topic.

Feminism: what do you know about it? How do you see it, and how do you feel about it? Do you think the world needs the Feminist movement?

The feminist movement as a concept is pretty alright. It supports the removal of social stigma behind women in most parts of mainstream culture, like objectification, undermining them professionally, etc. It's been a major part of at least American culture over the last few decades.

However, in practice, the movement is rather shitty.

Committing to a one-sided movement often causes you to lose sight of the other side, and a movement of such sheer girth becomes too self-perpetuating to be molded by external criticism or ideas. Louder, more radical, and less rational members of the movement gain leverage by strong emotional appeal to purport false ideals of the group, seemingly causing problems almost on purpose for all other social activists. Like a katamari ball of stupidity, they soak up dissent and use it to claim they're being suppressed rather than simply criticized on their behavior - and so the movement grows, but fueled by spite and fallacy.

Recently I've seen people speak up about problems that men face, at least in first world societies (because it's quite apparent that some countries still have equality issues in general) - things like their primary position in the front lines of the army, their majority percentage of workplace casualties, paternity suits favoring the mother, etc. But all of these issues are cast aside because "women have it worse" in completely unrelated areas. The truth of the matter is that everyone is treated like shit - just not in the same ways.

True equality begins not by focusing on putting the oppressed on a pedestal, but by seeking to equalize all parties. The current state of the feminist movement treats equality like a pendulum rather than a scale - one that must be pulled and pushed back and forth, oscillating between "We have it worse!" "no, WE have it worse!!" rather than "how can we make it better for everyone?"

But this is all my opinion based on observation. Had I posted this opinion on Tumblr or some other feminist-aggregating site, no doubt I would be yelled at for supporting the patriarchy or some other semantic buzzword bullshit.

Personally, I agree with the concept of the movement. I've experienced enough sexism both first and second hand, and not just sly remarks here or there; my mom's faced a lot of serious bullshit in the workplace that I've gone through with her over the years. I do not think that men and women are equal. However, I don't think that men have it 100000 times better than women or that women are better than men naturally. Both of them have it worse and better depending on the circumstances.

Let me say here that I don't really care about genders. I don't see the point of gender places in a couple or female/male pride. Everybody has a right to their own beliefs. I don't think there's anything wrong with women who like to be doted on by men and take that stereotypical place in the relationship, but I'd personally prefer to be independent as a person and not concern myself with gender. Problem is... sexism is the reason I have to concern myself with it.

The issues that Misuto brought up in >>2 with men is certainly true, as are many others. (Though as far as suits go, each judge usually swings towards a particular gender. My aunt's husband actually got a previously retired judge to oversee their case because he was known to favor men, which allowed her husband to take them when he really shouldn't have.) Anyway, both genders face a lot of challenges.

The thing is, men need to start their own cause, a cause based on their own problems rather than based on their hatred for feminism. Just like radical feminists who hate men for living are ruining the cause of feminism, a movement towards masculism is not going to work if men stem their own movements from their problems with the movement of the other gender.

There are issues with certain sects of feminism, but you can't put to down the entire cause because of a lack of equality on the man's side of the equation. Start your own cause. Have your own movement. There will be radical feminists who attack the movement - that's a given. However, honestly, the feminist movement itself, even those which are not radical, is attacked so often that it would just continue the cause.

One way that I like to explain sexism is that you don't really understand how bad it is unless you are that gender and have experienced it yourself. Sexism is kind of like ghosts. Most people don't believe it unless they think they've seen it. Some people claim to have seen demons and only believe in demons while others claim to only have seen ghosts and only believe in them. Then you have people who claim they've seen both. There you go, male sexism versus female sexism. More men believe in male sexism. More women believe in female sexism. But every now and again, you get somebody who fully understands that both of them exist and are a problem. The problem is, there aren't enough of those people to start a movement for both sexes. That's why women are focused on feminism and men need to be focused on masculism.

Hopefully the continuing movements together will help to open the eyes of both genders that they're both worthy causes and both hefty problems. But honestly, I'm not sure the current radicals of feminism or future radicals of masculism will ever go fully extinct, and it's something we've got to come to term with.

>>3
with men are certainly true*
is attacked so often that it should be expected for any cause*

Feminism is great. Radical feminism is not.
There should be no difference in rights based on gender, but every fucking time I see that dumb 'kick a cis white guy in the balls every day' thing on my dashboard I want to kill someone. Men are shitty and so are women, get the fuck over it.

points already been made by sama and blinking

Well, I don't think feminism in my country is necessary.Pretty much men and women are equal, with same rights. I don't know about salaries but I think they are equal here too.

I see that no one considered the feminicide issue.

>>8 I'm... on the border with it. I agree that feminicide, the systematic slaughter of women for the sake of being women, does exist. I just think it should be referred to as a hate crime, though, like everything else is. I also don't approve of how it's being used to refer to the rape and killing of women during third world wars or in countries where there are a lot of gangs and cartels like Mexico and Guatemala; I don't think they're being killed because their attackers hate women, but rather that they're being killed as scare tactics. It's a big deal if you kill a woman in another gang's territory, and it's a huge shock to those who are at war to find out that their wives were raped and killed at home.

It's not moral. It's not legal. But neither are the many more countless deaths of the men in those countries. I think it's just the women's part in the wars, and it's not going to change no matter how many movements we have. The only problem I see is when men look down on their women and refuse to arm them or teach them how to defend themselves; that's the only reason that they can be and are being slaughtered when the men step out to fight.

I don't know if I worded that well. It's a weird issue to debate without being insensitive.

>>7 What country do you live in?

Just like most problems, everything about radical feminism, misogynists, racism, etc. can be solved with a healthy dose of not giving a shit by and for all parties.

I haven't seen many "radical men's rights activists" particularly because they're just called misogynists. I have seen men's rights activists being attacked by radical feminists, though, just like I've seen feminists attacked by misogynists.

I say "seen" but as Barabi points out, I haven't actually seen it in person - I've only seen examples people went out of their way to point out, which probably means they were the most extreme examples both times. And therefore, somewhat unreliable to form an opinion from alone.

It's always really bad to strawman, and any time any "activist" group starts to look like they're setting themselves up to do so, you know there's something wrong with their methodology. It can start off sounding almost innocent: "Our group is marginalized by this group" - already, the problem inherent is sweeping the blame onto another group like painting a bullseye.

But it's too much to ask, I suppose, that everyone stop giving a shit about gender - just like I can't ask for people to stop giving a shit about race, about class, about money, materialism, differences, everything that makes us the sort of irrational human race we've grown into. Differences define us, as do preferences - and some people prefer bigotry, unfortunately.

All these movements cannot expect to completely eradicate a problem without causing other problems elsewhere - they can only educate, and attempt to alleviate the symptoms. This starts with the most definite things - the legal system, the workforce, and other officially recognizable aspects of culture. Things like public opinion will only shift gradually over time, and trying to force it to move will result in negative feedback as well.

Maybe having a movement for each involved party, giving them the job of examining their own issues independently, really is the safest solution. We can't ask them to not interfere with each other, but it's ideally how it should work out for the majority of it. Unfortunately, because feminism is such a hot topic, men's rights isn't a viable movement in the public eye. It gets shot down and laughed at almost immediately because unfortunately, radical feminists have made their mark in demonizing the idea of women as the underdogs in all aspects. No one roots for the ones on top, after all, except the bad guys.

I honestly see all humans as equals. That's the way it should be anyways. Feminism is totally relevant since men have the upper hand in society but that doesn't make their lives easier. Humans are humans.

I know back in the day the U.S needed the feminist movement so females could vote.

I now see it as nothing more than an oppressive organization built upon manipulation and misandry. They are just as bad as the neo nazis. Yes I did just compare feminazis to neo nazis. Get fucked.

I'm not at liberty to say whether or not the world needs feminism. I live in America. I've only been to Canada a couple times I don't know about other cultures and societies so it could be a good thing, it could be a very bad thing. I'll let them figure it out.

*LOTS OF SWEARING*

>>12 You need to read this post and all of the above to be more educated. Because the only right women need is to vote, right? It's not like in Texas they recently banned tampons or anything, right?

"I don't want to go on a rant but basically these two guys only believed in the stereotypical kind of feminism and started saying things like "feminism only cares for women's rights that's kind of selfish" which made me want to face palm so fucking hard.

And then when someone came in and said "let's talk about something else" they started making fun of rape and women oppression.

I'm not going to be sorry for being a feminist anymore this is bullshit.

My views? My views are that women and men should be treated equally. That means less laws suppressing women and their bodies, women getting paid as much as men do for jobs, the gaming and comic industry learning how to fucking make female armor, the media to stop only showing men's bodies as "look at my muscles" and women's bodies as "look how sexy I am you want to have the sex with me", for people to write female characters like actual PEOPLE instead of the same fucking 5 personalities over and over again (yes, that even includes the "strong" female character type. it's always the same fucking type of character and i'm sick of it; write females as people you uncreative douches), songs like Blurred Lines (though I admit it has a catchy as fuck beat) to not exist (the lines in the song are things said by actual rapists during the act. don't get me started on this), rape victims (of BOTH sexes) not getting blamed for their fucking clothing or anything else, for women to have clothing that makes mother fucking sense, for guys to not get ridiculed for wearing women clothing when women can wear guy's, for people to stop fucking judging a person on how much sex they have (oh, men are studs but women are sluts? what a great world we live in), for people to stop believing that men "don't get raped", etc.

And the actual definition of feminism is "belief in women's rights as equal to men's" because we have far less currently and don't you dare tell me otherwise. But no, feminism DOES NOT mean we are superior to men. We just want equal rights, but apparently that's too much to ask for because we get stereotyped and ridiculed all the damn time.

Oh look, I ended up ranting anyway."

I just copied and pasted two posts I put on the random thought thread. Both genders have their own problems, and I clearly did not put even all of the problems in our society that has to do with gender. I think gender should be something people only see for sexual/and or romantic acts, and nothing else. If you're a guy and want to wear women's clothing, wear women's clothing. If you're a female and want to work in the gaming industry, you should be allowed to fucking work in it and make the same amount of money as men do. I also do think men need to step up for some of men's rights, but they don't need to as much as females. And I'm not saying that to be sexist, but that's a fucking fact and if you can't see that you're blind and need to work on your ignorance. And those feminists that apparently think they are better then men and that men are all disgusting pigs? Yeah, that's a stereotype, and a small damn amount of feminists, too. Hell, if you aren't a feminist and don't believe women shouldn't have equal rights as men, I hope you never reproduce.

And again, that is NOT to say men don't need more rights or anything of the like. Feminism is about getting women to the SAME amount of rights as men. That is all.

I have nothing against the feminist cause, if I hate feminism it is because of the people that uphold it.

E.G. The recent shitstorm kicked up about GTA V because all women characters within it are portrayed as crazy or bitchy. Seriously? IT'S A SATIRICAL RE-IMAGINING OF MODERN DAY CALIFORNIA! Of course the characters are going to be extreme, did they not notice any of the fucking males?

Plenty of causes have these troubles, humans are just always excited to feel oppressed and aggressive about something, it isn't restricted to feminism. Animal rights had the same turn, it was originally a great movement, however it devolved into people like PETA trying to make 'The Pet Shop Boys' change their name. I understand the necessity of said causes, but we are still allowed to complain about them.

In terms of how feminism latched onto rape culture, all I have to say is this quote from the Quran, "It is the duty of all men and women to act and dress modestly". People have turned it into such a villainy to not immediately polarise and jump to conclusions in every situation to do with rape, this is not sustainable. Do you think getting angry at everybody else will make an individual disturbed enough to rape others stop? Just screaming and crying about it is not going to do a thing, take real, proactive initiatives if you want to do anything.

That is a lot of the problem, however. A lot of feminists never really want to do anything but complain. They want it as a bonus difficulty to life; often they have grown up in a middle class home with no particular issues extending past teenage melodramas, and they want something bad to be happening to them. These are the people that make others such as >>12 compare feminists to neo-nazis. Once again, it is the people not the cause that is the problem.

In general, I believe feminism is needed, but it should also be accepted to provide valid opinions on why you digress from some of its views. Too many people flame and persecute any who say they do not agree with it 100%. The same kind of witch-hunt has happened to Christians on the internet and it truly displays the worst part of humanity. It is the kind of aggressive, sheep tactics which are why we flourish and why we also live incredibly destructively.

Also, just want to clarify. Sex is not something to just run around fucking whoever you want. If a girl has sex with a lot of guys, I will judge them. If a girl has sex with a lot of girls, I will judge them. If a guy has sex with a lot of girls, I will judge them. If a guy has sex with a lot of guys, I will judge them. There is nothing to be proud of in terms of promiscuousness, often it is just a symptom to deeper psychological issues. It isn't that hard to show restraint, are we really that much of a spoiled society that we get angry when others don't want us to start having plentiful sex at a young age?

Anyway, the type of people who follow the causes in the way I hate them to be followed are probably the type who would disagree exactly with what I previously said. If any of you are reading this, you are unintelligent, half baked, first world spoiled excuses for human beings and should raise your life value to above that of a mildly smart newt. You are fucking ridiculous and should keep some of your idiotic opinions somebody else told you to yourself. Go fuck yourself.

Feminism hm? Forgive me for not acknowledging the previous posts here, but it's pretty likely someone's already observed this idea...

I have no problem with feminism, I have a problem with DOUBLE STANDARDS. Under the pretense of double standards for some reason the male gender has to both treat a woman with respect as well as "like a woman". Kinda confusing concept right? What makes it worse is that you can never tell WHERE the line is drawn for each and every woman in this respect.

For example, holding a door. In the past I used to hold doors for anyone that was coming up behind me, it's only common courtesy, right? So what does it mean when I hold the door for a woman that gives me the stink-eye because apparently I don't think she's capable of it? It's a door, don't flatter yourself. So I adjust to the preference of that individual, a little mental note, and let it close on her for next time only to get a heavily sarcastic "hey thanks a lot asshole" from behind.

I'm not saying that these individuals are the norm, I'm saying that there is a disagreement among women about what they really want, and some use this disagreement to see less in others.

So, there are some women who want equality, others that want to be treated like princesses, and others who want to see the male race as a crew of abusive pigs, which is the worst of the three.

"Equality" is not "reciprocation". These individuals (who have essentially ruined the name 'feminist' for everyone else) don't care about equality, they want power. They want to shame people into believing that simply being male is shameful and hope to shift the inequality in their favor, and they follow the "double-standard" concept to a tee. Talk to them the way you would another guy? Sexist pig. Offer her to come along for drinks with the rest of the guys after work? Trying to rape her. DON'T invite her to the same? Excluding her because she's a woman. Tired examples perhaps, but accurate of many people I've seen nonetheless.


I understand that this is mainly a personal rant, but the overarching idea is this: the "feminist movement" is extraordinarily under-defined. Some of the greatest supporters of the movement only use it to abuse and complain their way to personal advantages, and ruin an otherwise noble pursuit for everyone else.

GUYS. GUYS.

I asked for Feminism, the purest and noblest sense of equality that this movement fights for. NOT fake-feminism, or the so called "nazi-feminism".

Some of you slipped the meaning of the word.

"Feminism is the movement created to put end to any kind of sexist oppression and to defend the equality of every human being, despite sex and sexual preferences. The soul of the feminist political movement is the force we put to end the patriarchy oppression on society. It's about reacting against every problem in society, including racism, Queer's Rights, class-culture, fat-phobia, hatred against the transgender community, the binary gender system, the forced role expectations. Love cannot exist in a relationship based on coercion and domination. Humans mustn't love a patriarcal culture if the exact definition of it is to submit to patriarchy rules. We have to understand that feminism isn't just for women, it's for the whole humanity."

We live in a world where bodies of women and men are used to sell products.

In a world where an "ugly face" or a "wrong body" are other terms to express a failure, an useless being.

In a world where a woman cannot abort a child born after she got raped, and the rapist is still free because "she seduced him with provocative clothes and manners".

In a world where a "no" apparently means "stop asking and go for it".

In a world where a boy is stalked by a girl that doesn't love back, and then he's put to jail because she incriminated him with false accuses of rape. Like if rape is the only solution to a heartbreak.

In a world where a person is judged by the way *he dresses.

The list can go further. I have to admit that I've opened this treadh to have information for a project i'm running in my country, and I have to say that the results are "inconcludent".

After saying all of this, let me rephrase my question: do you think that a serious, conscious and genuine Feminism movement is necessary in the world?

>>16 Depends on the world. In an idealistic world, no. The problem is, the only way for there to be such a purified version of the feminist movement would for it to be in an idealistic world.

One word, simplified version: Yes but with heavy refinement.

We all live in the same world, eh.
Please, I'd love to hear what your concept of refinement include.

>>18 I wrote down a giant list of every sexist thing I could think of in my rant, if that's what you meant.

I just want both genders to be treated equally. That's all I ask ;_;

>>19 I wasn't specifically talking about you, but you were honestly the one who got closer to the concept of feminism. :3

I was speaking to >>17 because I didn't understand what did he meant, starting from "depends on the world". In the world I live it happens, I don't know in yours how things are going. We still live in the same planet, this is what i meant... And i don't understand why feminism could exist only in a idealistic world. Feminism already exist...I asked for sincere clarifications, I'd like to understand his point of view too.

>>14 "In terms of how feminism latched onto rape culture, all I have to say is this quote from the Quran, 'It is the duty of all men and women to act and dress modestly'. People have turned it into such a villainy to not immediately polarise and jump to conclusions in every situation to do with rape, this is not sustainable."

Men, please don't take your shirts off in public!
It's so immodest and inappropriate!! If we force you to have sex, it's your fault for dressing so immodestly!

Seriously, Solace?

Not to mention that the Qur'an also says that women are to completely cover their body compared to men who (frankly) dress quite immodestly in the related countries, yet there is more rape and abuse of women in Arab countries than America. The gov't of India has declared rape as one of the most common crimes in the country. Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan also have extremely high rape numbers per populous. There are entire movements to help women escape from those countries because of how common the heavy abuse and rape of women as well as the lack of rights are.

I somehow don't think the Qur'an is something you should be quoting right now.

"If any of you are reading this, you are unintelligent, half baked, first world spoiled excuses for human beings and should raise your life value to above that of a mildly smart newt. You are fucking ridiculous and should keep some of your idiotic opinions somebody else told you to yourself. Go fuck yourself."

Just got down to this part.

So, you think that it's wrong when feminists respond negatively to people who give a valid opinion, yet you're willing to basically say, "Anybody who disagrees with me is wrong and should go fuck themselves," regardless of their reasoning, Solace? Ah-huh. Very interesting.

I'll be sure to respect all your opinions thoroughly after reading that. /cough.

Just kidding! You lost every bit of credibility you ever had with that line. Feel free to not respond to what I said in the past few posts.

>>15 I agree with all of this, basically, especially the door-holding thing.

But on the other side of the equation, I get dirty looks from men for holding the door for them (because I'm apparently questioning their masculinity and their muscles' ability to open a door... or something?) so those double-standards aren't just in the woman's favor.

>>16 I think it's necessary, even if I don't think all of that is going to get accomplished.

I disagree with your definition of feminism, though. It's about women's rights - fighting for the rights of other genders and sexualities is each its own movement no matter what wikipedia or the dictionary says. You can be both a feminist and a masculinist, just like you can believe in gay rights without putting down straights.

>>27 I have to say that isn't MY definition of feminism. I quoted Bell Hooks and Ani DiFranco.

Taking your given example: supporting gay rights is great, and you are alright when you say that it isn't "enough" to be depicted as a feminist act.

But still, feminism fights against social inequalities, so when gay rights are denyed a ture feminist doesn't take him/herself back. And the same happens in various other situations of disparity!

>>28 I honestly disagree with that idea. I don't think that a "true" feminist has to fit any certain moral requirement; you're not obligated to love everybody just because you believe in the woman's side of gender equality. By saying that, you're pushing away every member of the movement who doesn't believe in those other movements. You're pushing down feminists who believe in women's rights by saying they're morally obligated to agree with every other equality movement. What if their religion is against homosexuality? They're not "allowed to be true feminists" if they disagree with the sexuality equality? I think that's utterly ridiculous. You shouldn't be called "fake" just because you only believe in one side of a cause.

That's like when Christians who do agree with homosexuality are called "fake Christians" because their views aren't exactly the same as the views of others in the religion. It's almost as rude and extremist as the views of feminazis; that idea is basically their foil and is no better. Just like feminazis say women who believe in men's rights are "fake feminists", you say that women who don't believe in every single other equality movement are "fake feminists". What's the difference?

There needs to be moderation and room for everyone to have their own moral opinions outside of the root cause.

>>30 "That's like when Christians who do agree with homosexuality are called "fake Christians" because their views aren't exactly the same as the views of others in the religion."

I sincerely never heard of this kind of discrimination by a Christian.

Are we getting to a point or are we just disagreeing with each other statements?

>>31 No, I've heard that discrimination quite a few times. My aunt has said it. My friend's grandmother has said it. Many Christians that I've chatted with online has said it. It's not usual for the somewhat more extreme members of the group.

We're stating our opinions on what defines feminism. As the OP, if you're saying that the definition of feminism that you prefer is the only one that can be referenced, then we have to have a discussion now about what other definitions there are and figure out whether or not they have a place in this thread.

I'd rather stay on topic and know what the others think about the use and the importance of the feminist movement, whatever they want it to be... But it's so Kate now so for today I'll just go to bed.

>>33 No... Pretty sure you said, "I asked for Feminism, the purest and noblest sense of equality that this movement fights for. NOT fake-feminism," and then had a long description of what "real feminism" is and what you wanted people to be talking about. That doesn't really sound like wanting people to talk about "the use and the importance" of the movement, "whatever they want it to be".

But hey, maybe I'm just misinterpreting what you said before.

>>1 "Feminism: what do you know about it? How do you see it, and how do you feel about it? Do you think the world needs the Feminist movement?"


>>16 "GUYS. GUYS.

I asked for Feminism, the purest and noblest sense of equality that this movement fights for. NOT fake-feminism, or the so called "nazi-feminism".

Some of you slipped the meaning of the word."


>>33 "I'd rather stay on topic and know what the others think about the use and the importance of the feminist movement, whatever they want it to be..."


I feel like it's YOU who's having trouble staying on-topic here. What do you want from us here? Do you want the BEST of feminism, the WORST of feminism, the IDEOLOGICAL feminism, HISTORICAL feminism...or maybe you could settle for what people are actually saying here- feminism as we all personally witness it by the people in this world that address themselves as "feminists".

What something means conceptually is useless when no one adheres to it, and that's exactly what's happening.

The problem isn't within women, or men, or whomever being treated unequally. I find the problem as douchebags being allowed to exist. Douchebag parents that don't teach their douchebag kids to not be douchebags.

Yeah yeah, equal pay, pre-existing condition bullcrap, constant pressure of how the world envisions the gender as a whole; is all there, are all issues. But they would be far less prevalent if we rather than make a scene: kill the douchebags.

This goes for women to men as well (female douchebags exist too.) If a guy holds open a door, don't cuss him out for destroying your independence. If he offers to pay, don't slap him for denying the fact you have money. If he "goes too far" THEN beat the living tar out of him. If he forces you to pay, THEN tell all his friends he's a douchebag. But just as for men, if she offers to pay, don't be a douchebag about it; no need to get all high-and-mighty. There's such a thing as saying "no" without puffing yourself up about it, if she insists fine, let her pay if she really really wants to.

Maybe it's because I was born an idiot. A complete and total dumbass. But I thought it was assumed that if the girl is your friend, THEN SHE IS YOUR FRIEND; if you hate her guts, YOU HATE HER GUTS. Now if you hate a guy's guts, you don't tell it to his face; so why would you tell it to hers. I see dating as looking for a potential wife, seeing who you match up best with; not as a way to fix up my sex-drive. Just as I don't go out with my bro-friends for sex.

And to be sure I've pissed off as many as possible, I may as well go to say that I think the entire feminism fight is entirely stupid. Feminism in general is stupid. It's all just a bunch of angry people on both sides throwing words back and forth that don't mean a thing, just prolonging the issues that 'feminism' is supposed to be fixing. If we just stopped making such a big deal over it, and prosecuted the douchebags for what they've done JUST in the name of what they've done; rather than tagging it with "crime against every girl ever." If my boss doesn't pay me as much as Steve, I want to know why. If my boss doesn't pay me as much as Jenny, I want to know why. Not because of their gender, but because I'm treated differently than someone else. So if Clara has a problem, she goes and fixes the problem, and finds a reason why the douchebag in her life is causing it.

I believe feminism has been skewed too far from it's base concept to even have a real meaning anymore. Personally, I'm more fond of the kill the douchebagist movement; get rid of the bad, so by default there's only good? But what do I know, I'm just a stupid kid.

>>36 Not gonna give a direct response since I don't really disagree with you in more than one way, but your post just reminded me of something lolworthy.

My neighbor says that if we took all the common-sense warning labels off products that we'd get rid of the, uh, "shallower" end of the gene pool who can't think long enough to realize, "Well shit, maybe I shouldn't blow dry my hair while I'm in the bathtub."

Sorry. I know it's off topic. I might give a proper response at another time. Killing all the douchebags just reminded me of that though .o. /runsoff

>>35 Yeah, I had problems in staying on topic, I'm sorry. I'll stay quiet for a while, I'll be able to catch-up again with all this train of thoughts at some point...

The question is still the one of OP.

>>36 oheysomethingrelated

>>22 Nope, the Quran does not say that women should cover their entire bodies. That is merely teachings of the Quran being manipulated and twisted. That kind of occurrence is not restricted to the Muslim faith. The old sections of the Quran even say that women should have equal rights ‘Women have rights (over against men) equal to the rights (they owe men) – but men have precedence over them.’ Just because the modern teachings are much more oppressive does not mean we should not be able to still learn from the older ones.

>>26 That is definitely what I said *sarcastic thumbs up*. Definitely was not targeting the section of feminists that report half baked ideas that they saw on tumblr and shove it down everybody's face who isn't asking for it. Of course, I'm not going to restrict that to feminism. That goes out to all religious, non religious, political, feminist, vegetarian, gay rights activist, labour, liberal, republican, democrat, otaku, brony, city person, country person and hippie that merely want to feel superior and look better than others. They try to achieve this by hearing intelligent points from the smart people on their side of the argument, mangling them, then translating them loudly to everybody else. Anybody who wants to disagree with valid points, go crazy. Anybody that wants to disagree for the sake of disagreeing and a superiority complex, go fuck yourself.

But yeah, good work manipulating what I said to make it look like I hated all feminists when the underlying, major theme of that entire post was 'feminism is good, it's just the idiots who corrupt it that ruin the movement'.

Going to add one last post to prove the point of the last paragraph in >>40


Barabi's last version
"If any of you are reading this, you are unintelligent, half baked, first world spoiled excuses for human beings and should raise your life value to above that of a mildly smart newt. You are fucking ridiculous and should keep some of your idiotic opinions somebody else told you to yourself. Go fuck yourself."


Full last version:
"Anyway, the type of people who follow the causes in the way I hate them to be followed are probably the type who would disagree exactly with what I previously said. If any of you are reading this, you are unintelligent, half baked, first world spoiled excuses for human beings and should raise your life value to above that of a mildly smart newt. You are fucking ridiculous and should keep some of your idiotic opinions somebody else told you to yourself. Go fuck yourself."


How handy you just forgot to read "Anyway, the type of people who follow the causes in the way I hate them to be followed are probably the type who would disagree exactly with what I previously said." Which as I stated earlier that post, were the people that could not provide valid reasoning for being so strident about their cause.

I think it's disgusting.
It's fucking stupid and damages the family unit.
It's a tactic to create more broken homes and wage slaves.
If you think anyone needs feminism, you are retarded.

>>42 If you don't give points to prove your statements you don't have the right to insult others' opinions.

>>42 But how will feminism cause all those things? You don't have any valid points for this discussion and clearly did not read what any of the others have posted in this thread.

Also, BarabiSama, join my polygamy :*:*:*

>>45 .-. nothx.
>>43 >>44 Guize. Don't bother responding to him.

>>41 That full version says the same thing. Just because I didn't copy and paste the other sentence doesn't mean you can pretend you meant anything different. You assumed that anyone who disagreed with what you said is the type of person who you don't like and went on to say that. Don't try to pretty up the meaning of it with an added sentence to make yourself look better, Solace; it doesn't work.

I'm not wasting my time debating with you; I deleted most of the points I had in response to you and don't intend to rewrite them.

>>48 Alrighty, seeing as you seem to have trouble interpreting simple writing, let me re-clarify

I do not think anybody who disagrees with me is an idiot and wrong(as you stated in >>26), I love people who can point out contrary points and opinions effectively. As I stated in >>22, I hate the kind of aggressive, sheep minded tacticians that latch themselves onto a chosen cause and mindlessly blather the same point that somebody else told them over and over and over again. I thought that my statements had made that painfully clear but I guess reading between the lines isn't everybody's thing.

>>42 It's been a while, Reggie..

>>49 Yes, and you assumed that everyone who disagrees with you is the type of person you hate, a type which you listed above. Read your own writing.

"the type of people who follow the causes in the way I hate them to be followed are probably the type who would disagree exactly with what I previously said."

Implying that if we're the type to disagree with you, then we must be those types of people. An equal sign doesn't go just one way.

We don't have an edit button, Solace, and you can't take back a stupid comment like that by arguing with me. It'd be one thing if you said, "Sorry guys, I thought it was fine, but I guess I worded that wrong; what I meant is..." rather than basically calling me an idiot because of your own mistake to make yourself feel in the right.

There's no point in fighting over the wording or what you want it to mean despite how its written. I'm not going to debate with you regarding the content of your previous post simply because of your attitude. There's no point in having this discussion.

>>50 Actually, my eyes skipped completely past that line every time I read that. My best guess would be that the paragraph about sex was impromptu after reading Ham's post again. When I wrote "disagreed with what I previously said", I was directing it towards "In general, I believe feminism is needed, but it should also be accepted to provide valid opinions on why you digress from some of its views. Too many people flame and persecute any who say they do not agree with it 100%. The same kind of witch-hunt has happened to Christians on the internet and it truly displays the worst part of humanity. It is the kind of aggressive, sheep tactics which are why we flourish and why we also live incredibly destructively." Although I retract none of my statements in the original post, you have justified your point of view and I can't see any point to needlessly standing up and arguing back just for the sake of it. Normally I am actually the kind of person that hates to hell doing this kind of thing, but it would be pretty shitty not to.

On one more unrelated note, I think I saw Lois CK give some really interesting views on Feminism. I can't exactly remember what they were or where they were, I just remember finding them intriguing.

""Years ago when I lived in Rome, it was quite a challenge to spend a day without experiencing the country’s notorious ‘machismo’ culture. Right along with your morning cappuccino and brioche would likely be a side of sexism, some sort of reminder that as a woman in this Mediterranean paradise, you are just barely more than an object.

“Women, they only want to get an education to work so they can buy expensive handbags,” an old man once mumbled to me as I grabbed my books from the cafe counter en route to class.

The manner in which the male gaze is an accepted part of life in Italy speaks volumes to where gender relations stand in the country. Playfully passed on as ‘Italian manly charm’, to me there could not be a more clear indicator of a much larger problem the country has yet to fully confront: violence against women.

The current domestic violence crisis in Italy is so bad that Prime Minister, Enrico Letta referred to the country’s killing of women at the hands of current or former lovers as femicide. Already this year, almost a hundred women have died in cases of intimate partner violence, and in 2012 a United Nations’ report labelled domestic abuse in Italy as the “most pervasive form of violence” in the country, affecting over 30 percent of Italian women. The report also stipulated out that the majority of Italian women who were abused, almost 90% did not report the incidents to the police.

Prime Minister Letta introduced new laws to protect women against domestic violence in hopes to make it easier to prosecute perpetrators. “We are at war against femicide,” Letta acknowledged at a press conference introducing the legislation which includes stricter penalties for men who attack pregnant women, harass or stalk current or ex-girlfriends and wives, and allows police to remove an abuser from the family home.

But critics point out that it is not only the legal system that is failing women, but Italian culture is guilty, too. In fact, ‘honor killings’, commonly referred to in the context of domestic violence issues in the Middle East, was actually considered legal in Italy up until 1981. The real factors that contribute to violence against women go beyond anything that tougher laws and more shelters can resolve. In Italy where the family structure is considered more sacred than the lives of the women in it, the larger issue is about the persistence of a culture where women are not viewed as equal to men.

Italian women are still most commonly associated with the stereotypical image of “Mama,” the always cooking, nurturing domestic woman with her endless supply of pasta and babies. Even Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi actively reinforced stereotypes of Italian women as sex-objects with lurid and drawn out legal cases of orgies, and proven allegations of sex with minors.

The UN’s special rapporteur on violence against women, Rashida Manjoo, recognized that Italy has “an urgent need to tackle” their domestic violence pandemic.”Most manifestations of violence are under-reported in the context of a family-oriented and patriarchal society where domestic violence is not always perceived as a crime,” Manjoo said.

Laws and shelters may protect women from their abusers to an extent and may be important steps to take, but until Italian society changes their cultural attitudes towards women’s rights and accepts them as human rights, domestic violence will continue to be this beautiful country’s ugly struggle.""

I've taken as example Italy because it's the country I mostly know about, and by living there i can prove the truthfulness of wait previously said.

Now, if this kind of situation still happens, not only in Italy, but also in your countries, can we say that we don't need feminism and equality in society?

I truly believe that it depends on the part of the world your talking about. Like >>52 said, in somewhere like Italy, go for it. But places like America don't need it. American woman's rights are just fine as is. They say they want equality, but really they don't. For instance, perhaps the military starts drafting again. Young men who want no part of the fighting being sent out on the field to die. Equality would mean women would be being drafted too. Equality comes with the good, and bad things. I for one wouldnt want my girlfriend going out to die, just because people were given unneeded equality. The US is fine as it is. That's my opinion. Take it or leave it, I don't care

>>53 But...there are women who want to be in the army, but can't...So your thought of that feminists don't want equality really is wrong...Plus, America doesn't really need draftism(?) anymore since plenty of people sign up on their own accord, male or female, since it comes with benefits like paid college.

My personal biggest problem with feminism is that women don't get paid as much as men, and I'm talking about in America. Also how ridiculous it is if you think about it, since, if you pay attention to clothes, it costs shit tons more for women to buy stuff that's even comfortable and fitting on them than it is for guys. Also the fact that we have to buy pads, tampons, bras, etc.

Btw Solace, I know I probably sounded like an up-tight feminazi, but I was angry because I was just previously in a bad discussion about feminism and the guys proceeded to joke about rape which is uncalled for and immature. I also tend to be very strong opinionated which can be very annoying, but I honestly can't really help it. But I will forever still hold on to the fact that someone who doesn't think genders should be at equal rights as in idiot. What if men were the ones who were being told what to do with their body by government laws? Think about that. Even if it doesn't relate to me personally, it still sucks.

Barabi-sama is much better at debating without her feelings getting in the way ;__;

>>43 Alright. Get ready to have a whole new world view.

The first victims of feminism are young women. The sexual revolution of the 60's was essential for feminism's overarching plan to equalize men and women in the social sphere. The general promiscuous nature of men was viewed with jealousy by feminists and other social liberals that scorned the notion that society should see a man sleeping around with multiple women to be natual and morally innocous yet hold the double standard of treating femal promiscuity as socially unaccaptable.

By sexually empowering the young female generation of the 60's they set a precedent that would eventually prove as a curse for women and a boon for men. By removing the element of shame previously upheld by society towards women from having multiple relations instead of a single monogamous one, the sexual market available for men suddenly became imbalanced and incentives for men to commit anything to a woman for any extended period of time slowly diminished.
Without any need for a man to sacrifice and provide real value, in both personal and economic regard, for sexual gratification, the need for stable commitment also vanished.
Look at divorce rates, the amount of single mothers, and other relationship issues of today compared to that of the 50's.

The next victims of feminism are the young men whom would normally have been expected to follow in his father's footsteps, marrying a woman that emulated their mother.
With the sexual revolution train going to town, college aged women were more free to experiment with their sexuality and a new precedent implies that college is for self discovery as opposed to higher knowledge.
While some men do enjoy the company of these "sexually liberated" women in the short term, most men who have any value to provide and care for a woman will seek out women of strong moral character who will raise their children.
The moral character of a man is very important and also a key element that a woman searches for in a husband, it is not a primary function of the nuclear family.
A woman biologically and instinctively needs a provider and a protector foremost ahead of a moral figure in the aid of raising her children.
A woman is the key of the intellectual, moral, and social wellbeing of her children.

Women and men are not equal. Unless the human race eventually manages to become one race and one gender, there will always be an imbalance of power, strength, and weakness. That's how nature works.

Don't get me wrong though, the LAW should treat both men and women equally.
But when it comes down to it. Women will always be superior to men in certain aspects and vice versa. The attempt to socially equalize men and women damages the most important part of our existence as a human being. Our children.

Children suffer from the social changes brought on by feminism the very most.
With the destruction of gender roles accompanied with the dramatic reduction of stable partnerships, the statistics for an American child to be born into a proper family environment are almost null.
Studies have shown that children thrive under the structure of the nuclear family in almost every way.

The nurturing care of a mother and the emotional stability of a father are key foundational elements that our species has relied, on a biological levle, since we've existed.

When a child comes from a broken home, more times than not, they are damaged and broken themselves.
If you don't see how this creates wage slaves then you should take a really good look at the state of the modern world around you.


>>44 I don't have to read what you think to make up my own mind on a situation.

>>48 Yea, don't respond to him.
He's a real cunt.

P.S.
Still didn't read the thread.
lel

>>54 The problem with both sides of feminism is that we both have terrible trouble making idiots on our sides. Feminazis and misogynists kind of spoil it for everyone.

In regard to the army, I think it's a very complicated issue and one of the realms where women should have limited access comparative to men. Women have stronger emotions, this has been proven. Because they have needed to raise the children, their emotional connection was always elevated comparative to males. This means that in general, women will suffer more and heavier trauma than males. It's not that they are less capable soldiers, it's that the female mindset is generally a lot more empathetic. Certainly there are women that do not have an emotional mindset, but we can't be sure that a lot of them just don't know what they are getting themselves into.

>>55 I find it hard to disagree with that. I still maintain, however, that it was the idiots who put feminism in that direction rather than the movement itself that has soiled it for the world.

My personal view on feminism isn't all that well informed, so I honestly can't be judging anything, but with my few experiences with feminism, primarily in the gaming community, it get on my nerves. I'm a guy, so yes, the sexually appealing video game characters naturally appeal to me(though maybe not to everyone), but just because they're in a skimpy outfit, doesn't mean it's sexist and shouldn't be allowed to exist, as most comments I often see tend to suggest. It's artistic expression. Do I think a female character having skimpy armor isn't realistic? Of course, but I just deal with it because that is how the artist wanted the character to look. It isn't sexist or anything like that. That'd be like walking up to a kid in school who draws a lot, and he's drawing a female character with skimpy armor and calling him sexist for doing so.

I realize i'm probably gonna get flamed for this, but honestly, it's my opinion. Everyone's entitled to one.

>>58 The problem is less about the fact that female characters are depicted in skimpy outfits and more about the difference between men and women when it comes to clothing and sexualisation.
Not gonne lie, I fucking love some of those skimpy outfits and I'd be sad to see them go, but how often do you see men in the same position? You see a lot of genderbends where their female counterparts are oversexualised, whereas their males are, well, normal. The problem isn't the skimpy outfits - it's that only women are subjected to them. But I totally see what you're saying.

The one big problem I have with some feminists is their incorrect idea of equality. Equality, meaning everyone is equal. Sorry, that means no matriarchy either. Some of them try to make males inferior and I can't stand that shit.

>>55 Hey look, a copypasta from 4chan. You're very original, Chrome p:

I'm not going to give a long, true response to that bs, but I will say this: I don't think children are negatively affected at all by "broken families" or "single parents" or growing up without a stereotypical father-at-work/stay-at-home-mother family. I grew up with a single parent and came out just fine; the "broken family" is, thus, to me, the least important part of this entire debate.

>>59 I see what you're saying too. The way I look at it, is that it is kinda harder to sexualize a male character. With female characters, they have clothing, it's just more revealing and shows everything off. With male characters though, they take their shirts off and expose their muscles. That's basically as far as it can go, other than making the guy more handsome. It's harder to sexualize men.

One example of this, would be anime in general. You see beautiful female characters all the time with overly sexualized features etc., and it gets the male fans hormones raging. Then you have an anime like Free! which does not have your typical fanservice. It has manservice for woman. All the male characters are detailed down to the last muscle. I've talked to a lot of my friends who have seen Free!, all female, and they said that the muscles didn't really appeal to them, but then they go off on a tangent about regular fanservice as if it were Satan himself. Now, obviously, that may not be true for everyone, but that was a good chunk of my friends and they all said the same thing, practically in unison. If it were possible to more easily sexualize men, i'd say go for it and balance out the scales, but it's not.

I also agree with your last statement there. I see that a lot and it irritates me. No one should be above anyone else, and it is the responsibility of those who are above, to raise everyone else to their level if at all possible, not put them down lower. That sort of thing just frustrates me immensely.

>>60 Originality is dead!

Besides, I'm just playing devil's advocate here.
My only real opinion about anything is that it's all just a big joke.

Know what I believe? It doesn't matter what gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity or religion you all be equal, Simple yes, BUT With that said it must be ALL EQUAL. Males and females. I am aware of the oppression of women that has gone on for generations, and yeah its completely and utterly fucked. I despise other guys treating women like lesser human beings. I cannot stand people treating others as lesser being because they are different. Fuck heads half the population is females! Females aren't different gah. Anyway my point being is, It isn't just females that get shit to though, hear me out. Now recently I heard on the news that a 43 year old woman was sending naked photos to her 14 year old sons friends (also 14) Now I do not care what anyone says, that is Paedophilia plain and simple. She also tried to get pictures of them, and on occasion have sex with them. She got nothing. I am dead serious, not even a slap on the wrist, she got in trouble yeah, the cops basically said don't do it again, the court laughed at the complaints. Why is it ok for a female to get away with this, no why is it ok for anyone to get away with this. it is a vile act, and while I understand it is far more common for paedophiles to be male populated, it does not change the fact that female paedophiles do exist. Moving on from that, a lot of women particularly more feminist based ones treat all and every guy like shit. They say that every male is scum and liars. This pisses me off, how dare someone pleading for equality be so biased? It makes me sick. I have never cheated in a relationship, nor intentionally hurt a woman's feelings, nor have I ever hit a women or ever will. Yet by many I am treated like dirt because they believe all men are scum. I have been cheated on, several times. I will never say that all women are bitches and scum because I was hurt. I know better then that and I am not fucking close minded. I think anyone who wants equality must treat everyone equal themselves, that's the only way we are ever going to get out of this shitstorm of biased bullshit.

And as for the payment differences and all that other jazz, DAMN STRAIGHT IT SHOULD BE BROUGHT IN. I agree women need more respect, there is a lot of scummy guys, its true. I just don't want to be thrown in with that batch because of who I was born with ya know?

>>61 That's the problem - the male body is, according to our society, harder to sexualise. If a guy goes shirtless, no one really cares. But if a woman goes shirtless, it suddenly becomes a big deal. Female bodies are some kind of obscene thing that shouldn't be shown in today's society, which is inequality.
The issue is that we've become desensitized to male bodies but not females. I can see where you're coming from, but I guess I kind of outlined the wrong part of the argument so my bad.

This ties in with slut shaming and all that jazz, too. Women are considered attract when they show their bodies, but they're also shamed for it. Like the shirtless example I gave, really. The point is that we shouldn't make exceptions to the whole 'keep your darn shirt on' rule just for men - if a man can go half naked, a woman can too.

>>65
I'm not saying this with a lot of well-researched basis, but I do believe that the male body being 'harder to sexualise'/women can't go shirtless while men can stuff isn't just a societal construct. It has biological basis as well.
Shirtless males aren't as 'taboo' as females not because we're desensitised to their bodies. It's because males don't have secondary sexual organs on their chests. In medicine, we class as 'secondary sexual characteristics' everything that can possibly help reproduction occur other than the basic sexual organs (testes/ovaries). This includes biological markers of fertility and good genes like bigger breasts for women and bigger muscles for men.
Human society is arguably built on the idea that we are more than our basic biological instincts (although judging by most of mainstream music, one would beg to differ). It is what supposedly sets us apart from animals. That is why we frown upon people who use sex as a way to gain status. This is why we have this concept of 'modesty' - that promotes this intellectual barrier between ourselves and our reproductive instincts. No, we marry for love! Not because we have an inexplicable urge to secure the future of our species or anything basic like that! These are all societal constructs. We have these because we are intellectually superior to animals.
But anyone with eyes open can see that we haven't truly overcome our instincts. So no, women can't go half naked. Our upper halves aren't desexualised because they were engineered to be sexualised.
(I can see an obvious counter-argument but I won't be addressing it unless someone raises it)

>>63
Yes, I quite understand where you are coming from. Some feminists do confuse feminism with their own extremist male-demonisation. There are bad things on both sides of the coin, and yes, now the coin is being flipped and now we see more male demonisation because people are sheeple, and a new trend for young girls to follow is 'all men are pedophiles and cheaters', so they'll follow it, bless them.
Political correctness is a big part of our flawed judicial system these days. Women usually getting custody of children in divorce proceedings - that's not because all women are better carers for children - it's sexism.
So you are right. Many people want equality but they don't know what equality is. They don't know how to moderate equality with equity. Everything is a mess and people aren't going to change.
Anyway. I can understand your frustration, but like, calm your farm bro.

>>66 Obvious counter-argument time: "But men have nipples too! Fat men have breasts too; they look just like boobs even if they don't have milk sacs in them!"

Also, if a man's muscles are part of their gender-based sexualization, then why isn't it immodest for them to go around showing off their muscles every day?

That's always been my counter argument for this kind of thing. Like when schools try to ban yoga pants because they're "too revealing" and "distract the boys". Fine then, guys shouldn't be allowed to wear sleeveless, short-sleeved, or tight-sleeved shirts because most girls find their bare arms and flexing muscles sooo distracting! Of course, because of sexism, that argument isn't taken seriously. Women are expected to contain their urges. Women aren't allowed to get distracted by men in skinny jeans or bulging muscles; it's inappropriate. On that same note, they're not allowed to distract men, quietly shunned for wearing anything that even suggests they have a figure.

Don't get me wrong: sluts are sluts. You can't walk around wearing a piece of lace over your underwear and try to pass it off as a dress; that shit's lingerie no matter what the kids at my school say. But that doesn't change that slut-shaming happens to girls who are honestly not sluts at all, and even after reading your post, I don't think it can be passed off as something biological.

>>67
Wrong counterargument but good try.
The name for fat man boobs is 'gynaecomastia'. This is a pathology. Not a natural secondary sexual characteristic for men. Male nipples do not possess mammary glands used for nursing children which is necessary for reproduction.
That was super invalid.
Since when were male muscles not sexualised? Males struts around like peacocks and show them off all the time. Male models are required to have abs. Girls and gay guys drool over magazines with muscly half-naked dudes. Just look at the reaction when Taylor Lautner took off his shirt in one of the Twilight movies. The reaction was immense. Media was all over it - just like media is all over every nipple-slip on the red carpet.
That said, of course sexual objectification does include societal factors - a predominant one being western religion - i.e. Christianity. (That was part of the intended counter-argument)
I don't really like the word slut in general.
Attaching a negative connotation to a lady's personal sexual choices isn't going to get any of us anywhere. Not even if we segregate women into categories of 'actual slut' and 'not a slut'. Does it even matter if the girl has actually had sex with a dozen men? No, the issue lies in the existence of the world itself as a swear.
Didn't really try to pass slut-shaming off as biological, but I think I can see where you made the connection.

>>67
Sorry I feel like I didn't address all you said.
You seem quite upset about your school policies and the suppression of female sexual urges by society - is this due to personal experience or anything...? I'd love to hear your stories if you have any :) I love having a good bash at silly prejudiced people (guilty pleasure, I know.)
Women being expected to control their urges, all of that yadda - definite societal construct. As I mentioned above, a lot of this is due to western Christianity and possibly other historical factors - but I certainly haven't done any research into that.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say that women aren't allowed to distract men and are quietly shunned for wearing figure-revealing/enhancing clothes. Do you live in a suppressed country?
In my country, women in scanty/figure-hugging clothes are everywhere. Our department stores rarely if ever sell the sack-like abominations that you seemed to have implied to be the accepted standard of clothing. I haven't seen a piece of clothing in my local store that doesn't compliment a woman's figure in at least one way for a while now. It's a bit tough for me since I like covering up.

Sidenote: Regarding male vs female immodesty. I hate bringing this up because it makes it look like I'm supporting all of the badness of patriarchal society, but men really do have naturally bigger and stronger sex drives. Libido is associated with testosterone levels. Higher testosterone = Higher libido. And guess who generally has higher testosterone levels for much of their adult life? Males. Gender dimorphism is real. Men and women are different. I'm not saying that decent guys can't control themselves and shouldn't be expected to control themselves, but I think there needs to be a fair amount of understanding from us girls about what a struggle it is for decent dudes (especially teenagers) to not-sexualise each and every one of you as their biological instincts tell them to. Guys don't want to be demonised because they have sex drives, but when outside stimulus is getting too stimulating, many will demonise themselves further because of things outside of their control.

tl;dr Biology isn't at fault. It's the way we have come to view our biology that's causing problems.

All in all, I agree with >>66. The way we treat sex and reproduction is due to non-natural factors like religion (I guess?) and way we've been raised.
>>68 It seems like the whole sexualisation thing boils down to the fact that we don't consider male muscles sexual like breasts. They're more fetishised than sexualised, I guess?
Another problem I have is how people treat muscly women - on guys it's attractive, but on girls it's gross? (I can totally dig muscly chicks though, don't know why you wouldn't.) But hey, again with the whole societal construct about women being innocent and petite and shit.
(Man, humans are weird. We take so much pride in thinking we're better than other organisms while we poison the planet and take our lives for granted. Sucks to be anything other than a human right now.)

That sounds like a nice tl;dr. Although there are fundamental truths in our biology that people often choose to disregard (or are simply ignorant of) in favour of conjecture and opinion.
This is more theory than anything - but 'muscly women are unattractive' definitely has a biological basis. It's an excellent example of your tl;dr. Yes, biologically males will seek female mates that display high fertility, and not traits found in other males - such as muscly-ness that shows physical prowess which is good for hunting but not necessary for child-bearing or rearing. HOWEVER, given the fact that we now have organised thought and the luxury of society and choice, why are we still imposing such primitive ideals on ourselves?

As humans we think we're quite important, but the reality is - without us, the planet will go on. And at this rate, it looks like we might just manage to wipe ourselves out.

>>69 >>68 No, I don't have any personal stories. My school is extremely open to clothing (unlike the schools which I was referring to). As for myself, I dress modestly. I prefer to wear long skirts (though shorter skirts are ♥ every now and again) and long sleeved shirts. Ever now and again I'll show cleavage, but it's usually only because I really like the shirt and can't help how it was made.

My country isn't suppressed LOL I live in America. People dress like sluts all the time. However, adults really look down on that, and there are a lot of school systems in America which have much stricter dress codes for females rather than males. A guy can take his shirt off at practice, but if a girl wears leggings as pants, it's the end of the world all of a sudden. Again - I'm not speaking for my own school. I'm talking about the schools you hear on the news as well as actually the school one of my close friends goes to.

I know that men naturally have stronger sex drives; my issue is that it's frowned upon when a woman naturally shares that. I personally shun everyone who has mass amounts of sex because I think it's ridiculous, but since that's personal opinion, I'm putting that aside. No matter the biology of sex drives, I don't think it should be ok for men to screw everything they see but not women. Like you said, that by itself has to do with religion and history, and it's a bitch to move past it when the related religions and old morals are still around, even if less prevolent.

>>70 Why would you say muscles are a fetish? If the reason is "well not everyone likes them" then aren't breasts a fetish then, too? Not all straight guys like tits. Just like I find muscles gross on anybody, I've heard more than one guy say that they didn't like breasts since they're just lobs of fat hanging off girl's chests. Sure, most guys like them, but not all of them. Just like that, most girls like their guys strong, but certainly not all of them.

I do agree that it's somewhat ridiculous that it's considered creepy when women have muscles. It shouldn't be something so widely frowned upon just for that gender. Personally, even if I don't find mass muscles appealing, if you can train and get 'em - go for it! Whatever makes you happy.

That's the biggest thing that it comes down to. Why can't we just be happy? :I Let people be what they want and like what they want. But it's like... there's no such thing as a "personal preference" anymore. Either you like what society likes or you like the opposite of it, and if you like anything inbetween you're looked at like some kind of abomination. It's some constant war between the popular vs the unpopular vs the unconventional, and it has been causing so much prejudice, even with gender aside. Who really gives a fuck? You're right that humans are damn nuts.

>>71 If I were a primitive male, I'd totally go for a muscly lady. If she were able to protect herself it would just make things easier. There's a pretty obvious flaw there but whatever.
>>72 Honestly, it was the only word that I could think of to attempt to describe it. But you're definitely right.

>>73 Primitive females were not expected to protect themselves; they were expected to raise the children and tend to the village. Believe it or not but their society was even more 'sexist' than ours.

>>73
Sigh Blinking. You simply cannot base your conjectures on 'I'd totally x if I was y'. Especially if you're arguing against laws of nature. It's like saying 'If I were light, I'd totally not get absorbed by opaque objects, I'd just go ahead and bounce off them. Pretty obvious flaw right there.'
Silly.
>>72
'Why can't we just be happy? :I Let people be what they want and like what they want.'
It's a nice dream. I wish it'd happen too. I'm willing to bet that quite a lot of people want it, but are we ready to make the sacrifices necessary for such a culture?
Even now, we say such things because they're popular, and people will accept and agree. Women in the old times would have kept their mouths shut no matter how strongly they felt about the subject. And even the ones that spoke would have made no difference. Think about why.
I think we're too complacent on expressing these opinions as a form of self-gratification. We get angry about these things and then we move on and take full advantage on the luxuries of our flawed society.
Why don't we do something?

>>74 Exactly. That's why we consider them primitive.

Erk sorry. Went off topic.

>>75 I'm not basing anything on that; just saying that if I were in that position with the knowledge I have then that's what I'd do.

>>74 It depends on the culture. In many Native American tribes, women were actually expected to defend their native lands when the men were out hunting or at war; the wives of the chiefs and head families were also expected to take over the political positions of their spouses to keep the tribe running smoothly. There are quite a few cultures like that. I don't know where this idea that it's always been natural for females to be protected by men; it's utter bullshit. Not all primitive societies were the same.

On that note, as well, let's look at Lions. The Lionesses are actually in charge of gathering much of the meat and protecting the children, not because they're stronger, but because their territory's Lion is in charge of protecting the expanse of the territory itself. Equivalent exchange of power and effort. Not all cultures were sexist, just as not all species are.

>>75 Pfft, speak for yourself. If you don't do anything about it, that's fine. If you take advantage of sexist and discriminant luxuries, whatever. If you only say things like that to gratify yourself, sure. Whatever you want; it's all on you. But don't say that like you're talking for the rest of us.

I do what I can when I can to speak up against and attempt to end bullshit social injustices like what we're discussing in this thread, and I don't nonchalantly accept biased charity unless it's forced on me. We're never going to have a perfect world. We're never going to get rid of discrimination (especially since there is a place and a time for it). But we can do what we can to make our own problems better little by little; if you choose not to do it, then say "I," not "we."

Heck. I'm going to follow this thread and post when I feel something needs to be pointed out.

>>78 the thing is, if you aren't a guy, you don't have the same urges, testosterone levels, mindset, or instincts, so you can't really say "if I was a primitive male I would..." Because if you're female, you can't really put yourself into the opposite genders state of conscience easily.

The law should treat everyone equally. However instead of arguing about it, I think we should instead try to understand the way the opposite gender thinks. (Oh shit, I know right.) I believe this will help fix the problems we have discussed.

Girls/woman out there, please don't treat all guys like pieces of shit. Most guys aren't like that. It only appears like it is because the guys who are like that stand out more than the others, often because they are louder. If you do treat guys like that, your doing the polar opposite of what you're trying to prevent, which in turn, makes you a hypocrite.

Good conversations though. Any arguments with this, please attempt to correct them.
~Firebrand

>>81 Guys out there, please don't assume all girls treat guys like pieces of shit, and please don't generalize "what girls think" or "what girls do".

Your statement about girls and that statement ^ are really just the center of this argument when tied together.

It's about the bias and discrimination due to generalizations of a gender. So long as the sexist people who hold those biases (in either direction) get into office and are allowed to pass laws, we won't have legal equivalence. Men have legal rights over women just as women have some legal rights over men. We can only change that by working little by little to overpower the sexists who are still in office and passing what we can under their noses because going against the entirety of society itself isn't a fight that we can win yet, even if we want to .-.

I am a girl, and I have an aversion to girls. Ahaha, all my friends are guys and I avoid females like the plague, even the nice ones. AHAHAHAHAHA
They piss me off.

I am an equalist. It would be lovely to some day see gender-stereotypes go away. Also if they stopped sexualizing women's bodies so much on billboards and such.

Like how in Skyrim, if your a female they treat you with the same respect they would give guys.

>>84 Skyrim = ♥

True that. The armour, appearances, levels, etc. etc. are all the same. I haven't found any sexist NPC's, either. They usually just hate me because I'm an Elf lol

I like how no one wants to challenge the completely valid points I copypasta'd.

Also, Skyrim is for the Nords.

Sage because of a lack of debate.

Found some good stuff.

Confessions of a Former Misogynist
Friend Zone Explained Comic

Reading through this thread was interesting, to say the least.

>>86 Not sure I agree with non-traditional roles making 'broken homes'. People change in other ways along with gender roles. It's not just feminism that changes how people think over time. I think you'd still see a broken home in those cases even if the mother and father filled traditional roles. If a mother wants to work and a father wants to take care of the kids, I don't see how that will negatively affect the child.

(was looking at the wrong post before, don't mind >>89)

Can we please discuss pick-up-artists, preferably including their adamant belief that women being in the work place ruined marriage by making them only business competition or fuck buddies? And that those events created the need for PUA? Specifically since women aren't worth anything now because they can't be easily pulled into bed and should be belittled to the point of just being targets in a Game?

Personally, I think that you must have no self-esteem to be a PUA and be so honestly convinced that you could never get a girl for who you are as a person. That lack of self-confidence is more to blame for the reason you can't get cunt than the fact that you're a man.

Alright, I'll add my thoughts.
I am by definition a feminist, I believe in the equality of the genders, fiscally, socially, etc. However, by today's standard of feminism, I'm not. I can't stand radical feminists or anything that discriminates against males or non-alignment, I don't believe in that kind of process, I don't believe that will solve anything.
That aside, I believe that women need more recognition in possibly issues they may be experiencing (broken homes, single parent, pregnancy, etc.), and more social program assistance. I believe women are entitled to their education and the ability to pursue higher careers.
Still pisses me off that minimum wage is lower for women here...

>>92 Really? o-o Where do you live again?

>>91 PUAs piss me off, even the name pisses me off but it has become quite an art. Ugh. Smooth talkers. The worst part is, I'm a total sucker for charmers. I'm not an idiot though.
It makes me sad though that there are a lot of guys out there who do that to women on a daily basis. And I don't like that view of women in the workplace, women don't go and get jobs just so they can fuck their coworker, oh and I can see appearance being brought into this. Is she wearing her club dress to work? No. She's most likely wearing a nicely fitted suit just like all the other males so she is definitely not asking for it.
Maybe there should be more awareness on the issue? Frankly I think all girls and women should be able to turn down some PUA's advances. What really bothers me is the social stigma teenage girls get for trying, even from parents, speaking from personal experience, no people you don't have to bring up my sexuality because I have some self respect and believe in healthy relationships thank you very fucking much. I'm not saying it's like that everywhere but a girl should have the right to turn down the popular playboy who'd just use her and not be treated any differently for the action.
Another thing that ticks me off, I have heard people saying that women who aren't looking for some shouldn't be at bars or clubs. Can't a girl have fun without going home with a stranger? Maybe she just wants to look pretty and get a drink or go dancing.
This was more of a rant than anything but hopefully I contributed to the topic.

>>93 Canada, last I heard the minimum wage rate for men and women was different. The government is increasing the amount soon but I don't know if it'll be equal or not.

>>95 More women work at minimum wage than men, the actual amount is not different.

>>96 >>95 It's not separate by gender, but there's a lot of alternative jurisdiction for people in different situations or working different jobs. I'd like to note that several of jobs with lower rates are more or less female-oriented fields while those with higher are male-oriented. Labourers and salesmen generally have higher minimum wages in many territories, meanwhile those working in care-taking fields and home workers have lower minimum wage. I can see the reason why this is without sexism having anything to do with it, but I can also see how it could be misinterpreted as that when you're looking between the perspective of your mom and dad in those fields, who think you work just as hard, yet get paid different amounts.

Also, minimum wage originally was higher for men than women in Canada but was evened out by the mid seventies.

>>97 I'm not sure why it isn't sexist that fields that employ mostly males have higher minimum wages. What justification is there for that?

It's still sexism that causes that divide in different genders getting different jobs. A lot of employers looking for auto-mechanics, for example, will hire men over women even if the women is more qualified. This is because women aren't thought of as good at manual labor by a lot of people. They probably don't think of having to pay a women higher than minimum wage as a reason not to hire her, that is true. Sexism is still part of this problem, however.

This clearly isn't universally true, and maybe not even mostly true where you are from, but it is true for a lot of people depending on where you go. It will continue to be true for a while until people realize your genitals don't affect your ability to work 99.99% of the time. Men and women are different in many ways, however the ability to work is not one of them.

There was a Japanese governor or electing for governor that stated that women should stay out of government offices because their periods and swaying hormone levels cloud their ability to make rational decisions. I may get extra irritable and require a larger intake of ice cream but would I choose to go to war? (He used going to war as an example.) No. *mumbles words children shouldn't hear*

>>100 Some women are more extreme than others in that respect, so it is actually a semi-valid concern. Though I agree that it's largely bullshit. A government official can't just decide to go to war without consulting the rest of the bloody government, can they?

Dear god I'm tired of hearing about all this.

>>101 if it's a true democracy then they can't but I don't actually think that a completely true to the term democracy exists in today's society, however that's another political issue that doesn't involve feminism.
I'd like to think that women going into the political field aren't so susceptible to poor judgement because of hormones either that or they just stay home for a few days a month.
Another stupid thing is is that men experience their own period of hormonal imbalance too, it's much shorter and to be honest I don't know much about it but it happens.

>>99 It's not sexist mostly because of the content. You're not going to get killed by a beam falling when you're taking care of an old lady, ya know? Labourous jobs are more dangerous, which is why they usually have higher benefits, and I could see that being the reason why they're required to be paid more at the start.

>>101 And you don't think men are extreme like that? If we can be told that women shouldn't wear "revealing clothing" unless they want to get hit on because men "can't control their sex drives", and if we're told that we need to respect that it's "just how men are made", can you really tell me that women are the ones more emotionally swayed by their body's functions? Can you tell me that the sexual frustration some guys face isn't equal to that of some girls?

Regardless, it's very rare for someone to legitimately freak the fuck out like that for either gender. Do you honestly think someone who can't handle their emotions would get into a gov't position to begin with? And if they were, there's no way in hell they'd stay there, regardless of their gender.

>>103 >Do you honestly think someone who can't handle their emotions would get into a gov't position to begin with?

Yes.
It happens all the time. Their emotions start getting worse after they get all the power.
Look at Rob Ford. He is a shining example of what I mean. Plus, he isn't a rare case, either. This has happened before, in the same city too.
Plus he's going to get reelected, so he's staying.


And I can see the legitimacy of raising the minimum wage for dangerous jobs. I think government sponsored sexism is more or less over. It's just the people that are actually hiring that can't move on.

>>104 I meant to the degree of forcing a country to go to war simply because of their hormones. There are plenty of angry politicians out there.

>>105 Well, that's happened too.
There aren't many times we've gone to war for logical reasons.
Or at least, for the best interest of our people. Most of the time it's out of fear.

But, to the topic, that doesn't happen any more with women than men. It's been mostly men in positions of power over the last couple thousand years and we've seen this kind of stuff going on with men.

If I had my way all wars would be fought by peaceful chess matches.
>>106 exactly, but whose to say that if roles were reversed the outcomes wouldn't be the same.
To be a good politician I guess you have to be more ballsy and aggressive which are natural traits for males. So in a way it's sort if like manual labour, men may just be better suited for the job but that gives them no right to discriminate against a woman who by chance of a lot of factors like genetics and experience, may be just as suited for the position.

>>106 I hardly think any modern countries have gone to war over hormones. I'm not saying the wars were justified, but I don't think we went into Iraq because Bush was sexually frustrated, personally.

I don't think any war was fought over something like gender hormones etc etc. but I believe true feminism is giving women rights and holding them to the same standards as men. In reason not all women are going to be able to compete with men egually just as not all men can compete with women equally both genders have there own strengths and weakness just as some women are just as strong as men and vice versa. Ps when I use strength I don't all ways mean physically.

>>108 Sorry, it's not because of hormones, you are correct. It is out of mismanagement of emotions. Women are being seen as more emotional, not necessarily more hormonal. Fear is an emotion and it's the reason men have done a lot of stupid stuff.

I think the reason Bush is painting right now instead of starting a charity is because of his hormones, personally.

>>110 We're seen as emotional due to hormones. What Neko was talking about specifically related to the different hormonal balance women have to men and how it's believed that severely affects their emotions to the point where their judgement is clouded. That's where the whole argument comes into play; there's no argument just saying, "they're emotional because they're girls." The physical/scientific back-up is that it's because of the menstrual cycle and hormone imbalances, which is bullshit because not all women face those issues, and men often have their own imbalances as well.

>>111 I'll admit, I haven't talked to many sexist people that are willing to discuss their beliefs. The few I have seem to think emotionalism is a basic trait in women.

Here's why I thought that: Hilary Clinton crying in public, for instance, was not attributed to hormones as far as I saw, it was attributed to her being a woman. It was the same thing with her status as a grandmother affecting her ability to be an effective politician; the only reason that question was asked was because she was a woman. As far as I saw, her emotional state was not attributed to hormones.

However, that could have been implied and I may have missed that. I admit, I don't really pick up on that stuff because it doesn't make any sense to me.

Either way you look at it, hormones or not, it's not logical and it's not true. I think we can agree too many people think of woman as emotional wrecks that are incapable of doing serious work.

>>112 You're literally saying the same thing as I am and not getting it x-x Basing it on "being a woman" = "physical differences to males" = "lady parts" = "hormones" = "emotional".

But yeah, that last part. It's bs.

>>113 Well, I thought that chain of logic was not followed by everyone. You were saying people tied emotionalism to hormones, I didn't think most people actually thought about it that hard.

But, like I said, it's semantics; it doesn't change the result either way.
And it doesn't make it any less maddening.

I just wish I could at least understand their opinions better. It makes no sense to me and it's hard for me to convey my opinion in a way they'll understand.

>>103 I never said anything like that, and I don't believe any of those things. What I said was that women (and all other sexes to boot) have moments of weakness and that's why people are concerned. However, as a result of some dumb sexist bias, that simple fact has been severely blown out of proportion. As a very general rule, women are ever-so-slightly more susceptible to emotions, but I do not believe that makes them in any way less qualified than men to take on important roles in our society. I don't have to believe that all women are slaves to their emotions to accept that we're just a tad more emotionally inclined on some odd, biological level.

But really, I don't understand why this argument is even necessary. Wow, people sometimes have moments of weakness based on factors beyond their control - regardless of their sex! Isn't that craaazy??

>>115 Because not everyone believes that, that's why the argument is happening. Many believe women are much more emotional.

I'm not sure why, but there you go.

>>114 The individual logic doesn't always go back to it. I'm saying nearly all scientific backup to the argument to substantiate it in a debate goes back to that logic. And yes, semantics.

Sleepo has a request of you guys and that is to watch the film Oleanna

>>118 I see it has some pretty bad reviews as a movie, but if you think the message is good, I'll watch it when I have a chance;

>>119 at times it is hard to follow due to constant revisitation of thoughts that occured within the acts themselves, but i would recommend because of i suppose the thoughts that can arise and the sort of openedness of its conclusion

3rd wave feminism is in a sorry state, to the point where you cant even take them serious anymore. Anyway, compared to the times when women werent allowed to have a job and be married at the same time, or not being alowed to vote, I dont even know what the fuss is about anymore.

>>121 You don't know what the fuss is about? People are still sexist and those people have power.

You may not be sexist, but there are a lot of people (including people that can supply jobs, housing, or education) that still think women are below men, or that they can't work as effectively, etc.

If you are a women, depending on where you live, it is harder to get a job or be taken seriously as a professional if you have one.

Why do you think the vast majority of CEOs, COOs, senators, presidents, vice-presidents, elected officials, and billionaires are men? Just a coincidence?

>>122 But third wave feminism is looking kind of pathetic at the moment, no denying it. I'd like to go back to getting women their basic rights, thanks - not whining about how some man joked that I should go back to the kitchen.
(Again, I recognise that most of the guys and gals in the movement aren't colossal morons but the few that have are loud and seemingly prominent, which is concerning.)

>>124 >I recognise that most of the guys and gals in the movement aren't colossal morons

It's possible you missed that part.


So, the reason men can't make sexist jokes is because that perpetuates a mindset of inequality? I'm not sure that's the case. Personally, I don't see the progress prohibiting those jokes will make. It seems backwards to me. If people were not sexist, they generally wouldn't find those kinds of jokes funny. All I see when I correct someone is frustration and fear, not a step forward towards any kind of understanding. I consider myself a fairly moderate person, and even when I correct people in the most understanding way possible, they do not react well. It is because of the environment. If there are a number of people all being educated about genders, they are in the same boat and it is safe to be taught such information. However, when telling a joke like that, it is not safe. When you call them out in front of other people, it's a very awkward and unsafe situation, and they will not learn anything.

I think the best approach is to educate. Most of the time, sexism is based on a misunderstanding or completely incorrect information. I feel if this misinformation was addressed in the correct way, we could make a lot of people a lot more understanding towards genders. This would have to be done in the correct way, because there is a difference between educating and pushing beliefs.


Here's another thing I've been thinking about: isn't chivalry sexist? Holding the door open, paying for the girl on dates, giving a seat up on public transit, 'ladies first', etc: aren't these things sexist? If so, are they wrong?

>>125 No, I didn't miss that part. The point I was making in >>124 was also not worded well, which is why I deleted it earlier. And I don't believe education in schools would make sexism go away if it's enforced at home.

And that depends on the context. If a guy wants to be chivalrous and his girlfriend likes it, that's fine. But I don't believe it's appropriate in day to day situations. I mentioned earlier in this thread about a few experiences I've had holding the door open for men; because of this kind of mentality, some men get hot and bothered when a woman is the one doing such things, even if it's purely out of respect.

I encountered another situation recently regarding this. We were all headed into our classroom, and there's this guy in front of me who's holding up the whole line because he won't go in. Like, I'm standing there holding the door open, and he blatantly refused to go inside, pushing the whole "ladies first" shit on me. It was so extremely rude. I ended up just going in because there's no reason to hold up the entire class for that nonsense, yet he somehow thought that he was being nice by refusing to enter until I did. I personally find that sexist, although it may be appropriate in another context. I think that everyone should just have a basic respect and courtesy to one another regardless of gender :I

And I don't thing anyone should have to give up their seat on a bus or train unless someone disabled or elderly comes in. A woman can stand on her own two feet. (If she can't, it's her own fault for wearing shitty shoes.)

126 I agree with you on that we should all have respect for each other. I try to hold the door open for everyone. My boyfriend gets mad at me for doing that he thinks I should hold it for him and the elderly/disabled.

>>126 "And I don't believe education in schools would make sexism go away if it's enforced at home."

>implying education only happens at school

*has never spent even one moment being taught in a school*

>>125 "Here's another thing I've been thinking about: isn't chivalry sexist? Holding the door open, paying for the girl on dates, giving a seat up on public transit, 'ladies first', etc: aren't these things sexist? If so, are they wrong?"

Shaky territory. It's sexist if you're doing it purely out of an idea of "you are female so you get this." 'Ladies first' as a rule is absolutely sexist. Holding doors, that's just kindness and I do it for anyone. When you bring dates into question, that's a different story entirely. Yes, it is culturally instilled that the guy should pay, but I've known several people where this doesn't really stand and both are comfortable with paying. Personally, I like to be the one to pay, not because I'm a man and should take care of her, but because /I am capable and don't want her to have to worry about it/. It's not a matter of sexism, it's just wanting the other to feel special.

Speaking of dating, here's a fun little question: Is it sexist to say you are gay or straight? Let's be honest here, sexism is putting one gender over the other, so obviously if I say I won't bang a dude then I'm discriminating.

*sarcastic question for the sheer sake of pointing out how ridiculously particular people are about something that should just be "be nice to people"*

>>128 I'm absolutely not implying that. Not one thing I said did. Let me explain.

The only type of mass education that can be regulated is in public schools. Private schools can teach what they want. Colleges can teach what they want. The media can teach what it wants. The internet can teach what it wants. Parents can teach what they want. Friends can teach what they want. Fuck, history books can teach what they want.

You can't just make the world "teach kids not to be sexist." You can't just "educate kids on gender differences." It doesn't work that way. The only time or place where it could be regulated by any gov't mandated rule would be a public school or institution.

Even if those institutions did teach it, if every night their parents are teaching them something completely different, the entire thing is unlearned. Your basic conditioning comes from your home life. The rest of the world can only do so much in many of these cases.

Males and females both have comon steriotypes about them and bouth can say they get dicrimnated against that means were equal but let try not to make it an excuse to pay someone more or less.Lets not be judge on our sex skin color or anything elses but who we are and what we do shure some women are independent and sure some guys are as well we all our living on this planet togeather lets try ang get along togeather

>>130 as nice as that sounds, the world doesn't work like that. Maybe if we were all hippies and everybody loved everybody then maybe, just maybe, we'd get somewhere.
Men and women both have it hard but women still have it harder. Do men have to make sure that they're dressed "appropriately" enough to be taken as anything other than something fuckable? Finding work for women in the western world may not be that bad but what about everywhere else? It's next to impossible in some places. Women also have to worry about unwanted pregnancies.
Yes men too have it hard and I'm not demeaning those problems but I'm sick of all the complaining men are doing because suddenly women want something and they're getting it at an expense of some men. Seriously? Men have had it great for centuries, I don't want to hear the complaints.

My inner feminist came out...

Try living in china as a women. my very good friend just started as working as a C.E.O of a company in china she had to work hard to get the respect she deserves. yet some of the people over top of her and below her still belittles her and demeans her. She still gets called on sometimes to get the other works that are below her coffee and that's not even on her pay grade. I feel bad for her when she tells me these things.

I think male and females are meant to continue each other like in a puzzle piece. What males do, females cant and what females do males cant, Yet they are still equal at the same time. Honestly, if people start talking about unwanted pregnancies, I'd blame the woman unless it was rape. Have you heard about a feminist group that protested and marched out half way naked? In my opinion they should have set a group of rapists after them because it is the women that caused the men to be the way they are.

This is all my opinion on things, and I am pretty religious in things like these.

Another thing, Did you know in my religion, The women are elevated instead?

>>133 To say that a woman's promiscuity causes men to rape is to imply that men are wholly unable to control themselves, which is clearly not the case. The pieces of shit who can't keep it in their pants are just pathetic dickweeds that have no place in the civilized world.
For the record, I still think Slutwalk and its like are dumb and do no good in preventing sexual harassment and helping to empower women.

>>133 Can you even comprehend what you just said? You just declared that an entire organization or women protesting for their rights should be raped because it's their fault there are promiscuous men who rape women.

How... How does that thought process even work?

Men aren't promiscuous because women are promiscuous. People are promiscuous because they choose to be so, regardless of their gender .__.

I'd also like to put it out there that being promiscuous has nothing to do with getting raped. I used to go walking around town all the time in middle school, and you wouldn't believe the number of guys who felt the need to honk or say inappropriate shit, never mind the creeps who'd pull up next to me in their cars and ask me if I wanted to get in (or demand me to). Thank christ I'm not someone easily intimidated. But on point, I'm not a person who dress or asks promiscuously. You never saw me out of baggy jeans and sweatshirts back then. Rapists and creeps don't always harp on the pretty girls in slutty clothes, despite popular opinion.

>>136 dresses or acts*

So many other grammar errors and typos in there that I don't feel like fixing. Oh well.