feminism!!

rinatanchu wrote:@boundby Yes, I understand that. I am just curious as to why guys are obsessed with hitting people.

Are we? Where do you get that from?

not all guys are obsessed with hitting people
though I guess it would be abusive relationships ?

Key wrote:

rinatanchu wrote:@boundby Yes, I understand that. I am just curious as to why guys are obsessed with hitting people.

Are we? Where do you get that from?

Because when people talk about feminism, guys will ask "So we get to hit girls, right?" Yeah, you can hit girls. If a girl hits you, I see why not hit her back (take her seriously) but don't think you can hit cuz you can (same with girls).

exactly
there will always be a gap

I am a Rationalist/ Egalitarian however I don't stick to one groups holding far that is to flawed in my view.

Feminism has done very good things for the women especially back in 1900s where it was really required and there was no arguing that at least for the first and second wave. In third world countries its a definite,

However in regards to all the things it has done properly it has done things later that may not exhibit the best interest as equality as a whole. But this isn't just feminism that carries this trait male rights movement, humanist, egalitarians you name it. Any group that continues long enough is bound to start drawing differences within the group creating splits eventually that over time will divide it.

Feminism is a prime example of that there are many different forms of it some are nowhere near as beneficial as the original, whilst some are extreme perceptions that have been led astray,

Male Rights have a similar issue even though they are recent, they can be divided and instead of having conflicting viewpoints they exhibit a tendency to not get anything done and just complain about what feminism has done.

Two different sides of the coin that both equally showcase the problem with holding a group itself as the one who should keep equality done right.

It is far better to look at a groups present actions rather then the past.
On that note this does not mean we should berate feminism either in fact none of the organizations since its natural this happens they are formed by individuals afterall, a good solution would be to draw all the organizations dedicated to equality into one whole group yet letting them retain their individual value, then ensure a mediator group is in between each one of them to fairly oversee agreements over equality.

But most importantly we need to establish a mentality that allows the criticism of the groups freely on a intellectual basis.

A definite longshot but a far more effective solution then letting all the conflicting viewpoints and biased ideals conflict with each other that it turns into nothing but a battle to come out on top rather then establish anything.

I will elaborate more if necessary thank you.

Colress wrote:I am a Rationalist/ Egalitarian however I don't stick to one groups holding far that is to flawed in my view.

Feminism has done very good things for the women especially back in 1900s where it was really required and there was no arguing that at least for the first and second wave. In third world countries its a definite,

However in regards to all the things it has done properly it has done things later that may not exhibit the best interest as equality as a whole. But this isn't just feminism that carries this trait  male rights movement, humanist, egalitarians you name it. Any group that continues long enough is bound to start drawing differences within the group creating splits eventually that over time will divide it.

Feminism is a prime example of that there are many different forms of it some are nowhere near as beneficial as the original, whilst some are extreme perceptions that have been led astray,

Male Rights have a similar issue even though they are recent, they can be divided and instead of having conflicting viewpoints they exhibit a tendency to not get anything done and just complain about what feminism has done.

Two different sides of the coin that both equally showcase the problem with holding a group itself as the one who should keep equality done right.

It is far better to look at a groups present actions rather then the past.
On that note this does not mean we should berate feminism either in fact none of the organizations since its natural this happens they are formed by individuals afterall, a good solution would be to draw all the organizations dedicated to equality into one whole group yet letting them retain their individual value, then ensure a mediator group is in between each one of them to fairly oversee agreements over equality.

But most importantly we need to establish a mentality that allows the criticism of the groups freely on a intellectual basis.

A definite longshot but a far more effective solution then letting all the conflicting viewpoints and biased ideals conflict with each other that it turns into nothing but a battle to come out on top rather then establish anything.

I will elaborate more if necessary thank you.

*highfives you*

according to me...
feminism means equality... in specific equality to thought and opinion,
if females are given equal opportunity to express themselves and to give fearless opinions as males then that would be feminism!
moreover feminism always means equality to genders... if any of the gender is considered superior to the other, then that is not called feminism instead feminazism....

L~Crystal wrote:according to me...
feminism means equality... in specific equality to thought and opinion,
if females are given equal opportunity to express themselves and to give fearless opinions as males then that would be feminism!
moreover feminism always means equality to genders... if any of the gender is considered superior to the other, then that is not called feminism instead feminazism....

I don't believe any gender is superior to any other. Males and females both have positive and negative attributes, be it genetically, sexually, physically, emotionally (speaking purely in psychological statistics in terms of psychopathology), etc. We are built different for different things, but that doesn't make any one gender better than the other as a whole.

I agree with your point that feminism should mean both genders being equal, but semantically priming the term as "feminism" is inherently gender skewed. It should be something inclusive, that doesn't focus solely on women, but also on men, inclusive of both genders. Just as "racism" was never called "Asianism", or "Africanism"; it's inclusive, and rightly so.

Men get objectified, for instance, just as women do, yet this objectification is not focused on. Only the objectification of women. Rightly, they should be noticed as well; neither should be objectified. If you don't know what I mean about men, think about that movie Magic Mike. Whether you've seen it or not (not!) the point remains clear. Look at any ad for Abercrombie and Fitch, or fashion in general. Thin women, soft skin, slim bodies, shaven, etc. Slim men, ripped abs, almost mythological bodies, shaven, etc.

I believe that feminism started out to accomplish a goal, that many (and I know a few feminists personally that I can draw example from) have deviated from or twisted into something more akin to feminazism. Feminism, itself, has raised the issues that needed to be raised, and has done it's job thus far. Once men and women are on a completely (I don't believe this is/should be possible in all regards for the above mentioned differences make it impossible, wholly), then feminism will be dead.

What is needed is a new term, with a streamlined objective, that garners both sexes and unites them without a "loaded label".

The proper way to equalize both genders is not to segregate them, be it semantically or otherwise. "Feminism" does just that, if not only with connotations.

the name feminism was originally given to boost women into participating in the fight for their rights.....
if racism would in fact be having names like "blackism" or "asianism" then that would be discouraging... the leaders supporting the riots would not opt to keep that...
on the other hand feminism was preferable by most of the female leaders coz it seemed like to encourage women to fight for their rights by making them acknowledge themselves..
but like you said it is irrelevant now to call it feminism... the name should be changed