What does feminism mean to you? (1 Viewer)

[jules.09]

The amusing thing is, they often turn on their own kind as well, they might say they want equality and choice, but if you dont fit their idea of a woman, if you arent as independent and politically active and strong and man hating as them, well they hate you too.

I would say i support human rights more than rights for any one gender over the other. If they were truly about equality wouldnt they be called equalists? My true conflict is that sometimes they have very fucking good points, i just cant support a selfish movement like that. If they see this world as male dominated, they dont want equality all they really want is it to be female dominated so that they get all the power and benefits.

You have a point there, even if you've espoused an extreme example.

Given that society has had a patriarchal orientation for an extensive and significant duration of history (women were oppressed etc. and still are in many areas), it became a matter of time that women would challenge the existing status quo and demand equal rights.

The egocentric movement really comes in with third wave feminism, the phase which we're apparently in (I don't believe it exists; its very perverse compared to its roots). I think females have every reason to believe that the current institutions are male dominated, hence they are striving to become tomorrow academics (well, some of them are).

However, as I have mentioned before, third wave feminism is quite a pickle. I'm not sure if it's mainstream pseudo-pornography under the guise of feminism, but the Pussycat Dolls and what not, really irk me. And it's not just males who love them (I can see why), but so do females, which is unflattering to their feminist mothers.

If anything, read this article: Rise of raunch culture draws caricatures of desire - Opinion - smh.com.au

I might make a thread dedicated to this article later.

 

[kami]

I think most people try to create a dissonance in the notions of equal rights and feminism so as to stigmatise the women's rights movements and feminist attitudes in general. The focus, though not always the practice, has always been to make women equal to men and to secure for women rights equal to their male peers; not an effort to make this some sort of matriarchy.

In particular this is seen with people who say things like this:

"If they see this world as male dominated, they dont want equality all they really want is it to be female dominated so that they get all the power and benefits."

which is ultimately derived from the more benign:

"equality rather than 'feminism'. "


Radical feminism, which I feel is more derived from feminism than being a part of it, is something that I don't think well of and it's just another way of saying misandry and pretending it's a legitimate approach.

Personally, I think, working with SP's definitions, I'd primarily identify myself as a postmodern feminist - mainly because, while my basic sentiment which drives feminism is based on the idea of equal and natural rights, my conceptualisation of these ideals has been developed closely with my studies of and identification with queer theory.

 

[justanotherposter]

Mr. Garrison:: Who was in charge of the feminist movement of the early ’60’s?
Cartman: A bunch of fat old skanks on their periods.
Mr. Garrison:: Right. But who was the fattest, oldest skank on her period?

 

[KFunk]

Personally, I think, working with SP's definitions, I'd primarily identify myself as a postmodern feminist - mainly because, while my basic sentiment which drives feminism is based on the idea of equal and natural rights, my conceptualisation of these ideals has been developed closely with my studies of and identification with queer theory.

Aye, I favour a tempered post-modern feminism blended with socialist feminism.

Also, a thought related to radicalism: I can't believe that Rage Against the Machine used the rhyme "grip the canon like Fanon".

 

[Garygaz]

Feminism is one of the leading causes of TL;DR on the Internets today.

 

[Serius]

I think most people try to create a dissonance in the notions of equal rights and feminism so as to stigmatise the women's rights movements and feminist attitudes in general. The focus, though not always the practice, has always been to make women equal to men and to secure for women rights equal to their male peers; not an effort to make this some sort of matriarchy.

"To make women equal with men" see, is that actually a wording problem or am i just seeing things? i think a better objective would be "to create equality between the genders" because feminism seems to focus primarily on advancing their own gender, to create equality in areas that are male dominated, and to ignore areas that female have an advantage, rather than attempting to equal the balance in all areas.

I have no problem with womens rights, in fact if i were to create a movement or political party that is based on my ideals, we would work with the feminist movement in some areas because some of their objectives make a lot of sense to me. The problem I have is that they dont seem to know where to stop, many of them want to push womens rights in every area to the exclusion of men. A perfect example is family law.

Oh look, another mother gets her kids who shouldnt have, turns psycho, kidnaps them and takes them to Sweden for 6 months even though the father begged and pleaded with the courts not to give her custody because she would do exactly that. Guess what? useless police dont solve the crime, dad has to fly to Sweden to save them.
Why did she get custody in the first place? probably because feminists have pushed the idea that the female should get custody no matter what, even if the mother is a crack head psycho who is going to kidnap the kids and take them abroad.

feminist influence on sex laws. A bunch of crazy feminists manage to change the law so a man is jailed for 4 years because he continued with sex for about 30seconds when the girl had apparently withdrawn her consent as he ejaculated. But oh wait... after he was freed they found out it was all a lie, the women were charged with conspiracy and went to jail for 6 months. The mans reputation was ruined, got called a rapist and harassed in his neighbourhood and later killed himself.

men banned from lesbian dance party why? because women dont want to be "harassed for sex" while they dance lolwtf.

Some feminists just go too far, which is why i will never associate myself with their organisation. The closest thing i would approve of is an organisation based on equality. Females are all ready imo more than equal in the eyes of the law, what more do you want?

 

[settle*precious]

Mr. Garrison:: Who was in charge of the feminist movement of the early ’60’s?
Cartman: A bunch of fat old skanks on their periods.
Mr. Garrison:: Right. But who was the fattest, oldest skank on her period?

ahahahaha.


Gretchen: Irregardless, ex-boyfriends are just off limits to friends. I mean that's just like the rules of feminism!

 

[lilika01]

"To make women equal with men" see, is that actually a wording problem or am i just seeing things? i think a better objective would be "to create equality between the genders" because feminism seems to focus primarily on advancing their own gender, to create equality in areas that are male dominated, and to ignore areas that female have an advantage, rather than attempting to equal the balance in all areas.

how does "to make women equal with men" connote female domination? The phrase is designed to imply that women's rights need to catch up to compare to men's. And before you start with the "but you're all equal now (which in many areas still isn't quite true) i'm sure i don't need to remind you that the term was coined long before women did have any kind of equality.

The problem I have is that they dont seem to know where to stop, many of them want to push womens rights in every area to the exclusion of men. A perfect example is family law.

Oh look, another mother gets her kids who shouldnt have, turns psycho, kidnaps them and takes them to Sweden for 6 months even though the father begged and pleaded with the courts not to give her custody because she would do exactly that. Guess what? useless police dont solve the crime, dad has to fly to Sweden to save them.
Why did she get custody in the first place? probably because feminists have pushed the idea that the female should get custody no matter what, even if the mother is a crack head psycho who is going to kidnap the kids and take them abroad.

IMHO, the whole family law inequality is a slight kneejerk reaction to the fact that men had all the rights when it came to children not long ago. That part of the law has indeed slid too far to the other side, but there are plenty examples of fathers getting custody when it isn't warrented. And while you've mentioned child abduction by parents, this kind of thing is much more commonly perpetrated by men. Especially, at the risk of sounding anti-semetic, muslim men, who, when they divorce their Australian wives, kidnap their children and take them to their home countries, where our governments either can't or won't help them.

feminist influence on sex laws. A bunch of crazy feminists manage to change the law so a man is jailed for 4 years because he continued with sex for about 30seconds when the girl had apparently withdrawn her consent as he ejaculated. But oh wait... after he was freed they found out it was all a lie, the women were charged with conspiracy and went to jail for 6 months. The mans reputation was ruined, got called a rapist and harassed in his neighbourhood and later killed himself.

To bring up recent news, a man has been embroiled in a 'technical rape' case. Where he continued after the (admittedly compliant while she was conscious) victim had passed out. This kind of behaviour is wrong. And as for women faking rapes: do you know how hard it is to prove a rape in australia? It is much more common for a rapist to get away with it due to either lack of evidence or slandering the victim's reputation.

Some feminists just go too far, which is why i will never associate myself with their organisation. The closest thing i would approve of is an organisation based on equality. Females are all ready imo more than equal in the eyes of the law, what more do you want?

Organisation? And as for more than equal, sexism starts in the home. We've all heard about women being paid less than men in the workforce, but there have been studies showing (in australia, not sure about the rest of the world) that even as children boys are paid more pocket money than girls, on average. Men are also more likely to recieve promotions than women, as we are seen with the steryotype that we all want to settle down and have kids at some point. Of course, this would mean they'd have to give paid leave (which IMHO should be given to men as well, for the reccord). This kind of mentality is rediculous and just plain unfair.

 

[kami]

"To make women equal with men" see, is that actually a wording problem or am i just seeing things? i think a better objective would be "to create equality between the genders" because feminism seems to focus primarily on advancing their own gender, to create equality in areas that are male dominated, and to ignore areas that female have an advantage, rather than attempting to equal the balance in all areas.

I have no problem with womens rights, in fact if i were to create a movement or political party that is based on my ideals, we would work with the feminist movement in some areas because some of their objectives make a lot of sense to me. The problem I have is that they dont seem to know where to stop, many of them want to push womens rights in every area to the exclusion of men. A perfect example is family law.

Oh look, another mother gets her kids who shouldnt have, turns psycho, kidnaps them and takes them to Sweden for 6 months even though the father begged and pleaded with the courts not to give her custody because she would do exactly that. Guess what? useless police dont solve the crime, dad has to fly to Sweden to save them.
Why did she get custody in the first place? probably because feminists have pushed the idea that the female should get custody no matter what, even if the mother is a crack head psycho who is going to kidnap the kids and take them abroad.

feminist influence on sex laws. A bunch of crazy feminists manage to change the law so a man is jailed for 4 years because he continued with sex for about 30seconds when the girl had apparently withdrawn her consent as he ejaculated. But oh wait... after he was freed they found out it was all a lie, the women were charged with conspiracy and went to jail for 6 months. The mans reputation was ruined, got called a rapist and harassed in his neighbourhood and later killed himself.

men banned from lesbian dance party why? because women dont want to be "harassed for sex" while they dance lolwtf.

Some feminists just go too far, which is why i will never associate myself with their organisation. The closest thing i would approve of is an organisation based on equality. Females are all ready imo more than equal in the eyes of the law, what more do you want?

LOL

Serius, just lol. You come off as epic paranoid with these kinds of things.

To make women equal with men does not imply "ignore areas that female [sic] have an advantage" because doing so is misogynistic in of itself. A country where all women were rulers of men and put doggie leads on their partners would still include notions of misogynism because it cast type and control a woman's role by her gender. Feminism, the fundamental root of it, is about removing the imbalances between genders, ensuring women have equality. It operates on multiple platforms of thinking, some of which SP has outlined, but that is the fundamental.

For every example you cite, there is another case where ten women have been abused, demeaned and controlled. There is a huge problem with misogynism, particularly in little pockets which like to cling to old ideals and feel threatened with feminist ideals (ring a bell?).

A woman trying to claim access to the legal protections here is also in a precarious situation - you can't make any effort to claim harassment and keep a job if you are a casual worker and there are superiors who simply won't acknowledge a claim from a woman. Australia, with its increasing amount of casual workers, is very prone to this with managers sexually harassing female employees and just not giving them shifts if there is a negative response. Trying to claim harassment with HR there is useless because technically, you're not fired and they don't have to give you shifts, and there are a number of places where HR would gently rebuff a claim of such just because the plaintiff is a woman - I've actually had a friend who was slapped direct in the face during work and the person who got their hours cut was not the guy who slapped her.

There are also other women who are controlled by their husbands, and the control over the flow of income they command in a traditional family structure (which is compounded by some people's disinterest in hiring a woman) and this doesn't even take into account situations of spousal abuse, which is also rife.

Women in free lance jobs, especially in the trades, also face a great deal of problems as I've seen first hand, the workers simply won't listen to the woman they're contracted to. In the industry of interior design, carpenters and such simply won't follow through what the interior designer in charge of the job is saying and I've lost count of the number of times my mother, who is one such designer, has been called a dyke because she didn't respond positively to come ons by the very men who are deliberately ignoring instructions on the job. There's no one to complain to in this situation - no one at all - and this is a deeply embedded social problem which isn't solved by a simply anti-discrimination act.

And don't even try to rabbit on about how trying to promote women's rights in the cause of rape victims is a negative. The number of unreported rapes is ridiculous, just because of the stigma and shame that some victims feel about the very act and because of how difficult it is to prove rape most of those who are accused escape charges and cannot be re-charged for that same crime. That doesn't even take into account how minimal some jail sentences for rape are - if you want to reference news fluff then look up all the gang bangers who've served sentences of less than four years for the assault and repeated rape of women.

And what the hell is wrong with queer women not wanting to be harassed by men for sex? Have you heard some of the things that a lot of lesbians listen to from men? Especially drunken straight men going to a lesbian bar?

Oh, and let's not forget the good old glass ceiling.

While the state of women's rights isn't incredibly backward most of the time, it's moronic to the extreme to think everything is fine and dandy for women or that women are superior citizens.

 

[Groucho Marxist]

Is it not a problem that the woman have a smaller brain than a man?

 

[Rasengan2dabalz]

No, i agree with serius, society nowadays favours women over men in many cases.

Why is it that men have to pay at a higher rate for car insurance? Because statistics show that men are involved in car accidents more so that women? thats totally bullshit, purely coincidence. Its nothing more that a penis tax.
Women are forever fighting for equal rights in the work place, in courts, to fight in the front lines of the army, etc. But when the opposite sex is the one being discriminated against, they absolutely disregard it, and focus on the things their being discriminated against.

And another thing, alot of feminists are always complaining about how on average, women earn less than men - this is because alot of women dont go into the industries which pay out alot and have heaps of vacancies ie - computing (programming, networking, etc), engineering etc. Why women dont decide to go into these fields is beyond me, maybe its because their vain.

 

[Serius]

I dont really know how to go about countering what you posted, because i am not against anything exactly and some of it makes sense.

Workplace harassment....well we have legislation in place to deal with that now. I dont know of any other way you can really crack down on it, most of the problems there seem to be socially placed, and i hope that as our generation comes into power these problems will dissapear. The same is ofcourse true of men, women just "harass" in a different way and if a man tried complaining about that he would be laughed out of HR. Still, it isnt right and both cases of misjustice need to be corrected.

Women controlled by their husbands....well that isnt right, but how exactly should th law address it? if someone is allowing themselves to be controlled, allowing themselves to be beat up by their husband, the law can do very little to protect them. There are ofcourse numerous services in place to protect and help a woman who does want to escape that violence though, and the law favours them. Of course if you are a male in an abusive relationship, good luck getting any help from the police, lawyers, charities or society in general. I have two good examples of this,

1. my mums best friends brother was in an abusive relationship with his [massive, looked like a bikey] wife and he is a slight guy, basically he got beat up a lot, went for divorce and lost custody of his kid, she said he was attacking her and she just defended herself and he got laughed out of court because it is rediculous to society that a wife would ever abuse her husband.

2. a gay couple who lived with one of my friends, one of them was abusive and hit the other all the time. The abused one tried to get some sort of help, nobody would. The police were even called during a party, saw him being beaten on and did nothing, just said something like "toughen up, maybe go stay at a friends place and it should sort itself out later".

Two great examples of cases where males are descriminated against legally and socially.

"women in trades, male dominated jobs etc" i dont know how to address this, its wrong but i cant see what else the law can do other than say "women can work in these jobs if they want"

on rape: the reason why i dont think women who lie about rape to get men in trouble should face harsh sentences is because i would hate to see women who were actually assaulted being too scared to come forward beause they fear they too will go to jail for "lying". Its wrong that so many women do lie about rape like that, not only does it rape the reputation of the man, but it directly harms and makes a mockery of women who were actually raped.

The fact is though, that in sexual law, women tend to be favoured alot more than men. Do you know that twice as many men are raped each year than women? how many of those cases go to court? theres a social stigma against men coming forward about it that women dont have to face anywhere near as much.

Consent laws. Man sleeps with underage girl: harsh sentence, say 5-10yrs society calls him a paedophile, calls for execution to be brought back etc etc.
Woman sleeps with underage boy: very light sentence, if anything, often only suspended 6 months or something like that, many people see nothing wrong with it, some men silently approve.

Assault laws. Man assaults anybody: harsh sentence, woman assaults somebody: rarely taken to court, if it makes it, very light sentence.

murder charges. Man: higher conviction rate again, harsh[some may say just] sentencing. Woman: lower conviction rate, still decent sentencing but always lower than what a man would get for the exact same crime.

With this law and punishment kind of stuff i cant help that think we have two sets of punishments, one for men and then a uniformly lower conviction rate and punishment for women.


Education: women significantly favoured by HSC and entrance exams for uni. Corespondingly, women make up the majority of not only uni students, but also graduates. Highest courses over represented by females.

And what the hell is wrong with queer women not wanting to be harassed by men for sex?

nothing of course, but the club in question didnt have a single case of harassment. It seems they just sought out a law to blanket ban all men from their dance parties, and the reason for this ban was because they beleive all men sexually harass women. This type of thinking is offensive to me. Even if there had been cases of harassment, it isnt fair to have a ban an entire gender of people off the actions of a few and it isnt fair to descriminate like that. Why would our law makers legalise descrimination? it makes no sense.

edit: i thought of some more lulzy ones. man pays cover charge, women get in for free. Drunk man: thrown out, seen as dangerous. Drunk woman: allowed to stay or taxi called for her. Policing: see a drunk man, charge him with D&D, see a drunk woman: drive her home.

Its my opinion that there is a lot of descrimination and injustice going on both sides of the fence. Of course being a male i am going to see male issues a lot easier, but i think its just as wrong to descriminate against females. It isnt fair to promote female equality and ignore the areas that men are suffering in. Thats why if i had a similiar organisation or political party i would work with feminists, but i would never identify myself as one.

 

[jb_nc]

I dont really know how to go about countering what you posted, because i am not against anything exactly and some of it makes sense.

Workplace harassment....well we have legislation in place to deal with that now. I dont know of any other way you can really crack down on it, most of the problems there seem to be socially placed, and i hope that as our generation comes into power these problems will dissapear. The same is ofcourse true of men, women just "harass" in a different way and if a man tried complaining about that he would be laughed out of HR. Still, it isnt right and both cases of misjustice need to be corrected.

Women controlled by their husbands....well that isnt right, but how exactly should th law address it? if someone is allowing themselves to be controlled, allowing themselves to be beat up by their husband, the law can do very little to protect them. There are ofcourse numerous services in place to protect and help a woman who does want to escape that violence though, and the law favours them. Of course if you are a male in an abusive relationship, good luck getting any help from the police, lawyers, charities or society in general. I have two good examples of this,

1. my mums best friends brother was in an abusive relationship with his [massive, looked like a bikey] wife and he is a slight guy, basically he got beat up a lot, went for divorce and lost custody of his kid, she said he was attacking her and she just defended herself and he got laughed out of court because it is rediculous to society that a wife would ever abuse her husband.

2. a gay couple who lived with one of my friends, one of them was abusive and hit the other all the time. The abused one tried to get some sort of help, nobody would. The police were even called during a party, saw him being beaten on and did nothing, just said something like "toughen up, maybe go stay at a friends place and it should sort itself out later".

Two great examples of cases where males are descriminated against legally and socially.

"women in trades, male dominated jobs etc" i dont know how to address this, its wrong but i cant see what else the law can do other than say "women can work in these jobs if they want"

on rape: the reason why i dont think women who lie about rape to get men in trouble should face harsh sentences is because i would hate to see women who were actually assaulted being too scared to come forward beause they fear they too will go to jail for "lying". Its wrong that so many women do lie about rape like that, not only does it rape the reputation of the man, but it directly harms and makes a mockery of women who were actually raped.

The fact is though, that in sexual law, women tend to be favoured alot more than men. Do you know that twice as many men are raped each year than women? how many of those cases go to court? theres a social stigma against men coming forward about it that women dont have to face anywhere near as much.

Consent laws. Man sleeps with underage girl: harsh sentence, say 5-10yrs society calls him a paedophile, calls for execution to be brought back etc etc.
Woman sleeps with underage boy: very light sentence, if anything, often only suspended 6 months or something like that, many people see nothing wrong with it, some men silently approve.

Assault laws. Man assaults anybody: harsh sentence, woman assaults somebody: rarely taken to court, if it makes it, very light sentence.

murder charges. Man: higher conviction rate again, harsh[some may say just] sentencing. Woman: lower conviction rate, still decent sentencing but always lower than what a man would get for the exact same crime.

With this law and punishment kind of stuff i cant help that think we have two sets of punishments, one for men and then a uniformly lower conviction rate and punishment for women.


Education: women significantly favoured by HSC and entrance exams for uni. Corespondingly, women make up the majority of not only uni students, but also graduates. Highest courses over represented by females.

nothing of course, but the club in question didnt have a single case of harassment. It seems they just sought out a law to blanket ban all men from their dance parties, and the reason for this ban was because they beleive all men sexually harass women. This type of thinking is offensive to me. Even if there had been cases of harassment, it isnt fair to have a ban an entire gender of people off the actions of a few and it isnt fair to descriminate like that. Why would our law makers legalise descrimination? it makes no sense.

edit: i thought of some more lulzy ones. man pays cover charge, women get in for free. Drunk man: thrown out, seen as dangerous. Drunk woman: allowed to stay or taxi called for her. Policing: see a drunk man, charge him with D&D, see a drunk woman: drive her home.

Its my opinion that there is a lot of descrimination and injustice going on both sides of the fence. Of course being a male i am going to see male issues a lot easier, but i think its just as wrong to descriminate against females. It isnt fair to promote female equality and ignore the areas that men are suffering in. Thats why if i had a similiar organisation or political party i would work with feminists, but i would never identify myself as one.

conclusions which can be drawn from this post: serius is very bitter towards women.

 

[kami]

I dont really know how to go about countering what you posted, because i am not against anything exactly and some of it makes sense.

Workplace harassment....well we have legislation in place to deal with that now. I dont know of any other way you can really crack down on it, most of the problems there seem to be socially placed, and i hope that as our generation comes into power these problems will dissapear. The same is ofcourse true of men, women just "harass" in a different way and if a man tried complaining about that he would be laughed out of HR. Still, it isnt right and both cases of misjustice need to be corrected.

Of course it's grounded in social practice and such, that's why there were discriminatory laws (like the vote being for men) in the first place. As it is, we've created a theoretical future equality between the genders by changing the laws but we can't provide equal enforcement and we often can't just fix those whose lives have already been heavily damaged - they carry the inequality of their past into their future.

This is why we attempt to enact social policies to try to address these imbalances for minorities. Affirmative action, protective spaces, special access to certain resources (e.g education for indigenous) and so on. Some don't work and some do, but these extra rights are enacted to alter the status of a group at large and thereby alleviate the inequity suffered by the individual until there is a point in time where such barriers don't exist.

Women controlled by their husbands....well that isnt right, but how exactly should th law address it? if someone is allowing themselves to be controlled, allowing themselves to be beat up by their husband, the law can do very little to protect them. There are ofcourse numerous services in place to protect and help a woman who does want to escape that violence though, and the law favours them. Of course if you are a male in an abusive relationship, good luck getting any help from the police, lawyers, charities or society in general. I have two good examples of this,

1. my mums best friends brother was in an abusive relationship with his [massive, looked like a bikey] wife and he is a slight guy, basically he got beat up a lot, went for divorce and lost custody of his kid, she said he was attacking her and she just defended herself and he got laughed out of court because it is rediculous to society that a wife would ever abuse her husband.

2. a gay couple who lived with one of my friends, one of them was abusive and hit the other all the time. The abused one tried to get some sort of help, nobody would. The police were even called during a party, saw him being beaten on and did nothing, just said something like "toughen up, maybe go stay at a friends place and it should sort itself out later".

Two great examples of cases where males are descriminated against legally and socially.

The first example is her taking advantage of misogynism - women are seen as weak and men are not, so his position (if true) was ridiculed. If women weren't looked down upon that wouldn't have happened.

In the second, that's discrimination against LGBTIs more than it is a diminishing of male rights for the cause of female empowerment. It's a recurring thing where police refuse to view violence between same sex couples as domestic abuse, whether male or female.

"women in trades, male dominated jobs etc" i dont know how to address this, its wrong but i cant see what else the law can do other than say "women can work in these jobs if they want"

The law has but sometimes just allowing someone to do something doesn't address things. Sometimes you need to offer social crutches until people can actually use the rights they finally have.

The fact is though, that in sexual law, women tend to be favoured alot more than men. Do you know that twice as many men are raped each year than women? how many of those cases go to court? theres a social stigma against men coming forward about it that women dont have to face anywhere near as much.

No, there really is a similar stigma. The victim has to be dragged into the public arena, face their accuser, testify, have someone grill their testimony in the hope of creating doubt about their statements and they need to have their body examined and the results put on display. That of course, is if she's believed and not everyone will - you should know how cultural pressures like to stereotype girls as the slut and the best hope for a defendant is to make her seem one. Rape cases are hell and there's no real way to say that one is more than the other.

Consent laws. Man sleeps with underage girl: harsh sentence, say 5-10yrs society calls him a paedophile, calls for execution to be brought back etc etc.
Woman sleeps with underage boy: very light sentence, if anything, often only suspended 6 months or something like that, many people see nothing wrong with it, some men silently approve.

Part of this ties back into older modernist type thinking where it's about owning a woman and her sexuality and that a woman doesn't have her own sexuality. So men are seen as the one who wants (because only sluts want it) while the women are seen merely to assent to it. One of the things with feminism, post modernism and all those movements was to break down that assumption and to recognise that women were sexual beings too and this wasn't a bad thing (sexual revolution, remember?). This is why it's seen as something of a conquest and almost a thing to approve of if a 15 year old boy and a female teacher sleep together.

The other aspect is that, due to the nature of anatomy, it's easier for a man to force a girl and so there is more of an undertone of violence and degradation to it.

Assault laws. Man assaults anybody: harsh sentence, woman assaults somebody: rarely taken to court, if it makes it, very light sentence.

murder charges. Man: higher conviction rate again, harsh[some may say just] sentencing. Woman: lower conviction rate, still decent sentencing but always lower than what a man would get for the exact same crime.

With this law and punishment kind of stuff i cant help that think we have two sets of punishments, one for men and then a uniformly lower conviction rate and punishment for women.

Again, playing with misogynism. Women are either infantilised or sexualised in the eyes of society and so receives less punishment.

Education: women significantly favoured by HSC and entrance exams for uni. Corespondingly, women make up the majority of not only uni students, but also graduates. Highest courses over represented by females.

That's ... not discrimination. That's results. It's also telling that despite having so many female grads there still isn't an equal distribution of the sexes in many industries, especially higher ranking positions.

Tp be honest, Serius, you don't seem to get what feminism is. The feminist wants to split the bill, not force you at gun point to pay it.

 

[loquasagacious]

I like this point about the potential tension between socialist feminism and difference feminism - and I think it underlies many debates that go on about gender inequalities and how justified they are.

watch for an upcoming thread (or make one..)

I'd also, again, say that radical feminism, at least in my experience, is not something that is particularly strong within the university system. Most academic feminists do recognise the limitations of this paradigm, and are not willing to position all men as homogenously and universally engaged in sexual violence. It does annoy me when people who clearly have no knowledge of feminist theory attempt to attack it based upon the simplifications and exaggerations that circulate in the Daily Telegraph.

But you've lost me on the connection between radical and liberal feminism

Fundamentally agree. However radical feminism gets the airplay, the column inches and the book deals because it is radical, which means controversy and sales.

As much as radical feminism may not be linked to other strands of feminism in an academic/theoretical sense they are linked in the minds of the general public. An issue which is compounded by opponents of feminism intentionally making the linkage (where none exists) as it allows a straw man argument.

For example:
Person A: I think women should have equal rights
Person B: Look at Person C; she's a misandrist who want's to deprive men of their rights. That's crazy and I therefore reject Person A's argument.

--------------------
Kami great posts, must spread rep.
Jules as above also you should make the thread, sounds interesting.

 

[Silver Persian]

As much as radical feminism may not be linked to other strands of feminism in an academic/theoretical sense they are linked in the minds of the general public. An issue which is compounded by opponents of feminism intentionally making the linkage (where none exists) as it allows a straw man argument.

For example:
Person A: I think women should have equal rights
Person B: Look at Person C; she's a misandrist who want's to deprive men of their rights. That's crazy and I therefore reject Person A's argument.

Nooo...I am an out and proud hairy legged feminist. It's more that I'm not willing to exclusively identify with one school of feminism

 

[kami]

Person A: I think women should have equal rights
Person B: Look at Person C; she's a misandrist who want's to deprive men of their rights. That's crazy and I therefore reject Person A's argument.

lol! Subtle.

 

[Serius]

Man rapes woman: its a horrendous crime and the perpetrator is sent to prison for years

woman rapes man: its was just a bit of a joke lol. cleared of all charges

 

[jules.09]

Man rapes woman: its a horrendous crime and the perpetrator is sent to prison for years

woman rapes man: its was just a bit of a joke lol. cleared of all charges

I agree that rape is rape.

But to be general, I don't think women are getting a 'better' deal than men overall. Partly because it's their fault - but that's besides the point. You can't point at a few minor, 'high profile' cases and claim that this is the existing gender dynamics. Refer to loquasagacious's line of argument:

"For example:
Person A: I think women should have equal rights
Person B: Look at Person C; she's a misandrist who want's to deprive men of their rights. That's crazy and I therefore reject Person A's argument."

Kami great posts, must spread rep.
Jules as above also you should make the thread, sounds interesting.

Mm, it will be done post trials.

 

[russs]

Feminism should mean to me the equality of women to men in opportunity.

But, because of all the action around feminism right now means to me an attempt to advance the interests of women at the expense of men (affirmative action).

So, when I think feminism these sorts of things come to mind:

* Curves (woman-only gym)
* Extra provisions for single moms
* "Women in business" networks, "women in business" awards, women in business bla bla bla
* Extreme double standards when it comes to sexism, physical abuse etc
* Fat is beautiful (I am not sure who's fault this is exactly).