What is a feminist, what is feminism, and what is a 'feminazi'? Do you know what they are?

And who are you to dictate who has what rights? Simply because I impregnate a woman, doesn't mean my rights to the child are negated while it's growing. That is complete absurdity. If she chooses to have the child, I am considered responsible for paying for said child, so why would I not have a say so in wether said child lives, or dies? Again, your argument is completely nonsensical, and, honestly, rather absurd.

a reply to: jjsr420

And who are you to dictate who has what rights? Simply because I impregnate a woman, doesn't mean my rights to the child are negated while it's growing. That is complete absurdity. If she chooses to have the child, I am considered responsible for paying for said child, so why would I not have a say so in wether said child lives, or dies? Again, your argument is completely nonsensical, and, honestly, rather absurd.

No matter what dimension we live in, we have no right over another's body. That is the reason you do not have a say. Go try it if you wish.

Start a new thread about the topic if you wish, for it has little to do with the topic.

a reply to: jjsr420
Unlucky fella, the 'nature' you mentioned earlier means females carry the children and we males do not, get over it. It is their female body we chose to take the risk with when our bodies were close. Once pregnant it remains their body and their choice...get over it.
Oh, and 'nature' also has frequent examples of creatures eating their young. Not the best supporting source to have provided here perhaps.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: jjsr420

And who are you to dictate who has what rights? Simply because I impregnate a woman, doesn't mean my rights to the child are negated while it's growing. That is complete absurdity. If she chooses to have the child, I am considered responsible for paying for said child, so why would I not have a say so in wether said child lives, or dies? Again, your argument is completely nonsensical, and, honestly, rather absurd.

No matter what dimension we live in, we have no right over another's body. That is the reason you do not have a say. Go try it if you wish.

Start a new thread about the topic if you wish, for it has little to do with the topic.

I think it is probably the core aspect of the topic.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: nenothtu

That was a sexist of the worst kind not a feminist, to completely devalue a gender to the point of labeling it useless... that's disgusting and as the mother of a 15 year old boy I'd like to challenge her to say that to my face.

I'm aware that she isn't alone and I'm feeling this urge to reclaim feminism from these bitches (yep, I said it) who in essence give the Rush Limbaugh's of the world legitimacy to their claims that feminism is nothing but hating on men.

It was in the midst of what they call "campus unrest" centered around self-proclaimed "feminists". No, she wasn't alone - there were entire herds of her, taking up the same rallying cry. I must say they weren't very destructive, though. They managed to - how does one put this delicately? - deface the crotch of a bronze statue on campus (which was clothed), and painted a rock... which wasn't a big deal, because EVERYONE painted that same rock at one time or another. The most disturbing thing was that same sentiment she had expressed shot through the herds like a wild fire.

At the same time, I couldn't really give them the attention they craved, because of other matters. My ex-wife was at the time receiving death threats from animal activists due to her experimentation activities for a psych degree. THOSE threats were entertaining sometimes - one lady actually said she'd rather have her daughter experimented on than her cat. Hand to heart - that's what she said - in writing. Must've had a lovely family life.

So the "feminists" were annoying, but only peripherally to other more pressing issues. The young lady in question who said that to me got insulted right back - I'm all for equality, eh?

There's still a need for real feminism.

perhaps, but words have meanings.

The problem is that "feminism" only addresses one side of the issue, by the very nature of the word itself. A one-sided solution is not a solution, it's a dictate. it amuses me somewhat that feminists think they can bring men into the arena, but ONLY if the men identify themselves as "feminists" also. They have to verbally emasculate themselves to join the club. I just think a positive affirmation acknowledging both would be a better tactic. "Peopleism", for example. In that term, there is no implied statements of division - we're all in it together.

There is still a culture of misogyny and a resurgence of men and women who think it was better when women knew that their place was in the kitchen serving their men (fine if the woman or man wants to stay home and be domestic, there's no shame in it and there shouldn't be).

If only you knew! I harangue my wife all the time about staying barefoot and chained to the stove - but she takes it in the spirit it's meant. I did the same thing when SHE was the only one working and I was "keeping house". It's a joke, nothing more, and we both know it. Any supposed "power" in that proclamation has been neutered.

We still aren't paid equally,

I can't comment on that objectively. SUBJECTIVELY, I know that the last time my wife was working, she made MORE than most of the men there (in a male-oriented business) and the same as the highest paid men in the shop. I think there is the possibility that some women are just "settling for less", which my wife refused to do, stuck to her guns, and won at.

still don't have full authority over own bodies (watch out for that bomb)

Yeah, I'll leave that one to the bomb squad. Every woman I've ever been with had "full authority over her own body, but I suppose it could be argued that I granted that authority as well as it could be argued that they simply took that authority. Life is sometimes about give and take, and I'm entirely unwilling to take what they didn't want to give.

and rape (not being whistled at which is uncomfortable and does make you throw your guard up because you don't know if it will go beyond that, but not rape) is still somehow the woman's fault.

It's probably a cultural thing, but I've seen a few men get serious ass-beatings for what they still call "blackguarding" around here. Most of us here don't do it, because we have an aversion to taking an ass-whoopin', and, after the manner of the bad old days, fellas around here still have that outdated notion that women ought to be protected... and there are quite a number of women entirely capable of delivering said ass-whoopin' on their own, which helps I reckon. Does it occasionally happen? Yup. Are there repercussions? You betcha! Actual rape happens every so often, but is minimized by the culprit simply "going away", and thereby not making that same mistake twice. No one WANTS to "go away", so miscreants tend to keep themselves in check, and if not, well...

If "feminism" ever made serious inroads into here, I shudder to think what the final condition of our women would be after the fact. I don't think it would be a major improvement in condition, but have no doubt that there are those who think it WOULD be.

How it pans out in the outside world, I can't say - that's for you all to hash out... just watch out for your bronze statues - they're defenseless on their own.

a reply to: grainofsand

At the same time, if a woman gets to make the exclusive choice of whether or not to carry a child to term without any input from her partner who also had quite a big say in whether or not she got to make the choice in the first place, then why does she get to make a further claim on him if he has no say in whether or not the offspring of their mutual liaison is carried to term?

It's her body her choice ... but if she chooses to carry it to term, and he didn't want anything to do with that, then he has to have a part in its support no matter what?

It's her body her choice ... but if she chooses to terminate it, and he wanted something to do with it, he has no say in the matter at all?

In the first statement she can compel his interest whether he wants any or not, and in the second, she can shut him out. But it took both of them for her to have the choice to begin with and they are 50/50 partners in the creation of the child whose life she is deciding.

And people wonder why so many men are checking out of wanting to have anything to do with women?

originally posted by: ketsuko
At the same time, if a woman gets to make the exclusive choice of whether or not to carry a child to term without any input from her partner who also had quite a big say in whether or not she got to make the choice in the first place, then why does she get to make a further claim on him if he has no say in whether or not the offspring of their mutual liaison is carried to term?

SHE doesn't make a further claim on him. The child does. If there's a child, it needs to be cared for. The parents are the most logical choice.

originally posted by: ketsukoIt's her body her choice ... but if she chooses to terminate it, and he wanted something to do with it, he has no say in the matter at all?

Yep that's how I see it.
I went through a 'one night stand' pregnancy some years ago and everything was her decision in my mind.
It turned out not mine after born and a DNA test but I still raised the child as (and with) my own for 6 years.
DNA Parental testing, one of the best ever inventions for men?

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

But it's only a child according to the abortion rights crowd if SHE conveniently decides it gets to be one.

He had something to do with it, but he gets no say in whether or not SHE decides it gets to be a child and can then make a claim on him.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: ketsuko
At the same time, if a woman gets to make the exclusive choice of whether or not to carry a child to term without any input from her partner who also had quite a big say in whether or not she got to make the choice in the first place, then why does she get to make a further claim on him if he has no say in whether or not the offspring of their mutual liaison is carried to term?

SHE doesn't make a further claim on him. The child does. If there's a child, it needs to be cared for. The parents are the most logical choice.

Having been on the receiving end of such claims, I regret to inform you that you are wrong. The child made NO claims - but she did. Unfortunately, she made TOO MANY claims. being unsatisfied with what I voluntarily gave, she took it to court, and got a far lower legal judgement. After the case was over, she actually had the temerity to say "but you're going to keep on giving what you were before, right?"

Nope.

She got what she sued for, and not a penny more. I took the money I had been giving over and above that and kept it to entertain and support the child when it was in MY custody. As it turned out, I wound up being a "single parent" in that episode, and have no complaints.

On the other hand, I know of another case in which NO claims were made upon the father - the child didn't automatically make one simply by virtue of existence, and the mother never made one, either. She wound up being a single mother, and did a grand job of things.

No, the child makes no claims - the mother does.

a reply to: grainofsand

And people wonder why children are so screwed up.

Children are not a thing to play tug of war with, but here we are discussing them as both.

a reply to: jjsr420

What about the Amazons, or the many, many Queens that have ruled nations?

Do you think that the fact that there have been queens and women warriors in our past means women have always been treated as equals to men and been treated equally by men?

originally posted by: ketsuko
And people wonder why children are so screwed up.

Children are not a thing to play tug of war with, but here we are discussing them as both.

I learned everything I needed to know about not having sex unless I wanted to have a child from watching my divorced parents.

Lubrication companies have made a killing.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: grainofsand

And people wonder why children are so screwed up.

Children are not a thing to play tug of war with, but here we are discussing them as both.

I've never played 'tug of war' with any children in my life, I had a beautiful life experience during my time involved in raising that new life for 6 or 7 years, even though the DNA test showed I was not dad. Dad turned out to be a loser, so I always look back with a smile that I was the primary male role model and provider compared to biological dad who provided nothing but problems.

...but if a mother wishes to keep or abort a child it remains her choice, her body. That is the risk of unprotected sex.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: jjsr420

What about the Amazons, or the many, many Queens that have ruled nations?

Do you think that the fact that there have been queens and women warriors in our past means women have always been treated as equals to men and been treated equally by men?

For #s Sake NO!

But it's not one gender against the other. It's rulers and slaves... regardless of gender (or race... see?)!!!

Much of the structure that is railed against now was in practice specifically because SLAVE (in all but name) men were trying their best to create a social structure to protect their SLAVE wife and SLAVE children from the harsh realities of life outside of their family. And those women and children (first off the sinking ship remember) benefited more often than not from the manner in which men were taking the brunt of the social responsibility and burden.

Very good OP. Nicely laid out.

I'm a bit late to jump into already existing discussions. So I'll state my pet peeve.

Some state a Femnist is a woman who wants to over power men.

No, that is a bully. Any person who wants to overpower and control another person is a bully. Gender is irrelevant.

a reply to: Annee
I grew up watching women bully the men in their lives while telling the men it's their fault while receiving checks.

Cue dismissal of my experience in the 80's/90's because of your experience in the 60's in 5... 4... 3... 2...

a reply to: cuckooold

OP, to keep your post on topic and to further your questioning, research and the subsequent post, which I found to be a good read. My concern is only with the rhetoric of feminism, which I find particularly obscene.
I speak about the ideology, and not the people it is purported to be a solution for.

I agree with you in the sense that the term feminazi is a slur, which risks burying the societal shifts women have made within society beneath a blanket of contempt. The proposal that feminism can be confused with nazism is without merit, and no set of feminist principles imply such a notion. However, I feel this backlash is not against the feminist ideology as such, but against the behavior of outspoken and fundamentalist advocates, which, perhaps in the minds of idiots such as Limbaugh and Robertson, equates to nazi behavior. The term has obviously become a slanderous buzzword devised to misrepresent, rather than present. Ad hominem and slander is a common tool utilized to appeal to irrational minds by those who have no other means through which to promote nor defend their sectarian principles. If anything, the feminist behavior from Steinem's time has been stalinist in nature. Femi-stalinist maybe?

But I suppose a few dangerous questions remain in my own mind from which I have yet to find an answer. Do we thank feminism for helping women attain rights? Or do we thank masculinism for creating, implementing and giving those rights?

a reply to: ErgoTheAbsurd

You said some interesting things earlier that now, reading back through this thread - I'd like to talk about

Let's put it another way: Imagine we have a social meltdown. Tell me what sort of men women are going to flock toward? It won't be hipsters.

I wonder if you could explain what this has to do with feminism? Are you saying that feminists are messing with some kind of natural order?

Do you really think most men disliked the women they were choosing to marry and court? Does it really not occur to you that some of those social patterns were in place for practical reasons that most people living in this current environment have never once had to experience?

Who are you even talking to? Feminazis in general - or little ole me?

:-)

You've been having this argument with someone probably, but until today you and I haven't chatted about this at all. You assume way too much

I don't know the women you're referencing in this thread. I'm not someone who studies feminists or anti-feminists. I'm just a broad with an opinion and a big mouth

You seem to have studied up on this a bit - but from a very specific point of view. Are the boys really suffering at the hands of these modern day feminists? Or is it the old school feminsits that are the problem? I'd really like you to explain what you're trying to say

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: jjsr420

What about the Amazons, or the many, many Queens that have ruled nations?

Do you think that the fact that there have been queens and women warriors in our past means women have always been treated as equals to men and been treated equally by men?

No - that would mean that they have occasionally been treated as the superiors of men. There have, actually, been entire matriarchal societies based upon that superiority. "Masculinism" is probably why those societies are so rare now...