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

originally posted by: tony9802
Thank you so much for explaining what this notion, "Feminazism" was all about..that's actually quite important, and I would have never dreamed it would have originated with the likes of Rush Limbaugh..

Did you imagine that it originated with a decent, thinking human being?

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: FyreByrd

You're wasting your breath, Byrd. Les Misanthrope believes feminism is a conspiracy against men.

He has a history of throwing wrenches into conversations. I won't speculate on his motive. My policy is to ignore his posts.

a reply to: cuckooold

This has devolved into a hatefest against women, thus proving the need for feminism.

a feminist is a woman who is essentially deeply unhappy with that fact.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: jjsr420

That is such an absurd argument. You still have yet to respond to anything i've actually said. That is how nature works. The male impregnates, and the female conceives. Do you see animals bemoaning the fact that the male can't be the one to conceive? No. You don't. That fact doesn't, and shouldn't, give the woman more rights to say the unborn should live, or die. There is no logic to that argument at all. They BOTH created the life. They BOTH knew the consequences. Live with what you've done, or, quite simply, don't do it.

Do you see other animals following rights and shoulds and should nots? Your argument is superfluous.

The fact that the fetus is a part of the mother's body gives her every right.

Ah, but the fact is, the baby is NOT a part of the body of the mother. The child is contained within her, yes, but is not her. Each is a separate person. That said as a mother.

I agree with many of your comments here, but not with this one. jjsr420 is 100% correct.

originally posted by: Tangerine
a reply to: cuckooold

This has devolved into a hatefest against women, thus proving the need for feminism.

You mean like how it always does? Every time I see feminism discussed on the internet its swamped with a bunch of guys either whining or hating. It gets real old and predictable.

The Men's rights movement is way way way worse than all but the most militant feminism in my opinion.

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.

The CHILD makes the claim. Alright them, it's settled. The CHILD also decides whether or not to live, and NOT the mother. Fair enough?

I only woke up about an hour ago (here in Australia where everything is upside down, it's only 9 am), to see this thread has been doing overtime.

Perhaps I am naive, but I do like to accept the definition of feminism a dictionary provides. Other examples other posters are more indicative of bullying, and perhaps if one wishes to include the original term feminism, militant or extreme feminism seem to be what a lot of people are referring to, not feminism in its original context. Just as some people will use religion to justify their own actions (murder, genocide, cheating), so too will individuals and groups adopt the moniker of a group to further their own agenda.

If a woman chooses to be a housewife, that is her own choice, and so long and she is aware of what other choices she has, and is not oppressed by anybody else in choosing that role, I see no reason this can not be considered a feminist choice.

Being treated equally does not equate to be allowed to take on jobs one is not physically or mentally capable of. If a woman can meet the (necessary) physical requirements for a job, there is no reason she should not be able to take that job. If said woman expects that job without meeting the necessary requirements, that is not equality.

The 'lofty' definitions of feminism, as some have labelled the images and text I used in the OP, I think they are fine, and perhaps not so lofty and difficult to understand. When people start claiming 'rights' that have nothing to do with either rights, or equality, that is the problem.

N/m

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

From your socratic irony I can safely infer you are a feminist who doesn't like the idea that some people are criticizing feminism. Further, that you blame half the population of the earth for the problems the other half face. That, in my opinion, is your version of things. Please share more.

All of that is an assumption Les. If you were to read back from my first post in this thread all the way up until now - you'd realize that that is your spin on things. You don't appear to read what other people write - it almost seems as if you're not actually interested in what they have to say

In fact - if you ever read anything I ever said you would kinda sorta know me by now :-)

Realize you're speaking about 50% of the world population. I don't know how anyone can feel comfortable making such sweeping generalizations as you're doing. That's what disgusts me about your version of things.

Which generalizations would that be again?

Your disgust is a kind of small comfort to me Les - if only because it almost feels like evidence

N/m

Dp

Dp

originally posted by: Tangerine
This has devolved into a hatefest against women, thus proving the need for feminism.

Disagreeing with and debating a particular brand of ideology whether it is held by a man or woman has nothing to do with hatred of a specific gender.

Otherwise I wouldn't have referenced two women earlier to help further the discussion.

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

Feel free to ignore what they have to say if you wish, of course.

originally posted by: nenothtu
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Gender traitor!

Don't worry - if the girls get too mean, you can hide in the boys' club house... and we have beer!

Can I be a bigger "traitor". and request one of those girlie mixed drinks with an umbrella, instead? I'll bring snacks!

Ah, the boys' clubhouse.....*wicked grin*

originally posted by: ErgoTheAbsurd

originally posted by: Tangerine
This has devolved into a hatefest against women, thus proving the need for feminism.

Disagreeing with and debating a particular brand of ideology whether it is held by a man or woman has nothing to do with hatred of a specific gender.

Otherwise I wouldn't have referenced two women earlier to help further the discussion.

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

Feel free to ignore what they have to say if you wish, of course.

I wasn't referring to the disagreements. I was referring to the hate. There's a difference.

originally posted by: Tangerine
I wasn't referring to the disagreements. I was referring to the hate. There's a difference.

Good, now that we've got that out of the way... I'd be interested in you providing these examples of hatred to women.

Not feminists (which can be either gender), but *women*.

originally posted by: tavi45

originally posted by: Tangerine
a reply to: cuckooold

This has devolved into a hatefest against women, thus proving the need for feminism.

You mean like how it always does? Every time I see feminism discussed on the internet its swamped with a bunch of guys either whining or hating. It gets real old and predictable.

The Men's rights movement is way way way worse than all but the most militant feminism in my opinion.

It certainly brings out the women-haters and, sadly, there is no shortage of them. Some are even women although most are men who correctly perceive that women's equality is a threat to their (elevated) sense of entitlement and (delusions of) superiority.

a reply to: ErgoTheAbsurd

Yes, giving women the right to vote makes logical sense. But it was not denied previously in an effort to keep women down. It was because at the time the family unit was primary and everyone had their responsibilities to protect it. That has long since been destroyed and if you really can't see how the effort to destroy the family unit so we could be divided and conquered has worked splendidly... then... I dunno.

I'm actually a little tired of playing teams on this one Ergo - but I will say this: women had to fight for the right to vote

Fight - it was not handed to them

Why not?

The family unit doesn't suffer because a woman can vote - does it? If you honestly want to sell this idea that she was home bleaching sheets and making pudding because that was the only way she could support the family unit, well - I guess we are at an impasse

:-)

originally posted by: RoScoLaz4
a feminist is a woman who is essentially deeply unhappy with that fact.

Perhaps you would care to define "woman" and all that entails.