don't generalize all feminists

[Prince Ikari]

When it comes to women, I put them into three categories.

The first is those women belonging to the feminist movement. In my view the feminist movement is very left-wing politically, very pro-choice and pro-abortion, and essentially are a bunch of man-haters. Those feminists are in most cases single women either in their early 20s or in their old age, ones who refuse to marry because they see it as a misogynistic structure bent on keeping women down. They are more likely to become activists, such as being associated with groups like FEMEN, use birth control and demand it be free, and use radical means to achieve equality. The sole achievement of the feminists is the legalization of abortion. Lesbianism is also a small but major part of the feminist movement.

The second group is those women belonging to the women's suffragist movement. Women's suffragists vary politically, and can include women from the right, center, or left. These women do not have the same harsh, radical, man-hating rhetoric that dominates the feminist movement. Women's suffragists as opposed to feminists, choose to work with their male counterparts who are sympathetic to their plight. These women champion marriage and the family unit, while at the same time pushing to ensure women are treated equally in all parts of life. These women are for the most part pro-life (but can be pro-choice), can be married or single, and have helped achieve the greatest accomplishments for women, notably helping women gain the right to vote, and increasing women's property rights and employment opportunities. Susan B. Anthony being the most iconic of the women's suffragists.

The third and final group is the women who do not associate with either movement. They may have sympathies to both, but choose to already see themselves as equals to men and do not focus on trying to divide themselves with men along gender lines. Some of these women want to continue seeing great strides for women, others are not that concerned at all. They can vary all over the board when it comes to age, political affiliation, views on women, and the like. Most women would probably fit into this category.

[goedril]

Prince Ikari

When it comes to women, I put them into three categories.

The first is those women belonging to the feminist movement. In my view the feminist movement is very left-wing politically, very pro-choice and pro-abortion, and essentially are a bunch of man-haters. Those feminists are in most cases single women either in their early 20s or in their old age, ones who refuse to marry because they see it as a misogynistic structure bent on keeping women down. They are more likely to become activists, such as being associated with groups like FEMEN, use birth control and demand it be free, and use radical means to achieve equality. The sole achievement of the feminists is the legalization of abortion. Lesbianism is also a small but major part of the feminists movement.

The second group is those women belonging to the women's suffragist movement. Women's suffragists vary politically, and can include women from the right, center, or left. These women do not have the same harsh, radical, man-hating rhetoric that dominates the feminist movement. Women's suffragists as opposed to feminists, choose to work with their male counterparts who are sympathetic to their plight. These women champion marriage and the family unit, while at the same time pushing to ensure women are treated equally in all parts of life. These women are for the most part pro-life (but can be pro-choice), can be married or single, and have helped achieve the greatest accomplishments for women, notably helping women gain the right to vote, and increasing women's property rights and employment opportunities. Susan B. Anthony being the most iconic of the women's suffragists.

The third and final group is the women who do not associate with either movement. They may have sympathies to both, but choose to already seem themselves as equals to men and do not focus on trying to divide themselves with men along gender lines. Some of these women want to continue seeing great strides for women, others are not that concerned at all. They can vary all over the board when it comes to age, political affiliation, views on women, and the like. Most women would probably fit into this category.

What makes you put feminists and "women's suffragists" in different categories? Both want equality for women. You don't seem to know much about feminism and how diverse a movement it actually is.

[Prince Ikari]

goedril

Prince Ikari

When it comes to women, I put them into three categories.

The first is those women belonging to the feminist movement. In my view the feminist movement is very left-wing politically, very pro-choice and pro-abortion, and essentially are a bunch of man-haters. Those feminists are in most cases single women either in their early 20s or in their old age, ones who refuse to marry because they see it as a misogynistic structure bent on keeping women down. They are more likely to become activists, such as being associated with groups like FEMEN, use birth control and demand it be free, and use radical means to achieve equality. The sole achievement of the feminists is the legalization of abortion. Lesbianism is also a small but major part of the feminists movement.

The second group is those women belonging to the women's suffragist movement. Women's suffragists vary politically, and can include women from the right, center, or left. These women do not have the same harsh, radical, man-hating rhetoric that dominates the feminist movement. Women's suffragists as opposed to feminists, choose to work with their male counterparts who are sympathetic to their plight. These women champion marriage and the family unit, while at the same time pushing to ensure women are treated equally in all parts of life. These women are for the most part pro-life (but can be pro-choice), can be married or single, and have helped achieve the greatest accomplishments for women, notably helping women gain the right to vote, and increasing women's property rights and employment opportunities. Susan B. Anthony being the most iconic of the women's suffragists.

The third and final group is the women who do not associate with either movement. They may have sympathies to both, but choose to already seem themselves as equals to men and do not focus on trying to divide themselves with men along gender lines. Some of these women want to continue seeing great strides for women, others are not that concerned at all. They can vary all over the board when it comes to age, political affiliation, views on women, and the like. Most women would probably fit into this category.

What makes you put feminists and "women's suffragists" in different categories? Both want equality for women. You don't seem to know much about feminism and how diverse a movement it actually is.

I put them into two different categories because the two in my view anyways are not the same. They both want equality for women but they both have different views of what equality is. Feminists view equality as being better than men, and focus on reproductive rights. Women's suffragists want to be equal with men, and focus on areas they can build consensus around with men who are sympathetic to them. The feminists are essentially the radical, left-wing faction of the overall women's equality movement, with the women's suffragists being the centrist and more pragmatic faction. I take it by your harsh tone that you prescribe strongly to the feminists faction of the women's equality movement. I would consider myself sympathetic to the women's suffragist faction, because they achieved real gains for women in the past.

[HMS Thunder Child]

goedril

Prince Ikari

When it comes to women, I put them into three categories.

The first is those women belonging to the feminist movement. In my view the feminist movement is very left-wing politically, very pro-choice and pro-abortion, and essentially are a bunch of man-haters. Those feminists are in most cases single women either in their early 20s or in their old age, ones who refuse to marry because they see it as a misogynistic structure bent on keeping women down. They are more likely to become activists, such as being associated with groups like FEMEN, use birth control and demand it be free, and use radical means to achieve equality. The sole achievement of the feminists is the legalization of abortion. Lesbianism is also a small but major part of the feminists movement.

The second group is those women belonging to the women's suffragist movement. Women's suffragists vary politically, and can include women from the right, center, or left. These women do not have the same harsh, radical, man-hating rhetoric that dominates the feminist movement. Women's suffragists as opposed to feminists, choose to work with their male counterparts who are sympathetic to their plight. These women champion marriage and the family unit, while at the same time pushing to ensure women are treated equally in all parts of life. These women are for the most part pro-life (but can be pro-choice), can be married or single, and have helped achieve the greatest accomplishments for women, notably helping women gain the right to vote, and increasing women's property rights and employment opportunities. Susan B. Anthony being the most iconic of the women's suffragists.

The third and final group is the women who do not associate with either movement. They may have sympathies to both, but choose to already seem themselves as equals to men and do not focus on trying to divide themselves with men along gender lines. Some of these women want to continue seeing great strides for women, others are not that concerned at all. They can vary all over the board when it comes to age, political affiliation, views on women, and the like. Most women would probably fit into this category.

What makes you put feminists and "women's suffragists" in different categories? Both want equality for women. You don't seem to know much about feminism and how diverse a movement it actually is.

[Informative]

Ikari is a racist, misogynist homophobe. They don't have a clue about anything.

[I AM R U]

IronySandwich

Is anyone pro-abortion?

Many believe that abortions should be legal, but that's not the same as liking it.

this 3nodding

[I AM R U]

frozen_water

So what is this, like a news bulletin we should all read? What are we supposed to discuss exactly, that (shocker) not all people in a movement have the same beliefs?

This 3nodding I think we're meant to start arguing amongst ourselves, but there aren't any enough trolls here at the moment to make it worth it *wanders off*

[chainmailleman]

goedril

chainmailleman

Jessi Danger

x_DivineDesire_x

Jessi Danger

Well let me put it this way, I can't cease eating bacon and then on that alone declare myself an adherent of Judaism.

My ability to vote isn't contingent on having undying fealty to Gloria Stienem, or NOW, in fact none of them had anything to do with my ability to vote.

So let me ask you, if equality is impossible, are you therefor not for equality?

Judaism is related to a belief in a deity...feminism is more of equality and civil rights...two different things.

I don't know who that person is.

You basically said equality was impossible yourself.

I am for equality. Can't we at least get close to it? Or is there some problem you believe will happen?

You have also said equality is impossible. Thus you can't reasonably say your for it. If the feminism you believe in can't push for equality why are you claiming it does? Or even should when you previously admitted it is a lie.

I didn't say equality was impossible. I said the movement that claims equality is actually not practicing what it claims to preach.

Because Feminism was never about equality. Ever. It's about power. Who has control.

Of course it's about power. Men have more power than women. Feminists want women to have equal power. We want society to be structured in a way that doesn't favor one gender over another. If you think it's about one gender controlling the other, you don't understand what feminism is.

Wow....just wow.

How far do you have to push it? Until men are in chains?

[Lychee Bae]

chainmailleman

goedril

chainmailleman

Jessi Danger

x_DivineDesire_x

Jessi Danger

Well let me put it this way, I can't cease eating bacon and then on that alone declare myself an adherent of Judaism.

My ability to vote isn't contingent on having undying fealty to Gloria Stienem, or NOW, in fact none of them had anything to do with my ability to vote.

So let me ask you, if equality is impossible, are you therefor not for equality?

Judaism is related to a belief in a deity...feminism is more of equality and civil rights...two different things.

I don't know who that person is.

You basically said equality was impossible yourself.

I am for equality. Can't we at least get close to it? Or is there some problem you believe will happen?

You have also said equality is impossible. Thus you can't reasonably say your for it. If the feminism you believe in can't push for equality why are you claiming it does? Or even should when you previously admitted it is a lie.

I didn't say equality was impossible. I said the movement that claims equality is actually not practicing what it claims to preach.

Because Feminism was never about equality. Ever. It's about power. Who has control.

Of course it's about power. Men have more power than women. Feminists want women to have equal power. We want society to be structured in a way that doesn't favor one gender over another. If you think it's about one gender controlling the other, you don't understand what feminism is.

Wow....just wow.

How far do you have to push it? Until men are in chains?

Chains? Where is this coming from? I don't think she means she wants females to rule or control males... at least what I think she is saying is she wants females to have the same amount of importance and ability in society.

[The20]

goedril

Prince Ikari

When it comes to women, I put them into three categories.

The first is those women belonging to the feminist movement. In my view the feminist movement is very left-wing politically, very pro-choice and pro-abortion, and essentially are a bunch of man-haters. Those feminists are in most cases single women either in their early 20s or in their old age, ones who refuse to marry because they see it as a misogynistic structure bent on keeping women down. They are more likely to become activists, such as being associated with groups like FEMEN, use birth control and demand it be free, and use radical means to achieve equality. The sole achievement of the feminists is the legalization of abortion. Lesbianism is also a small but major part of the feminists movement.

The second group is those women belonging to the women's suffragist movement. Women's suffragists vary politically, and can include women from the right, center, or left. These women do not have the same harsh, radical, man-hating rhetoric that dominates the feminist movement. Women's suffragists as opposed to feminists, choose to work with their male counterparts who are sympathetic to their plight. These women champion marriage and the family unit, while at the same time pushing to ensure women are treated equally in all parts of life. These women are for the most part pro-life (but can be pro-choice), can be married or single, and have helped achieve the greatest accomplishments for women, notably helping women gain the right to vote, and increasing women's property rights and employment opportunities. Susan B. Anthony being the most iconic of the women's suffragists.

The third and final group is the women who do not associate with either movement. They may have sympathies to both, but choose to already seem themselves as equals to men and do not focus on trying to divide themselves with men along gender lines. Some of these women want to continue seeing great strides for women, others are not that concerned at all. They can vary all over the board when it comes to age, political affiliation, views on women, and the like. Most women would probably fit into this category.

What makes you put feminists and "women's suffragists" in different categories? Both want equality for women. You don't seem to know much about feminism and how diverse a movement it actually is.

So because the movement is so diverse you want to reduce it to one category? (I have no idea if the given categorization makes any sense since i don't think i know any feminists, but that's not what i'm getting at here.)

[YibberYabber]

goedril

I'm a feminist and a gender egalitarian. Can someone please explain to me why you think feminists are anti-men? I'm sure there is a rather tiny percentage of feminists who actually want men to be below women in the social hierarchy, but they are not mainstream feminists, and honestly, I don't even hear much about them.

Do people think that men and women can never be equal? If so, why not? Seriously, the responses in this thread are confusing the crap out of me, and I have a notion that many of you don't even know what feminism is.

It's because you associate yourself with a group that has some bad apples, and unfortunately they hold the whole movement back. Most people I talk to who consider themselves Feminists believe both genders should be treated as equals, but I've also had the misfortune to know a feminist who thought that men were the source of all the world's problems. She was extremely radical, though.

However I have noticed a tendency with most feminists to ignore the issues that men are faced with when it comes to the topic of gender equality. I was even told a couple times that all the injustices facing men were the product of misogyny, and the hatred of all that isn't masculine. This is just my observation of the people around me though, and I still get along with them fine, even if our opinion on how to approach inequality between the genders differ.

As far as equality goes, I believe the human race will eventually reach a point where we all regard one another as equals. Human society is constantly evolving, and we've already come a long way in the past hundred years. We may live to see it and we may not, but we should still strive for it.

[Jessi Danger]

goedril

chainmailleman

Jessi Danger

x_DivineDesire_x

Jessi Danger

Well let me put it this way, I can't cease eating bacon and then on that alone declare myself an adherent of Judaism.

My ability to vote isn't contingent on having undying fealty to Gloria Stienem, or NOW, in fact none of them had anything to do with my ability to vote.

So let me ask you, if equality is impossible, are you therefor not for equality?

Judaism is related to a belief in a deity...feminism is more of equality and civil rights...two different things.

I don't know who that person is.

You basically said equality was impossible yourself.

I am for equality. Can't we at least get close to it? Or is there some problem you believe will happen?

You have also said equality is impossible. Thus you can't reasonably say your for it. If the feminism you believe in can't push for equality why are you claiming it does? Or even should when you previously admitted it is a lie.

I didn't say equality was impossible. I said the movement that claims equality is actually not practicing what it claims to preach.

Because Feminism was never about equality. Ever. It's about power. Who has control.

Of course it's about power. Men have more power than women. Feminists want women to have equal power. We want society to be structured in a way that doesn't favor one gender over another. If you think it's about one gender controlling the other, you don't understand what feminism is.

Except your, and feminisms, fatal flaw is that power is not some monolithic thing held by groups against other groups. For one, treating it as a zero sum game is inherently setting yourself up for conflict. As a second treating the most elite members of any vague amorphous group as representative and acting as agent in that groups best interest is a fatally flawed assumption which will get you in serious trouble. If you assume x group has more power then y group you've already fallen into the dangerous game of being little more then a constituency lobby, one that's blinded to its own shortcomings or hypocritical ideals.

[Jessi Danger]

x_DivineDesire_x

chainmailleman

goedril

chainmailleman

Jessi Danger

You have also said equality is impossible. Thus you can't reasonably say your for it. If the feminism you believe in can't push for equality why are you claiming it does? Or even should when you previously admitted it is a lie.

I didn't say equality was impossible. I said the movement that claims equality is actually not practicing what it claims to preach.

Because Feminism was never about equality. Ever. It's about power. Who has control.

Of course it's about power. Men have more power than women. Feminists want women to have equal power. We want society to be structured in a way that doesn't favor one gender over another. If you think it's about one gender controlling the other, you don't understand what feminism is.

Wow....just wow.

How far do you have to push it? Until men are in chains?

Chains? Where is this coming from? I don't think she means she wants females to rule or control males... at least what I think she is saying is she wants females to have the same amount of importance and ability in society.

The roles and importance too society? What roles to men have that women don't have or are somehow prevented from attaining?

I will note that no law under the books that govern our land prevent us from doing anything we set our heart to do. So what exactly is making us unequal?

[goedril]

chainmailleman

goedril

chainmailleman

Jessi Danger

x_DivineDesire_x

Jessi Danger

Well let me put it this way, I can't cease eating bacon and then on that alone declare myself an adherent of Judaism.

My ability to vote isn't contingent on having undying fealty to Gloria Stienem, or NOW, in fact none of them had anything to do with my ability to vote.

So let me ask you, if equality is impossible, are you therefor not for equality?

Judaism is related to a belief in a deity...feminism is more of equality and civil rights...two different things.

I don't know who that person is.

You basically said equality was impossible yourself.

I am for equality. Can't we at least get close to it? Or is there some problem you believe will happen?

You have also said equality is impossible. Thus you can't reasonably say your for it. If the feminism you believe in can't push for equality why are you claiming it does? Or even should when you previously admitted it is a lie.

I didn't say equality was impossible. I said the movement that claims equality is actually not practicing what it claims to preach.

Because Feminism was never about equality. Ever. It's about power. Who has control.

Of course it's about power. Men have more power than women. Feminists want women to have equal power. We want society to be structured in a way that doesn't favor one gender over another. If you think it's about one gender controlling the other, you don't understand what feminism is.

Wow....just wow.

How far do you have to push it? Until men are in chains?

What? Did you read what I wrote? I want to push it until men and women have equal power in society. How would that put men in chains?

[goedril]

The20

goedril

Prince Ikari

When it comes to women, I put them into three categories.

The first is those women belonging to the feminist movement. In my view the feminist movement is very left-wing politically, very pro-choice and pro-abortion, and essentially are a bunch of man-haters. Those feminists are in most cases single women either in their early 20s or in their old age, ones who refuse to marry because they see it as a misogynistic structure bent on keeping women down. They are more likely to become activists, such as being associated with groups like FEMEN, use birth control and demand it be free, and use radical means to achieve equality. The sole achievement of the feminists is the legalization of abortion. Lesbianism is also a small but major part of the feminists movement.

The second group is those women belonging to the women's suffragist movement. Women's suffragists vary politically, and can include women from the right, center, or left. These women do not have the same harsh, radical, man-hating rhetoric that dominates the feminist movement. Women's suffragists as opposed to feminists, choose to work with their male counterparts who are sympathetic to their plight. These women champion marriage and the family unit, while at the same time pushing to ensure women are treated equally in all parts of life. These women are for the most part pro-life (but can be pro-choice), can be married or single, and have helped achieve the greatest accomplishments for women, notably helping women gain the right to vote, and increasing women's property rights and employment opportunities. Susan B. Anthony being the most iconic of the women's suffragists.

The third and final group is the women who do not associate with either movement. They may have sympathies to both, but choose to already seem themselves as equals to men and do not focus on trying to divide themselves with men along gender lines. Some of these women want to continue seeing great strides for women, others are not that concerned at all. They can vary all over the board when it comes to age, political affiliation, views on women, and the like. Most women would probably fit into this category.

What makes you put feminists and "women's suffragists" in different categories? Both want equality for women. You don't seem to know much about feminism and how diverse a movement it actually is.

So because the movement is so diverse you want to reduce it to one category? (I have no idea if the given categorization makes any sense since i don't think i know any feminists, but that's not what i'm getting at here.)

I just meant it doesn't make sense to pick out one type of feminism (I guess the kind he tolerates) and lump all the others in a different, absurdly narrow category.

[Lychee Bae]

Jessi Danger

x_DivineDesire_x

chainmailleman

goedril

chainmailleman

Jessi Danger

You have also said equality is impossible. Thus you can't reasonably say your for it. If the feminism you believe in can't push for equality why are you claiming it does? Or even should when you previously admitted it is a lie.

I didn't say equality was impossible. I said the movement that claims equality is actually not practicing what it claims to preach.

Because Feminism was never about equality. Ever. It's about power. Who has control.

Of course it's about power. Men have more power than women. Feminists want women to have equal power. We want society to be structured in a way that doesn't favor one gender over another. If you think it's about one gender controlling the other, you don't understand what feminism is.

Wow....just wow.

How far do you have to push it? Until men are in chains?

Chains? Where is this coming from? I don't think she means she wants females to rule or control males... at least what I think she is saying is she wants females to have the same amount of importance and ability in society.

The roles and importance too society? What roles to men have that women don't have or are somehow prevented from attaining?

I will note that no law under the books that govern our land prevent us from doing anything we set our heart to do. So what exactly is making us unequal?

There is no law that is a problem. It is social issues. We don't see it, but it is there.
I guess I can see it from your perspective where there is no law to stop us from getting what we want ...but there are a lot of obstacles.

For example... cooking is gender for women right? Cooking is considered to be more feminine however the career field of being chief is more centered on men.

Also the technology field... very masculine centered as well. Some people might say..."But nothing is stopping women from going into that field! Also since women are scarce in this field it works toward their advantage!" True it does sort of work to their advantage. However imagine being a female going through classes where every other student in that class is male. What happens if you don't do well in that class? you feel bad and discouraged from pursing a career in the technology field...or maybe you will have those other students not want to socialize with you since it would be a little strange. I was in a class like this in high-school. This was a computer networking class. My computer science teacher (a different class) even told us that she knows that women are rarely seen in a field like this. Then once you graduate and get a job...your boss may just hire you so that the statics of women compared to men will look better...and he will pay you a lot less then everyone else.