What has Feminism taken away from you?

Feminists supports unconstitutional discrimination against men. Due to feminism unemployment among men higher then women. So feminism personally reduces my chances to be hired.

 

But feminists obviously know what's in women's best interests-right???

Koss surely knew what's in women's best interests

"Roiphe makes a straightforward human point: the women were there, and they know best how to judge what happened to them. Since when do feminists consider "law" to override women's experience?

Katie Roiphe, a graduate student in English at Princeton and author of The Morning After: Sex, Fear, and Feminism on Campus, argues along similar lines when she claims that Koss had no right to reject the judgment of the college women who didn't think they were raped."

http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9502/sommers.html

 

How feminism promotes eating disorders in women:

Feminists promote the lie that men’s ideal body type is a tall rail thin model like the type of woman you see in fashion magazines. So girls and women develop BDD and eating disorders to achieve this, “ideal body type.”

When in reality these fashion magazines aren’t generally created by straight men, but they are generally created by women and gay men. For example Vogue, a magazine that was called, “the most influential fashion magazine in the world" by the New York times is composed of 16 editors. 15 of the sixteen editors of which are women, including the editor in chief, and who wants to make a bet on the sexual orientation of the lone male editor, I bet he isn’t straight. Want to bet?

If anyone wants to know men’s ideal body type, they shouldn’t look at fashion magazines. They should look at porn because men don’t generally look at fashion magazines, but 70% of men do watch porn once a month. If you were to watch porn you'd discover men like all types. If there is a type of women, there’s a man who likes that type of woman. I mean there are men who like 600 pound women.

If there is an ideal body type at all in porn, it is petite curvy women, and petite curvy women are the exact opposite of the tall rail thin models that appear in fashion magazines.

Why do femists promote this lie? They promote this lie because they hate men, and this is just one more issue they can blame on men. They hate men so much they promote a lie that’s harmful to the people they’re supposed to be advocates for, girls and women. Feminists are bad for everyone: boys, men, girls, and women, Feminists are bad for everyone but themselves.

But, as a feminist, I suppose you believe bulimia and anorexia are in a women's best interest-right Gwendoline

 

Yes...she started this thread not as an honest Inquiry, but as an attempt to mock anyone who criticizes feminism

 

Never mind the entire section of Women's Rights exists for men mostly who come here to bash feminists.

The one time I bash back... O, look, I'm threatening their domain in the Women's Rights section. LOL!!

Truly a crock.

It's 2014. Listening to some of you, it's still 1950.

Feminism goes along fine in spite of all the attempts to discredit it and bash it around on a political forum.

Drone on, ryobi...

 

Feminism is fine as long as it is not used as basis for gaining special rights. Currently, women have more rights then men, so men should centralize their effort and oppose feminism.

 

Would you kindly list these rights women have over men?

You claim women have MORE rights than men, I'd like to hear them.

 

I always love the Rightwing men (even women) who talk about "feminists who never marry, focus only on their careers, never have children, bounce from man to man"....


who are fans of Ann Coulter.

 

First sentence, fine, second is bs.

 

Women staying in the workforce after WWII did that more than feminism proper. People would be making a heck of a lot more at work if the bulk of working women stayed home baking me cookies.

 

Say, you may be on to something. Lets have most of the men stay home too, then look how much "people" would be making!

Anything wrong with this plan?

 

Nope, not at all. That is the left-wing Utopia-- nobody works and they each have all the time in the world to film their feature episode of "Hoarders". Seems like a win-win to me.

 

The keyword is Affirmative Action.
Once that program is eliminated, we will have a substance to talk about. Until then women have more rights than men.

 

I dont know as that is left wing nor utopia, but it will work as well as having the women stay home baking cookies.

- - - Updated - - -

No men are recipients of affirmative action?

and

"affirmative action" covers every single last aspect of rights?

 

How about all the Rightwingers who think a weak Republican-based health care reform is "Communism"....who end up on an episode of "Doomsday Preppers" because they listen to Glenn Beck too much???

 

Men could stay at home if you are willing to let little kids roam the streets in diapers so dirty they drag the ground, gnawing on a cookie as hard as a rock if you prefer. Women, however, are going to have a harder time digging that ditch and totting them bales.

 

No true prepper would ever let camera crews into his survival lair. Wouldn't want the government or the starving neighbors know anything about what is in there.

 

huh? you feel that the economy would work better if only the men had jobs, so why wont it work better still if nobody does?

 

No, the economy will work some if men stayed home and women worked. Men, however, are probably not as a group as good of caregivers as women and women are probably, as a group, less handy with a shovel.

 

Fair is fair. Of course we are not all good at the same things. Im certain that nobody would pay me to be a linebacker or a cowboy!

 

The situation in many Western Countries:

• women are protected from conscription
• affirmative action
• special protection by law
• special infrastructure (parking areas, taxis)

Feminist demands they did not achieve yet, but which they are fighting for

• definition power (men accused of rape or domenstic violence by a woman are guilty by definition without a trial at all or by a trial with change of burden of proof -> men are to be treated as guilty as long as they cannot prove the opposite)
• higher taxes for men
• a more severe penal legislation for men (in Spain feminists achieved that already)

 

I was on a university varsity team in 1979 when the university dropped the team due to Title 9. Mulitple sports were dropped that year including mens gymnastics, wrestling, diving, fencing, and water polo. One team was the previous years national NCAA champion and had members who had just returned from representing the US in the Pan American Games, and several athletes eventually went to the Olympics.

We went to the Athletic Director and were told we could keep our teams if we recruited a minimum number of women into intramural sports. We went to every dorm and sorority house, recruited some women, but not nearly enough.

A couple of the teams became clubs and paid their own way for a while but it costs a lot of money traveling all over the country and overseas. None maintained their original status and level of competition, what national class athlete would go to a "club" when he could go to another university on scholarship?

The real tragedy was not the loss of those sports, but the impact it had on the athletes. A lot of people on scholarship were put in a very bad situation. Many transferred to another university but lost a year of competition due to NCAA rules, and some of those did not get scholarships. Some not afford it without a scholarship and ended up in smaller schools, some went home and we never heard from them again.

Title 9 ruined a lot of dreams and some lives. I hope letting more women play softball team was worth it.

 

It does not matter, AA provide special rights for women.
Once it is abolished we will have opportunity to talk about feminism in a positive way.

 

The topic is difficult to discuss, cause the term "feminism" is not protected by copyright. Everyone can call her- or himself a feminist and everyone can dispute that. Just to give you an example, you mentioned Inferno here in another thread, she claimed herself to be a feminist (I would agree on that, most of her positions fit in the image I have of a feminists). In Germany mainstream feminists would have agressively attacked her and tried to deny her to call herself a feminist due to the fact that she pleaded for a legalization of prostitution. So, there is no clean way to precisely define the group of persons we talk about when we speak of "feminists". So everything what we write here in a discussion is a kind of consolidation into a lump sum in some way, as it is always the case in a political discussion.

For me it is pretty clear that feminism is a kind of supremacy movement. If someone states that its in doubt better to send 100 innocent people to jail than risking to let one guilty walk free, then its a consequent law and order fanatic. If someone's position is that there is one group of persons which should be in doubt send to jail and another group of persons which should walk free in doubt, thats what I would see as a supremacy movement. In the case of feminists, they focus on law and order, when it comes to male dominated crimes like rape e.g.
When it comes to the murder or maltreatment of a baby or a toddler by a mother, the feminists focus on lower punishments or claiming mental illnesses for which a mother cannot be held responsible. They have of course cheap arguments for all that, but sorry, the only reason from the switch from law and order positions to the softest positions is the different value they approriate a male accused and a female accused. The same with membership dues of insurances, they switch their positions from advocating a unisex tariff to a gender related tariff depending on how men has to pay most and women has to pay the minimum.


To me it seems that feminism shows another characteristic of an ideology, its this "either they are with us or against us" scheme without any sense for the large varieties of grey tones between 100% white and 100% black. I dont want to be offensive, but you made a comment about a statement which was absolutely exemplaric. When I made a statement here that made clear that I am opposed feminism, you made a strange comments, that women were not allowed to vote some time ago with an underlying assumption that I would have liked that. This pattern occurs always in a discussion with feminists as far as I mentioned. In an alledged rape case you state that you dont know what happened, feminists sum that up with "it was the victim's fault". You contradict any of their "Men are swine" thesis, for them its clear "of course you want to keep women as slaves". You are not for affirmative action for women = you want to forbid women to work at all. Its a extreme simple friend-foe idea with nothing in between.

 

That is awful, and of course it was not worth it.