Jump to content




  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Loranflame

  • Rank
    Master of Mischief
  • Birthday 02/25/1991

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Mischief and everything Fun!
  1. Yeah so would I and I'm sure women all over the world would as well....,especially those getting raped, stoned, and beheaded in honor killings. The point being made by the author... is not that Feminism has largely succeeded in its goals all over the world. But rather that it has come very far, in many parts of the Western world. Nobody can deny that there are plenty of places where Feminism still has a lot of work to do. In fact... even in the western world it still has a role to play. The Author admires and respects the 1st and 2nd Waves of Feminism. The author is very clear about how important the First and Second Waves of Feminism were, and how much he respects and agrees with what they did and what they stood for. He may not have pointed it out clearly... but some parts of the world are still working through those stages. That would include places with lots of rape, beheadings, stoning, and honor killings. Obviously such places are far from fulfilling the successes of the Second Wave of Feminism. Once could rightfully say that Feminists in those areas, or those supporting women's empowerment in those areas, are very much in line with what the Second Wave of Feminism stood for. And this author has nothing but respect for that. I do think he is wrong in saying that the all that was needed after the second wave was to become a watchdog, maintaining the successes of Feminism. There is of course more to be done, and men and women certainly haven't come to a place yet where we all feel equal. He does however say the following about the average modern feminist: After saying the above, he again says something I don't quite agree with, when he claims that it is the more extreme Feminists who define the movement. He is however right that some of the big name Feminists get an unfortunately large amount of publicity, that is to the detriment of the movement if those Feminists happen to be extremists. I haven't really followed her stuff much since her MTV Youtube Channel thing... but I follow Laci Green and I think she is an example of an awesome big name Feminist. I very much agree with much of what she says,... though she occasionally says things I would happily debate her on. At any rate... I don't think the movement is defined by extremists alone, and he was wrong in saying that. As he mentioned the 2nd Wave of Feminism has achieved a lot! And his points are not a Utopia or Dream. Now for the part you seem to be referring to. First read through the list that he wrote about the achievements of the Second Wave of Feminism and tell me how many are wrong in the Western world. I'd say very few are disputable... with The main debatable "achievement" being the one where he says that men and women are paid the same. For the rest... I'd say he is right that most of the points in the list are pretty much covered in many parts of the Western world. It definitely would not be acceptable to commit honor killings, stoning, beheadings anywhere in the Western World as far as I know. Any fool who did any of the those would be lynched, mobbed, or at the very least spend a significant amount of time behind bars. So what he said isn't actually a "utopia" at all in the Western world. By all means... things in the western world are not perfect yet, I have already acknowledged that much. But what he said about the achievements of the Second Wave are very much evident and realistic... not dreams. If you dispute this... then I would like to see the specifics from the Second Wave that have supposedly not been achieved (not including equal pay). Dude! One of my favorite topics of discussion right there. *Pats Barid on the back* Nice! I could talk about this stuff all day long. But yeah, I'll try not to get carried away haha. First of all... there is a lot at play when it comes to this issue. Not only in terms of traditions, customs, and Feminism that you have rightly brought up... but also media. It is also important to be aware that men and women are different, particularly as far as sexuality and attraction go. This is something we occasionally seem to lose sight of these days, due to Feminism and the focus on equality. Some people wrongly assert or think that equality is going to be some kind of condition or circumstance under which men and women will act and be treated the same. This is a flawed and unrealistic view and expectation of equality. The fact of the matter, is that men and women are different and equality is not going to erase or change that. What equality will hopefully do is create true freedom of choice. It will allow every individual, regardless of gender, to choose how they want to define themselves, what path they want to take through life, and how they will walk their path. And it will allow everyone to do this with minimal judgement, allowing and accepting that individuals make different choices. In a sense this does come down to treating people the same regardless of gender... but the expectation that men and women will also act the same is going a bit far. Anyway... I should get back to the matter at hand hahaha. It is interesting to note that the media tends to reflect society back upon itself, and we don't always like what we see. Like a real reflection... the media changes and shifts along with the times and that is happening today as well. Also like a real reflection... we tend to use the media as a reference point for our society and ourselves. You may be wondering where I'm going with this... but bear with me. Both men and women, especially when they are much younger, learn a lot about the world through the media these days. No too long ago that meant television and movies for the most part but now we also have the internet. Particularly when it comes to relationships, courtship, dating, and sexuality we tend to learn from the media as much as from our friends, or society at large. The media these days in far more fragmented than it used to be. Various television channels, movies, games, and websites all target and cater to different groups of people. One moment you may be watching a tv show with a macho protagonist, who sweeps women of their feet with his dangerous charm. The next moment you may be watching a movie where the loser, finally wins the girl over by being her friend. One moment you see women swooning all over James Bond types, the next moment you're watching something where such a guy is being called a jerk. One moment the very fortunate nice guy has a gorgeous girlfriend who leads him around by the nose, and the next moment you're watching gorgeous girls laugh in a geeks face. It gets very, very confusing. In the midst of all these different and confusing scenarios... society generally approves of the nice guy, and expects you to be a gentleman e.t.c. But at the same time it seems as though the jerks are quite successful with women somehow. How do you reconcile these very different approaches. It happens at different times for different people, but most guys get to the stage where they try to experiment and figure things out. Society will generally pressure men into following the nice guy approach, and I'd say that most men do this. This is the origin of the "friendzone" problem. By being a nice guy and by being a friend, many guys expect to get a girlfriend. That's what society has lead them to believe. So yes, some men end up identifying very strongly with the whole "friendzone" thing because they think that they're following all the rules in the book... and they never seem to make it. To get to the point. The problem is the generally accepted and society approved "nice guy" approach is not the most effective. On the contrary, it seems that those who go against the grain tend to be more successful with women. As far as approaching women go, the nice guy will rarely do it... and when they do try... they will try to be nice and socially appropriate. This can work if the attraction is mutual. So it's not bad actually... the problem is that there will be many cases where the attraction is not immediately mutual. Why? Well... it comes down to one of the significant differences between men and women. Men tend to be attracted very easily based on appearances. This is why we have an absolutely mind-blowingly gigantic make-up industry which overwhelmingly caters to women. This is also why women are so sexualised and objectified... and to a much greater degree than men. Unfortunately... Feminism and many women presume that this makes us shallow. This is incorrect. It is merely a result of biology and evolution that we are attracted to certain physical traits that suggest fertility and a high chance of successful reproduction. Of course... when it comes to having relationships, we men are far from shallow. Many of us look deeper than appearances, but it would be a blatant lie to claim that appearances are not important to the average guy. Anyway... so what about women then? For starters, they are not stimulated as much by appearances. They do of course appreciate various physical traits, but it isn't particularly important. For the average woman it is a very different type of characteristic that triggers attraction. It is not easily described but... I would say that women are attracted by something that has elements of behaviour, status, and security. This too is a result of biology and evolution. Without security, women may not have been able to live, let alone be able to successfully raise a child. The greatest security in the past came from those with strength, and status. It came from dominant and powerful men. These are still very powerful and primal triggers for attraction in women. This is why celebrities, athletes, rock stars, and the rich and powerful tend to have their pick from many many women. It is also why... Lan is for instance hugely popular among female readers of WoT. Of course... many of the guys in WoT have the necessary traits and characteristics that trigger attraction. But yeah... if you take some time to mull things over you'll know I'm right. Just like men though... women are not as shallow as to care about things like that on their own. Other things also matter, but the above is a very significant difference between men and women. It is one that is not understood, accepted, or even well known by people in general. And yet... it comes back over and over again in both media and real life. So what does this have to do with approaches? To come back full circle, the nice guy approach does not emphasize strength of character, confidence, or other attractive qualities (Physical attraction mind you... women do of course like the flattery and all the approval they get). This is why it tends to be the less effective approach, especially if she is not physically attracted to begin with. As a rule of thumb I'd say that regardless of how, where, or when you make an approach... it needs to be done with confidence. This doesn't need to mean being macho or anything like that. Unless you want to haha. What it does mean, is that you should not be afraid to approach and talk to a woman you are interested in. Ideally you should do so in an appropriate setting of course... but no matter where or when, do it with confidence. Confidence... is the one thread that runs through almost everything that generates attraction in women. Just like appearances are an important element in generating attraction in almost any man (and don't deny it cause we both know you're lying). I already spoke of the huge make-up industry that is a testament to this fact, but the adult video industry is an equally good indicator. As far as women go... watch almost any movie, even the type where the guy is a typical nice guy... and you will see that she becomes particularly attracted when they do something with confidence. So ehm... what is the right place and way to make an approach? To be honest... there isn't one. Go with whatever makes you most comfortable, and be confident. If she says no, then politely leave it at that. And yeah, sometimes you should read the physical cues she may be sending. For instance crossed arms, turned away from you, not making eye contact, a poker face, and tightly crossed legs may when put together indicate a significant lack of interest... so yeah, I wouldn't bother approaching. At any rate... one of the advantages of making the approach, is that it happens on your terms, when you choose. So you decide the right or wrong place... though there are some places which would obviously be very inappropriate. Like approaching during a funeral procession, or trying to approach the bride at a wedding, or going to the ladies restroom to make an approach. But yeah... you'll know whether it is right or wrong in the moment haha. Anyway... I'll leave it at that since there'll probably be an opportunity to say more, or clarify anyway. This is very true. I mostly talked about guys above... but women have an awful lot to deal with from society and media as well. Certain behaviours and actions tend to be frowned upon, both in real life and in media. And women have the added layer of being far more social, and having far greater expectations to conform to what society approves of. It takes a truly courageous woman, to go against the grain and show obvious interest even today. It will be a while yet before women can be making approaches, but that will eventually be a great indicator of progress towards equality. And like me, there are plenty of men who understand, and will not judge a woman for reciprocating interest. Unfortunately... we are still in the minority. Your fellow women can be among the harshest judges btw... so not only guys who are guilty. But yeah... I do see Feminism claiming ground in this area... and that's a great thing. Well... for the sake of discussion, illustrating a point, or explaining oneself it is generally acceptable to make such statements. They may be wrong in their entirety, or only wrong in certain cases... but they may also be true, and they may serve their purpose in a discussion or explanation regardless. Furthermore in certain cases such statements are generally true on the basis of logic alone, while in other cases they may be based on generally accepted research or facts. A person is under no obligation to speak the absolute truth, and also doesn't need to be able to claim with 100% certainty that something is true, in order to say it or make use of it in discussion. The truth and merit of what is said, is to be decided not by the speaker but by the listener anyway. Above I have mentioned what triggers attraction in women... and while there may be science and logic backing it up. It is ultimately up to you as an individual to decide whether or not you agree with or believe what I'm saying, and whether or not it applies to you. In my belief and expectation that people are capable of thinking for themselves, I do make such statements. And as such, I place the responsibility of critical reading on the reader... without burdening myself with the need to qualify and justify everything I say. Some things can not be researched, and the merit of what is being said need not be contingent on the absolute truth and certainty of the premises or assumptions used. You just made a generalization yourself btw in saying "I don't think there are many averages, or even well defined means, in human behaviour." Of course you did state that it is your personal thought, but with or without that not only am I aware that it is your thought/opinion... but I have no problems forming my own opinion on the matter and deciding the merit of your statement. I think what you said would qualify as something believed to be objectively true but phrased as a factual generalization hehe. When you say "I don't understand that whole turn in the conversation. it seems like a way of saying" you are presuming to know or at least making a statement about what you think people are "saying" (or maybe thinking ) when they make generalized statements. In doing so you are again guilty of making a generalization about everyone who supposedly makes generalizations. I point this out... to make you aware of the fact that you have personally used generalizations to make a point. And you did make a good point by the way, but I hope you understand and see the necessity and purpose of using generalizations. Hopefully you also see how impractical it would be to have to, not only limit yourself to your personal opinions and what you know to be true, but to have to explain everything as being a personal opinion. These are things that are already assumed and understood by the reader... and the important thing isn't those specifics, but the message behind them. But yeah... this is a bit of a semantic debate that is going off topic. So I'll stop here... I do hope you can understand a bit now though. If not I would be happy to clarify some more... as an aside or extra to the main topic of course.
  2. I agree... many average feminists do indeed seem to support such things to one degree or another. I also agree on this point. The author does indeed make it seem as if everything is dandy, and perfect. It is not. Not yet anyway. I do feel that he is right to some extent about Feminism having achieved a certain degree of equality in some areas. Though mostly in the western world. And yes, there is still misogyny and patriarchal attitudes and practices out there. I do feel however that feminism overplays the misogyny and patriarchy hands. You'd think most guys out there are out to get them. It is easy to forget that we are all born into the same system... and that men are as much a cog in the wheel thread in the pattern as women are. We are indeed born into certain privileges... but we didn't create those privileges, and we didn't choose to be born into them. The Wheel Weaves As The Wheel Wills. Wow... very good anecdote and great points WildTaltos! I don't really know feminist theory... but I do wonder how many people actually read and research the theories behind causes that they follow? I'd say a very small percentage of the average cause, is actually familiar with and aware of the theories behind their cause. For this reason... I would say that Feminist Theory, and Feminism are not one and the same. As is the case with most theory out there... theory and practice do not match up perfectly anyway. So yeah... I'd imagine that Feminist Theory speaks of the ideals behind Feminism... and I'm sure the ideals sounds great. But be aware... that the actual movement is not necessarily aligned with those ideals. And yes... I'd say many feminist don't know Feminist Theory any better than I do, which is to say very little. And so the Feminism practiced by the average Feminist is based upon an overall idea of Feminism, with a particular focus on the main causes it fights for. This is also shaped to some extent by their environment and their own experiences with sexism and inequality. That is why many feminist in third-world countries where there is still much to be done... are probably very much in line with the 1st and 2nd waves... while the western world feminists may be partly caught up in a few of the third wave characteristics mentioned in the article. As long as Feminism makes it a "battle" of men vs. women... there will be slow progress and no winners. Equality isn't a battle between men and women at all... it a joint effort to create a world where individuals can thrive, having the freedom to make their own choices. That won't be achieved by a movement that isn't sure whether or not men can be considered an actual part of the movement. But... Feminism is as much a step in the right direction as anything else. So while I am not a Feminist... I do support Feminism, even if I don't agree with everything it stands for or everything feminists say. Haha Elgee! He did make our world sound more perfect than it is... but he did have some valid points nevertheless. Or at least I think he did.
  3. Hmmmmm... interesting stuff. The Dutch who are consistently rated among the highest in "happiness" or life satisfaction have a concept that sounds eerily similar to Hygge. It is called "Gezellig". It is very, very difficult to translate but it is basically what you described for "hygge". It sort of means cosy but has elements of cheery, friendly, pleasant, togetherness(as you mentioned) and others depending on the context. And yes, it is used for many things ranging from gatherings, to weather, to people. It can be the warm, comfortable, and peaceful silence of a group sitting together around a campfire. But it can also be the jolly, loud, atmosphere at a party. It can refer to how it feels to watch snow falling while you are sitting together warm, and snug indoors. Or it can be the feeling you get while you're in the snow outside laughing as snowballs fly around. It can refer to walking together through a forest, enjoying the peace and quiet it brings. But it can also be a group of girls(or guys) out shopping together, talking with friends, and being a part of the city life. It can honestly refer to a ridiculous number of different things... and the meaning changes slightly from context to context but it is always something positive and pleasant. The Dutch usually describe it as a sort of cosiness... but they always stress that there is much more to it, and that "cosy" isn't really a good translation at all. Some of them don't like to compare it to cosy, they just say that you'll learn or figure it out eventually. It is indeed a beautiful concept... and I found it intriguing that both Denmark and the Netherlands had the concept. I'm now sure that there are other countries in the vicinity, and perhaps beyond that have a similar concept as well. Edit: I was just reminded while looking it up... that gezellig can be used sarcastically in a more negative light. But yeah... feel free to look up the word. It may be an interesting read.
  4. *Slips in from the murky shadows.* Hey! Had to drop in and see how this thread is doing... I do find the topic most fascinating. And wow... it has been busy haha. There are a few things I've read that I'd love to debate... so I will give my two cents on a few topics and points real quick. I'll post a link to a very interesting article at the end of this post... I look forward to hearing your views on it. 1.) Should men and women be able to directly compete in sports? I'd say yes and no. First of all, do the women really want to? Supposing they do... is it feasible? As some have mentioned there are physiological differences between men and women that sometimes make it impractical for the two sexes to compete at the highest levels. The 100m sprint is perhaps one of the best examples. Though their may be a very, very rare exception... no woman would be able to match up to the men in the 100m sprints. The fastest woman in the world would not finish 8th. She would have dropped out before even the semi-finals. There is nothing sexist about this. It is science and it is fact. My point is that there are cases where women and men have their own events for a reason. Having said that... there are also sports where men and women could compete together. I am inclined to believe that women are capable of standing and playing alongside men on a football field for instance (I'm talking about soccer mind you). I'm not too sure where I stand with things like boxing though... if their weight is the same I reckon a man and a woman wouldn't match up too badly (especially if the woman is more skilled). There are definitely women who could beat the living daylights out of men their weight and above. On the other hand... men still have advantages, and many men would not be willing to fight women. As far as identical events go, I reckon women should be able to have them if they want them. So if women want to swim 1500m instead of 800m... why not? This is 2015! We know better than to think that they are too frail... or at least we should. 2. Should a man pay for dates? Hmmmmmm... yes and no. Ultimately I think that is something he should be able to decide for himself (without be judged for his decision). We talk about breaking down the barriers between the sexes and genders... but men should pay for dates? I'm all for it if men want to... and many men still do. If a man feels like splitting the bill though... I don't think he should be judged for it. I reckon you already know where you stand Fnorrll. If you believing in paying for your date then do so with pride in your heart hehe. There are indeed some women who would be offended if you did, so you may choose to make an exception for them, especially if they insist on paying. Generally I would say be true to yourself and go with what you believe is right. It need not be the same decision or answer every time though. 3. Sexism in advertising. As Fnorrll said... it's all about the money. As long as "money makes the world go around", sex will be used to sell. Because sex does sell. Advertising is generally based on a lot of research and statistics... it gives the creative people in the industry a headache sometimes hahaha. But yeah, there are things that are known, through extensive and proven research, to grab attention. They range from colors like red, to animals, to loud sounds, to blood, and yes... sex features very, very, very high in that list. Most of us are biologically wired to be interested in reproduction for obvious reasons. So yes, sex is an extremely powerful stimulus, and it is used with reckless abandon in advertising. It is used however because it grabs attention, it keeps that attention, and most importantly... it sells. As far as business is concerned, Asus is doing nothing wrong. As long as business and profit are top priorities in this civilized world of ours... things will not change. Because at the end of the day people want to get paid, and the bigger the paycheck, the better. That's life for now... hopefully the up and coming generations can change things. 4. Can a man be a Feminist? My link will somewhat relate to this, but we'll get to that in a moment. I do believe that a man can be a feminist, and it is in the best interest of feminists to accept men as such. It is a very valid point that men have not experienced the sexism that women experience. But back up a moment... because I'm pretty sure that a lot of feminists on this very thread have claimed that Feminism is all about equality between men and women. In fact... this entire thread began with the question of whether or not Feminism hurts men. And what did all the feminists say? They said it helps men and also helps the homosexual community e.t.c which begs an important question. What is feminism exactly? Are you changing your mind about what it is? Does one suddenly need to be a woman and experience sexism from that perspective in order to stand up for equality? You can't claim that Feminism is the definitive movement for equality... and then say that men can not be real feminists. That doesn't seem right to me at all... it almost implies that only women can really know what equality means and feels like. BUT I digress... the article related to the question made a great point. And yes, all men sometimes do things that the average female feminist would not like. Most men watch porn, we all look at beautiful women every now and then ("Objectification" according to Feminism), we says things among ourselves that we wouldn't say in front of the women in our lives e.t.c And yes... that does make it seem potentially hypocritical to claim that a man doing these things can be a feminist. I personally believe that a man can still be a feminist though... especially if Feminism is indeed about equality. One can believe in equality, and everybody having the same rights and freedoms... and still make their own choices, make mistakes, be an individual e.t.c. Isn't that exactly what equality is about at the end of the day? So a guy can't be a feminist if he admires a plump bosom? Anyway... Feminism and Feminists need to figure this out. In the meantime... I would simple appreciate the men who stand with you guys... cause lord knows many do not. What Is Feminism?! Ok... now to the link! I am sure this will push some buttons here and there... and I must say I do not agree with everything in the article. I do however feel that it does make some very good points as well. Instead of explaining the article and my view on it, I will let you read it and I'll address your points and comments. Hopefully we will agree on a lot... but I'm sure there'll be some debate. But I love debate... so yay! That'll be fun! Anyway... here is the link: http://4thwavers.wordpress.com/2014/08/15/what-is-feminism/ *Settles down comfortably with some cookies and chocolate to wait for some discussion.*
  5. Whoa... that is definitely interesting haha. And you're absolutely right. Pretty much every social group has to deal with something. I guess what equal opportunity comes down to is valuing people as the individuals that they are. Without meeting, talking to, getting to know someone there is only so much you can tell about them at a glance. Even when their actions seemingly display who they are, the actions are but the tip of the iceberg. Overcoming stereotypes, prejudice, labels, and preconceptions is an important aspect to creating equality. While judgements do serve a purpose, they must be managed, and can not be allowed to take the upper hand in an interaction. Whether the other party is a man or woman, regardless of ethnicity and social background they should be treated as human beings. That is the one common denominator... we are all human and at the end of the day, we all want the freedom to live our lives in physical, and psychological peace. One of the biggest and most important hurdles... is going to be crossed when we learn to value each and every human being, and treat them with the respect we all deserve. I don't know if there'll ever be a day when everyone is worthy of such respect, but on the day that everyone gains such respect anyway... our world is gonna be totally freaking awesome!
  6. *Sneaks off to do some google searching, and then waddles back in.* Ahaaa... I see. Equality of outcome didn't really cross my mind hahaha. I was thinking more along the lines of equality of opportunity like you are. So we can agree on the definition of equality as being "equality of opportunity." We are also 100% in agreement that it is a worthwhile goal. "Equal Rights" is also a worthwhile goal for that matter. Finally, it is also true that one's background, upbringing, environment e.t.c all affect opportunities. So we agree on a lot. Feminism plays its part in working towards equality of opportunity, but it is incapable of achieving it due to its focus on women. If you disagree with this statement, then it is probably our main disagreement. As I've said before, I do believe feminism can bring about equal rights... but I think we can agree that equal rights and equal opportunity aren't one and the same. Having said that, feminism is definitely a movement headed in the right direction and it does have worthwhile intentions. I believe that the movement, or collection of movements(including feminism perhaps?), that accomplish equality of opportunity would need to focus on a variety of "demographics" to achieve equality. (That is one awesome autocorrect! )
  7. Everything I'm saying about feminists and feminism is in reference to the average feminist or the mainstream movement as I see it. So no worries Talos, I'm not referring to the feminists that you know. i think there is no diference betwen creating and eliminating, besides semantics. they are in my view one and same, becuse nothing is destroyed withuot in process creating something new. guess the best word would transformation becuse says all at once destruction and creation One could indeed argue that the difference is semantic. It is also true that in creating you often destroy. I feel that when you destroy what you don't want, you don't necessarily create what you do want. Equality is pretty complex and would require taking many different variable and factors into account. In the end equality is quite similar to the concept of balance... and I think the complicated kind of balance in question is more easily and effectively achieved through creation than destruction. Creation is more solution oriented, and that allows one to focus on discovering and eventually bringing about a desired outcome. As long as progress is made, I guess it doesn't really matter either way. I just have a preference for creating myself haha. Any reference to feminists and feminism in my posts, was referencing "conventional feminists" as you put it. So yeah, we are pretty much in agreement. Indeed... conventional feminists and what I have referred to as "mainstream feminism" is focused on women. I don't think that is a bad thing at this point though, but eventually true equality will require a much wider focus. Equality is more than just a balance between men and women after all... there are many other aspects to be addressed.
  8. Honestly I'd like to say... just look at the bold below. Talos got the point I was making, and even referenced Martin Luther King. I'll address your questions anyway. 1. Should Martin Luther King Jr. have focused on whites in his quest for equality and justice? First of all... I don't know an awful lot about that movement. My history lessons didn't get that far. I can however say that if his goal was to "empower" and "liberate" blacks in his quest for equality... then a focus on blacks is perfect and an ideal approach. If his goal was to create equality for all... then yeah, he would have to take whites into account as well. This doesn't necessarily mean the focus would be on the "whites" but their experiences, concerns, values e.t.c would absolutely need to be considered. Note by the way that in the first waves of the feminist movement, men very much supported women. I'm not sure why they don't today... perhaps they feel like the battle is more or less won, or they don't see the urgency or need to fight for those rights anymore in today's western world, or some feel threatened(e.g MRA movement Barm compared me to). You have to remember that men don't live and experience your day to day lives. So they can't know or feel what you go through. It was all very clear and visible during the first waves of feminism, so men were more than happy to help and support, and fight alongside you. Now... we don't really see what you go through anymore... it isn't as visible anymore. It "looks" like you've more or less made it in the western world. This is contrary to your experiences of course... but men obviously don't have those experiences. It is also true however... that you do not experience the world the way a man does. Obviously we go through stuff as well, but we often do it alone like a man "should". You don't see or hear much about our issues, but it doesn't mean they aren't there. It is particularly because of this... that you can unknowingly hurt men. Ultimately I stand by my claim that taking men into account is a 100% necessity when working toward true equality. I'll talk more about equality later in the post... but perhaps our definitions differ. 2. Did whites already have privileges? Whites did have privileges. But even amongst the whites obviously there were those who had more privilege than others... so what about them? Are they to be ignored just because they're white and their "race" is supposedly "privileged"? That wouldn't create true equality. Furthermore privilege isn't necessarily in opposition with equality. A lot comes down to how you define and understand "equality"... but before that you need to understand "privilege" and how it factors into the equality equation. Should every worker in a company have the same privileges as a CEO? In the context of good business... that would be a terrible idea. Our world is far more complex than a company. Some privileges are earned, some are contextual, some are only perceived as such because others lack them, and finally some should indeed be available to all. Where do you draw the line though? And how do you create equal privilege in such a diverse world anyway? Equality is not as simple as "equal privileges" and/or "equal rights". Privileges and Rights are only two variables in a much bigger equation... so focusing on them alone isn't enough. At least that's how I see it. My point is that equality requires taking all sides into account. To determine what true equality for all should be... you obviously have to take "ALL" into account. Or at least the main parties, it is no simple matter... so focusing on just one (or two) variables in such a complex equation is absolutely not going to work. Whether or not one side has privileges... they are still part of the equation, so you still need to consider them. It is that simple. I can agree that they don't "exclusively" focus on women only. Women are of course their main focus though, so helping men is a bit of an after thought or by-product. This isn't a bad thing... their focus on women is perfectly fine, and women clearly still need that. Well... to be honest I don't see too much of this. I actually consider this one of the big flaws... because the victims absolutely deserve support and help. But preventative help for the perpetrators would make a much bigger difference in terms of reducing the violence. I don't see feminists taking the time to truly understand men or why some of them may become perpetrators of violence. This lack of understanding, is somewhat similar to what people who suffer from anxiety and depression go though. Many people just tell the depressed to "snap out of it", or "get a grip", or "stop whining already" e.t.c. They do this without really understanding, or even bothering to understand, what someone is going through or why. And there isn't always a clear cut why in the first place... but it really doesn't help anyone when their concerns, experiences, and what they have to deal with is casually or even blatantly dismissed. It is obviously a different matter when it comes to perpetrators of violence, since we are talking about physical and visible actions, as opposed to the psychological. The problem is... that all human action has an element of psychological influence. In fact our thoughts, feelings e.t.c are arguable behind everything we do. So understanding the experiences, the conditions, and the thoughts which lead to certain men becoming violent... we can take steps to change those conditions... or intercept the men and help them change their thoughts. Anyway... point is I don't see much of this kind of thinking in the mainstream feminist movement. There may be some feminists, maybe even some feminist movements, that do think this way... but they are not prominent or prevalent. It is indeed a very good point. Of course, considering their main objective of helping women... feminists is an apt label. So even if they are working toward equality, which many are, since they do it with a focus on women... I think their label is perfect. Great point though... especially as it relates to "creating equality regardless of race, gender e.t.c. *Grins and pats Talos on the back.*You understood me very well. I'm very pleased someone got what I was trying to say. The only thing I'm not sure about is the elimination of patriarchal notions of hierarchy and power. I agree with that idea for the most part... but I like to think in terms of "Creating" rather than "Eliminating." What I would like to see is a focus on the solution, so that we can work towards a world where men and women are indeed equal. There does however need to be an understanding of the problems, especially when a problem is so complex. But yeah, one of the main things to take into consideration, is what equality means and what it would look like. Anyway... guess that would almost be a whole discussion of its own hahaha. Hmmmmm... can't say I know too much about these theories haha. But yeah, I reckon the average feminist doesn't really know about such theories either. They are fighting for equal rights, particularly on the most prominent issues that feminism focuses on. Some were mentioned by Misheru... e.g equal pay, feeling safe in public, not being treated as lower than men and so forth. ************* I feel that I can quite confidently say that feminism(or the average feminist) generally focuses on helping women. I'll say it yet again, this is not bad! It does however on occasion hurt men, because a focus on women means... the experiences of men are not the focus. This in turn makes it possible for some aspects of the movement to unknowingly/unintentionally hurt men. This is simple logic... and it is not a criticism of feminism. I'm just saying it as it is. Look, I can see feminism successfully working towards Equal Rights. This is possible since the approach is to make sure women have the same rights as men... when this is achieved, Equal Rights will have been successfully achieved. Feminism can definitely accomplish this. Equality on the other hand... is another matter... it is far more complex than simply having the same rights. The complex goal of achieving "equality" is impossible with a focus on only one part of the whole. Whether we are talking racism or sexism, creating equality in either case can not be achieved without taking every part into account. It is that simple. The only other thing... is that equality is somewhat subjective. So depending on your definition of equality... perhaps it can be achieved through feminism. E.g if "equal rights" is your definition of equality then yeah... feminism can do that. ***************** Equal Rights is a bit of a... shaky equality. "Human Rights" are being violated left, right, and center every day... this shows that "Rights" aren't a guarantee of anything. So just having the Equal Rights would not qualify as equality in my books. Equal Rights would 100% be part of equality as a whole... but only part of it. *Glares at anybody who thought he was against Equal Rights.* But yeah... maybe that's just me.
  9. Haha no worries... I can see that you're not trying to be mean. I'll quote some specific parts of your post so that I can address your points, and hopefully make clear where I am coming from. I have only said that feminism is focused on empowering women. Because of this feminism sometimes benefits men, and sometimes it hurts them. I haven't said that feminists are working against men, because I know most of them are not. Feminists are however mostly working for women. In the quote below you will confirm this yourself. What I did say was that feminism rarely takes the experiences of men into account. This means that feminism does not consider why men my harass or assault a woman. Feminists complain about objectification, but they do not consider the male perspective of the issue. I have had a debate with a group of women about objectification and eventually I got my point across. It was clear however that they had indeed failed to take the male perspective into account, and that is something I see a lot. This is exactly my point. Feminism is about empowering women. It is about fighting for women to be equal to men. It is about elevating women to the same status. Because feminism is focused on women, one can not truly say that it is working for both genders. As you say yourself "of course feminism is mostly about women." If it is mostly about women, then it is not really about men. If it isn't really about men, then it doesn't really fight for both genders. It can still benefit both genders, but ultimately the focus is women. This is all I'm saying... and you have actually agreed in the quote above. In the rest of your post, which I won't be quoting in full, you clearly talk about all the things women should be able to do. So again, it isn't about men it is about women. There is nothing wrong with empowering women or focusing on women... I just want to point out, that in the process it is possible for feminism to "hurt" men. And it does happen, not much, and not intentionally... but it does happen. Hmmmmm... yes and no. You make two points which I will list below. 1. Women should be able to walk down the street without being catcalled or feeling unsafe. 2. Women should be free to dress as they wish without being raped for how they dress. I agree for the most part. I believe the streets should be safe for women to be in public, wearing whatever they want. Absolutely 100% agree! The only problem is... that how you feel is partly your own responsibility. E.g a guy could approach you with good intentions and say "Hi, do you know where the station is?" and you could feel unsafe because you don't know why he approached you. Is it his fault that you feel unsafe? Does he not have the right to approach you and ask for directions? Having said that... I do 100% support the idea that women should be safe in public. Feeling safe would be ideal and great, but nothing and nobody can guarantee that... so it is an unrealistic expectation. Btw... being safety obviously include not being raped. In case anyone was wondering. Ironically it is in feminism circles that I've seen this hahaha. But for the most part... it isn't that men are treated as less. They may however be seen as dangerous, or be viewed with suspicion just because they are men. This is sexism as well... and it literally leads to some women treating men differently from women. For the most part though you're right. I agree that Feminism doesn't advocate treating men as less than women. These people are not the majority of feminists, so I'm not really thinking or talking about them. I did read an interesting point by some one however, about how feminists fail to reign these extremists of their movement in. It isn't entirely their responsibility... but they do give you a bit of a bad name sometimes. If you say feminism is fighting for equal rights I can agree with that statement. Equality, equal rights, and gender equality are all different though. But yeah... I'll concur that feminism is indeed fighting for equal rights. lol... did I say this anywhere? I'm pretty sure I never mentioned anything about men's rights... let alone anybody removing them. Barm... No! I'd be happy to address any specific arguments you have... or elaborate on my own arguments. Ironically I believe that feminism has part of the exact "deep flaw" you just mentioned... which is kind of amusing. I.e feminism sometimes blames men and patriarchy without addressing or understanding an issue.
  10. As I explained, ultimately feminism is focused on empowering women. This isn't necessarily a problem, but so far I see very little fixing of the core problem at hand. I've had discussion with plenty of feminists on Upworthy, and several have ended quite well. The main issue that I bring up every single time, is that men's experiences need to be taken into account as well. Feminism doesn't generally do this... and when they do help men, it is usually a by-product of empowering women. The comics that Misheru posted (I did see them ) are a perfect example of this. That men benefit as shown in the comics, is great but it is a by-product of empowering women. By fighting to change the conceptions and perceptions of feminine qualities as being weak, you are going to allow men to show those qualities without being judged or attacked for it. That is 100% true but can you honestly say this isn't a byproduct of empowering women? Ultimately changing how societies view feminine qualities, is about allowing women to be themselves without judgement. By virtue of making femininity and feminine qualities accepted, men who show such qualities benefit as well. It's a great byproduct( or side effect) but it wasn't their initial goal. Anyway as far as feminism not taking men into account, there is another upworthy posts that is quite revealing. It is about street harassment, and more specifically cat-calling. There have been many upworthy posts about harassment lately, and only one that I've seen considered the male side of things. Sadly it was satire and very few women took what it said even remotely seriously. Watch the video, look at the top comments... and ultimately see for yourself: https://www.facebook.com/Upworthy/posts/827501280624065 It just goes to show that for the most part, feminism doesn't take the experiences of men into account... this is a huge and undeniable flaw. In the case of the cat-calling issue above, you are not going to get very far if you don't consider and seriously take into account the reasons why men do it. You can not expect to change the behaviour of men, without examining, understanding, and taking into account what they experience and why they behave the way they do. This video kind of takes men's experience into account... but I don't see the women taking it seriously. Nope... they're just saying "stop that", "disturbing", "jerks", "so immature" e.t.c. I rarely see feminism taking men's experiences seriously... and sadly that tends to include male feminists. But maybe that is just me... Look, there are definitely feminists who do consider what men go through, and work towards a solution with female and male sides of a situation in mind. But I see few of them. They are nowhere near the majority of feminists. Most feminists want change, but if the change you desire requires the cooperation of another party(men) then you need to work with them and take them seriously. Men do benefit from feminism, but currently it is all about women... and by virtue of that fact, it sometimes harms men, sometimes benefits them, and ultimately it isn't focused on equality. I have a question for you now. How do you create gender equality by focusing on one gender?
  11. Loranflame, Eternal Algai, Ren'Shai. Hmmmmm... if I could heal I wouldn't want to do it in a structured setting like a hospital... so nah. Just dropping in for the time being btw... off to holiday in a few days.
  12. You bring up a very valid point, though probably not intentionally. When we talk about whether or not something "hurts" someone... we are talking about a subjective experience. It is therefore not possible to claim with absolute certainty that something doesn't hurt someone, or a group of people. This may seem like semantics but it is quite important. When women were being oppressed before the first feminism movements, they weren't always being "hurt" per se (e.g physically or emotionally), but the way they were being viewed and treated was inhibiting and didn't allow them the freedom to be who they wanted to be. In a sense they were being hurt by men, and by the society at large. In this sense, feminism is now hurting men in certain situations. Before I get into any of that... I need only point out the discussions and debates on this thread, to show that some people feel oppressed by feminism. The abortion topic for instance showed that some women here feel they are being forced to support things against their will. The tension and emotions were clear, so to say that feminism doesn't hurt men would be incorrect. Clearly feminism even hurt women sometimes, so there can be no question that feminism can hurt men. Does it hurt all men? No. Does it always hurt men? No. Does Feminism in general hurt men? To be honest... I don't know. I don't think it does but... I don't know. Anyway, you asked for specific examples of feminism hurting men right? Ok, here is one. Watch the video and read the top comments in the link below. That my friend... is hurting men. I understand it, and I honestly sympathize with women who can't sit next to a strange man on the bus... but the way every strange man is seen as a threat is harmful. Perhaps even more interesting... is how people are discussing harassment, not sitting next to men on the bus e.t.c on a video about racism. I don't know... it may not be feminism per se, but all these women jump to the defense of the woman who stands in an ad that is obviously about racism. And in some of their discussions... the man may as well be a villain for offering a seat. https://www.facebook.com/Upworthy/posts/829835993723927 Be careful reading the comments though... some are hostile, some give examples of their harassment e.t.c just a heads up. I'll use arguments I have previously made for some more examples later on.
  13. I think feminism is more about empowering women, than it is about creating equality. The empowerment of women is a good thing though, and a worthy cause. If the topic at hand is whether feminism hurts men, then I think it depends. In some cases it does hurt men, in others it doesn't. The one thing that feminism generally does not do, is empower men... and that is why it isn't really about equality. There is however nothing wrong with its focus on women. And women definitely need more empowerment at the moment. At some point though... I believe there will need to be a different movement truly focused on creating equality. You can not create equality by focusing on one half of the population... but you can certainly empower women that way. So feminism is good and it is certainly necessary today... but it does hurt men sometimes because it is focused on women. That is quite logical and to be expected. So is feminism good? Yes. Does it hurt men? Sometimes.
  14. *Grins at Fnorrll* I've been here and there... but it has indeed been a while since I checked up on DM. *Looks around.* It seems things are doing ok over here, though it is a bit quiet at the moment... or is this how it usually is these days? *Chuckles.* I guess Fnorrll doesn't usually bother with such posts then?
  15. Hahaha... I totally replied to this article. *grins* I said: I also had these questions for the readers who thought they were superior haha. Quite a few WoT favorites read... but these questions can still be applied to many of them haha. Ultimately, I agreed with many points made in the article... and I was all nods and smiles while reading until the author started yammering on about readers being "better people". That was a bit disappointing to read... Elgee!! *Wags admonishing finger.* You live in South Africa... you should know people can be very wise, compassionate, interesting, and all around amazing without being avid readers. Besides... this is the 21st century. We have movies, television, documentaries, anime, youtube, audio books e.t.c and therefore people who don't read can still be imaginative, creative, interesting, knowledgeable, compassionate e.t.c But yeah... Reading is Awesome!!! And readers are totally awesome too... most of them anyway!
  • Create New...