Feminism and it's impact on today's society

[Cornerstone]

She's trolling that's why.

I suspected this from the Xena picture onwards...

 

[IrenaShav]

She's trolling that's why. She already explained the intent of this thread was to troll. She didn't say it in those words but it's basically what she said.

No, I said that I wanted people to engage some emotions into discussion ) That can mean trolling if you decide to interpret it that way, but it doesn't necessarily mean trolling and that's not what I meant. Besides I don't think anyone here was trolling, at least I didn't notice it.

 

[tfg345i4u5lw]

No, I said that I wanted people to engage some emotions into discussion ) That can mean trolling if you decide to interpret it that way, but it doesn't necessarily mean trolling and that's not what I meant. Besides I don't think anyone here was trolling, at least I didn't notice it.

You are trolling. Giving an untruthful opinion about a subject in hopes of riling up emotions.

It's no biggie though. I think trolling gets a bad rap. Trolling is just a mean way to say "doing research on people's reactions", which you already explained.

 

[Azazel]

some emotions

[video=youtube;R97TsVDC1BY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R97TsVDC1BY[/video]

 

[the]

I havent ever heard someone ask to discuss something emotionally. In my mind this sounds like to discuss non-rationally, but I can only imagine so much considering my disability as an ISTJ. Please [MENTION=3557]IrenaShav[/MENTION] can you expound on what you mean by this? Also are you really from Russia? I guessed you were from Poland due to your blog and googletranslate.

 

[CindyLou]

Equity feminism in theory is something beautiful indeed, but I believe practice always involves wider group of social factors and unpredictable consequences. What I have a problem with is gender feminism. Here is the exact by-product of feminism that is bothering me:

Men and women before
View attachment 17002

Men and women now
View attachment 17003View attachment 17004

I might be overreacting, but I think most of people reading this will get the general idea about what I mean.

Interesting choice of photos. Scarlett was clearly histrionic. Why did you choose her? I don't really want to obsess over a man that doesn't want me while I marry and use other men for money.

 

[CindyLou]

You know... I have to agree overall. No offense to Irena, but, that first JPG was from Gone With The Wind. The second is Zena, warrior princess.

Problems:
1. Rhett and Scarlett were fictional characters in a mutually abusive relationship in a book/movie that did a lousy job of portraying reality overall for a number of reasons.
2. Zena doesn't even pretend to portray reality. The only place you are ever going to see someone like Zena is at some cosplay event or something, and even those people understand that it is just make-believe. (Well, I think they do, anyway. Possibly. Sometimes.)

I don't think feminism is turning us all into Zena. Rhett never even existed in the first place, except in the imagination of a writer, who was noted for being rather rebellious and actually was quite a strong personality herself, not exactly a doormat. Scarlett (also fictional) was herself rather a feminist, and was not exactly saintly or subservient in her treatment of men. (That would be Melanie.) And Scarlett was a good businesswoman as well, who made more money than her husband at the time, and in fact, most of the men in Scarlet's life were rather useless. Margaret Mitchell, the author, was supposedly a "nymphomaniac", but back in her day that was a term applied to any woman who actually -- erm -- got busy on a regular basis.

So it's ironic to choose Scarlett and Rhett as models for anti-feminism and virility, don't you think? They're rather the opposite. Scarlett regularly ran roughshod over men, and Rhett slept around and became abusive and left her. Bit twisted if you ask me.

Lol, you're ahead of me. I should have read the thread. I completely agree. Strange choices.

 

[IrenaShav]

I havent ever heard someone ask to discuss something emotionally. In my mind this sounds like to discuss non-rationally, but I can only imagine so much considering my disability as an ISTJ. Please @IrenaShav can you expound on what you mean by this? Also are you really from Russia? I guessed you were from Poland due to your blog and googletranslate.

I am interested not only in what people think about feminism, but also about how they feel about it. Emotional response is more based on someone's feelings, and rational response on thoughts. For example for now I found that some women here don't have a developed critical view about feminism but rather base their opinion of it on some well known theoretical definitions, but they do somehow feel that feminism has given them a feeling of security. Also some men here said that it made them feel kind of liberated, and some other men didn't give clear opinion about how they feel and think about it, but they seemed rather interested in the subject.
Also I found that everyone here has a different opinion about what feminism is.

I am neither from Russia or Poland.

 

[IrenaShav]

Interesting choice of photos. Scarlett was clearly histrionic. Why did you choose her? I don't really want to obsess over a man that doesn't want me while I marry and use other men for money.

I chose them because of their physical appearance to show how much popularization of some aspects of feminism has affected men and women's physical appearance over time. I wasn't relating to the characters or their stories.

 

[IrenaShav]

You are trolling. Giving an untruthful opinion about a subject in hopes of riling up emotions.

It's no biggie though. I think trolling gets a bad rap. Trolling is just a mean way to say "doing research on people's reactions", which you already explained.

I was hoping for a lively discussion with both rational arguments and expressing feelings, with some pictures here and there. If you want to call that trolling, that's fine, you are entitled to think what you want.
Anyway, isn't trolling about deliberately trying to offend someone? I wasn't actually trying to do anything like that, regardless of what you think.
What did you find untruthful about my posts? I meant everything I said here.

 

[CindyLou]

I chose them because of their physical appearance to show how much popularization of some aspects of feminism has affected men and women's physical appearance over time. I wasn't relating to the characters or their stories.

What makes you think feminism is the cause? I still think that heterosexual men prefer more feminine physical characteristics over masculine ones even though I see differently in tv, playboy and in fashion etc.

 

[Azazel]

I think lively discussion we already have [MENTION=3557]IrenaShav[/MENTION] . What pictures did you want to see?

 

[Quiet]

There is a certain phenomenon that has been bugging me for a while. I dont think its necessarily related to feminism or patriarchy. Maybe its just people trying to adjust and find balance with societal changes etc. Or perhaps its people being unable to communicate with each other.

Anyway- i noticed that in many families and couples both the man and woman work and the woman still does the majority of the housework, as well as child rearing. I dont really understand this. If both people need to work for financial reasons than there is no reason that both people cant work together to maintain the home as well. I would understand the situation where only one person worked full time, the other person may as well be responsible for home maintenance. That seems fair- everyone pulling their weight or chipping in where they can for the greater good of the family unit. It is my personal opinion that both people should be responsible for child rearing but i know that is a matter of personal preference and practicality.

In some situations where this occurs, neither party seems to mind. But in other situations i notice women becoming incerasingly resentlful towards their partners for not chipping in more. and also making excuses for them- hey, he's tired, he's worked all day. They've both worked all day, they're both tired, theres no reason that the woman should be cleaning while the man is sitting around having a drink or playing videogames.

I have also seen this situation reversed where the man does everything and the woman doesnt help. Perhaps some people just dont mind. Either way, i think that this if this issue becomes problematic it can be solved with open communication between the two people.

And i know many families where the workload is equal. My parents were from quite 'traditional ethnic' (whatever that means) patriarchal cultures and they found a great balance with sharing all the work and responsibilties.

It really does come down to the individual, what they are prepared to do, and how capable they are at communicating with their partner

 

[Elaf]

here is my humble opinion :
i believe that men and women should have equal rights ! and i think both men and women have a special preferences , other than penis and vagina .
i believe most of women can do more than one job at once , she's capable of cooking , cleaning , talking on the phone and watching tv almost at the same time yet almost everything she does is perfect but i think men can't do it they're not flexible enough ! and that's why she is the corner stone of the family and the one who can build a healthy society , also she should have the right to do anything she wants (as long as that doesn't cause any harm to the other) , because she can be a brilliant scientist , successful businesswoman , talented writer not just a housewife , however , i think if she is a housewife , mother and a worker she will fail in one of these jobs and i think that's why men are doing better at work ( beside single women ).
i'm saying that women have their own skills (which have them naturally) and i'm afraid that is going to change among the changes that's happening in our civilization .
i feed my husband and clean for him because i can and i'm more capable to do it and if that makes him happy and doesn't harm me in any way i have to do it .
i completely agree with feminism ( if it means to have equal rights ) but i like the old tradition way defining men and women .
the rest of my opinion has been said by other members , i gave them thumbs up :thumb:


(opinion)

 

[Flavus Aquila]

I didn't say anything about gentlemen. And neither did you, originally.
You said life was boring for you etc., because of feminism.
I personally appreciate courtesy so if you open the door for a woman, kudos.

I was talking about the equality aspect.

Women are not exactly the same as men - if for the fact that our species has two sexes which are complimentary alone - ie. men have a different relationship with women, than they do with men as women do in respect of other wom2n and men. Moreover, women have different needs, as the thread on menstruation so graphically pointed out.

I don't treat with people equally, but individually.

 

[acd]

Women are not exactly the same as men - if for the fact that our species has two sexes which are complimentary alone - ie. men have a different relationship with women, than they do with men as women do in respect of other wom2n and men. Moreover, women have different needs, as the thread on menstruation so graphically pointed out.

I don't treat with people equally, but individually.

I didn't say women were exactly the same as men, either. But I do think that women are capable of some of the same things men are--based on who they are as individuals.
I don't think someone's sex or gender should limit their aspirations or opportunities. And I don't think someone should be confined to behave in a prescribed way that they feel is unnatural to them, because it's commonly accepted that their gender should behave in such a way.
That's the whole point I was making.
How can you treat someone as an individual when you have an entire set of expectations for how they should operate based on their sex?

 

[Flavus Aquila]

I didn't say women were exactly the same as men, either. But I do think that women are capable of some of the same things men are--based on who they are as individuals.
I don't think someone's sex or gender should limit their aspirations or opportunities. And I don't think someone should be confined to behave in a prescribed way that they feel is unnatural to them, because it's commonly accepted that their gender should behave in such a way.
That's the whole point I was making.
How can you treat someone as an individual when you have an entire set of expectations for how they should operate based on their sex?

Women are their own worst enemies in this respect.

If feminist campaigns were directed at women, without any reference, or comparison to men I suspect that they would be as, if not more effective than anything to date.

 

[Apone]

If feminist campaigns were directed at women, without any reference, or comparison to men I suspect that they would be as, if not more effective than anything to date.

How would that work?

 

[Flavus Aquila]

How would that work?

Encouraging women and providing the necessary support and/or funds to follow their dreams - without trying to tell them what their dreams should be.

It seems that half of a certain type of feminist campaign is telling women that they don't measure up and eroding their sense of achievement. The other half of that type of campaign is telling men that they have done something bad by following their own aspirations. Such feminism seems determined to make everyone miserable and angry. However, this is consistent with how all haters operate.

 

[acd]

Encouraging women and providing the necessary support and/or funds to follow their dreams - without trying to tell them what their dreams should be.

It seems that half of a certain type of feminist campaign is telling women that they don't measure up and eroding their sense of achievement. The other half of that type of campaign is telling men that they have done something bad by following their own aspirations. Such feminism seems determined to make everyone miserable and angry. However, this is consistent with how all haters operate.

I don't see this. I see girls who have a specific interest, for example, my cousin who wanted to become an astronaut, and my family encouraging that interest--her mother allowing her to go to Space Camp and Space Camp admitting my cousin in the first place. There isn't some propaganda campaign telling her to be an astronaut. There is what she learned in school, and then her own fascination with the subject....and no institution to tell her no because she is a girl. No one is telling her what her dreams should be.

can you give an example otherwise?

Anyway--I will agree that there are certain feminists who discourage women to follow their dreams and pursue their hearts desires because they don't follow their particular brand of feminism. I was talking to a co worker a long time ago who had just had a baby. She wanted to stay home with him and do the traditional mom thing. She also considered herself a feminist...and said she read an interview with a prominent feminist named Erica Jong who discouraged staying at home with ones kids and referred to it as disempowerment ( I never read the interview.) My co worker asked what I thought, and I told her it was bs. That if she wanted to be a stay at home mom and homemaker--do it. I didn't think it meant she couldn't be a feminist. The choice was hers--whatever made her happy and fulfilled.

That is mainstream feminism--it's all about people having a choice. That choice could include a traditional role as a homemaker or not-- so long as It is a choice.

People who have a problem with feminism focus in the lunatic fringe. Yes, Erica Jong is prominent, but that is because she started off as a novelist. Her attitude doesn't represent the majority. Has any feminist poster in this board avowed hatred for mankind? Nope, but those averse to women focus on the radical lunatic fringe to justify their position.

There are fanatics in every group and belief system, for example, should I say westboro baptist church is a good representation of Christianity?