Revisiting Feminism: INFJ (or other type) perspectives

[La Sagna]

I think it's a mistake for women to make men the enemy and i think that their sons will pay the price for that kind of behaviour in the world they then have to grow up in

I completely agree that this would be a mistake, but I don't know any woman personally who has taken that position. I know they're out there (I have read some articles that could be considered anti-men) but they are a small minority in my opinion.

 

[muir]

I completely agree that this would be a mistake, but I don't know any woman personally who has taken that position. I know they're out there (I have read some articles that could be considered anti-men) but they are a small minority in my opinion.

That's good

Can i humbly suggest that the very word 'feminism' carries a female connotation? Women would not like to see the movement called manism so how is it not a double standard to call it 'feminism' if it really is a fight for everyones rights?

Might i also suggest (without being missunderstood by some posters) that we all keep one eye on the bigger picture so that we don't all as a society jump from the frying pan into the fire?

Might it be possible now in the new millenium for men and women to come together and to start discussing what kind of world they ACTUALLY want and to then start strategising ways to achieve that whilst always being aware of how big money interests have historically ALWAYS sought to hijack any movement of the people even going so far as to assassinate the leaders of various movements?

...might it be possible to make such simple and reasonable statements without being labelled a 'conspiracy theorist' as if to suggest one is shut up in their basement in a paranoid and delusional mental state?

 

[La Sagna]

That's good

Can i humbly suggest that the very word 'feminism' carries a female connotation? Women would not like to see the movement called manism so how is it not a double standard to call it 'feminism' if it really is a fight for everyones rights?

Might i also suggest (without being missunderstood by some posters) that we all keep one eye on the bigger picture so that we don't all as a society jump from the frying pan into the fire?

Might it be possible now in the new millenium for men and women to come together and to start discussing what kind of world they ACTUALLY want and to then start strategising ways to achieve that whilst always being aware of how big money interests have historically ALWAYS sought to hijack any movement of the people even going so far as to assassinate the leaders of various movements?

...might it be possible to make such simple and reasonable statements without being labelled a 'conspiracy theorist' as if to suggest one is shut up in their basement in a paranoid and delusional mental state?

You can suggest whatever you like. I certainly hope you are not shut in a basement in a paranoid and delusional state . I just think sometimes you seem to see evil intentions behind everything when I know there are a lot of really decent men and women who work behind the scenes to improve the lives of people in need. I know there are really bad people who work behind the scenes as well but I don't believe they control everybody.

 

[muir]

You can suggest whatever you like. I certainly hope you are not shut in a basement in a paranoid and delusional state .

Lol nope!

I just think sometimes you seem to see evil intentions behind everything

No i don't see evil behind everything i'm just savy enough to know that big money always seeks to infiltrate, disrupt and hijack any move on the part of the workers to try and improve their lot

Their main strategy is always: divide and rule

Their approach here seems to be to turn women against men and a lot of people are falling right into that trap!

when I know there are a lot of really decent men and women who work behind the scenes to improve the lives of people in need. I know there are really bad people who work behind the scenes as well but I don't believe they control everybody.

Mostly they don't control people they control their perceptions

They will use good people as unwitting dupes

 

[muir]

If we go back far enough, we find inter dimensional reptilians are really behind the feminist movement, right?

I forgot to mention the third option...but i had to go and do the grocery shopping (very macho!)

So one option is that they are beings out there

Another is that they are something lurking in our archetypal collective unconscious (see for example all the snake and dragon symbology in different cultures around the world)

But the third option is that they are both!

Get your head round that one!

lol

[video=youtube;AO43p2Wqc08]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AO43p2Wqc08[/video]

 

[say what]

What right specifically do you have now that you didn't 20 years ago?
[MENTION=10252]say what[/MENTION], I take it by your silence that you do not have many more rights.

Thanks- I missed this yesterday.

Here are a few things that recognize that equality for women have changed within the last generation:

*1981 - The inclusion of women's rights in Canada's constitution

*Rape laws were broadened to sexual assault laws which made it a criminal offence for a husband to rape his wife. In the same year, the Attorney General directed police to lay charges in domestic violence cases- before this men typically faced no consequences for beating their wives/girlfriends.

* Every country in Eastern Europe now has women’s services, new laws, some rape crisis centers, training for institution officials, and the Women against Violence Europe (WAVE) feminist network [http://www.wave-network.org/]

*International outrage after gang rapes in India caused international uproar and mass protests.

the Indian government took drastic action. On March 19, the parliament passed an anti-rape bill that doubled the punishment for rapists. "Under the changes, the minimum sentence for gang rape, rape of a minor, rape by policemen or a person in authority will be doubled to 20 years and can be extended to life without parole,"

[http://www.policymic.com/articles/3...new-anti-rape-laws-despite-sexist-opposition]

*Elimination of anti-choice abortion laws.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/5...-hours-to-filibuster-texas-anti-abortion-bill

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/federal-judge-declares-texas-anti-abortion-law-unconstitutional

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Morgentaler

*In 1993, Canada's refugee guidelines were changed to include women facing gender-related persecution.

* Within Canada there's been a lot of policies and laws in relation to equality for Aboriginals, especially females (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Aboriginal_Peoples)

*In 1999, the Supreme Court (Canada) ruled that job standards and tests cannot be solely based on capabilities that would favour men
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrews_v._Law_Society_of_British_Columbia



**************************
Regardless of all this, I'm not saying women are equal, I'm saying that the women are MORE equal than they were a few generations ago, and that equality for women is a prominent ideology. I'm not against feminism, I'm just much more than a feminist and don't want to be constrained by that term. I think the progression of the equality of women is great and should still continue- but there's many other inequalities that exist. I think feminism is apart of a large movement for equality for all. I think by calling that movement "feminism" we lose sight of all the inequalities (ones that come from race, class, age, environment, health, etc.). At the heart of it, I am a feminist in that I believe in equality for women, but I'm much more than that- I believe in equality for all, not just women.

I think the way feminism has now broadened to encompass so much, does other inequalities injustice. Feminism is really something that was brought up by white upper class individuals- so it makes me question if the foundational aspect of such a theory truly represents women of minorities, lower classes, disabilities, age, etc. When feminism seeks to understand inequalities of sexuality, race, class, etc. - can it really? I think we need to be careful when someone suggests feminism can understand inequalities outside of gender.

 

[tfg345i4u5lw]

[video=youtube;HfXwmDGJAB8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfXwmDGJAB8&feature=kp[/video]

 

[Lark]

The book Gate To Women's Country, is a fantastic feminist novel, its a post-apocalyptic novel in which there are seperate settlements which are matriarchies with garrisons of warriors outside their walls, there's a kind of eugenics project unbeknownst to the warriors which is aiming, and succeeding, in breeding war out of the human race, its interesting because this does not preclude fighting or defence, which has been preserved in a kind of higher form and in secret, also while, like most feminism, it can and does compare "men at their worst" with "women at their best" there are positive male characters in the story too.

Feminism, to me, is like most of the other modern political ideologies, it contains dichotomies, contradictions etc. but it could serve a purpose, the importan thing to avoid is a sort of crusade which has not arisen from experience and can not be falsified by experience but is a vague and ill defined dream which its supporters aim to realise through real power politics. That is seeking to out law anyone thinking or acting in anyway deemed to be non-compliant, totalitarian in both theory and practice.

I dont believe that feminism is the worst contemporary example of this though.

 

[the]

All men aren't equal to other men, all women aren't equal to other women; so how are men and women going to be equal between two different sexes? Not to mention that there are a lot of other aspects between the two that are obviously different to any reasonable observer. I think the language behind the movement is all wrong is and sabotaging itself. Just like how it's called 'Feminism'; if it is working for the benefit of men as well (especially within a so called male dominated culture) there is going to be a high level of resistance to it based on the first impression we get due to how it is framed.

All the examples that you find on Tumblr, the extreme examples you'll find in the media, and news get all the attention; to say to the general public: 'I am a feminist' is to say I agree with Tumblr/media/news. It's such a loaded term that you can't say that without getting into a long explanation of what exactly you agree with, making it more of a pain in the ass than it needs to be.

I'm not against many of the ideals of feminism until you get to the parts where the feminists say things like: "Why don't we teach boys to not rape?" We do teach everyone to not rape, but just like murder not everyone listens. I only agree with the non-extreme ideas of feminism such as same pay for same work, etc. There is just so much grey it is insurmountable.

 

[La Sagna]

All men aren't equal to other men, all women aren't equal to other women; so how are men and women going to be equal between two different sexes? Not to mention that there are a lot of other aspects between the two that are obviously different to any reasonable observer.

Different for sure, unequal implies that one is somehow inferior or superior to the other. What, in your opinion, makes one man superior or inferior to another man?

 

[the]

Different for sure, unequal implies that one is somehow inferior or superior to the other. What, in your opinion, makes one man superior or inferior to another man?

Anything! How are we measuring superiority?

Knowledge, skills, & abilities (KSAs), what they have, what they can acquire, who you know, almost anything -because it is so subjective.

From an employment stand point we decide who is the superior candidate all the time based on the KSAs of the candidate. We don't say 'here is the different candidate" we say "here is the superior candidate lets hire him or her for this position." Does gender come in to play? Sometimes. Should it? Depends on the circumstances.

 

[La Sagna]

Anything!

Knowledge, skills, & abilities (KSAs), what they have, what they can acquire, who you know, almost anything -because it is so subjective.

From an employment stand point we decide who is the superior candidate all the time based on the KSAs of the candidate. We don't say 'here is the different candidate" we say "here is the superior candidate lets hire him or her for this position." Does gender come in to play? Sometimes. Should it? Depends on the circumstances.

That may make them unequal in a particular instance or for a particular job. Of course everybody has different strengths and weaknesses and will be superior in certain ways and inferior in other ways. This does not mean that they are overall as a person inferior or superior. Should we not all have an equal opportunity to use whatever talents and abilities that we have to be able to work and support ourselves and our families? the opportunity to be treated with dignity and respect? the opportunity to be safe and to have access to whatever services we personally require to be healthy, physically and mentally? Equality means that we all have these things at our disposal equally. What we do with those once we have them is individual and may determine how succesful we are in life but if our basic human rights are equal then we are equal.

 

[the]

the opportunity to be treated with dignity and respect? the opportunity to be safe and to have access to whatever services we personally require to be healthy, physically and mentally?

I dont think anyone disagrees here.

 

[La Sagna]

But like I said, how are we measuring this? Having the same starting rights is what makes us equal? That isn't a problem... What we do with them is create inequality for ourselves by becoming superior or inferior and there is the problem. Having the same starting point is not a solution because the end result is the problem, that is where we are today.

Equal rights is having the same rights and opportunities as everybody else. Whatever we do with these is free will and the end result is not about equal rights but where our individual choices take us. We don't all need to end up in the same place, living the exact same way, we just need to be able to start out equal and have our rights protected along the way from anybody who tries to take away those basic rights and opportunities.

I don't believe that the end result is a problem if people have equal opportunities and have the proper protection from those who would take away their rights or treat them in a way to cause them harm. Equal opportunities doesn't mean identical opportunities, that's impossible and of no value anyways.

 

[the]

Equal rights is having the same rights and opportunities as everybody else. Whatever we do with these is free will and the end result is not about equal rights but where our individual choices take us. We don't all need to end up in the same place, living the exact same way, we just need to be able to start out equal and have our rights protected along the way from anybody who tries to take away those basic rights and opportunities.

I don't believe that the end result is a problem if people have equal opportunities and have the proper protection from those who would take away their rights or treat them in a way to cause them harm. Equal opportunities doesn't mean identical opportunities, that's impossible and of no value anyways.

This is exactly what I'm talking about as far as the language of feminism goes, its just so vague and lacking in a measurable goal. To say every 50 year old person (for example) will have the same opportunities is unrealistic and actually cannot happen because opportunities are a limited resource. Now if you are saying you want to make opportunities an unlimited resource then awesome, what is your plan?

What does equal mean if not identical? 1=1. 1=/=2.

 

[La Sagna]

This is exactly what I'm talking about as far as the language of feminism goes, its just so vague and lacking in a measurable goal. To say every 50 year old person (for example) will have the same opportunities is unrealistic and actually cannot happen because opportunities are a limited resource. Now if you are saying you want to make opportunities an unlimited resource then awesome, what is your plan?

What does equal mean if not identical? 1=1. 1=/=2.

1 + 9 = 10
2 + 8 =10
3 + 7 = 10
4 + 6 = 10
5 + 5 = 10

Are they not all different but equal? and numbers can go to infinity so there shouldn't be a problem for the 7 billion people in the world to be different but equal.

Why do things have to be black and white? why can't they be nuanced? People make up their own definition of feminism in their minds and then get upset at others because their definition doesn't match.

I have a very nuanced definition of feminism but I do not feel that I need to give up the right to using the word feminism because some other people have twisted it into something that in my opinion has gone beyond what the borders of feminism should be. I believe the word feminism is the most accurate one for the position I take that there are many women in the world who are not even close to having equal opportunity or even the opportunity to be free from physical, mental and emotional harm just because of their gender. I choose to put my efforts towards helping women in any way that I can, not because I think there aren't men who need help or that men are not deserving of respect and dignity as well, but because I believe there is a greater need to help women. Because in the Western world we have come much closer to gender equality doesn't negate the fact that there are millions of women and girls in the world who aren't allowed to go to school, who are forced into marriage, who are mutilated and disfigured just becaused they are female. These types of things don't happen even close to the same degree to men around the world, and when women are treated as equal human beings everybody is better off.

I think people are looking through the glass of privilige found in the Western world when they say that women are equal now or that there isn't room or opportunity to fight for equality.

I do not believe in any way that the world will ever be a fair and just society for everyone but I will not stop fighting for it just because utopia is impossible. If what I do helps a few women and they in return are able to help themselves and their families and pass it on so that hopefully the next generation is a little better off, then I have done my part as best I could.

 

[the]

I do not feel that I need to give up the right to using the word feminism because some other people have twisted it into something that in my opinion has gone beyond what the borders of feminism should be.

No one is talking about taking your rights away, I'm just giving my opinions.

 

[La Sagna]

No one is talking about taking your rights away, I'm just giving my opinions.

All the examples that you find on Tumblr, the extreme examples you'll find in the media, and news get all the attention; to say to the general public: 'I am a feminist' is to say I agree with Tumblr/media/news. It's such a loaded term that you can't say that without getting into a long explanation of what exactly you agree with, making it more of a pain in the ass than it needs to be.

I wasn't saying that you were taking away my rights to call myself a feminist.

I was alluding to the suggestion made by you and others that we need to distance ourselves from that word because some people are using it to promote some twisted ideas. If you are an American do you need to distance yourself from it because some pople view all Americans as gun-toting warmongers? There are some Americans who are gun-toting warmongers and who love to wave the flag and promote how 'American' they are, but I would not suggest that a more rational American needs to denounce calling themselves American because some people will then view them as gun-toting warmongers.

Everybody seems to believe in the basic tenets of feminism but they don't like the word. It just feels to me that we have let the word be co-opted and we now fear it when I don't think we should.

 

[La Sagna]

I feel that we have let misogynists and misandrists win by letting them define what feminism is and making us feel like it is a bad word.

I don't want to let them win!

I know it's just semantics and in a way it probably makes no difference wether I call myself a feminist are not, but I just feel that it's a matter of principle.

 

[the]

I feel that we have let misogynists and misandrists win by letting them define what feminism is and making us feel like it is a bad word.

I don't want to let them win!

I know it's just semantics and in a way it probably makes no difference wether I call myself a feminist are not, but I just feel that it's a matter of principle.

Is the goal of feminism to instill ideals into the people and culture, or to create a counter culture that alienates the people its is meant to help? I think it has succeeded at both things to varying degrees. I think many of the ideals are now a part of the culture and what wasn't absorbed is just left over nonsense.