Feminism

Status
Not open for further replies.
ZorCrow said:
DDD,

James Evans Sr. would be proud. I am glad someone is understanding what I am saying to Spellbinder. It's like Chris Rock said, "Just because
a man can live without a leg doesn't mean he needs both legs." It CAN be done, but men need to be in their children's lives in a POSITIVE WAY.

Most men I know are excellent fathers, the guys I work with, the guys I work for, the pastor of my Church, Many of My Uncles, Many, Many, Many other men the vast multide are not the adulterizing, leaving the children in the cold, where's my supper woman!, abusive jerks that we see in the media and that are portrayed that way in the media.

Rip Hamilton speaks of his Dad being an influence in his life, Lavar Arrington, Heisman trophy winner Reggie Bush, speaks of the role that his step father played in his life, Shaquille O' Neal, his biological father was a bad one, but his Step Father, that's his DAD. . . many successful men
are here because of BOTH MOTHER AND FATHER. Heck look at Dubya Bush his dad's political power got him in the white house. Ice Cube says the reason he didn't do dope, sell dope or join a gang because his dad would have beat his butt.

The purpose of the Movie Boyz n the Hood showed that Men need to be men and only men can teach boys to be men. Why do you think the military is so successful? YOu got men teaching boys how to be men.

The best basic military training is the famous Marine Corps. What do they do? They train men and women separately and are better off for it.

Men are needed Binder, Father are needed, not all fathers are like yours or like mine.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything but the bit in bold, it implies that only Men can raise sons and Women their daughters, bullshit, absolute bullshit.

Men can raise daughters and Women can raise sons just fine. In fact I feel the greatest comparison too masculinity is femininity and thus sometimes you need a Women to show a boy how to be a Man and equally you need a Man to show a girl how to be a Woman.

Basically I feel that both a Mother and a Father play equal roles as an influence in their children’s development regardless of gender. I get sick when people think that the daughter is the Mothers child and the Son is the Fathers, they are the children of BOTH parents, there is no rule that a Mother is going to be a better parent to her daughter than she could be to her sons nor is there the same rule for Fathers. And I'll say bluntly that ANYONE that believes that there is a rule is going to be a bad parent.

Fact is; to have a balanced family, both Parents are needed to raise balanced children that are adjusted to society. - Yes there are exceptions but how many Parents can adopt the role of both nuturer and provider? - There is no rule that says Mothers should raise daughters Fathers sons, they are children to BOTH parents and ultimately the children need BOTH parents in their lives.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
DDD

It isn't the feces you think it is . .


1. The Marines have the best basic training and they are the only branch who is still segregated in training men and women.

2. Men teach boys how to be men, women teach girls how to be women.

Men and women play DIFFERENT ROLES that balance out . .

Again we respectfully disagree,
 
and yet...NONE of this has anything to do with the overall scope of feminism...and zorcrow, SAVE your Ann Couture-esque rhetoric about how "destructive' feminism is. you're NOT a woman, and you portray yourself to have LITTLE sensibility when it comes TO women..and therefore you will never understand while Feminism HAS been so instrumental in helping women in america rise up from the status of "second class citizens" to reach the status of the QUEENS that we know ourselves to be.
 
Zorcrow; marine cores are not families and they don't teach the same lessons as a family would or could. I truly think it naive of you to say such a thing, firstly Zorcrow; what is a Man, if it isn't something that complements and a total contrast of the idea of a Women, so why can't a Woman have an accurate idea of what a Man should be? The same thing goes for real Men (not the sexist short sighted Male, I'm talking MEN, the ones that are decent individuals and good fathers) why can't a Father help his daughter grow to respect herself and become a Women? There is more to this development than gender specific identification.

And that view; Women can only teach Women and Men can only teach Men is why there is a need for such a strong movement for gender equality, because deep in the core development of identity within the family each one of you has tried to find a way to segregate or 'out do' the other gender, such a thing can only perpetuate sexism and a need for the feminist movement.

Spellbinder; you attempt to segregate and 'out do' Men by claiming they are not needed within the family structure. How is that any different from the limited sexism that you face? YOU a person who would pioneer equality through feminism, would also perpetuate that same blinkered view of one gender is better than the other is just frankly hypocritical in my eyes.

In the end how will equality be achieved if people simply don't see the genders as equal, especially within one of the most primal institutions; the family unit?

Bringing this back too the purpose of the thread, it leads me to ask the question is Feminism, actually about equal rights for Women, or female dominance over Man? - Because a lot of things I've heard and read from self professed feminist is the argument 'Women can do this better than Men' and that isn't equality.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
DDD: I understand what you are saying, and we are not that far off from each other. I just respectfully disagree

BINDER: Ann Coulter is your twin, I see a lot of you in her and a lot of her in you.

1. Both of you are independent women (Coulter isn't married or even engaged).

2. You both are bold and stand up to anyone who you don't agree with

3. You both are educated and articulate.

4. You both are polticially biased.

5. You both are blood vicious to people who anger you and some folks you disagree with.

I understand what you are saying Binder as well.

BACK TO FEMINISM.

1. women and men are equal but not the same.

2. Some forms of feminism tend to lesbianism and have had both a positive and negative impact on society.

3. Women deserve the same rights as men.

4. Women and men have different roles in marriage and family.

5. SOME feminism denys that men are the head o the family, and that is an error.
Men are the head of the family and marital structure.
 
ZorCrow said:
BACK TO FEMINISM.

1. women and men are equal but not the same.

2. Some forms of feminism tend to lesbianism and have had both a positive and negative impact on society.

3. Women deserve the same rights as men.

4. Women and men have different roles in marriage and family.

5. SOME feminism denys that men are the head o the family, and that is an error.
Men are the head of the family and marital structure.
Click to expand...

So close yet so far. Granted a family may do better with both parents present than without but it can done in a healthy way as Binder points out. I spent most of my childhood raised by my single mom, never been arrested, never stole, haven't killed or raped anyone, I vote (though sometimes I question why), and my fiance calls me the boyscout. Far from perfect but woman got here on her own. As guy with 4 sisters I would never tell them there is anything they can't do and I will not let anyone else tell them that either.

Granting that a there are assholes to both sexes a woman is not predisposed to be weaker than a man in any category. They'll work just as hard just as long and learn just as much. I've seen a girl 5'5" 100 lbs soak and wet in wool blanket bench 165 lbs, while her big brother 6'3" 240 struggle to bench 100 lbs, (yes I did laugh at him). But even in the "traditionally' easy out of strength women can and do compete with men.

Even for a man to head a family a woman has to agree to it. Marriage is partnership not a chain of command.
 
Why men don't RESPECT SOME women . .

Danica Patrick.

The race care driver in the Indy Racing League, she is doing well.
But she hasn't won a race just yet. Similiar to Anna Kournikova,
who's Tennis career stunk, and just modeled half naked, dated celebrities,
and just thought hey so what? Now we have Danica Patrick she wants to be taken seriously, she' not that attractive as Kournikova, she's mean, fierce, honest, tough and bold.

Yet and still what does she do? (warning I don't endorse the styles of these pics) She poses for FHM!!!!! Just like the respected "Rachael Ray" of Food Network (and wonder why folks think she's a fraud) she has gone tacky and distateful. Here are two of the pics.

proxy.php


and this one

proxy.php


How can she be taken as a SERIOUS DRIVER posing like this??? Throwing her legitimate pictures in with her skank ones don't change anything.

This is the problem with women aka feminists, they are hypocrites,
they want to rule the world then want to act risque and be treated as equals. How? That doesn't add up, respect me, take me serious, but let me bikini model (florida teacher) mess with male students who are ten to 17 years younger than me and get off because I look good (Florida and Tennessee) or be taken serious as a professional and then pose skanky or live skanky.

Why????? That isn't equal . . . women should be respected,
but when they don't respect themselves and when they don't take themselves seriously why should men?

There is also more (suggestive) pics of Danica but I won't post that filth.

This is why men don't respect feminism, in the end it's female superiority not equality.

I respected Danica and again I was wrong.
 
.. are you trying to say that just because a woman chooses to show off some natural (or unnatural as the case may be) assets she shouldn't be respected as a woman? Because, gotta say, it's not just women who do that. On that note, men who walk around without shirts shouldn't be respected either. Are we seeing how retarded that point is?
 
you know, that post above is about as SIMPLE and as ON POINT as a "point" can get. I agree with Sebastian (and we've NEVER agreed on much before :D ) :nod:
 
Personally I would pose in a bathing suit for money since modeling is considered work and pays money like a job I dont see anything wrong with her posing for that magazine. Look how many male actors, rappers, athletes and other people model in sexually suggestive themes and are taken seriously.
 
You know I disagree with Zorcrow but I cannot help but see the point he raises.

There is nothing wrong with Women being admired for their beauty, this isn't the Middle East we aren't taught to lower our gaze (out of respect) as a Women walks past, we are allowed to look and admire with resepct.

However what pissed me off with the Anna Kournikova (I cannot talk about the Indy race car driver we don't have that in my country) is that she got more attention/publicity and more respect as a Tennis player because of her looks than the "real" Tennis players like the Williams sisters who are actually good and in the Williams sisters case legends.

I have no problem with the pictures above or "Anna" flaunting her looks but I do not agree with her using her looks to progress her career as a Tennis player due to her looks when she wasn't that good in the first place.

Give credit where credit is due she looks good granted, she shouldn't link that too Tennis, nor get sponsorship deals and make money from a sport she was useless at because she looks good. Give the sponsorship deals and money too the real Tennis players, make the Williams sisters the face of Tennis, give the publicity too the best not the ones that look good doing it. And I for one think the media (the British media anyway) took far too long to admit the truth.

I felt the same way about David Beckham and football as well, he isn't the best player by any means, I don't care what anyone says he only got good when he went to Spain, I don't feel he should have the sponsorship deals he has with Adidas. But at least in Men sports they give (well soccer anyway) they give the credit and money to the real players and not just the ones that look good playing the sport.

And how come none of the raging femminst answered my question:

DonDaddy wrote:
Bringing this back too the purpose of the thread, it leads me to ask the question is Feminism, actually about equal rights for Women, or is it about female dominance over Man? - Because a lot of things I've heard and read from self professed feminist is the argument 'Women can do the vast majority of things better than Men' and that isn't equality?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There are real double standards in our society and feminism needs to be honest about them.

Women showing their goodies and disrespecting themselves will never be vewed and treated the same as women with morals and character.

That's reality . . .
 
DonDaddy: There are several strains of feminism. I'm against the "women are better than men" strain as much as Zorcrow here would be. However there are equalitist ones too and those are very much agreed with.

However, to be honest, I think Feminism should work not just on female ideals but also male ones. Our culture (and this is a mass sweeping statement I know) sets stereotypes for BOTH sexes. Redefining one sex just isn't enough. Take, for example, male nurses and such. The jobs widely regarded of female need to be opened for men as much as the jobs widely regarded as male need to be open for women.

ANYWAY, back to the point about women "flaunting" their looks. 'Cause, eh, David Beckham never has used his looks to progress his career? Actually, scratch that, because no male sports player ever has? You gotta be sure about this double standard you're putting forward here. It's NOT just women who use their looks to progress.. everyone does.

Personally, I don't see how clothes should have an implications on a person's morals. When I got out, I make sure I'm looking hot. That might have something to do with lowering the top button on my shirt, or maybe lowering my jeans to just a tiny bit below my waist but I still do it. Other people would go out looking good in full-double-breasted suits and some go out wearing hardly anything. There's no big difference there if you break it down fully.
 
as far as i'm concerned, zorcrow is just grasping at straws with trying to suggest that a person's "clothing" or "looks" are an indicator of their morals or that a person who uses their "looks" to get ahead have questionable morals.

He's already been shut down on so many OTHER arguments in this thread...and that was his latest attempt.

and AS a feminist, i DON"T feel that men need to benefit from the feminist platform. the necessity for feminism came from the NEED women had for so long to be MORE than what MEN were TELLING US WE COULD/SHOULD BE.

"society" ...especially in america is PATRIARCHAL..and always in favor of men. men will use anything (like what zorcrow has done with clothing/looks) including religion and cheap cop outs to find a way to minimize a woman's demand for respect and the freedom to be who she wants to be WITH or WITHOUT his approval.
 
I happen to disagree with you, actually. I think men are as much victims of social conditioning as women are. Also my point wasn't that men should "benefit" from feminism, but that without breaking down the entire social hierarchy that pretains to the gripes which feminism has, it will never suceed. It's all good and well to say that women should be equal to men, but I think that men should be equal to women also. And I also don't think it'd be a bad thing for such a thing would happen, right?

Also, it is *SOME* men who will use those arguements against females. I garuentee that there are *SOME* women who will also. However it is not *ALL* men that do so (as proven by this thread) so I don't think men, as a whole, should be treated as an enemy.
 
Sebastian'sArrow said:
DonDaddy:

ANYWAY, back to the point about women "flaunting" their looks. 'Cause, eh, David Beckham never has used his looks to progress his career? Actually, scratch that, because no male sports player ever has? You gotta be sure about this double standard you're putting forward here. It's NOT just women who use their looks to progress.. everyone does.
Click to expand...

The ONE thing I know is Soccer. I wasn't putting forward a double standard when I said some Women use their looks to get ahead.

When I said that Male sports doesn't promote people that look good rather people that are in fact good at the sport I believe that to be a fact. especially in soccer.

Beckham, is a case of marketing because he looks good. He however makes most of his sponsorship money outside the realms of football and certainly isn't the face of football. He didn't gain publicity because he looked good he got it through working hard and scoring THAT goal against Wimbledon. He is sponsored by addidas because as much as I don't like him he crosses the ball really well (probably the best in the World) and that has something to do with the boot he wears. At least he earned his publicity through being good at the sport first and looking good second.

However the faces of Football right now are players like Ronaldinho (Nike) who is on more money than Beckham and is an all round better player but far uglier.

http://nikefootball.nike.com/nikefootball/siteshell/index.jsp#,en,0;wc06
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ronaldinho01.jpg

The point I was making is that Anna wouldn't have the publicity she had or the fame as a Tennis player (which she didn't deserve) if she didn't look good. Whereas in male sports (Soccer/Football) players get credit and publicity for being good at the sport first and looking good second.
 
If anyone who has been a victim of misjudgement on looks it me. I have my own style and when people look at me they think slut, because I like to wear tank tops, low rider jeans, bikinis, ect. I admit there are other factors to the misjudgements about me, but many judge just by looking at me. I have confidence in my self and I WANT to wear these clothes. No one is forcing me to wear them. I DON'T wear clothes based on how society thinks I should dress and look. I wear clothes based on my OWN opinions and convictions.

That's why feminism exists. Women like Susan B. Anthony and various women's rights pioneers, fought for our right to choose. The right to think for ourselves and choose our own lifestyle. Prior to 1900 women had no rights what so ever. Today we can vote, own property, and become successful members of society. If a women chooses to be a homemaker or the CEO of a major coorperation, then it up to HER. Not men, not society. We want respect and equality and options. My reason for being a feminist if not to be dominant over a male, but to have the same oppertunities and respect as a man. But I also want men to understand there are certain situations that came with the territory of being a woman and that it's nature and we can't control it. We want to be understood and respected.
 
it's funny, for all my arguments that have been "shot down"
no one has come up with any other facts to support their arguments against me.

FACT

1. On Average men are stronger than women.

2. Women's and men have different views of society and life

3. Men and women have different roles in the family and child development.

4. Kids with both a poistive mother and father do better (On average) than those with a single parent.

5. The Black Community in America (my community) is suffering from the lack of positive male role models in the family structure.

6. Men's and women are not equaly in competition of physical strength.

7. There is a strong tie between some articles of radical feminism and lesbianism.
 
ZorCrow said:
1. On Average men are stronger than women.

6. Men's and women are not equaly in competition of physical strength.
Click to expand...

Not true... I've seen countless women beat the crap out of men before. It's a proven fact that women have a much higher pain threshold then men. And through diet and extercise and regular weight training any women can overpower a man. Women are smaller, faster, more agile. Any women can outmenuver a man just by using speed and leverage. I've seen a 5'3" 108 lbs. women bring down a 6'5" 290 lbs. man with just a few simple moves. Granted she studied martial arts. Men are slower, bigger, and have more weight to carry around and deal with. Well the ideal man.
 
"Men are slower, bigger, and have more weight to carry around and deal with. Well the ideal man."


In this statement, you are making the same generalizations that you are attacking. The idea is that men are generally stronger (pure strength) but women are generally more limber and agile. That generalizatio is mostly correct. you will always find smaller bringing down bigger once martial arts come into play, but that is no indicator is pure physical strength. As for pain threshold, I am not convinced on that. The main point brought up is childbirth but that is a process for which women are uniquely designed. That does not necessarily translate into the rest of the real world.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top