Feminists

College Confidential Community
81

<p>Cowgirl, most of your post is flawed. You take dubious "facts' and statistics, which if true, still do not prove anything. Isolated incidents and nice phrases have no significance in a reasonable study. These nonsequential, emotional, illogical, superficial ideas....could only come from a woman ;) (jk).</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
Orrican, the reason that any progress is made on any issue, whether it be about women's rights or not, is that people STAND UP. "Shutting up and sitting down" as you so nicely put it, is never acceptable when there is an issue you feel passionate about.

[/QUOTE]

What if your passion is sitting down :)? Seriously, passive protest is often successful. Sometimes if you lead by example, instead of through force, you will have better results. Here is a universal idea that is actually coherent: Society can only be changed by changing the minds of the people within it. If you create aggressive opposition, people only become firmer in their beliefs, especially in a case of women against men. I agree that some atrocities have occured, and do, but this fantastic notion of total equality should not be a goal. Men and women are biologically different, and culturally as well; these differences should be celebrated, not liquidated.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]

Change is good,

[/QUOTE]

Change is change. To change from good to bad is still change, is it not?</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
and encouraging people not to voice their opinions contradicts with the democratic ideals you are trying to promote as an American voicing YOUR own opinion in this forum.

[/QUOTE]

So is saying that the media should be altered. The fact is, there are a lot of ignorant, stupid people, and their opinions shouldn't be spread. That is not the same as saying they should not have the right to spread them. </p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
Also, feminists are not insecure and bored. I am a feminist, you, obviously, are not. Maybe we would know better than you? I am neither insecure nor bored. Actually, these issues intrest me quite passionately. Sure we don't sit on the back of the bus. And yes, we take maternity leave. I know that women and men will never ever be equal - you have to take into account our DNA. The thing is, women and men should deserve equal respect and at this point in time - they don't have it! You can say they do and talk about progress all you want, but there is still work to be done on many issues.

[/QUOTE]

The point is, are there any large steps that we must take, or will the natural way of things lead to a realistic and positive situation? I believe the latter, as things are not so bad right now as to merit effecting significant changes.</p>

<p>What is respect? It is the relation between two things. Men, in respect to women, are different. How does difference relate to value? They are not the same, but related. Women have all of the rights of men, and then some. They are not equal in select areas because of historical reasons, which will naturally change, and in other areas for biological reasons. They will never change, and should not. All of the seeds are set for changing the ideological roots of society. Throw activism in the mix and you create fragmenting counter-activism. The best thing for feminists to do (and include myself in the group in this context) is let nature take its course.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
1. Domestic Violence has a lot to do with feminism. Yes, it goes both ways, but equilibrium is not in sight! Want proof? Have it (courtesy of <a href="http://endabuse.org/resources/facts)%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://endabuse.org/resources/facts)&lt;/a>. The worst part is, these are not random psycopaths - our husbands and boyfriends are the guilty ones! Again, we come to the question of equal respect!
-Around the world, at least one in every three women has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused during her lifetime

[/QUOTE]

That's such a slanted stat. Abuse could be as little as being yelled at. Even being struck, leaving a bruise, is nothing compared to rape, for example.

[QUOTE]
-Intimate partner violence is primarily a crime against women. In 2001, women accounted for 85 percent of the victims of intimate partner violence (588,490 total) and men accounted for approximately 15 percent of the victims (103,220 total).
-While women are less likely than men to be victims of violent crimes overall, women are five to eight times more likely than men to be victimized by an intimate partner

[/QUOTE]

This is easily explained. Men are more likely to victims of violent crimes because they tend to be more active outside of the home. Women do not leave the home as often, and are emotionally and physically more prone to abuse. If women were given equality as some feminists espouse, then women would start to be abused more outside of the home. An unfortunate trap.

[QUOTE]
-On average, more than three women are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends in this country every day. In 2000, 1,247 women were killed by an intimate partner. The same year, 440 men were killed by an intimate partner.

[/QUOTE]

In a country of nearly 300 million people, while tragic, those deaths are not indicative of major societal trends, although they could corroborate a stronger argument on crimes.</p>

<p>This is where I really start to disagree with you:</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
2. Image. This is a huge one for me. As a feminist working for equality, I don't dislike men. In fact, I think they are fun to be with, talk to, etc. There is one shortcoming, however, with a society in which the majority of major institutions (government, banks, media, corporations) are run by men. This allows them to dictate what they think we should look like, feel like, work like, and how we should live. Every single American president has been a rich white man devoted to promoting the "American dream" of having money and raising a family - in which the man is the primary breadmaker. How should they know what ordinary women want?

[/QUOTE]

In competitive civilizations such as those in the West, masculinity is intertwined with ideals. Competition and aggression, male traits, are valued in our society on the surface, I agree. However, women should not try to integrate to the point of equal integration, but should both integrate and emphasize their own traits. By looking at things like competition, and complaining about its leaning towards men, you are thinking in the masculine mindset, and things become clouded.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
Why do we let these advertising executives tell us that we need to be thin with big boobs? Our self-esteem as women in this society is undermined every day by having these messages thrown at us - everything from the double standards and name calling to the media telling us we should buy these clothes or this makeup because nobody will love us otherwise.

[/QUOTE]

A far more noble message would be to tell people to not listen to ANYTHING that advertisers say, but to think on their own. If you're willing to victimize YOURSELF by internalizing advertisements to any significant extent, you should not complain about the particular messages.</p>

<p><a href="again%20some%20stats%20-%20try%20%5Burl%5Dhttp://www.campaignforrealbeauty.ca...t2.asp&id=1609"&gt;QUOTE&lt;/a>. Why should women be expected to be a certain type of attractive. Beauty should be allowed to exist in all its forms and NO woman should have to feel inadequate because they don't measure up to some unrealistic ideal that the male advertising execs created in the first place!

[/QUOTE]

Beauty does exist in all forms, and is allowed to. Advertisers are after money. They just seek the beauty that most people agree with. How absurd would it be, from a marketing standpoint, to put the fat woman on that makes men change the channel, while the competitor is broadcasting with models and celebrities advertising the product.

[QUOTE]
The worst part to me are these big CEO positions. The men and supposed anti-feminists in society all yell out that equality is being achieved because there are women up there in the career ladder - but we have to ask - at what cost?! Women in these positions essentially have to give up their femininity, because such qualities are ridiculed in the business world. It is our job to change that. Emotion and nurturing should have no less place there than dedication and strength. I believe that all together, society would be at its most productive.

[/QUOTE]

How does de-emphasizing competitive productivity make productivity more competitive? Women in CEO positions give up their feminity because CEO jobs are masculine jobs, which have prestige by masculine ideals. No cultural alteration will change that fundamental. If we forget wealth as a priority, it will happen, but we will not downplay wealth.</p>

82

<p>Who said I was reasonable in the first place? ;) </p>

<p>Yes, passive protest does often work. The problem is the audience. I don't often like to admit it, but there are very few out of the 2000 people in my high school who would follow the example of any members of the Amnesty Club here. I know from experience - teenagers sitting in the cafeteria with their friends do not follow anything outside of that, let alone the 50-some dedicated IB students who run all the clubs in the school. After all, why would the "cool kids" want to be nerds? If you can educate people, why not speak up? Society isn't all that much different than the high school cafeteria. Most people won't follow if you do something different. Human beings have a basic need for safety, and most don't think out of the box too much. Activism catches their attention a lot quicker. </p>

<p>As for a few other things...</p>

<p>Change in this case is good. Any closer we can get to equality, whether through passive protest or activism, is good. Of course there is change from good to bad, but we are talking about feminism and gender equality.</p>

<p>Are there any large steps that we should take? Heck yes. An example is the UN Millennium Development Goals, which include promoting gender equality and empowering women (using education) and improving maternal health. How about Amnesty's Stop Violence Against Women campaign? While letting nature take its course would be fine, there are things we can do to help. Again, why not? After all, it's called <em>act</em>ivism, not <em>sitandwaitforchange</em>ivism. </p>

<p>Throw activism in the mix, and yes you do get some fragmenting counter-activism, but you also get people informed. There are always going to be people with different opinions, but there are also always going to be a lot of ignorant people out there. The former we can't control, but we can try to educate the latter group.</p>

<p>Yes, my stats are slanted. I said so. I am biased, but I realize this exaggeration of superficial facts is exactly how to get people interested! All is well in academia when you present a nice argument going over both sides of everything, but in the world past college admissions and the entire post-secondary process (with the exception of Law and academia-related professions), average Americans are only going to be really pulled in when you present them with something that catches their attention. Why do you think advertisers use stats? I could not listen to anything the media says, but I chose to. Rather than victimize myself, I can make the informed decision of learning from them and using their best weapon (society's vulnerability) to truly educate people. I'm not trying to be noble, I'm trying to be realistic. Can anyone turn out the media completely? </p>

<p>Also, I was not complaining about any particular message. Rather, it was the very one that annoys me the most and is present in nearly all forms of advertising - the unattainable ideal of what beauty "should be". Since when is "the beauty most people agree with" to be associated with models and celebrities. Yes, most people will say that these people are attractive. From an advertising standpoint it makes sense, but on a personal level, it hurts so many women. Do an experiment. Download some of the Dove campaignforrealbeauty adds and show them to your girl friends alongside some regular adds that use toothpick models wearing almost nothing. Ask them which they prefer. Also, ask your guy friends what type of women they would want to marry, realistically, after college. Chances are not many are size 0 supermodels. On the other hand, ask almost any girl that you know if they would actually call themselves beautiful. According to Dove (who had a study done by professors from Harvard and other equally legitimate institutions), only 2% of women would call themselves beautiful. Currently, beauty is not allowed to exist in all forms. How many guys do you know would call an overweight girl beautiful? How about a bald girl? Or a girl with a flat chest? Truthfully, not many. This extends to the CEO positions. These women are not allowed to feel like women becuase their jobs are so masculine. Why does wealth have to be linked to masculinity (hello Paris Hilton)? In no way do we have to forget wealth to change this. Look at people like Oprah, Hilary Clinton, and Belinda Stronach (<- Canadian politician fyi). What we need is more real women being allowed to move up the career ladder. Strength of institution in a lot of ways depends on the strength of its CEOs and core. If the core of these institutions is made up of women who are not allowed to have femininity, then isn't it obvious that they won't be as strong as if they were allowed to blossom? The strongest women in the world are those who are allowed to feel comfortable with themselves as women. Changing the set "ideals" of the high-up positions over time is a positive way to make society stronger as a whole. </p>

<p>The whole point to this, once again, is to educate people. While it is nice to sit and watch the masses of unknowing ignorant teens out there, I can't stand knowing that these people go through their every days not caring about one single issue, let it be feminism, the war on terror, education, or anything! Sure I may be somewhat of an idealist, but to quote Martin Luther King Jr., "The time is always right to do what is right". Why wait for equality, peace, and the ideal society? Why not educate people? I'd way rather have ten people informed than sit and wait for things to happen. </p>

<p>If you do one thing this summer, go tell a girl who doesn't often hear it that she is beautiful and unique. That is one way we can all live by example.</p>

83

<p>wow you all are writing books.....if these posts were cut in half or by 2/3rds i might just read em :p...but I did read one part.</p>

<p>You go on about "feminine beauty standards set by a male dominated society." What about the male standards of attractiveness?...how many men think of themselves as "good looking?" What about all these guys running around on commercials with insanely ripped abs and muscular bodies, which some men cannot achieve just because of genetics?...so men can't be attractive if they're not perfect? I can tell ya right now, girls won't let a guy know they look good nearly as much as a guy will tell a girl they're beautiful...you know...we have hearts too and our self esteem can be shot rather low...but you don't see us blaming everything else on the "ppl at the top." I don't mind moderate feminism...it's these extremists...they make such a big fuss....even a female head of an advertising company would choose the slimmest, most symmetrical woman or best looking man for their commercials/billboards. It attracts an audience....</p>

84

<p>Of course the same thing applies to men, it is just that I was presenting one side of it. The thing is that I am a woman, so I understand that side of it a lot better. I definetly talk to my girlfriends about these things. One girl at school who I knew from MUN became anorexic during the school year, and from what I have heard she is currently in the hospital and not doing so well. I have tried to talk to guys about these issues (yes, even the portrayal of guys in the media), and even some of my close friends have called me a rabid feminist. Not exactly what you want to hear. When they listen, I'll talk. Also, I am not solely blaming the "people at the top". Yes they have something to do with it, but in no way are they solely responsible. In reality, while it does have a lot to do with the individual in question, the people around them who accept this idea of beauty bare some of the responsibility. When your guy friends are talking about how hot Angelina Jolie is, it might become hard to see how any of them might see you. Same thing applies when we are talking about Brad Pitt. You probably don't feel too good. It's such a complex issue, that it would take another whole book to go over it. </p>

<p>"No cultural alteration will change that fundamental."
It's happening all around you. I picked up the paper this morning to read one of the headlines on the front page: "Rise of women doctors changes system"
<a href="http://www.canada.com/calgary/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=647d5367-db26-406f-bcd3-321106950f7d%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.canada.com/calgary/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=647d5367-db26-406f-bcd3-321106950f7d&lt;/a>
Just one example, but it's happening because, to quote the last line, "there is an influx of women in the field - women who are willing to challenge the standard protocol."</p>

85

<p>This is interesting (and surprisingly well-balanced).
For those who believe women in top positions have an equal footing, read this article:
"The Conundrum of the Glass Ceiling"
<a href="http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4197626%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4197626&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>As for whether or not the natural effect of time will change anything, read the last section. It would suggest otherwise.</p>

86

<p>There are some sensitive guys out there you know...
I accept the fact that there are barriers that prevent women from rising to the same level as men on the economic ladder...i do realize that there is a 25% difference in average pay..I realize that sexual harrassment occurs in the work-place...but things are slowly changing...it has been less than a century since Women's Suffrage.....give it time.....the current college-bound generation is alot more tolerant of sexual equality, because they never lived in an era where women had their rights limited, so they are not accustomed to it. My only point is that these hardcore feminists go to such extremes that it does nothing but turn the general public away from what they are really trying to get across. Yes, an activist for womens' rights can be appealing, but the "bra burning, nonshaving man haters" seem very unapproachable, and they cannot relate with the public easily. They feel like they can force their ideologies, rather than let people know what really goes on in a rational manner. This isn't a game of "i'm right you're wrong" like many extreme feminists bring it out to be...it takes time and patience.</p>

<p>And women aren't required to conform to the average "sexy norm." They do it by choice...I actually hate the fact that women think they should spend 2 more hours than guys to get ready, and that they must dress skimpy to get attention. I tell this to my girlfriend all the time....I personally think she looks more beautiful when she's not wearing makeup and she's in her sweats. I also tell her that she's gorgeous all the time, but she refuses to believe me...It's all mental...Women need to think outside of the box for a second, and act according to their own interests....</p>

87

<p>I agree nahrafsfa that any extreme feminists (the "bra burning, nonshaving man haters") are unapproachable. (I have seen a few at Smith College...)
More importantly, I'm sorry to say that is the unfortunate stereotype/generalization of feminists shared by the public. </p>

<p>I'm a feminist. I have a few friends who are feminists. We wear skirts. We shave. We DO NOT hate men (quite opposite in fact) and we are NOT lesbians (unfortunately, jkjk).</p>

<p>I, as much as the next person, get annoyed when "hardcore feminists" do extreme things. But they do it so they can garner attention. If they get attention (whether good or bad), they get feedback. And who knows? If they get through to some people, change is on its way. Sure, everything takes "patience and time". But only to some degree.</p>

<p>I think that not only "Women need to think outside of the box for a second", I think that men should too. </p>

<p>You speak of our generation as "never [living] in an era where women [have] their rights limited". WOW, where do you live? I want to move there NOW.</p>

<p>Agreed, no one is "required to conform to the average 'sexy norm'". But people can't help doing so! Society dictates some ideal image of what a man or women should be, and since we are all members of this society, we are unwittingly forced to conform to some degree in some fashion, whether it be appearance-wise, idealogies, and so on. </p>

<p>Damn. :/</p>

88

<p>i am too lazy to read the other entries, but i dont know what feminists are complaining about. women have all the legal rights as men do. perhaps in a social context, women aren't treated equally, but i hope i dont offend anyone by saying that i dont think women entirely want to have SOCIAL equality. i think the very submissive nature of women supports that reasoning. i speak in general terms when i say that women like when men come to them, while men like to go to women. women have a totally different mindset. different NOT inferior. both need to exist for humanity to function. men and women can't be both as aggressive sexually or as otherwise or else reproduction will be diminished.</p>

89

<p>...not all women are submissive.
I wouldn't say it's an inherent trait in women.</p>

90

<p>Yes, it's quite apparent that you haven't read the other entries posted by WOMEN who defend feminism. Yet, you (a MALE) "don't think women entirely want to have social equality." Obviously the "very [arrogant and ignorant i'm right and you're wrong] nature of [men] supports that reasoning".</p>

91

<p>women are submissive in nature? Are you kidding me?! That's the very assumption that pervaded the Victorian era just as it pervades modern-day male-dominated Islamic states. Women are not inherently submissive - I think the very fact that we have women here defending feminism, the very fact that this thread even exists (as it started out as a rant about "feminazis") proves that women are not inherently submissive and do NOT want to be viewed as such.</p>

<p>
[quote]
i speak in general terms when i say that women like when men come to them, while men like to go to women. women have a totally different mindset. different NOT inferior.

[/quote]

social equality extends far beyond who makes the first move. it has to do with how women are treated in the workplace, whether or not jobs are equally accessible to them; it has to do with domestic abuse and rape. Women don't WANT social equality? What exactly gives you the authority to say that?</p>

92

<p>i've tried reading these last few posts but i've concluded that i'm totally not in the right mindset to do so :)</p>

93

<p>lol. Wow these posts are not going anywhere. Pricks will be pricks (not directed toward all!). I realized this when the posts and arguments on both sides of ths feminism issue became repetitive. I soon realized the reason behind this was that the very people opposing feminism weren't reading the other side's posts....glad we got things through to each other...</p>

<p>Well, I'm glad I came across this forum because it opened my eyes to a rather harsh reality; obviously, feminism is still needed in this country. </p>

<p>I mean, I never knew there were still men (little boys, more like it) who genuinely believe in the "submissive nature in women" or suggest that women "glue *<strong><em>s" onto themselves (very freud, btw). I have an idea: why don't guys cut off their *</em></strong>s? :) </p>

<p>Yet, what was even more horrible was when a certain poster kept recounting his buddy's accounts in which the buddy humiliates his wife. What the...?</p>

94

<p>No rational person today claims that women are intrinsically submissive, to the point of "each individual woman submits in every case." However, it is even scientific to make claims such as "women in general tend towards a more submissive demeanor than men do." This is not a radical, or even oppressive claim. When a person submits, it can be in one of two ways. He or she can submit to power, a forced submittal, one that breeds controversy and resentment, and only rarely effects positive change. The other way that a person can submit is voluntary. This can come from love, devotion to a passion, a communal spirit, or recognizing one's own limits. There is yet a limit to this submission itself, and in western society that tends to be the preservation of the individual (or what cynics might call "greed"). The problem with modern feminists is that they try to impose the former, which only leads to trouble. If women (or any group seeking equality, that is not oppressed to the point of mass killings) instead are more passive, the sensitive members of society will sympathize. The more ignorant people in society will not be changed by force or appeal, and no feminist can change them. The same is nearly as true for the excessively conservative (who can be very well-informed and far from ignorant) person. Feminists point out things such as minor differences in pay. Equality can be had, only given time. The pay will eventually reach a fair point, as it almost has already. Although I hate to link the only remotely related sexism and racism, feminists are like what young Malcolm X was to the civil rights movement, and they should be more like Martin Luther King (as Malcolm himself realized later in his life, when he was consequently killed by his radical former brethren, just like Martin Luther King, demonstrating the hatred of radicalism and the fear created by passive and rational resistance).</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
lol. Wow these posts are not going anywhere. Pricks will be pricks (not directed toward all!). I realized this when the posts and arguments on both sides of ths feminism issue became repetitive. I soon realized the reason behind this was that the very people opposing feminism weren't reading the other side's posts....glad we got things through to each other...</p>

<p>Well, I'm glad I came across this forum because it opened my eyes to a rather harsh reality; obviously, feminism is still needed in this country.</p>

<p>I mean, I never knew there were still men (little boys, more like it) who genuinely believe in the "submissive nature in women" or suggest that women "glue *<strong><em>s" onto themselves (very freud, btw). I have an idea: why don't guys cut off their *</em></strong>s?</p>

<p>Yet, what was even more horrible was when a certain poster kept recounting his buddy's accounts in which the buddy humiliates his wife. What the...?

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>Suggesting that men sever their genitals only perpetuates the same type of ignorance that led to the oppression of women.</p>

95

<p>"Suggesting that men sever their genitals only perpetuates the same type of ignorance that led to the oppression of women."-videogamer</p>

<p>Finally, I've got through to someone!! :):) WOOT!</p>

<p>The characteristic, "submissive", has a negative connotation. Why? Because when someone is described as "submissive", you don't think that that person is submissive out of "love, devotion to a passion, a communal spirit". Come on.</p>

<p>If feminists were "like what young Malcolm X was to the civil rights movement", my former sarcastic statement of severing male genitals off would have already happened. Believe me, we are the Martin Luther version. </p>

<p>It doesn't matter if the inequality is minor. It's still an inequality! Thus, people are going to bring it up and want to obliterate it.</p>

96

<p>Submission goes hand in hand with humility, which as a Christian I value very much. It only has a negative connotation in certain groups, namely those hungry for power (they might tend to casually use words such as "obliterate" in response to a minor issue). In their arrogance they might equate themselves with the ideals of MLK, not even understanding an analogy from the opposite side of the spectrum. </p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
If feminists were "like what young Malcolm X was to the civil rights movement", my former sarcastic statement of severing male genitals off would have already happened. Believe me, we are the Martin Luther version

[/QUOTE]

Guess what? I don't believe you.</p>

<p>You haven't "got through to me," and I am surprised that you would mistake my reasoning for having been persuaded by any of your remarks.</p>

97

<p>
[quote]
The other way that a person can submit is voluntary. This can come from love, devotion to a passion, a communal spirit, or recognizing one's own limits.

[/quote]

Do women are more likely to obey a person they love than men are? Where are you getting that from? 2/3 of middle-aged divorces are initiated by the wife...I would suggest that the reason for this is because women are NOT will to submit to emotional pain even if they love someone. Seriously, assuming women are willing to voluntary submit is pretty good reasoning for domestic abuse and date rape....
Assuming submission inherently means one group is given or assumed to have authority/power, whether voluntarily or otherwise. And that power is dangerous in the hands of one sex when the other has none.</p>

<p>As for the Malcolm X/MLK issue:
Malcolm X and MLK recognized the SAME problems with society at the time. They simply chose two different ways of approaching it - one chose violence, the other nonviolence (passive resistance is a misnomer in my opinion). Their followers existed at the same time. It's fallacious to believe that ALL feminists are Malcolm X-inspired or that ALL are MLK-inspired. I've said it over and over again in this thread - there is no one group of feminists and very few feminists think exactly alike. Regardless - pointing out "minor" inequalities as you call them does not make someone more like MLK or more like Malcolm X. Your analogy is enormously flawed in the sense that MLK and Malcolm X addressed the same problems in different ways - not different problems. Nobody here or elsewhere can be judged as MLK or MalcolmX-ish based solely on the issues they bring up.</p>

<p>In response to the issue of time: We can't be THAT stupid to believe that change will simply come if we don't acknowledge the problems. The abolition of slavery was NOT simply the result of the passing of time. It resulted from people taking action, printing newspapers, giving speeches - otherwise, whites in the North would simply have turned their heads as they did for a century prior to the Civil War. If there ARE problems (which you admit there are minor ones), people NEED to bring them up or they will not change. the very fact that they ARE minor problems means that feminists need to keep harping on them because there are people like you who believe that these minor problems either don't need to be changed or will rectify themselves. Problems do NOT rectify themselves - in the history of the world, I am hard-pressed to find an example of a problem that simply went away without people taking some sort of action.</p>

98

<p>feminists are MEAN MEAN MEAN and they don't like anyone besides other feminists!!!!</p>

99

<p>
[QUOTE]

Do women are more likely to obey a person they love than men are? Where are you getting that from? 2/3 of middle-aged divorces are initiated by the wife...I would suggest that the reason for this is because women are NOT will to submit to emotional pain even if they love someone. Seriously, assuming women are willing to voluntary submit is pretty good reasoning for domestic abuse and date rape....

[/QUOTE]

Uh...what? I think you don't have the SLIGHTEST clue of what I was talking about. Read again, break it down.

[QUOTE]
Assuming submission inherently means one group is given or assumed to have authority/power, whether voluntarily or otherwise. And that power is dangerous in the hands of one sex when the other has none

[/QUOTE]

I never suggested any of this, you think that I am saying something that I am very clearly not saying.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
As for the Malcolm X/MLK issue:
Malcolm X and MLK recognized the SAME problems with society at the time. They simply chose two different ways of approaching it - one chose violence, the other nonviolence (passive resistance is a misnomer in my opinion).

[/QUOTE]

They absolutely did not. Malcolm saw the white man as the devil (literally). MLK saw hatred as the devil. Very different problems indeed, as Malcolm's basis IS (or was) hatred.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
Their followers existed at the same time. It's fallacious to believe that ALL feminists are Malcolm X-inspired or that ALL are MLK-inspired. I've said it over and over again in this thread - there is no one group of feminists and very few feminists think exactly alike.

[/QUOTE]

You really need to read more. I clearly used it as an analogy, in terms of political philosophies, not as any direct inspiration. Your argument is bogus.

[QUOTE]
Regardless - pointing out "minor" inequalities as you call them does not make someone more like MLK or more like Malcolm X. Your analogy is enormously flawed in the sense that MLK and Malcolm X addressed the same problems in different ways - not different problems. Nobody here or elsewhere can be judged as MLK or MalcolmX-ish based solely on the issues they bring up.

[/QUOTE]

This doesn't make sense. I used the analogy to make a very specific point. Unless your counter-argument is relevant to that point, poking at the analogy is useless. I think you really didn't rationally look at what I said, and just fumed at the prospect of being compared to Malcolm X.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
In response to the issue of time: We can't be THAT stupid to believe that change will simply come if we don't acknowledge the problems.

[/QUOTE]

You just implied that I am stupid. This is my point. How can you expect to change people through insults? Feminists approach things the same way, through force. If you actually took the time to read through my ideas with an open mind, you might understand this (or intelligently dispute it, which I am wholly open to).</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
The abolition of slavery was NOT simply the result of the passing of time. It resulted from people taking action, printing newspapers, giving speeches - otherwise, whites in the North would simply have turned their heads as they did for a century prior to the Civil War. If there ARE problems (which you admit there are minor ones), people NEED to bring them up or they will not change. the very fact that they ARE minor problems means that feminists need to keep harping on them because there are people like you who believe that these minor problems either don't need to be changed or will rectify themselves.

[/QUOTE]

Yes, and slavery I would consider a VERY major problem, while the minor problems of contemporary women deserve a different approach.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
Problems do NOT rectify themselves - in the history of the world, I am hard-pressed to find an example of a problem that simply went away without people taking some sort of action.

[/QUOTE]

Yes, I am not suggesting nothing, but rather I am referring to indirect reconciliation. I really think that the activist approach of feminism in today's culture is divisive and excessive. The seeds have been planted. What resolves prejudices? What is the device that can sear through ignorance? It is twofold, comprised of knowledge and compassion. Rather than focus on feminist issues, which is a backwards approach, our time is far better spent educating people and spreading messages of compassion (compassion is inherently submissive, and similar to MLK's values). By yelling about feminist problems, which the average ignorant, lazy, selfish person doesn't give a crap about any more than the ramblings of a PETA or ELF fanatic, nothing will be solved. This is not an extreme issue and therefore does not need an extreme solution. REAL change is not through laws and court cases, it is through societal values. The legal issues are only reflections. Once society is ready to voluntarilly ready to give women their proper place, it will, and the liberal trend of this country is not going away, and will definitely bring feminist ideas with it. The reality of the situation is that women don't have it very bad at all in modern times, and that is what isolates the feminists. It really has become little more than pitiful bickering. Generally, you will find two motivations for feminists (or most fringe activism). Either they have some inadequacy that leads them to scapegoating men, or they simply lust for power and attempt to bring themselves up by bringing an entire class down based on an arbitrary value. Total hypocrisy, akin to religious fanaticism, while not as extreme, but still the same mindset. Now I know I'll hear some sob story of a raped woman, but individual crimes cannot justify blaming an entire group. Now for the harsh part. If that rape victim becomes a feminist, she STILL fits, because the rape created an inadequacy. </p>

<p>Yes, feminists are mean :D.</p>

100

<p>=] I think feminists are nice nice nice nice nice nice. :P [sticks tongue out] xD Muwhahaha</p>