You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.
Also, with the inclusion of the prison system of the United States, slightly more men are raped than women in the entire country every year on average.
And there are really people offended by this?? What about characters like Sherlock? As long as there are counterparts in the media, at least in the sophisticated media, it's not biased. If someone really wants to believe these stereotypes (s)he will have a problem addressing reality.
A lot of feminists just want selective equality, they don't truly want women to be equal to men in every area, instead of recognizing gender discrimination dually effects both men, women and everything in between, they just want female victimhood monopoly on sexism. Feminism is not even representative of all women(see #SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen ), how the heck are they going to be genuinely concerned about men's issues(because men have male privilege eh).
How are "Men's Issues" relevant to a discussion regarding a feminism test?
I'd prefer adhering to the topic of feminism rather than diverting the thread to men's issues.
Don't worry, I seem to be running unusually low on rancor today. I am, however, full of meandering thoughts, so prepare for the possibility that your efficient, logical INTJ brain will do somersaults in your skull and then explode from frustration. You opened up a can of worms in my brain, buddy.
summary: I was using hyperbole badly. Now when I reread what I wrote, it almost sounds like a straw man (er...straw person) statement, but it wasn't intended that way. I was attacking things that are really obvious and easy to attack, not misrepresenting something so I can tear it down.
more detailed explanation (more than what you asked for):
I know feminism is a really sensitive subject and I should probably leave out the hyperbole and just say what I mean plainly and directly when I talk about it in the future. My use of (admittedly heavy-handed) hyperbole was actually meant to mock the assumptions and non-ironic exaggeration I sometimes see directed towards people who reject the feminist label (even if they claim to be pro gender equality), as though denying that label is usually an indirect admission of being a misogynist. (I haven't seen that attitude on this forum (so it was probably just inappropriate and confusing to refer to it indirectly), but I've seen it elsewhere. I've actually heard people say that most who eschew the term "feminist" for "equalist" or something similar are usually threatened by the idea of gender equality but hiding it under euphemisms. However, such extreme reactions are thankfully somewhat rare.)
To be honest, there was also some vitriol aimed at the "real misogynists out there" in what I said too, and the "bigot...'50s gender roles" comment was kind of like calling sexists Neanderthals. A more straightforward version of what I said would be something like: "...unlike a small but infuriating group of individuals I've seen, I know better than to assume most people who say they aren't feminists are misogynists (grrrrrr), whom I dislike even more strongly."
......................
I consider myself an ally of those who believe in gender equality. If someone calls themselves a feminist, great. If they don't want to call themselves feminists but they want equality of the sexes, fine. I go with the dictionary definition of feminism and do call myself a feminist; others see connotations and history as being just as important as technical definitions and may choose to reject the feminist label for their own reasons.
If someone has some views that I see as sexist but they also genuinely want to learn, I'll recommend some resources so they can learn. If someone is a sexist and doesn't want to learn, I want nothing to do with them.
Sorry for this drawn-out post. I would have made it shorter if I could.
How are "Men's Issues" relevant to a discussion regarding a feminism test?
I'd prefer adhering to the topic of feminism rather than diverting the thread to men's issues.
I was just agreeing with you're comment on feminism being inherently divisive, they seem to give men's issues some lip service but it is ultimately backhanded condensation. I brought up men's issues because it is indispensable when talking about gender equality and being egalitarian, do you consider yourself egalitarian?
Don't worry, I seem to be running unusually low on rancor today. I am, however, full of meandering thoughts, so prepare for the possibility that your efficient, logical INTJ brain will do somersaults in your skull and then explode from frustration. You opened up a can of worms in my brain, buddy.
summary: I was using hyperbole badly. Now when I reread what I wrote, it almost sounds like a straw man (er...straw person) statement, but it wasn't intended that way. I was attacking things that are really obvious and easy to attack, not misrepresenting something so I can tear it down.
more detailed explanation (more than what you asked for):
I know feminism is a really sensitive subject and I should probably leave out the hyperbole and just say what I mean plainly and directly when I talk about it in the future. My use of (admittedly heavy-handed) hyperbole was actually meant to mock the assumptions and non-ironic exaggeration I sometimes see directed towards people who reject the feminist label (even if they claim to be pro gender equality), as though denying that label is usually an indirect admission of being a misogynist. (I haven't seen that attitude on this forum (so it was probably just inappropriate and confusing to refer to it indirectly), but I've seen it elsewhere. I've actually heard people say that most who eschew the term "feminist" for "equalist" or something similar are usually threatened by the idea of gender equality but hiding it under euphemisms. However, such extreme reactions are thankfully somewhat rare.)
To be honest, there was also some vitriol aimed at the "real misogynists out there" in what I said too, and the "bigot...'50s gender roles" comment was kind of like calling sexists Neanderthals. A more straightforward version of what I said would be something like: "...unlike a small but infuriating group of individuals I've seen, I know better than to assume most people who say they aren't feminists are misogynists (grrrrrr), whom I dislike even more strongly."
......................
I consider myself an ally of those who believe in gender equality. If someone calls themselves a feminist, great. If they don't want to call themselves feminists but they want equality of the sexes, fine. I go with the dictionary definition of feminism and do call myself a feminist; others see connotations and history as being just as important as technical definitions and may choose to reject the feminist label for their own reasons.
If someone has some views that I see as sexist but they also genuinely want to learn, I'll recommend some resources so they can learn. If someone is a sexist and doesn't want to learn, I want nothing to do with them.
Sorry for this drawn-out post. I would have made it shorter if I could.
[MENTION=20761]underwaterthing[/MENTION] -- I don't believe in equality of the sexes. I think they are complementary; and things go better when they are complimentary as well. :hi:
And there are really people offended by this?? What about characters like Sherlock? As long as there are counterparts in the media, at least in the sophisticated media, it's not biased. If someone really wants to believe these stereotypes (s)he will have a problem addressing reality.
Anyways, not to hurt anybody's feelings, but there are femininists (not all, obviously) who are very totalitarian and not open for discussion. I think there should be a conceptual delimitation between the above and "moderate feminists".
You miss the point...it's about portrayals which affect where the bar is set for a gender...and Sherlock is not setting the bar. Culture is not reflecting Sherlock & vice versa.
On the contrary, many would & do. Beyond rights, feminists may also be concerned with the general degradation of men & masculinity. A lot of feminists are concerned with how modern culture is "setting the bar low" for boys. For example, many male characters in the media portray men as thick-skulled horn dogs with no motivation beyond beer & sandwiches in life. This kind of image is one feminists would find degrading to men & would seek to combat. It's really a problem for everyone if boys & men are (wrongly) pegged as more animalistic than women & women as morally/spiritually superior to men.
----
I got 71%, basic feminist*. Like many, I don't identify as a feminist because of the stigma & bizarre associations people make with it. I frankly don't like to identify with most labels for that reason, although I concede to call myself Christian (which also gives me a ton of stereotypes & inaccuracies to contend with). These labels are so broad that their umbrella encompasses belief systems which are contradictory & even opposed. I prefer to simply make known what I believe if necessary rather than have a one word label give the wrong impression of me because the person I am speaking to has a massively different idea of what that label means than the idea I have. I don't want to be characterized off a label that open to misinterpretation.
*As a side, I found most of those questions needed an "other" option for me to answer them honestly & accurately. Very few answers were representative of how I actually see things or feel/think.
“In reaction against the age-old slogan, "woman is the weaker vessel," or the still more offensive, "woman is a divine creature," we have, I think, allowed ourselves to drift into asserting that "a woman is as good as a man," without always pausing to think what exactly we mean by that. What, I feel, we ought to mean is something so obvious that it is apt to escape attention altogether, viz: (...) that a woman is just as much an ordinary human being as a man, with the same individual preferences, and with just as much right to the tastes and preferences of an individual. What is repugnant to every human being is to be reckoned always as a member of a class and not as an individual person.â€
― Dorothy L. Sayers, Are Women Human? (originally written in 1938, btw)
Nonetheless, I shall award you a polite golf clap:
The test relied on misinterpretations / falsifications / stereotypes of traditionalist views, akin to Stephen Colbert's "If you're so innocent, how come you won't admit you're not?" line of questioning.
Many times I wished there were a "none of the above" option among the answers.
The test relied on misinterpretations / falsifications / stereotypes of traditionalist views, akin to Stephen Colbert's "If you're so innocent, how come you won't admit you're not?" line of questioning.
Many times I wished there were a "none of the above" option among the answers.
I am aware of that, and chose such a test on purpose to see if anyone would still come out as a feminist despite the questions being far from objective.
That most of the forum has is deeply concerning...
I think feminist theory should start using gender-free language and tools to identify the real cause behind gender inequality, and then try to see how much of each problematic trait identified is present in society overall as well as in each sex specifically, so that the movement can become aware of potential shortcomings of its proponents and become more self-critical and empathic as a result and also avoid making broad generalizations about each gender.
I am aware of that, and chose such a test on purpose to see if anyone would still come out as a feminist despite the questions being far from objective.
That most of the forum has is deeply concerning...
You miss the point...it's about portrayals which affect where the bar is set for a gender...and Sherlock is not setting the bar. Culture is not reflecting Sherlock & vice versa.
Ok, the media forms opinions, obviously, but that doesn't mean that we should prohibit such portrayals. Humans are herd animals, there will always be conventions and social boundings. They can change, but not be erased, except it's done by force, which would be kind of totalitarian.
I am aware of that, and chose such a test on purpose to see if anyone would still come out as a feminist despite the questions being far from objective.
That most of the forum has is deeply concerning...
The Basic Feminist
You are 72% on your way to being a Feminist!
The Basic Feminist
You're a Feminist! Congratulations!
You have a good idea of what sexism is, how to avoid it, and how to stand up for women and/or yourself. You might have read some basic Feminist literature or thought in passing, and thought that it was pretty good. Sometimes you baulk a little at overtly identifying yourself as a Feminist due to the negative stigma. Don't be ashamed of being right! Just keep on doing what you're doing and exploring more ways to treat everyone with respect because of their humanity, not their parts, and you're helping to fix the problem!
Yeah, I' m a feminist, I' m not ashamed of it, and if needed, I' m gonna shout about it to everyone! Down with sexsism! I am against abortion, though, because there are ways to prevent that baby from existing in the first place, but if one couldn' t see the consequances of their action, they should take the responsibility about it. You were the one who let the baby exist, you didn' t try to if not eradicate then at least reduce the possibility of it appearing, now it' s too late, and even though it' s on the early stages of development, it is already a life form. You didn' t think about this, but you should think about all the possibilities before acting. Now have the guts to accept the consequances of your actions, and face what it means not to think about tomorrow.
It's not really about the media forming opinions but rather its reinforcing of certain far-reaching cultural ideals - opinions which are already there and ideologies which are already active. Some of those ideals are more two-dimensional than three-dimensional beings can healthfully withstand. Cultural misogyny in the western world goes back at least to classical Greece.
When one version of a story is repeatedly told to the minimization of others, it's that one version that stays alive in greater consciousness. We are a story-valuing species. But stories (metaphorically) and the media are only one aspect of this, in a cycle so seamless that they're effects as much as causes.
A culture with neurotic devaluation of femininity necessarily hurts men - and yes, the converse would be true in a culture that devalues masculinity. The thing is that realistically speaking, there are more cultures who are neurotically anti-feminine and pro-masculine than the converse. That's why feminism is a de facto humanism. It is one of the least monolithic movements that I know of, but as far as I'm aware, its second wave established gender non-essentialism as a global tenet. A lot of gender theory is devoted to analyzing the construction & evolution of gender on both sides.
I am not a feminist for many reasons but as a humanist, I can find some agreeable broad themes to every wave: first wave pragmatism, second wave sociological analytics, third wave post-colonialism. If American filters threaten to conflate rights with privileges, we can turn to less subtle cases such as those found in regions like China, India, Iran, Sudan, Russia.