'Take action for women's rights!'?

I doubt the creator of this forum is being intentionally sexist, but he/she might like to know that, as part of my university studies, I studied Gender and Sexuality, and so know there are different types of feminism - including LIBERAL FEMINISM, which is about equality, not solely women's rights. So to say feminism is about women's rights is like saying Wicca is about witchcraft.

 

Oh, so you've been through a year or two of university! You must know what you're talking about!

Those Gender Studies classes are a waste of time. Just political bullshit.

 

I think so too. What can anyone possibly get out of gender studies? I can tell you the difference between the two genders with a few simple cuss words.

 

Stop being a fanny and leave the poor guy alone

 

Well...

 

womens rights LOL

 

Glad we're in agreement.

 

Don't worry, I doubt Skip gives a shit about what you study at university. To be on the safe side, maybe you should send him a list of the classes you are taking and your results for each class? Ya self righteous know it all.

Not soley about women's rights? so you even concede that 'liberal feminism' has a lot to do with women's rights?

Given that's true, Is it such an unfair statement "Take action for Women's Rights!"? Because surely, even a 'liberal feminist' would be struggling for women's rights in order to create a situation of equal consideration?

It's nice that you are doing gender studies and it might give you some information for you to add to the discussion, but this thread just sounds like you're saying "listen to me I study this at university!" without adding anything meaningful.

What would have been more interesting is if you started a thread about the different types of feminism rather then just criticizing for the sake of criticizing. To be honest, none of us really give a shit about what you study unless you use it to add something interesting, we don't care about what you study in and of itself.

 

Gender studies classes are actually pretty good since what we define as gender, and it's roles in how society is formed, how we all act, how we use it, ect go deeper than most people think they know.

 

Firstly, I graduated.

Secondly, stop being so immature.

Thirdly, you both remind me of people who moan that Performing Arts or Media Studies aren't "proper" courses... and then get shot down to the ground when they see exactly what it involves.

In the Gender And Sexuality module I took (not a few classes, I wouldn't have been able to graduate without completing it) we discussed, IN DETAIL: feminism (so yes I do know what I'm talking about when it comes to feminism and if you bother to look it up instead of making immature comments you'll find that there are different types and not all are only about women's rights), gender stereotypes, differences between sex and gender, nudity in art, sexual orientation, and a heck of a lot more than "the difference between two SEXES".

Look up phrases before using them. Such as 'self righteus know it all' - as the way I posted my information does not fit either the definition of 'sef righteous' or 'know it all'. Randomly cussing someone because their information disagrees with your own personal view, however, is a different matter.

And I concede that liberal feminism has something to do with women's rights, just as it has something to do with men's rights - liberal feminism is, in an extremely condensed nutshell, about equality - for MALES AND FEMALES.

If someone was struggling JUST for women's rights and ignoring men's, then obviously that would not result in equality.

The only reason I mentioned my university studies is so that, right at the start rather than ten pages later, people would know that I'm not just pulling information out of my backside or passing personal opinion off as fact; in essence, so people would know that I have a clue about what I'm talking about, especially as the majority of the world (or the majority of the Western World) seems to think of radical feminists when they think of feminists, judging by the way they talk about them.

It's pretty obvious to anyone who doesn't have a bee in their bonnet or a chip on their shoulder that I was not criticising for the sake of criticising but was simply providing a little bit of useful information about feminism.

As for whether it is "interesting" or not, it may irk you to know this but your particular views and tastes are not shared by every single person in the world, no matter how much you want everyone to agree with you on everything.

Thank you. I don't know if it's the same as mine was Gender and Sexuality (but that may just be what U.K. universities choose to call it) but does what I described sound like the same thing as a Gender Studies class?

 

"self-right·eous adj.1. Piously sure of one's own righteousness; moralistic." - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/self-righteous


Ok, not the best source but I don't care, I know what it means, as for "know it all" that one is too self explanatory to even bother with.

I'm calling you self righteous because your criticism seems pointless and unnecessary. There are over 500+ fora on this site, the intro skip gives is just a basic idea of the content. The fora are much more defined by the rules stickied at the top of each forum.

Well that depends, It sort of like when African Americans were slaves and second class citizens. To achieve equality, it wasn't a matter of appealing for whites' rights as well, they had to focus on their rights for things to become equal.

And unless you're arguing that women for the most part already have equal rights or more rights then men, I maintain my point that the brief introduction is apt. Again to use the same analogy, African Americans, when they wanted to sit at the front of the bus, didn't ask all the white people to sit at the back. One can have a bias and still be fighting for equality if the side they have the bias towards is truely unequal.

So of course a liberal feminist wouldn't fight for rights that would be unequal, but it doesn't mean they can't be fighting for womens' rights and equality at the same time. So i still think the criticism is pointless.

If you're planning on this going for ten pages, then you definitely could have introduced the topic better. I'm not saying it's bad to know what you're talking about, it's good. But to use it to simply criticize seems arrogant... how about a suggestion then? you could have even pm'd skip if you really cared.

I totally agree, and that often comes through in some of the men's attitudes. That would have been a really good topic, equal consideration I think is the view of a few of the women here already, but a really good topic to get into.

Yeah, i have a chip on my shoulder, those darn feminists! with their mohawks and beer bellies always demanding rights and shit .

You're reading too much into my response.

Yeah, people are assholes, fuck 'em. Having said that, just because I gave you my opinion, is by no means a suggestion that, I am representing what everyone else might think.

 

Grats.

 

So you freely admit that you're calling me self righteous not because it's true but because of what you THINK about what I said.

In any case, from the Oxford Dictionary:
'adjective having or characterized by a certainty, especially an unfounded one , that one is totally correct or morally superior'

Nowhere did I say or suggest that I was morally superior. If making a little comment with some useful info is acting like I'm morally superior, then nearly everyone acts like that and nearly everyone is self righteous.

Look up Martin Luther King, Junior. He campaigned for EQUALITY, not simply rights for black people. If you argue for rights for yourselves only, you are likely to get a lot less help, in my opinion, than you could if you argued for equality. Case in point: lots of WHITE people supported Martin Luther King, Jr. - if he had only argued for rights for black people, he may have met the same resistance that people before him met. He did do things for black people where things needed to be done, but his infamous speech spoke about freedom and equality for all, not just blacks.

And just look at how, due (in part) to radical feminists only arguing for women's rights, people cuss feminists and feminism and argue about men's rights. If all feminists argued for equality instead, it would probably be a different story.

In many areas, no, women don't have equal or more rights than men (in some they do, such as female sports reporters being legally allowed to enter male locker rooms without the same being true vice versa, and there are other examples).

But the brief introduction actually does something of a disservice to feminists - it helps to perpetuate the seemingly widely-held myth that feminism is all about rights for women and fuck the men's rights - and as a result, how many men do you see at feminist events? Hardly any, even though most men, in my experience, actually meet the definition of a liberal feminist!

As for the bus thing, you hit the nail on the head: they didn't ask all the white people to sit at the back. They weren't asking for special treatment like radical feminists seem to; they were simply asking for (and then demanding, by way of a bus boycott unwittingly sparked by Rosa Parks) equality - to be treated the same as white people. They didn't want to be able to sit at the front of the bus and disallow white people from doing the same, they simply wanted equality.

It wasn't a criticism. It was a sharing of information.

Wasn't planning on anything except to politely mention something about feminism, simply because of the amount of people who seem to be thinking of radical feminism when they talk about feminism. And as I said, it wasn't a criticism.

I quote:

,

Given that and the rest of your response, taken as a whole, I don't think I read too much into your response at all. You could have written a more mature response like the one I'm replying to now, but instead you felt the need to insult me and mock me and act like you're "it". So I think my conclusion about you having a chip on your shoulder was spot on.

From you:

[emphasis added]

Enough said.

 

It's not. Witchcraft is part of Wicca (any new Wiccan who's about to say you don't need to practice witchcraft to be a Wiccan, please have a look on internets first ) but that's only part of the religion of Wicca.

 

Might be separating the parts from the whole a bit too much...

 

Of course it is based on what I think is true. But to suggest what I think must be mutually exclusive with the truth is stupid and petty. I'm not suggesting you were being explicit in your self righteousness, rather I think it was implicit, but my point still remains.

Again, it was implicit, I know you didn't actually use the words "I'm morally superior". And almost everyone, at one point or another is self righteous, that point doesn't have any impact on my argument. Almost everyone has lied, but a lie is still a lie.

Exactly, he was able to fight for black rights and equality because black people weren't given equal consideration. That doesn't mean that in principle he didn't support equality.

My point about feminists still remains, where women aren't given equal consideration, a feminist can fight for their rights and equality at the same time and fighting for women's rights doesn't mean that one is not interested in equality.

Not that I disagree, but we are not really arguing about that, are we?

Again, exactly, there are many areas women can stick up for the rights of women in the name of equality, my point still stands.

As I said before, If you genuinely want a discussion about this, you chose an awful way to introduce the topic, I agree it is an important subject, as I said before.

In having said that, I think the criticism of the brief introduction isn't really where your issue lies, rather then focus on the brief introduction, you could just talk about liberal feminism and equal consideration, but you decided Skip's intro was a far more important part of the issue, why?

That because we agree about the topic you moron. I'm only giving you crap because of the way you introduced said topic, I don't fundamentally disagree with any of your opinions about this subject so far.

It was a self righteous know it all way of sharing it. As I said, the way you have introduced this topic is awful considering you really want to talk about it. Unless you really think Skip's intro is the most important part of this topic, which i'm sure you don't. Again, thanks for the information, where's your suggestion?

You don't have to use the word "fuck" to be rude. Again, if you really wanted to talk about liberal feminism, you could have introduced the topic way better, but instead you chose to criticize some one who, as you admit, intentions were good, of a brief wording.

Why couldn't you bring the topic up as a stand alone issue? why did you have to relate it in the negative?

Ok, but if we fundamentally share the same point of view, and this disagreement is about how you introduced the topic. One could argue that you must also hate feminists because we essentially share the same view.

Of course, I don't think you have a chip on your shoulder, far be it from me to be quite so petty as to assume something not even implicit, but it seems that is not below you?

Anyway, keep thinking of me as a feminist hater, I really don't care because it's just too stupid. One would have to from an argument like this.

1. all people who think I am self righteous hate feminists.
2. Xac thinks I am self righteous

C. Xac hates feminists.

Pretty bullshit huh?

Again unless you are saying you hate feminists, because essentially we agree on the topic so far.

Oh sorry, none of us that responded .

How is the thread working out for ya buddy?

 

Can someone point out a few rights women don't have in 2010?

And don't cite Middle Eastern women or Chinese women or Masai women or any other nonsense.

Most of the people on this board live in "westernized" countries like the US, Canada, European Bloc, etc.

 

I could ask the same question, really.

 

Look no one has an answer.

 

42.