Your interpretation of feminism clearly differs from mine, as for the origin of the term "sexism" I will have to consult various dictionaries. When we have women convinced that motherhood is misery, a form of slavery and torture, then I'd argue they are misguided, again, your interpretation of feminism (and the result of it, I suppose) differs from mine. There is more, this was but one example. You have to take the whole picture into account, feminism is creating a war between men and women, and between the women themselves. Women care about how men wants them to be, just like men care about how women wants them to be. --EDIT-- You know… I don't think women should be in the army either, why would you put a creation, that brings life into this existence, in a position in which she is to take a life? I cannot think of anything worse than that apart from rape, which is another violation. For you this may be a question of "equality", that is to say, whether women should be allowed into the army or not, for me however, it goes much deeper than that. It has a deeper meaning. As a man I have no interest in seeing the female form being abused and brutalized. "Equality" aside, why would I? Why would any man want to see that? It would make no sense. I'm sure that this is what most feminists would view as..."sexist". Well, it's safe to say I would strongly disagree. Most of the women I know don't view themselves as victims, let alone viewing themselves as being in opposition of men.
My social environment is old-fashioned. If a woman doesn't want to have kids they will say she's irresponsible, immature or worse yet, accuse her that she wants to live like a ****. They would tell her "What will society think of you"? If a man doesn't want to have kids they would say "Haha well he's young, let him enjoy himself, he'll come around later". I haven't heard a woman relate motherhood to slavery since I was a teenager in high-school. That is an extreme view, but I can understand where it's coming from. A girl sees both of her parents come home from work and her father goes for a shower and a nap while her mother cooks for everyone. After dinner he goes out for a few drinks while her mother cleans the house. When she's done she still can't go anywhere because she has to take care of the kids. It's a really old-fashioned, patriarchal household that I'm describing, but a lot of families were like that in my environment. I can't blame a girl for having a skewed view on motherhood if she saw the freedom of her father in stark contrast to the responsibilities of her mother. Still, the girls I knew that held such views grew up and realised that it's up to them and their partner to define how their relationship and plans for parenting will be, rather than following a backwards tradition. If it's an adult woman that grew up in a modern household with shared responsibilities and she still relates motherhood to slavery, then maybe it's better if she doesn't have kids and leave her at that. Either way, feminism is a much bigger idea than that. Like you said, women carry human life into the world, but both men and women are the creators of this life. Women are burdened with the most difficult role in this aspect of life, though I don't agree with the idea that women create and men destroy. These are my own views and aren't necessarily relevant to feminism. A woman should determine her own role in life. For some it might be to raise children. Some might want to join the army. Others may yet choose to do both. The army is a difficult topic because most of us are disillusioned as to it's role in defending the interests of the few and powerful corporations and politicians. Instead I'll refer to a time when people went to war to defend their country, such as my grandmother's time. Ultimately, it didn't matter if they were men or women, or if they were mothers even. When the invaders came, everyone that could hold a weapon had to fight. If they couldn't fight with a weapon then they would fight by helping those that could. Nobody had a choice. I've served in the army too. The women I saw there could handle themselves just as well as any man. They were tough, and as a man I will admit that I found them very attractive. Personally I wouldn't consider your view of not wanting women in the army to be sexist. I would consider it a sensitivity. As men it is also in our nature to want to protect, but to forbid women from serving would be unfair to them. It's an ironic view because, in other countries where men are obligated to serve, women have struggled to avoid the conscription. In the end it came down to giving birth.
You're essentially defining a woman as nothing more than a potential incubator for babies, and saying that she should be limited in what she can do in her life because of that definition. I literally could not disagree more strongly. A woman, like a man, is an individual who should be free to define herself however she wants. Any time you take away an option from someone, even if it's one they would probably never choose for themselves, you define them as inferior. Why should the fact that a woman can have a child if she chooses reduce her willingness or ability to serve her country, including in combat if she so chooses. A man can also make a baby, even if he doesn't carry it, so shouldn't he also be prevented from killing someone else's child? Would you tell a man he shouldn't be allowed to be a homemaker because he can't bear children? I have two very good female friends who served in the military. One spent 20+ years in the Navy and the other spent 8 years in the Army and deployed to Kosovo and Iraq during the wars there. The former has three children and the latter decided she didn't want kids long before she joined the service. Both of them served capably and honorably, and I have no doubt that if they had been called upon to kill someone in the service of their country they would have done so just as capably as their male counterparts and with no more damage from the experience. Would you tell them that they shouldn't have been allowed to make the career choices they did because they might be damaged by them? I certainly would not.
Some people just use it as an ice breaker, we all know we can find reasons to moan about the other sex either male or female so it's a easy thing to instantly bond over. I'd take it with a pinch of salt, also it depends on age as well, some people are just a product of a different generation, it's not necessarily their fault. Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
Lol, some nerd has added me to a list what ever will I do people really have an over inflated sense of self importance on this forum. Like all them "i'm leaving threads" just go no one cares no need to announce it. I guess just because you share an interest (pc tech) does not mean that they are your sort of people, I don't know what percentage this is on the forum but I have a right to express an opinion if you don't like it tough cookie..add me to a list, leave if you want. This is not 'your' forum for people like 'you'...it's a forum for anyone. For every 1 that leaves 50 will join up.
Hmmm, does this count as casual sexism? Here are a couple of quotes from Former Arkansas Governor and Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee...
Get a grip and get something real to worried or offended about. Now pop out the kitchen love and make us all a nice cuppa.
But that WAS funny, because the joke was on Alf Garnett. Read about what Warren Mitchell says about it.
Well, I think the thread's served its purpose (you can tell, because nobody's on the original discussion anymore) and it's going to descend quickly into sexist mud-flinging and the good old feminism/anti-feminism fight, so I guess that's that. A couple of quick points: +1, this is probably accurate, and goes some way to dispelling my concerns. Actually, there's a very good reason to announce it: it lets you know what we think of your idiotic, juvenile attitude. Without that feedback, you might be left to imagine that people don't mind it when you're an obnoxious turd. I'm muting you too, I think you're awful - and it's important that you know it. Lastly, You're a complete idiot and you don't know what you're talking about. I think that's all the housekeeping taken care of.
Sometimes its just banter and I think people can be a bit too sensitive over it. I think whats more important rather than the words spoken is the intent behind it. Im sure women complain about men being useless or lazy or simple minded creatures "You know what their like when the footballs on" or whatever it is they say. Generally however some stereotypes are true or come from some level of truth and I dont mean to be sexist but there are probably some things a woman will always be better than a man at and vice versa. I believe in equality and equal opportunity however and both genders should be given the same opportunity on a level playing field - take becoming a firefighter for example - they have lowered the standard for women to join I believe (I could be wrong) but to promote an equal distribution. The facts of the matter is the average man tends to be stronger than the average woman and I dont think standards should be dropped for positive discrimination. I do feel in some instances the pendulum has swung too far in favour of women in some instances - Divorce being one of them where a man can be left high and dry and forced to provide maintenance in some seriously screwed up circumstances ( I know of some personally) or even custody over children where again sexism is rife in favour of women. Having said that I think women can be just as capable as men if not more - its dependant on the circumstances themselves really.
No such thing equality, none of us are equal, correct. I'll let you figure out why this is. Feminists and the rainbow coalition are indeed amongst the most obnoxious bigots in society today. This is very much so, you can also add aggressive to the list. Feminists aren't looking for "equal" treatment, they are looking for special treatment, as brought to our attention by Solidus. There are more examples but that one will do for now. And yes, I do like women to be women, that is to say; feminine, warm, nurturing and caring. The nature of the female form, something they normally would gravitate towards. As a man I find those traits attractive. I both accept and recognize that there are exceptions but if liking women makes me an idiot in your eyes so be it, you are free to have whatever opinion you want of me. I like women. End of. Social engineering is a reality and there are words that have been made up for political reasons rather than out of any linguistic necessity. If you control the language you not only control the way people think but also the narrative. No? You sure? "Homophobe" & "heterophobe" & "hate speech" are used to control the narrative. It is meant to create an emotional response rather than a thinking one. Works well on women too, no pun. People should be able to be in disagreement and argue things out without resorting to calling someone a "homophobe" or "heterophobe" or try to shut the person up by calling it "hate speech". Let's look at the word "homophobe" shall we. Most people know what a phobia is, it is actually a state of "disease" or irrational fear, if you will. It suggests that someone is in a state of "disease" is irrational, something is wrong with that person, that's the underlying meaning.. You should see where this is going...calling someone a "homophobe" suggests that a person not agreeing with the homosexual lifestyle or same sex "marriage" et cetera et cetera, that there would be something wrong with that person. Holding such a view therefore becomes irrational, that's the whole point of the term "homophobe". There you have it.. and no, I did not read this on some obscure internet site. Lastly, that dreaded day of the month oh well, women often do get a bit temperamental. I did add a big grin after the statement though, should perhaps have added one more emoticon but hey, it is what is. You need to do a better job PS: Perhaps you should change your tone before someone writes you a ticket for disorderly conduct by language.
When you say you like women to be warm caring etc. It sounds like you're saying all women should conform to that description. As opposed to saying you like women who are warm caring etc. Which is just expressing a preference for certain traits. A small but important difference.
Let's look at a "thinking" definition instead of an "emotional" definition, shall we? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism Whatever strawman (-woman?) you think of as "feminists", simply does not exist in the real world. You probably watched one video of some radfem idiot (yes, every side has idiots) and decided that this must be what feminism is. It is not. So you get to dictate what women should be like? Saying that you just like women is misleading, because what you're really saying is that you like woman that exactly fit the mould you just described. Which is perfectly all right by itself (as your personal taste, I mean), but completely irrelevant in this discussion. I love your tinfoil hat. Where can I get one like that? Joking aside, do you have any source to back up these claims of shady individuals controlling our emotions and thoughts by manipulating the language? And why are these terms incompatible with rational argumentation? Not agreeing with a concept like the "homosexual lifestyle", as you call it, or same sex marriage is homophobic, since there is no rational argument whatsoever to "not agree" with those things. Therefore the source of these objections is emotional, and an easy way to classify these emotional responses is as fear. Additionally, let's look at a formal, "thinking" definition instead of your "emotional" one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia Q.E.D.
That's the way it's been for a long, long time; it's no so much a matter of a pendulum swinging as that it never moved in the first place. What you see in divorce proceedings is rooted in sexist notions that women are better parents and should have the kids, while men make for better providers and should pay the bills. You're right that this isn't fair, and it's feminists that are fighting to knock down these old notions. Nowadays there are plenty of women who are the breadwinner in the household, and plenty of men who step up to the plate and look after the kids. Yet old stereotypes abound (even in this thread).
For instance, I can't really be bothered with work and my GF is doing quite well at it. So, I'm secretly hoping.
You could argue that objections could be unfair, bigoted, bias, anti-gay, pre-judging non-normative sexual behaviours and life style practices, whatever it might be, take your pick. Let's look at the word homo. Homo means same. Thus. Homophobia actually means irrational fear of / for the same. To take the definitions you highlighted from Wikipedia and sell it as a phobia is neither accurate nor intellectually honest. "Homophobia" doesn't really work to begin with. This is because the majority of women still stay at home with their children and the majority of men still work being the bread winners. Hence, stereotypes. Unless the progressive left manages to change the nature of the sexes or completely disconnect the mother from her child I don't see this change anytime soon, if ever. It is unfortunate that motherhood are frown upon and seen by many as something backwards, inconvenient almost ugly even. --EDIT-- I've been working almost 48 hours straight and haven't been able to post back, gonna get some sleep now cause I'm dead tired, laters.
Yeah, the thing with homophobia is that some people wrongly use the word to describe any kind of discrimination towards LGBT people, and anti-LGBT will often claim they are not homophobic because they're not afraid of gays. Actually, homophobia refers to the fear of being perceived as gay by other people, which I have seen even LGBT supporters succumb to. In that sense, the word phobia does indeed apply. On the other hand, language is a dynamic thing and maybe the definition of homophobic is also evolving to encompass other phenomena than originally intended, just like gay used to mean happy, and the word "retarded" was just a scientific term. Now it's considered offensive.
