Facebook Activity



Teen Ink on Twitter

Home > Forums > Teen Ink Forums > News & Issues > LET'S TALK FEMINISM

Teen Ink Forums

Lively discussions with other teens
   
Next thread » « Previous thread

LET'S TALK FEMINISM

Nov. 13, 2014 at 4:16 pm

If Ceaser is still on here, I would like to ask him a question.
 
How can you support gender equality if you don't support feminism.
 
The Answer: You can't
 
Feminism isn't a basket where you can pick and choose which topics you support and which topics you don't. You take it as it is. Feminism wishes for the equality of a woman's body to a man's. For example, v*agra. ((I don't know if it filters that word but I'm not testing it.)) In some health insurance policies, it's covered. Need an er*ction? No problem, here you go, buddy. But what about pads? Or t*mpons? Are they covered by any health care plans? Nope. Something essential to almost every single woman that they had no power to control. Yet, still, women are forced to go out and buy packets upon packets of pads just to continue their daily lives.
 
And remember, V*gra, something purely optional to the average man, covered by health insurance while pads? Nope. Open those wallets ladies.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
stuntddude replied...
Nov. 26, 2014 at 3:38 pm

"(the term Feminism it self can be argued Sexist)"
 
No, not really.
 
"The argument has turned into "Are men supierior to women?""
 
No, it really hasn't.
 
"and for those of you that don't believe in God, well than explain that to me!"
 
If you're curious, feel free to ask in the Philosophy & Thought subforum. I won't go into that here, because it's not relevant to the thread, but there are at least 3 people there including myself who would be willing to answer you.
 
"men, in GENERAL, have the physical edge, although there are exceptions, but at the same time, women might very possibly have the mental edge, I mean they definitely have the moral edge"
 
[citation needed] on all of this

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Caesar123 replied...
Nov. 28, 2014 at 2:29 am

Wow, it has been a while. Sorry guys, busy out living life and all.
 
Stuntdude:
 
Though you may not feel like digging up more than month old comments, I want to try and set some of the things that we said straight.
 
1. I never said that claiming you’re overly politically correct would win me an argument, just that it takes time away from actually discussing issues when we have to take time to discuss what we will term the issues we discuss (if you follow).
 
2. If you would care to read, I said “that’s not justification for all war, but it is an explanation for why war happens”. Also note that I said, “it is best to settle conflict diplomatically”. I don’t think that we should “just accept it and let it happen” but that it should be a last resort. However there is no denying that if I am under attack, my allies are under attack, or there is violation of human rights, I will use all options at my disposal to stop it, and if that means war, then that means war.
 
3. When I referenced the French Revolution, I meant the fact that no outside group or groups could topple them, not even great foreign powers like Austria. Ultimately, the revolutionaries were the ones who stopped the Revolution, and the extent of their control over the French populace at the time was mostly attained through the use of the fear of death.
 
4. As for you calling me conceited, I’m sorry you feel that way. Maybe a hug would make it better? And I’m serious, I’d hug you buddy, if I thought that it’d make you feel better. I’m all for free hugs.
 
5. You did in fact say that birthing otherwise aborted babies would heighten the welfare state, and I’m not sure why you don’t think you did. If you (or anyone else who cares) would like to reread the comment you made at 12:01 pm on Sept. 20th, I think you’ll find what I’m talking about.
 
6. As to the issue of a “welfare state” I will admit that I have confused what you were trying to say there. The dictionary definition of welfare state will tell you that it is simply a government taking care of its people, which is indeed one way to look at it. However, when I reference “welfare state” I think of a more oppressive atmosphere in which people consistently subsist on the government’s dime while never achieving or aiming to achieve anything higher. Now, I’m sure you and I both agree that there should be some sort of “safety net” in place for the elderly, disabled, or others with special circumstances. However, I do not want people who are able-bodied and of sound mind to sit at home and collect food stamps and unemployment all day.
 
7. And I’m sorry, but I can’t sit here and let you say that a.bortion and feminism have nothing in common. The feminist movement is all about the empowerment of women, and the freedom from the oppression that has been placed on women for so long by their male counterparts. Do you not agree with that? Thusly, the battle over reproductive rights and the ability to have an a.bortion fall squarely into this category, as it is the evil, white, male Republicans who don’t want a woman to do what she wants with her own body, right? I honestly don’t know where you get the idea that the a.bortion argument and feminism as a broader subject have nothing in common.
 
And apparently someone else tried to engage me. Sorry if you aren’t looking at this thread anymore, TheGreatestTimelord, but like I said, I was busy.
 
Of course I support gender equality. I simply don’t support a.bortion. It’s that simple. And since when can I not pick and choose what I like from something? Having my own unique opinion on topics and not the cookie-cutter, box-store, tow the party line platform is what makes me a human and not a robot. I support the equality of a woman’s body to a man’s, except when there’s another body that isn’t the woman’s inside of her. That’s what many feminists don’t want to talk about, that a baby is a living and developing human being, and not some blob of tissue. Honestly, aside from that issue, I support many things that feminists do.
 
It’s interesting that you bring up this thing with v.iagra vs. t.ampons. I honestly had no idea that insurance companies would cover something like that, because as you said, it’s something optional. Let it be known here, that I fully support doing something about that. What should I do though? How about I write my Representative and Senators, you write yours, and we’ll see if we can do something about it, okay? F.y.i. I'm serious about that. I'll look up the facts and draft a letter. You really should do the same and maybe we really could do something about it.
 
And if I may swing back to stuntdude, for a moment with Ace..’s argument. Many men do feel alienated by the term feminism, because its name implies that it is for women. Many men feel that they can’t label themselves as feminist, because all feminist women are man-haters. If you’d care to watch Emma Watson’s speech to the UN about feminism, she actually does address this very subject. I would agree that with Ace.. that at least on some level, feminism does sound s.exist.
 
I’ll also defend Ace.. on his (or her) argument that men are physically superior to women. Now is this true in all cases? No, but on average men have more muscle mass and are simply built “bulkier” because evolutionarily men were much more of the protectors than women. However, this isn’t a universal constant, as many times throughout nature female organisms have evolved to be much larger than males, and much more of the “protectors” as I said. As to women having a “mental/moral edge” I have no support for that whatsoever either way.
 
Whew, sorry for writing a veritable essay guys. If you don’t want to read it all, that’s fine with me, but it is there if you do.

 

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
stuntddude replied...
Nov. 28, 2014 at 10:14 am

1. Cool, but political correctness is not even on the map for me as far as issues of importance go. Calling "political correctness!" is a cop-out in lieu of a proper response.
 
2. Again, not the statements I'm responding to, as you very well know. Interesting how selective you are in quoting yourself. You also said that war was "written into our DNA" and equated it to traits like eye color and hair color, which implies exactly what I said it does.
 
3. Your revisionist approach to your own commentary on this thread is incredible. You referenced the "stability" of the French revolution. I'm only saying it's absurd to call the French revolution a period of "stability".
 
4. Yes, I would hug you, but don't read too much into it.
 
5. Funny that you don't just quote me directly.
 
6. To summarize: You know the correct definition of "welfare state" now, but will continue to pretend that the right wing talk show version of reality is valid anyway.
 
How you go from "welfare state" to "oppressive atmosphere" is beyond me, and I don't personally know of any country or society on the face of the planet that fits your strange redefinition besides. If anything your last sentence is evidence that knowing the definition of "welfare state" doesn't mean you actually understand what it means.
 
7. Literally nobody is saying that abortion and feminist have nothing to do with each other. I honestly don't know where you get all this crap from.
 
Also, I think you may be reading too much into a simple [citation needed].

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
ansem_unlimited replied...
Dec. 8, 2014 at 12:20 pm

i'd be ignorant to say that there is not a difference between females & males... i mean, there twodifferent types of humans. males do have a greater capacity for muscle building & that's just biology. women naturaly are much more skilled in raising children, but that isn't sexest either. in a sense different people are treated different

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
joecool101 replied...
Dec. 8, 2014 at 1:23 pm

To expand on what ansem_unlimited is trying to say, there cannot be equality per se in all aspects of male/female life. Males are just not as good/ useful in raising children, for instance, as women because physiologically children nurse from their mothers, and at least in their first few years of life, form a physical/ emotional dependency on their mothers. That is not to say that some mothers are less maternal and some fathers more so. But evolutionarily, women had to become more maternalistic than men (generally) because they are the ones nursing the children...
Society should adapt, of course, to the different existing gender roles: women should be given maternity leave, etc...
Of course, women have every right and responsibility to be a part of society and take part in the science, business, legal, corporate, tech, etc... worlds. Women have much to contribute to the development of society and should be given every equal opportunity (to men) in order to be able to partake in the development of the modern world.
But when people say that certain things (such as taking care of the kids) in commercials, movies, pop. culture, etc.. are stereotypes, this is going overboard. Admitting that men and women, in certain aspects, are different and do different things is fine and normal. Maybe men should feel bad that they are never posed as the maternal figure!
Certainly, some women are career-oriented and some men are home-oriented, but in general, women (even if they have careers), are more maternalistic (care for the children and are able to empathize with them), while men are more outworldly and less emotional/ empathetic with the children.
Thus: equality in the form of equal opportunity/ benefits (pay, etc...) should exist. but completely equating the two genders would be silly.
 
 
 
 

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
stuntddude replied...
Dec. 8, 2014 at 6:40 pm

"Society should adapt, of course, to the different existing gender roles"
 
Societies should not "adapt" to only one set of percieved gender roles. Rather, to do that wouldn't be adaptation at all - it would be the opposite. Especially when many of the percieved differences (e.g. men being apathetic/less emotionally responsive) are a result of conditioning and societal expectations, and are not actually inherent.
 
Ultimately, treating people differently because of their gender is just stupid. There's no way to sugarcoat that without turning it into a lie outright. If it's a case where there really is a difference, then treating people differently based on the basis of their personal traits achieves the exact same desired result but without alienating the large portion of people who won't fit neatly into the percieved binary. There simply is no real case to be made in support of gender-based prejudice. None.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
ansem_unlimited replied...
Dec. 9, 2014 at 11:47 am

maybe WE should adapt to society. just as thousands of atoms make up cells, & thousands of cells make of organs, & how several organs make up a human, we to are just parts of a whole. mere cogs in the wheels of society. a living breathing creature we are all responsible in creating, but what right do we have to not give it life? i'm not saying segregation is right, quite the contrary, it's despicable... I'm just saying we act as we feel natural, & females tend to act & behave in certain patterns as do men behave in ther own patterns. & there's nothing wrong with that! act & behave in the way YOU find aproppriate to yourself & in that sense, if such behaviors are followed we will still have a gap in the genders. i belive the more pressing issue is the level of tolerance & social/domestic treatment between people. but joecool101 nailed it with his last comment we are all individuals who require different treatment from & to the mechanism that is society

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
stuntddude replied...
Dec. 10, 2014 at 4:58 pm

I'm getting mixed messages. In the same post, you say "maybe WE should adapt to society" and "act & behave in the way YOU find aproppriate to yourself". What's the point you're hoping to make?

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
ansem_unlimited replied...
Dec. 11, 2014 at 8:44 pm

I'm saying that we in comparison to the world we live in are miniscule. we can only hope to move in the ways that we feel natural, much like the cells of an organism move on their own accord but end up serving an ultimate end. I belive in the philosophy that on our own scale, the individual human being holds immense power, but on a much broader veiw we are simply the gears & cogs in a much more complex mechanism. but i digress, I hardly want to take this disscussion into one of my absurd tangents.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
stuntddude replied...
Dec. 12, 2014 at 8:07 am

No, that makes sense, I get what you mean and I think I agree, even if I still don't understand how it's relevant to the thread.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
ansem_unlimited replied...
Dec. 12, 2014 at 8:33 am

Yeah... I tend to go on random tangents, sorry, it's a nasty habbit isn't it?

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
ansem_unlimited replied...
Dec. 16, 2014 at 11:27 am

so on a more related topic, feminism is a subjective issue to some degree, for example, though it's unexceptible for anyone to hit anyone, it seems to be considered some unforgivable offense to hit a woman even if they swing first, in your opinion is this an issue?

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Katy-KatThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Dec. 23, 2014 at 1:47 am

Hm, I surprised that I haven't weighed in on this. I'm a girl, and I'm definitely not feminist. No, no no no.
 
Sure, equality in the work place. Work is based on skill, not gender, or at least it should be. Same for things like economy and all that great stuff. But in a home? Most often, a family works well and is well supported when both a man and a woman are working to support each other and the family. Furthermore, a healthy balance is realized when the man takes the leadership role. I mean, it's just natural. Animals have even figured it out.
 
Lions, majestic and beautiful creatures, establish a male lion to rule over the lionesses. And I mean... it works, does it? The pride grows close and the lionesses go out and hunt, bring back food, raise their cubs, are protected by the males, etc. It's balanced and it works.
 
I think a lot of broken families could be made whole if a man stepped up, lead responsibly, and the woman let go of her pride and trusted her husband to make the right decisions. Of course not all endings are happy and there's always going to be bumps along the way. But why fight the natural order of things? Why try and push against it? Women can be amazing, great, without being leaders all the time and without being the dominant one all the time. Everyone fits in the world at a certain place, and in essence, equality is false and it can't ever be achieved. Ever
What we can hope to do now is to make the best out of the lives we're given and perform the best in the places that we're meant to be at.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
stuntddude replied...
Dec. 23, 2014 at 4:22 am

"And I mean... it works, does it? The pride grows close and the lionesses go out and hunt, bring back food, raise their cubs, are protected by the males, etc."
 
So you're saying you believe that human mothers should be the primary bread-winners for a family? Seems contrary to your support of equality in the workplace. Or maybe humans should not model our lives after other species with completely different biology and social structure, after all?
 
"I mean, it's just natural."
 
This will never be a valid argument in favor of anything, ever. "Natural" does not equal "good".
 
"I think a lot of broken families could be made whole if a man stepped up, lead responsibly, and the woman let go of her pride and trusted her husband to make the right decisions."
 
Your evidence, please. And no, "lions do it so we should too" does not qualify as any kind of evidence.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Katy-KatThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Dec. 23, 2014 at 8:17 am

My focus on the lion analogy (which I'm not giving up on cx) probably should have been focused more on the pride male. He takes a leadership role, controls who comes in and who goes out, etc. In a similar way, the lionesses do his bidding - not as slaves to him but as a cohesive unit, and besides, they need food, too. The lions give protection to the females and is established as the rock and decision maker. Leaders are needed. If we didn't have them, things would start to fall apart. 
In many ways, humans and animals reach common characteristics when it comes to lifestyle. We're not completely different. 
 
I don't see why natural can't equate to good more often. Why do we by organic, natural foods? They're better for our bodies! :D Why do we prefer to breathe in clean, natural air? Again, better for our bodies! :D Humans have fabricated, yes, many helpful things in life that I appreciate. But there's no ignoring the side effects and downfalls of some of these things, as well as the downfalls of some social aspects of life, too.
 
And finally, evidence. To be honest, I probably don't have any that would meet your standards. x3 Mothers struggling to support families on their own, fathers not being responsible and causing suffering for families, I just feel like we see it all the time. With man and woman working together to raise a family, it works and very beautifully. Of course a leader has to come into play and I don't see why it's so bad for men to just take that role. I don't see why men cant be compassionate towards their kids and still be strong leaders for the household. The two can coexist. 
 
Declaring, "We have two presidents!" And putting Barack Obama next to Mitt Romney would confuse a lot of people, including me. It can confuse children in a family if a similar situation occurs between mom and dad. 

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
stuntddude replied...
Dec. 24, 2014 at 12:21 am

"My focus on the lion analogy (which I'm not giving up on cx) probably should have been focused more on the pride male."
 
This isn't the issue with your analogy at all. The issue is that you have literally no rationale or evidence to support the completely asinine claim that humans would be better off if we mimicked the social structure of lions.
 
"Why do we by organic, natural foods? They're better for our bodies!"
 
No, people seek out organic food because they, like you, falsely equate "natural" with "good", and probably because they are scientifically illiterate enough to be scared by the mention of the word "chemicals" in regards to their food. If they, or you for that matter, understood what they were talking about to a reasonably degree, they (and you) would realize that "organic == good" is just as fallacious as "natural == good", and that dietary health is far more complicated than that.
 
"And finally, evidence. To be honest, I probably don't have any that would meet your standards."
 
Okay, then leave. If you have no real evidence for a claim, then I have no reason to entertain it. Come back when you have a serious case to make.
 
"Declaring, "We have two presidents!" And putting Barack Obama next to Mitt Romney would confuse a lot of people, including me."
 
I hate to break it to you, but children really do have two parents, not just one. What's the point of such a stupidly broken and irrelevant analogy? Literally no child is going to be confused by the idea that their two parents share authority and collaborate together to make decisions for the family.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Tactical_Writer_65 replied...
Dec. 24, 2014 at 5:50 pm

I agree with Katy Kat here, and with her lion analogy. With this child and parents issue you brought up, of course there are two parents, but it's the mother that usually is there, not that the father can't be there to support and nurture. It's just how it is. Lots like a lion pride. In fact, I love that analogy. Both male and female have their roles and places, and occasionally help each other out to. I don't see Stuntddude using any valid facts and evidence in this argument either, so don't get after Katy. She has a great point

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Katy-KatThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Dec. 24, 2014 at 10:25 pm

Thank you Tactical. :) I knew that there had to be some hope in that analogy. cx
But in all honesty, what I meant with the two presidents analogy, (sorry, I didn't think it had to be explained further) is that imagine Obama Parent saying, "You can't eat sweets past 8:00!" And Romney parent saying instead, "I'll let you eat sweets until 9:00."
Who do you listen to? In this way, it can confuse children, in fact, I've been in a situation in which my parents had two separate ideas and I didn't know what to do at all. Yes, the wife can contribute to a decision, but at some point, a final answer has to be made and I think a husband is very much qualified to do so. Evidence? Take a look around in the natural and real world and I think it's enough. 

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Tactical_Writer_65 replied...
Dec. 24, 2014 at 11:41 pm

Yup. I agree. And delisions can be made by both parents, but it can all come down to what's comfortable. Both father and or mother

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread

Launch Teen Ink Chat
Site Feedback