Join the best erotica focused adult social network now
Login

Do You Consider Yourself To Be A Feminist?

last reply
77 replies
3.9k views
0 watchers
0 likes
Guest
Lurker
Women ought not to given special treatment. If someone is demeaning an individual just because of her gender, then that's just sad and primitive.

But, it doesn't licence women to go about championing themselves and throwing themselves under special light.

Women have the freedom to not deal with people who are dumb. But just because dumb people exists, it doesn't mean that women can start a collectivist movement and run agendas.

Do you now see why the term 'feminazis' has come into existence?
avrgblkgrl
In-House Sapiosexual
People are always going to find negative catch phrases to define what they can't relate to or fear.
Associating Nazi with anything is quite offensive. To someone that doesn't really know that much about
Feminism, the name calling effectively gives them a negative association. Connecting the unfamiliar with
the familiar. In that light, it's a very successful term for the not so bright.

Everyone should hold themselves under a special light and demand to be treated with the respect that they deserve. Gender (among other things) doesn't diminish that right.

I'm more of a Womanist than a Feminist, although in some ways
the two theories parallel each other.
? A True Story ?
curvygalore
Bonnet Flaunter
Quote by avrgblkgrl
People are always going to find negative catch phrases to define what they can't relate to or fear.
Associating Nazi with anything is quite offensive. To someone that doesn't really know that much about
Feminism, the name calling effectively gives them a negative association. Connecting the unfamiliar with
the familiar. In that light, it's a very successful term for the not so bright.

Everyone should hold themselves under a special light and demand to be treated with the respect that they deserve. Gender (among other things) doesn't diminish that right.

I'm more of a Womanist than a Feminist, although in some ways
the two theories parallel each other.


Put far more elegantly than anything I could have come up with! smile
Verbal
Gravelly-Voiced Fucker
Quote by Richard8
Women ought not to given special treatment. If someone is demeaning an individual just because of her gender, then that's just sad and primitive.

But, it doesn't licence women to go about championing themselves and throwing themselves under special light.

Women have the freedom to not deal with people who are dumb. But just because dumb people exists, it doesn't mean that women can start a collectivist movement and run agendas.

Do you now see why the term 'feminazis' has come into existence?


I wouldn't call it an "agenda" to ask to be treated equally.

The women I have met with rigid (heh) enough beliefs to be called feminazis were that narrow-minded about everything, political nazis, artistic nazis, food nazis. Nothing to do with feminism. Or being a woman. They were just assholes. I've met more men than women who were narrow-minded enough to deserve the term nazi. Or asshole.
sprite
Her Royal Spriteness
Quote by Richard8
Women ought not to given special treatment. If someone is demeaning an individual just because of her gender, then that's just sad and primitive.

But, it doesn't licence women to go about championing themselves and throwing themselves under special light.

Women have the freedom to not deal with people who are dumb. But just because dumb people exists, it doesn't mean that women can start a collectivist movement and run agendas.

Do you now see why the term 'feminazis' has come into existence?


I'd settle for being treated equally. that IS what feminism is about, after all. and no, that hasn't happened, not here, and especially not in a large majority of the world.

You can’t truly call yourself peaceful unless you are capable of violence. If you’re not capable of violence, you’re not peaceful. You’re harmless.
Dani
Big-haired Bitch/Personality Hire
Quote by Richard8
Women ought not to given special treatment. If someone is demeaning an individual just because of her gender, then that's just sad and primitive.

But, it doesn't licence women to go about championing themselves and throwing themselves under special light.

Women have the freedom to not deal with people who are dumb. But just because dumb people exists, it doesn't mean that women can start a collectivist movement and run agendas.

Do you now see why the term 'feminazis' has come into existence?


Nothing you've just said has anything to do with feminism.

It's as simple as wanting to be seen/treated equal to men.

The term 'feminazis' came into existence to refer to those women who don't just want female equality but female superiority. Big difference.

░P░U░S░S░Y░ ░I░N░ ░B░I░O░
Saintz
Active Ink Slinger
I'm a feminist!
Just to thought of wronging someone over something as trivial as gender, skin color, religion or sexual preferences, horrifies me.
All humans are completely equal!
noll
"insensitive prick!" – Danielle Algo
Yes I do.


Quote by Richard8
Women have the freedom to not deal with people who are dumb.


I think women often do not have the freedom to not deal with dump (stupid/sexist/harrassing) people. Smiling at sexist crap that is thrown at waitresses may be the only way to make a living if their income depends on tips. Ignoring cat calls can turn violent and then there are the 'dumb' folks who even start by not keeping their hands to themselves, on dance floors, in elevators, etc.


===  Not ALL LIVES MATTER until BLACK LIVES MATTER  ===
Guest
Lurker
Quote by BiMale73
Yes I do.




I think women often do not have the freedom to not deal with dump (stupid/sexist/harrassing) people. Smiling at sexist crap that is thrown at waitresses may be the only way to make a living if their income depends on tips. Ignoring cat calls can turn violent and then there are the 'dumb' folks who even start by not keeping their hands to themselves, on dance floors, in elevators, etc.


Nerds get picked in school, the straight arrows get taken advantage of at work, people without sufficient brawn get mugged in the street, what about the minorities? what about victims of injustice? hell, what about the victims of crime?

Shall we give each of them a special elevated place in society?
Guest
Lurker
Quote by Dani


Nothing you've just said has anything to do with feminism.

It's as simple as wanting to be seen/treated equal to men.

The term 'feminazis' came into existence to refer to those women who don't just want female equality but female superiority. Big difference.



An individual ought to be given the bare minimum respect, courtesy and acknowledgement. The rest of it has to be earned. Does feminism advocate that? No. It advocates equality to women merely BECAUSE they are women.

Are all men treated the same?

By demanding an individual to be given opportunity, attention and regard solely based on gender is not rational.

The only tenet of feminism I agree with is that women ought to be 'left alone' and 'let them be' - seeing them as 'inferior' merely because of gender is just primitive; acting on it and using force is worse.
Guest
Lurker
Quote by sprite


I'd settle for being treated equally. that IS what feminism is about, after all. and no, that hasn't happened, not here, and especially not in a large majority of the world.



I'm copy-pasting a response I gave elsewhere.

An individual ought to be given the bare minimum respect, courtesy and acknowledgement. The rest of it has to be earned. Does feminism advocate that? No. It advocates equality to women merely BECAUSE they are women.

Are all men treated the same?

By demanding an individual to be given opportunity, attention and regard solely based on gender is not rational.

The only tenet of feminism I agree with is that women ought to be 'left alone' and 'let them be' - seeing them as 'inferior' merely because of gender is just primitive; acting on it and using force is worse.
Guest
Lurker
Quote by Verbal


I wouldn't call it an "agenda" to ask to be treated equally.

The women I have met with rigid (heh) enough beliefs to be called feminazis were that narrow-minded about everything, political nazis, artistic nazis, food nazis. Nothing to do with feminism. Or being a woman. They were just assholes. I've met more men than women who were narrow-minded enough to deserve the term nazi. Or asshole.



It shouldn't be a case of asking to be treated equally, it should be about the protection from violence and force (both direct and in-direct). Feminism today has gone wayyy beyond that.

An individual ought to be given the bare minimum respect, courtesy and acknowledgement. The rest of it has to be earned. Does feminism advocate that? No. It advocates equality to women merely BECAUSE they are women.

Are all men treated the same?

By demanding an individual to be given opportunity, attention and regard solely based on gender is not rational.

The only tenet of feminism I agree with is that women ought to be 'left alone' and 'let them be' - seeing them as 'inferior' merely because of gender is just primitive; acting on it and using force is worse.
Verbal
Gravelly-Voiced Fucker
Quote by Richard8

An individual ought to be given the bare minimum respect, courtesy and acknowledgement. The rest of it has to be earned. Does feminism advocate that? No. It advocates equality to women merely BECAUSE they are women.


Dude. Earn equality? You should be given equality at birth. Not that you will be of equal strength, or intelligence, or creativity, that's the luck of the draw. Equality means treated equally. Paid the same for the same job (not more, the same). Given the freedom to choose what to do with your own body. Being seen equally in the eyes of the law. That kind of thing.

Advocate equality to humans merely BECAUSE they are humans.

I have daughters. Don't get me started.
Dani
Big-haired Bitch/Personality Hire
Quote by Richard8



I'm copy-pasting a response I gave elsewhere.

An individual ought to be given the bare minimum respect, courtesy and acknowledgement. The rest of it has to be earned. Does feminism advocate that? No. It advocates equality to women merely BECAUSE they are women.

Are all men treated the same?

By demanding an individual to be given opportunity, attention and regard solely based on gender is not rational.

The only tenet of feminism I agree with is that women ought to be 'left alone' and 'let them be' - seeing them as 'inferior' merely because of gender is just primitive; acting on it and using force is worse.


Feminism does not ask to be given opportunity, attention, and regard solely based on gender. We'd like to be given those things regardless of gender, or basically in the same capacity as our male counterparts.

Men and women are treated differently based on their skills, education, experience, economic status, criminal records, etc.

I'd like to be regarded exactly the same as any male with my level of skill, education, experience, etc. Not better. Not special. Just equal.

We're not speaking of every day circumstances that none of us can control. We're speaking of systematic, institutional things that can most definitely be controlled.

░P░U░S░S░Y░ ░I░N░ ░B░I░O░
Magical_felix
Wild at Heart
Quote by Dani


Men and women are treated differently based on their skills, butts, education, experience, titties, economic status, criminal records, etc.




Fixed it for you.
Guest
Lurker
Quote by Verbal


Dude. Earn equality? You should be given equality at birth. Not that you will be of equal strength, or intelligence, or creativity, that's the luck of the draw. Equality means treated equally. Paid the same for the same job (not more, the same). Given the freedom to choose what to do with your own body. Being seen equally in the eyes of the law. That kind of thing.

Advocate equality to humans merely BECAUSE they are humans.

I have daughters. Don't get me started.


I see what you're trying to get at, but please try and see what I'm saying - "don't pay the person equal just because the person's a woman, pay the person because the person has done a good job"

Feminism can sometimes advocate - pay purely because she's a woman.

Strength and ability aren't a luck of draw! They can be developed and it boils down to the individual. But do you really think it's okay for an individual to be granted a special position IRRESPECTIVE of these abilities?
Guest
Lurker
Quote by Dani


We'd like to be given those things regardless of gender, or basically in the same capacity as our male counterparts.
.......

We're not speaking of every day circumstances that none of us can control. We're speaking of systematic, institutional things that can most definitely be controlled.




I agree with the systemic flu that you're referring to, but I invite you to think, is present day feminism restricted to just that? The answer to that flu is protection from injustice or use of force but NOT throwing women under a different light. Are you seriously telling me that this isn't happening in the name of feminism?

I don't even want to mention the 'feminists' who go about bashing the male gender and start collectivists movements! That's what is really wrong with feminism - it has turned into a form of collectivism!

And as with any collectivist movement, the individual is superseded by an imagined higher power - in this case the female gender.

Do you deny that this is happening?

And in your quote you say "We'd like to be given those things regardless of gender"

Who is "we" ? = women.

'We women would like to be given those things regardless of us being women'.

Can you not see the contradiction?

I'm not a misogynist! But the feminist movement is not philosophically sound. I wish I could articulate my position better, but I don't think it'll be appreciated here, so I'm just going to leave it at that.
Guest
Lurker
Quote by Verbal


Dude. Earn equality? You should be given equality at birth. Not that you will be of equal strength, or intelligence, or creativity, that's the luck of the draw. Equality means treated equally. Paid the same for the same job (not more, the same). Given the freedom to choose what to do with your own body. Being seen equally in the eyes of the law. That kind of thing.

Advocate equality to humans merely BECAUSE they are humans.

I have daughters. Don't get me started.


I'm copy pasting a reply given elsewhere, for the sake of clarity and consistency.

"I agree with the systemic flu that you're referring to, but I invite you to think, is present day feminism restricted to just that? The answer to that flu is protection from injustice or use of force but NOT throwing women under a different light. Are you seriously telling me that this isn't happening in the name of feminism?

I don't even want to mention the 'feminists' who go about bashing the male gender and start collectivists movements! That's what is really wrong with feminism - it has turned into a form of collectivism!

And as with any collectivist movement, the individual is superseded by an imagined higher power - in this case the female gender.

Do you deny that this is happening?

And in your quote you say "We'd like to be given those things regardless of gender"

Who is "we" ? = women.

'We women would like to be given those things regardless of us being women'.

Can you not see the contradiction?

I'm not a misogynist! But the feminist movement is not philosophically sound. I wish I could articulate my position better, but I don't think it'll be appreciated here, so I'm just going to leave it at that."
Dani
Big-haired Bitch/Personality Hire
Quote by Richard8


I'm copy pasting a reply given elsewhere, for the sake of clarity and consistency.

"I agree with the systemic flu that you're referring to, but I invite you to think, is present day feminism restricted to just that? The answer to that flu is protection from injustice or use of force but NOT throwing women under a different light. Are you seriously telling me that this isn't happening in the name of feminism?

I don't even want to mention the 'feminists' who go about bashing the male gender and start collectivists movements! That's what is really wrong with feminism - it has turned into a form of collectivism!

And as with any collectivist movement, the individual is superseded by an imagined higher power - in this case the female gender.

Do you deny that this is happening?

And in your quote you say "We'd like to be given those things regardless of gender"

Who is "we" ? = women.

'We women would like to be given those things regardless of us being women'.

Can you not see the contradiction?

I'm not a misogynist! But the feminist movement is not philosophically sound. I wish I could articulate my position better, but I don't think it'll be appreciated here, so I'm just going to leave it at that."


I don't deny that there are different forms of feminism. No movement is restricted to just one facet. I'm not sure why feminism should be any different.

I've already explained the form of feminism that I subscribe to.

I find nothing contradictory in the statement that 'We women would like to be given those things regardless of being women' because women indeed should be afforded the same opportunities as men so long as they qualify for those opportunities in the same capacity as men.

You keep veering off to the more extreme sector(s) of feminism as if it's the only form that exists while disregarding the rational and fair side of it. Every movement has its extremists that can cause damage to said movement and society as a whole, but it doesn't make said movement inherently bad or unnecessary.

No one's stopping you from articulating your position, as you've had ample opportunity to do so and you still have ample opportunity to do so.

It's just that every counterpoint you've had in terms of feminism has been in regard to an extreme form of it, and it's always been along the lines of 'What about those women that hate men and wanna be superior?!' Well, what about them? Sure they suck and make it hard for some of us, but it doesn't mean that feminism should be generalized away simply because the mean ones who wanna turn men into boot-lickers are ruining all the happy fun times that go along with gaining equality. I understand that only referring to this form of feminists makes it easier to denounce feminism as a whole. But arguing the very extreme side instead of taking a more holistic viewpoint is only doing yourself a disservice.

How can feminist extremists be used as an argument against me or anyone else you've exchanged words with in this thread when everyone who has disagreed with you thus far (men included) has expressed that they're in support of feminists who subscribe to the 'fair and equal for all' school of thought when it comes to feminism?

Do you think that currently, women are treated fairly and equally to their male counterparts? And by counterparts, I mean equal in every capacity (except gender, obviously). If you do, you're sorely mistaken. Because we're not, and that's why feminism needs to exist.

░P░U░S░S░Y░ ░I░N░ ░B░I░O░
Dryad
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by Dani


I don't deny that there are different forms of feminism. No movement is restricted to just one facet. I'm not sure why feminism should be any different.

I've already explained the form of feminism that I subscribe to.

I find nothing contradictory in the statement that 'We women would like to be given those things regardless of being women' because women indeed should be afforded the same opportunities as men so long as they qualify for those opportunities in the same capacity as men.

You keep veering off to the more extreme sector(s) of feminism as if it's the only form that exists while disregarding the rational and fair side of it. Every movement has its extremists that can cause damage to said movement and society as a whole, but it doesn't make said movement inherently bad or unnecessary.

No one's stopping you from articulating your position, as you've had ample opportunity to do so and you still have ample opportunity to do so.

It's just that every counterpoint you've had in terms of feminism has been in regard to an extreme form of it, and it's always been along the lines of 'What about those women that hate men and wanna be superior?!' Well, what about them? Sure they suck and make it hard for some of us, but it doesn't mean that feminism should be generalized away simply because the mean ones who wanna turn men into boot-lickers are ruining all the happy fun times that go along with gaining equality. I understand that only referring to this form of feminists makes it easier to denounce feminism as a whole. But arguing the very extreme side instead of taking a more holistic viewpoint is only doing yourself a disservice.

How can feminist extremists be used as an argument against me or anyone else you've exchanged words with in this thread when everyone who has disagreed with you thus far (men included) has expressed that they're in support of feminists who subscribe to the 'fair and equal for all' school of thought when it comes to feminism?

Do you think that currently, women are treated fairly and equally to their male counterparts? And by counterparts, I mean equal in every capacity (except gender, obviously). If you do, you're sorely mistaken. Because we're not, and that's why feminism needs to exist.


All I can say to that is amen!
PrincessC
Active Ink Slinger


Yes I'm a feminist.
"A dirty book is rarely dusty"
VirginalViet
Active Ink Slinger
FUCK YEAH!!!!!!!! My mom taught me good!! I'm a post-feminist, "angel-hottie" fuck-who-you-want kind of feminist. The new kind. I don't burn my bra, but I only show it to who I want haha. Oh and yeah....it's a very expensive lacy half-cup bra......get off your knees boys....begging will get you nowhere haha.
Guest
Lurker
Quote by Dryad
It seems that being a feminist is becoming wildly popular and greater accepted, which is a beautiful thing, yet women are still being treated like lesser beings. And many passionate feminists are now being called 'feminazis'. Why do you think this is? And do you consider yourself to be a feminist?


The anti-male "I don't need a man" "I hate men" "men are pigs" women irritate the piss out of me. Some things these particular women do is outright insulting to a wife and mother of 3 boys.

The anti-female "I hate stay at home mothers" and "anti-nursing because that's not what breasts are for" and "why do you want kids?" women also irritate the piss out of me. They're the anti of women's equality / rights / choice. They're conceited at best.

But it's the behaviors and attitudes from these women that get to me, (over the top antic to get attention, casting blanket statements on large groups of people for no reason, having no basis for 'views' other than that they're in a bad mood), not that they call themselves feminists. They can be (not always) but can be just as annoying as a piggly chauvinist who treats me like crap because I'm a woman.

Further, women who claim to oppose 'feminism' when they clearly don't know what it is or why it came into being further irritate me.

I suppose I favor intelligent, polite women - eh?
Just like I favor intelligent, polite men.

Regardless of what they FEEL - it's how they ACT.
Guest
Lurker
Quote by PrincessC


Yes I'm a feminist.


Woah. So I'm not a feminist, I must hate women. Wonderful.
Guest
Lurker
Quote by Dani


I don't deny that there ..... needs to exist.



I did not say that I'm being stopped from speaking. I said that I won't be appreciated.

This extreme form of feminism that you draw distinction from, where do you think it has its roots?

Feminism in any form implicitly advocates the position of women as a special class of people. It's as simple as that. The reason I keep focusing on the extreme form is because it is the one having a larger impact than the rudimentary form that you say is okay.

And I repeat. The solution lies in the protection of those affected by gender bias and NOT in the promotion of a class of individuals.

The fact that feminism is a collectivist movement isn't an a feature of extremism. It is the very nature of the movement.

How can I use the extreme form against the simple form? I repeat - the simple form is the philosophically flawed root of the extreme form. What is the flaw? it's a collectivism asking for distinction.

If someone is treating a women with inequality, why should a woman aspire to deal with that moron? Why would anybody?

And there lies the answer. If everyone acknowledges these morons to be morons and not deal with them, the morons will fade away.

I'm fully aware that I might now be accused of equivocation. But there's a big difference between 'seeking equal treatment' and 'protecting from injustice'. The former is fertile soil for misuse. That's what's happening and that's why I'm not for it.

How can the latter even work, if everyone is occupied with the former?

Scroll the page and see for yourself. Wait for the thread to grow and do the math.

Finally, if you and anyone in this thread has felt discomfiture from my arguments, then ask yourselves, is it because I'm saying something that's unreasonable or is it because I'm putting an Identity under the scanner.

If it's the latter, then that's evidence of the collectivist bog superseding the individual.

I summarize - prevent injustice, persecute the moron, shun the moron. Period.
miketabcdefg
Advanced Wordsmith
My only problem with feminism is the word. I'd prefer egalitarian, with a focus on gender equality perhaps. But I'm a pedant like that. Should there also be masculinism for those few areas that are skewed the other way, or transgenderism or homosexualism. So again, for me gender equality in the midst of a wider focus on egalitarianism is enough but I can't deny there is empowerment in belonging to a cause and so perhaps the term feminism serves a purpose there, a purpose that for some has been met and they no longer need the word but certainly not for all, and, world wide, no where near a majority.

...Just looked up the terms. It seems masculinism does exist - for men's rights, sometimes masculism. Transgenderism exists for seeking rights for transgenders, but homosexualism simply describes the state of being homosexual (one website described it as the teachings and indoctrination of homosexuality - lol) It seems the terms aren't used enough to have solid meanings, but even so, the English language can be a daft thing sometimes.
overmykneenow
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by Richard8


Woah. So I'm not a feminist, I must hate women. Wonderful.


What you've done there is what's known as a False Dilemma. Attacking binary thought like this is one of the great things about feminism.
Warning: The opinions above are those of an anonymous individual on the internet. They are opinions, unless they're facts. They may be ill-informed, out of touch with reality or just plain stupid. They may contain traces of irony. If reading these opinions causes you to be become outraged or you start displaying the symptoms of outrage, stop reading them immediately. If symptoms persist, consult a psychiatrist.

Why not read some stories instead

NEW! Want a quick read for your coffee break? Why not try this... Flash Erotica: Scrubber
PrincessC
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by Richard8


Woah. So I'm not a feminist, I must hate women. Wonderful.


If you read it, it says that anti-feminism is the political defence of women hating. I totally agree with that because feminism in its most basic sense has never killed anybody or practised any bizarre rituals. Feminism fights for the equality of women, for centers and for the rights of our own bodies . If you don't believe in that then yes politically you are defending the patriarchal system; the system that must indeed hate women to subjugate them so horribly.

Sure there are people who are extreme, who hate men and who are illogical but to tar feminists with the brush of misandry is outdated.
"A dirty book is rarely dusty"
miketabcdefg
Advanced Wordsmith
Oops, just realised it was placed in 'Ask the gals'. The problem with having the latest posts pop up in the scroll for the unobservant like me to flagrantly respond to.

Quietly slinks out of the room.