They are all "right" depending on who you ask, but it's easy to say what it should be.

Feminism is a bloody rag and sitting while peeing.

In light of this sift... I started this poll.

http://www.videosift.com/video/fucking-asshat-presents-Feminism-101

Actually, no. They are not all right. They all have very different meanings and that is why I am asking.

You forgot "Advancing the welfare of women" as stated in the video.

Oh well. That is also wrong.

They're all wrong. But depending on which sociology policy you're looking at they could be considered right. Depending on the theory context, than again "feminism" as it stands, has shifted heavily in the last 50 years. More so the last 20 years from it's core values to something that most women who were strong believers into a mass hydra which chews on it's own head.

Just a paraphrase of my ex to clarify a bit.

Everyone's a feminist then. Either that or a bigot. Then we might as well just not say that we are that, because we all are.

I also want equal rights for everyone else, but that's not covered by the word "feminism", so why say feminism instead of "equal rights for all", if not to underline that I especially want equal rights for women? Makes no sense.

feminism's dead. every true BSG fan knows we're past these gender divisions

No. Everyone is not a feminist. Some people actually believe that if a man and a woman have the same job then the man should make more money. That is not equal. And that is just one example. Some people think that women should not even have the right to vote. There are many others examples of people not wanting women to be treated equally as men.

"Why not say equal rights for everyone?" Most feminist do. Would you disagree that there are many examples where underrepresented groups have fought for their own rights in addition to fighting for equal rights for all. Think of the civil rights movement, gay rights... in fact every rights movement has been a case where a group who is discriminated against fights to be treated equally.

Feminism is the exception. The media has redefined what feminism means. More specifically, they portray it as advocating that women receive special rights. This is not true.

>> ^gwiz665:
Everyone's a feminist then. Either that or a bigot. Then we might as well just not say that we are that, because we all are.
I also want equal rights for everyone else, but that's not covered by the word "feminism", so why say feminism instead of "equal rights for all", if not to underline that I especially want equal rights for women? Makes no sense.

^Solution: Just say equal rights for everyone. I don't see the real reason for wordplay. Words change their meaning all the time, often prompted by media spin/distortion. If enough people think that "feminism" means "women above all else" then it sort of actually does mean that. That's what I meant with "They're all right depending on who you ask". This is certainly a bad thing, I can agree to that, but these semantic arguments are what makes it difficult. It's the same when someone like Glenn Beck say socialism, he doesn't really mean actual socialism, he means a particular type of fascism, orwellian society. This is a problem, but that doesn't change what it is.

Just because you stomp your feet and say "It doesn't mean that!" won't change the meaning in many peoples heads. That's why, to avoid confusion, I would rather say equal rights for everyone. A rose by any other name, eh?

No. You can say 2+2=5 all you want but it doesn't. 60% of Americans do not believe in evolution, and probably can't even define it, that does not mean that their definition is correct just because a lot of people believe it.

Saying "accept the media's redefinition of the word" is equivalent to accepting that women should not have equal rights. Why? Because you are thereby accepting the definition that a male dominated society is BRANDING equal rights for women, that in itself is not a feminist ideal.

I believe in equality for all. Unconditionally.

Whenever there is a deficiency or surplus in one group versus another, there is resentment. When one group is considered a lower class citizen than another, this obviously brings about separatism and disdain (think slave ownership). I also believe the way to fix it isn't to give the group with the deficiency more rights in order to counteract the unbalance, because that breeds more separatism and disdain (think affirmative action).

Equality is probably unattainable because of human nature. But, I still believe in it. I may make jokes about women, but I think they're my equal... but better than me at having babies.

i would advocate to "advance the rights" of an individual woman if she needed some assistance after some personal tragedy, no more than i would advocate "advancing the rights" of any single man after a similar tragedy.
but just to say "advance the rights of woman" implies that we should advance them any farther than any other group of people. which is wrong. we should work to "advance the rights" all of people up to the point of equilibrium i suppose and beyond that to fight united against any oppressive power structure /ideology/institution.

im feel unsatisfied by the options, but im glad you started this poll.

the answer is equal rights for women. and of course american women today have the right to pursue any endeavor they would like but not without stigma and a culture of oppression and sexual subjugation.

im having trouble getting my thoughts out without alienating someone. perhaps i will try again later when im not so hopped up on sugar and irritable.

2+2=5 is different, because math is a logical construct, whereby the rules dictate that it is not so. A dictionary is not a rulebook, as we constantly see in the evolution of language.

We shouldn't just accept a rebranding of any word, but my point is that if the majority thinks that word X means B instead of A, then the word is essentially B not A, even if you still use it as A. So you must make certain when you use the word, that you do mean A and not the new perceived meaning B. (Man that got nerdy fast.)

oh heres something that just happened:

i sat down to play bakugans with my 4 year old.
me: "i win!"
him: "no mom you dont get to win"
me: "what? why not?"
him: "because im the greatest champion"
me: "well how do i learn to be the greatest champion"
him: "you dont, you dont know to play, because youre a girl"


bwahahaahahaha

The 2+2 is a bad analogy but evolution is not.

An entire group of people have fought for equal rights. Instead of understanding what they are saying the media has redefined there movement. These people practice equal rights, and are fighting for it. To say that they are arguing for something they are in fact not arguing for, which is what accepting that incorrect definition is doing, is disingenuous at best.

The common misconceptions about feminism and advocacy against equal rights for women is why rape is such a problem in so many countries, women who have the same jobs as their male counterparts are paid 25% less, and every other gender inequality issue.

This is holding our species back people. Just like civil rights and gay rights has held us back. Think of all the women that could have played significant rolls in science and medicine, but didn't because it is socially unacceptable. If that doesn't bother you it should.

I have a penis and I am a feminist.

Everyone's a feminist unless they actively believe that women are inferior humans. I'm as much a feminist as any other reasonable person, I just say "I want equal rights for everyone" - because I don't want people to think that I want women to have it better than men.

Girls who are boys
Who like boys to be girls
Who do boys like theyre girls
Who do girls like theyre boys
Always should be someone you really love

its not just about the standard "rights". in the US women do have the right to chose any (legal) path they want and if some dinosaur doesnt like it, well fuck him.

postfeminism or the third wave or whatever is also about non-discrimination and transcending double standards and preconceived ideals.
like contrary to how liberated some men may think they are, some men are still dinosaurs when it comes to how to treat, react, think of women. for instance, chemistry is something i dig dig dig and know alot about i have been shoved out of discussions about this topic because im cute and have a vagina. and not by dudes you would call your typical sexist. also the idea that if im interested in your friendship or your opinions or your welfare, i must also be interested in your cock. 100,000 times out 100,001 times im fucking not.

or how about this, as a single mom i have encountered this a time or 2. since i am a single mother i have run into the "oh so you must be a waitress" WTF? and i dont get pissed about, i get fascinated about it.
i also encounter this WWAAAYYY to fucking often... my little family is broken and doesnt stand a real chance unless something with a cock comes around to save us. im not deluded enough to think that were not all missing something about the kids dad, but its not survival, the ability to be whole or provided for.

another problem is the way too frequent assumption that because the i can see the inequities and get pissed about them, that i hate men. absolutely nothing could be further from the truth. but im not about to be patronized or oogled by some jackass either.

alot of people need to take a look at their real life reactions to women and see if theyre still holding onto these double standards and preconceived ideas. thats alot of what the current struggle is about in this country. like someone can say theyre not a racist because they dont seek to take away rights from black people, but they still lock their car doors driving through a "black" neighborhood and feel a black person is more likely to mug them. its the SAME FUCKING THING.

What peggedbea said. This poll is trivial to the point of being silly. Sorry, there Mycroft; but much kudos for raising the subject.

It too-narrowly frames what is an interesting and important area of exploration. There's a wide range of powerful work being done now by contemporary feminists.

...
d. A source for potent analysis of Power.
e. All of the above.

f. gettin' in shorty's guts

I thought feminism meant who gets the money shot.

Trivial, yes... yet, 11 people got it wrong. The fact is many people don't know feminism means. Maybe the choices aren't the best, but it gets peoples attention.

>> ^qualm:
What peggedbea said. This poll is trivial to the point of being silly. Sorry, there Mycroft; but much kudos for raising the subject.
It too-narrowly frames what is an interesting and important area of exploration. There's a wide range of powerful work being done now by contemporary feminists.
...
d. A source for potent analysis of Power.
e. All of the above.

I'll offer my own views by contrasting them with those of well-known philosopher.

"Bitches ain't shit but hoes and tricks" - Snoop "Doggy" Dogg

^"I disagree with that" - Throbbin

>> ^MycroftHomlz:
No. You can say 2+2=5 all you want but it doesn't. 60% of Americans do not believe in evolution, and probably can't even define it, that does not mean that their definition is correct just because a lot of people believe it.
Saying "accept the media's redefinition of the word" is equivalent to accepting that women should not have equal rights. Why? Because you are thereby accepting the definition that a male dominated society is BRANDING equal rights for women, that in itself is not a feminist ideal.


you just made an analogy that compares two scientific things to semantics of an ideological one

fail analogy is fail

If there's one thing I learned in college English it is, "usage determines correctness"

Why is "advancing the rights of women" a wrong answer? That's a tiny quibble of a difference. Advancing to the point that the rights are equal, then they would be exactly equivalent. I suspect most people have read it as such.

Also, Kevin Bacon was totally in Footloose.

^Exactly, and this crap of saying 'NO YOU'RE WRONG' for answering with a perfectly reasonable answer is doing NO ONE any favours. It's this sort of word play, getting pissy at people with perfectly good intentions that will just turn people off, not further the cause at all

hmmm yeah making people pick between "advancing rights" and "equal rights" without explaining what you mean by "advancing" probably isnt fair.

id also say atleast in the west that "rights" for women isnt really the issue. its more blasting through the latent sexism that many probably dont know they possess, here is a video about it.

Why isn't feminism a bad thing? All the other "isms" like racism and sexism are very negative, but feminism, not so much. Based just on the words alone, it seems that there should be a lot of overlap in the Venn diagram of sexists and feminists.

<seinfeldvoice>
What is the deal with that?!
</seinfeldvoice>

Whenever you try to tip the scale to make something "right" for one person, you're always going to be affecting others. Maybe others that have worked harder to deserve a their break. Also the premise of "advancing" or "equalizing" the rights of a group is that they aren't being treated fairly to begin with. I'm not saying women shouldn't be treated as equals at all. I hope that one day everybody is treated as equals. I just don't know if that whole thing about women not getting paid the same amount as men is real. I don't know the parameters of that poll that was taken that determined that.

Sometimes life isn't fair, and you don't get the same hand that was dealt by somebody else...and SOMETIMES no matter how hard you work and how proficient you are at something, you can't get a break because of stereotypes and social standards. These days, though, I think that there is small discrimination when it comes to bottom line. A successful black man, mexican, or female is just as valued as long as they are bringing in money for a company. Now, maybe getting to a level of success is harder for different groups based on the socioeconomic position they were born into, but that's a different story.

As far as pay goes, though, I'm sure that a female that has busted her ass to get a degree in a technical field is capable of making an equal amount of money.

I do definitely have cognitive dissonance about affirmative action type situations, though I think it should be based on things other than skin or sex and more about socioeconomic background and I do still think that hard work should be rewarded.

I picked "advancing the rights of women" because the roots of feminism lie in the historical oppression of women in society. Now, certainly the stated goal of feminism has been equal rights for women, but much of the public discussion has centered on the advancement of women's rights as the method for achieving that. I feel this is an important point to consider. With such a goal, how do you know when you've reached it? How do you know when you should stop advancing one group's rights? How do you even define your groups? There is no objective viewpoint to take, subtle oppression is difficult to quantify. The risk of exaggeration is inherent in any attempt to increase the rights of one group of people only.

Now, certainly feminist theory acknowledges, even actively propagates the point that it is not just men who perpetuate restrictive gender roles, and not just women who disavow them. Gender roles, as far as I can tell, are seen in feminist theory as a powerful meme that resides in all our minds, and restricts us all. Men, too, are bound by their roles, although those roles may traditionally grant them more power than the roles of women. I agree with this assessment to a large extent, and that is why I find it disappointing that feminist rhetoric remains so gender-centric.

"Feminism", "patriarchy", "sisterhood", "matriarchy" - these are all terms stuck in an old-fashioned mode of thought. Rhetoric using these terms is likely to be counterproductive now. Like it or not, a lot of people identify with their gender, partly for cultural reason, partly because most of us are hard wired to seek gender roles, whatever they may be in our culture. To say a society is patriarchal may be accurate, but it perpetuates a division that should not exist. A man is likely to take such a claim as an attack on them personally, because it implies that the male sex oppresses the female sex, making anyone identifying with the male sex an oppressor.

There is a paradox here I'm having difficulty putting into words. That gender is not really an either-or thing, but rather a diffuse gradient, or a combination of many gradients, seems to be a fairly widely accepted claim in feminist theory. Humans have a wide variety of attributes, too many to reasonably list, that vary with cultural background and hormonal makeup. Some people are more aggressive, some people better able to empathize with others, both traits likely influenced by nature as well as nurture. Gender affects us; to say that the mind of someone with XX chromosomes is not, on average, influenced by a different set of chemicals than that of someone with XY is foolishness. (For simplicity's sake, let's not get into women with Y chromosomes, men with double-X etc. here.) It is equally foolish to claim that simply based on someone's perceived gender you could tell what their abilities are. Gender matters, but individual variation matters more, so it seems silly to group people into "women" and "men" for purposes of defining what their rights are or should be. Still, this is effectively the division a lot of feminist rhetoric perpetuates by continuing to use gender-specific terms.

If you accept that individual variance trumps gender-based differences, I do not see how you can talk of women's or men's rights. The terms lose meaning. To say anything about women's rights implies that there is, for social purposes, a well-defined group called "women". If your goal is to let people live their lives however they please regardless of their gender, such segregation is counterproductive. There are human rights, and that's all.

In summary, fuck isms. Fuck them hard.

Poll:

What does "poll" mean?

*to gather opinions
*to gauge public perception
*to argue a point of view

(btw .. the last one is wrong, so don't answer that)

Come on, fellas, the long standing cultural biases that favor us aren't going away anytime soon, and complaining about 'equality' when you are hording more than your fair share just comes across as greedy and disingenuous. Becoming a feminist doesn't mean you have to stop watching football, drinking beer or looking at bewbs on the internet. Being a feminist doesn't mean you are anti-male or anti-equality, on the contrary, it means that you want to address the aspects of culture that keep women down. So cut out all this clumsy caveman pseudo-intellectualism; you are making us look foolish in front of the ladies.

Mycroft, 'equal rights' is the closest thing you have to a proper definition of feminism, but it doesn't address the work feminism does to reduce discrimination outside of the legal system. Also, equal pay and advancement of rights would seem to be characteristics 'equal rights', rather than alternate definitions.

What DFT means to say is feminism is putting your sticky in their icky. And skeet and skeet and skeet.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
you are making us look foolish in front of the ladies.


Oh, the irony.

One thing that I think many college/high school feminists need to learn is that equal rights does not mean "You must have 50 % women in your employ", it means that the fact that you're a woman/man does not factor into to the decision to hire you. You skills and abilities along decide that. So, looking at statistics that say "X more percent men are in Y job" does not necessarily mean that it's not "equal" (though if you look at our culture and history, some of it is probably that) but also that the men in question simply were better that the job. The same thing goes the other way around. We don't want 50/50 just for the sake of 50/50.

Voting for this poll ended with the majority of users voting Equal rights for women..

Related article covering feminism in videogames
http://www.gamecritics.com/mike-doolittle/are-game-developers-ethically-responsible-for-gender-roles-in-games