One of the many core and wrong ideas in Feminism is that the sex of a person doesn't seem to play much of a role in anything. And in this case, Feminism is responsible for holding back medical science. Feminism is a blight on intellectual discourse. I'm not going to spend the time it takes to unravel a snake like Feminism here, but in brief, it's an untenable ideology.

One of its core philosophies is the idea of the Patriarchy, which is not only theoretical, but creates hypocritical scenarios in Feminist debate.

For instance, Feminists state that the Patriarchy supports and allows men to lead privileged lives. Yet when it is pointed out that men are sentenced twice as long for exact same crimes; men have zero protection of their genitals as babies; that there is FAR more funding for women's schooling, businesses, and health; or that in any emergency situation it is expected that men's lives are forfeit - the argument you'll get back is "See, Patriarchy hurts men too!". This rebuttal is in obvious contradiction to the idea that Patriarchy allows men to live privileged lives.

Another core idea is wage gap which has been disproven over and over for decades, even by some Feminsts:

http://www.topmanagementdegrees.com/women-dont-make-less/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html

Feminism also focuses a great deal on "objectification", which presupposes that men are (always) sexually attracted to something *other* than the curves of a womans body. This is not only obviously off kilter for anyone with a basic understanding of evolutionary psychology, but has been scientifically proven false. Men are biologically wired to base mate finding on looks.

So the word 'objectification' actually becomes Feminist propaganda for the demonizing of male sexuality.

Furthermore regarding female objectification in society - we all often see the viral videos "How Women's Bodies Are Changed Beyond Recognition in Photoshop!" But consider that 80% of consumer dollars are spent by women. So in essence we have women complaining about women being objectified while women buy into objectification. What exactly do we expect advertising agencies to do?

I've even seen scenarios for men in which, if he found a woman attractive, then he's objectifying her; and if he found her unattractive, then he's shallow for only caring about looks.

Then there is argument from Feminists that Feminism helps to empower men as well. No, it doesn't. In fact much has been shown in the opposite: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/g2eme/feminists_tell_you_that_the_solution_to_mens/

98% of workforce deaths are male. You never see Feminists rallying to take on these jobs on the front lines in combat, or in jobs that involve heavy machinery, working outdoors in inclement weather, inhaling toxic fumes, or apprehending dangerous criminals. Why not? After all, fair is fair! Let's remove the stigma around men being "losers" if they are stay-at-home Dads, while Moms can be the breadwinners for once.

It's clear that Feminism isn't about gender equality. You never see Feminists rallying about how He-Man set an unrealistic body image for boys, but the focus and attention on Barbie has been unreal.

Take into consideration, among everything else I've stated, that words like "mansplaining" are part of Feminist vocabulary, and I think you start to get a picture why no self respecting man has anything to do with Feminism.

There's much much more research, evidence, and articles I can cite, but the final point is that Feminism is a toxic and counterproductive movement.

Perhaps there will be "equality between the sexes" when the likelihood of men becoming estranged from their children and families after a divorce is the same as it is for women... Or when the expectation of "supporting" one's family is actually spending time with them and not simply being their "wallet"...

I'll see equality when the life expectancy between men and women is the same... Or when the risk of becoming homeless is the same... Or to become a victim of violence (or simply being suspected of violence or threatened with violence due to ones gender) is the same.. Or when the probability of dying by suicide is the same. . . Perhaps we'll all be equal then.

I gotta stop upvoting before the end second of the video (or before reading the description).

So sick of these stupid fucking ads that have something meaningful and memorable in them, but then at the end tack on some bullshit product that literally has NOTHING to do with the content.
Now if it were ad about equality and at the end put something like "Snickers supports gender equality", that's another story, but this is shite

You know.. I wish to GOD -- any god really -- that I didn't get a boner every time I hear the word feminist.

Also, every time I see Sarah Silverman.

It's really a shame, because I don't view women as objects and I would very much enjoy gender equality. It's just, you know, my COCK.

I'm against hitting women, but my commitment to gender equality demands that I punch her in the face if she's being a cunt -- just like I do with my mates. A slap is one possible compromise between these opposing responsibilities.

How important are our biological differences presently? Can gender equality exist if gender roles are inflexible?

Women undoubtably play a very different role now and it is certainly not without problems. Most developed countries have aging populations due to family planning and longer lives, women give birth later in their lives and that creates certain health problems etc. It is important to remember that perhaps women winning bread is as much a product of our developed society as it is a cause. Why should we make ourselves slaves to our biology and chain ourselves to gender roles that have dwindling relavence. Humans are nothing but flexible. Perhaps instead of focusing on what might be lost with women stepping away from raising a family we should consider what society might stand to gain?

>> ^CaptainObvious:

>> ^Asmo:
>> ^CaptainObvious:
Fuck no.
Noam Chomsky is a genius and I agree with him almost always - but on this - no way - no.
ANY country with nuclear weaponry is a threat to everyone - let alone a country like Iran. Look what a pain in the ass we have with North Korea and Pakistan.
I remember the cold war and the persistent fear of mutual destruction and the perverse rationality behind it.
I don't want ANY country (including my own) to have nukes, least of all non-democratic countries.
Allowing them and any other non-nuclear country to have nukes is the wrong direction.
We need countries to start giving up nuclear weapons, not proliferating and spreading the disease even more.
The United States might be denying Iran nukes for the wrong reasons (OIL) and perhaps Israel for the right reasons, but frankly I don't care either way.
One less country with nukes is never a bad thing.
---------
"Mr. President, it is not only possible, it is essential. That is the whole idea of this machine, you know. Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy... the FEAR to attack. And so, because of the automated and irrevocable decision-making process which rules out human meddling, the Doomsday machine is terrifying and simple to understand... and completely credible and convincing". - Dr Strangelove - yeah. makes sense huh.

What if all they want enrichment for is nuclear power..? \= |
Or, ya know, the right of self determination?

"The state of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran has been criticized both by Iranians and international human right activists...
The government of Iran is criticized both for restrictions and punishments... such as the torture, rape, and killing of political prisoners, and the beatings and killings of dissidents and other civilians....
...execution of offenders under 18 years of age, restrictions on freedom of speech and the press (including the imprisonment of journalists), and restrictions on [[freedom of religion[[ and gender equality in the Islamic Republic's Constitution (especially attacks on members of the Bahá'í religion)...
...execution of thousands of political prisoners in 1988, and the widespread use of torture to extract repudiations by prisoners of their cause and comrades on video for propaganda purposes....
Under the administration of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s human rights record "has deteriorated markedly," ... --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Islamic_Republic_of_
Iran
Not all countries are built the same.
"right of self determination" - well, where do you draw the line? Can dictators pull this card out as well?


You are conflating two entirely different issues, and doing a bad job of it to boot...

Iran has done the same things for years, but the only thing that get's the US and Israel wet is when nuclear is involved. Don't kid yourself for a second in believing either country would go in to save the people from a dictatorial regime, all they care about is someone else dealing themselves in to the nuclear game. I suspect you know this very well of course but it makes a much more compelling case to break out the violins and claim the action is humanitarian.

>> ^Asmo:

>> ^CaptainObvious:
Fuck no.
Noam Chomsky is a genius and I agree with him almost always - but on this - no way - no.
ANY country with nuclear weaponry is a threat to everyone - let alone a country like Iran. Look what a pain in the ass we have with North Korea and Pakistan.
I remember the cold war and the persistent fear of mutual destruction and the perverse rationality behind it.
I don't want ANY country (including my own) to have nukes, least of all non-democratic countries.
Allowing them and any other non-nuclear country to have nukes is the wrong direction.
We need countries to start giving up nuclear weapons, not proliferating and spreading the disease even more.
The United States might be denying Iran nukes for the wrong reasons (OIL) and perhaps Israel for the right reasons, but frankly I don't care either way.
One less country with nukes is never a bad thing.
---------
"Mr. President, it is not only possible, it is essential. That is the whole idea of this machine, you know. Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy... the FEAR to attack. And so, because of the automated and irrevocable decision-making process which rules out human meddling, the Doomsday machine is terrifying and simple to understand... and completely credible and convincing". - Dr Strangelove - yeah. makes sense huh.

What if all they want enrichment for is nuclear power..? \= |
Or, ya know, the right of self determination?


"The state of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran has been criticized both by Iranians and international human right activists...

The government of Iran is criticized both for restrictions and punishments... such as the torture, rape, and killing of political prisoners, and the beatings and killings of dissidents and other civilians....

...execution of offenders under 18 years of age, restrictions on freedom of speech and the press (including the imprisonment of journalists), and restrictions on [[freedom of religion[[ and gender equality in the Islamic Republic's Constitution (especially attacks on members of the Bahá'í religion)...

...execution of thousands of political prisoners in 1988, and the widespread use of torture to extract repudiations by prisoners of their cause and comrades on video for propaganda purposes....

Under the administration of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s human rights record "has deteriorated markedly," ... --

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran

Not all countries are built the same.

"right of self determination" - well, where do you draw the line? Can dictators pull this card out as well?

Nurses are underpaid? It's easy to make six figures a year with some overtime, and all that for a just a BA degree is pretty good. Not to mention you can make even more if you specialize or become a nurse practitioner. And while there percentage of male nurses is small, it is significant; saying that nursing is a sign of gender pay inequality is just pure bull shit.

And the "rape culture" and slut walk is pretty ridiculous too. Yes, women absolutely have the right to dress in whatever fashion they want to without fear of harassment. But the world is not some ideal utopia, and there are people at the fringes of society who do not abide by civilized rules. It's fucking useless to lecture them about gender equality and tell them that rape is bad mmmmkay? What the policeman said was crass, but it's common sense that if you dress provocatively, you're going to get a lot of attention, both good and bad.

Firstly, in cultures where older men choose younger wives (e.g. Middle East), the men have a say while the women do not.

This represents a minority group. India represents the vast majority of arranged marriages world wide and it is arranged for both male and female alike.

Really? So getting married off to someone you don't care for does not count as a "loss"? This is sexist to both the men and the woman in this scenario, while contradicting your previous point about the men being under duress. Now it's the ones who lose that are deprived (of the "prize" that is a wife), while the princess "wins" because she gets a husband. See the problem here?

Yes, really. It's simply factual that the two male losers (of the competition) don't marry. They lost = they are the losers. She doesn't compete so there are no losers on her side. Furthermore, the males are trying hard to win (it's easy to lose just shoot an arrow wide). So they are happy to participate even though they are under duress. So no contradiction I'm afraid. (whether or not you "win" by marrying is up to the individual - obviously not true for her).

two main underlying assumptions here.....

I'm not going to make any assumptions about whether arranged marriage is happy or good or whatever. I also don't know whether they last because of dependancy or not - if someone shows me some data supporting that hypothesis..... A lot of ethical and social progress has been made by going against tradition - but not all. And tradition is not fear of change, basically speaking it is a social link to the previous generation.

assumption that such a thing exists, when they are almost all socially constructed. Question: what are the "feminine characteristics" you see being abandoned in this clip? Humble obedience/subservience? What are the "masculine characteristics" you see as being taken on by the character? By answering these two questions you should be able to see what's wrong with those assumptions.

They are not even nearly almost all socially constructed. Firstly there are differences at a genetic level (we are sexual beings) Secondly, testosterone level differences create massive difference mentally and physically that account for the majority of character differences.

The last paragraph is just ridiculous. Yes, men naturally have more muscle-mass than women, but that has no bearing here (and, generally, anywhere): archery is not about strength (the first contender is so strong he only pulls the string half-way) but skill. That you would see it - and combat in general - as typically male just shows how gender stereotypes are deeply ingrained over time. As for "statistically improbable situations", puh-leez, this is still a cartoon we're talking about, and heroes/heroines will always be "better" than the comedic accessories.

No, it's not ridiculous. Men are stronger, have better muscle control, and significantly faster reaction speeds. There are lots of studies showing this - go look them up. It's why we dominate all sports, even ones that don't require strength, e.g. archery, low calibre pistol shooting, golf, badminton, etc. the list goes on. It may be an animated feature but it is still a reflection of real people and real life - otherwise what would be the point of talking about any movie.

Anyway, you've made some very valid points - I can't spend any more time discussing this (too busy) and I'm sure it will be a great movie (btw - I have multiple female children and I'm raising them to be what I call "pioneers" and not "princesses" - so they can do everything the boys do if they want - and when they choose to they do - I also have a bunch of boys).

>> ^hpqp:

>> ^harlequinn:
.......
>> ^hpqp:
......


Your answer contains a large amount of assumptions that seem to support my first point, and further underline the importance of media challenging the perception of gender-roles.
1. Arranged marriage is equally unfair in most cultures: half true. Firstly, in cultures where older men choose younger wives (e.g. Middle East), the men have a say while the women do not. Moreover, most cultures throughout history using arranged marriage allow(ed) the male to have mistresses (or even several more wives/concubines), but not vice-versa.
2. If she is the prize, there are 2 male losers but no female ones: Really? So getting married off to someone you don't care for does not count as a "loss"? This is sexist to both the men and the woman in this scenario, while contradicting your previous point about the men being under duress. Now it's the ones who lose that are deprived (of the "prize" that is a wife), while the princess "wins" because she gets a husband. See the problem here?
3. Is fighting tradition a good thing? Arranged marriages last longer: two main underlying assumptions here: "long-lasting marriage" is assumed to be a positive thing, and because arranged marriage relates to "tradition" in the first phrase, it is suggested that tradition is not all that bad. Of course arranged marriages last longer: most of the time they are relationships of dependency (particularly financial, but also psychosocial), and leaving such a relationship would often leave the woman in a very precarious situation (sometimes life-threatening). It is far healthier to be able to leave a loveless relationship when one wishes. More generally, ethical and social progress has always been made by going against the grain of tradition, the latter being the instinct to stick to what's known and familiar out of fear of change.
4. Feminine/masculine characteristics: assumption that such a thing exists, when they are almost all socially constructed. Question: what are the "feminine characteristics" you see being abandoned in this clip? Humble obedience/subservience? What are the "masculine characteristics" you see as being taken on by the character? By answering these two questions you should be able to see what's wrong with those assumptions.
The last paragraph is just ridiculous. Yes, men naturally have more muscle-mass than women, but that has no bearing here (and, generally, anywhere): archery is not about strength (the first contender is so strong he only pulls the string half-way) but skill. That you would see it - and combat in general - as typically male just shows how gender stereotypes are deeply ingrained over time. As for "statistically improbable situations", puh-leez, this is still a cartoon we're talking about, and heroes/heroines will always be "better" than the comedic accessories.
To paraphrase a close friend: the fact that we're discussing the feminism of a cartoon about an adventurous princess just goes to show we have a ways to go before achieving gender equality.
_{oh boy, I went on a rant, didn't I? Sorry for the wall of text!}

>> ^harlequinn:

Thank you, apology accepted. Perhaps I should have worded my question as one sentence, the second question was only meant to refine the first question - text communication is an imperfect medium.
You raise a very interesting point. I believe arranged marriage in most cultures is equally unfair on both males and females since they are both under duress to marry. In this clip we can only assume the males are under duress to compete for marriage. If she is their prize, they are equally her prize. And there will be two loser's on the male side but none on the female side.
Is fighting tradition a good thing? Apparently arranged marriages stick together more than traditional ones ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arranged_marriage - just looked it up, who knew!!)
In regards to the female in this clip: Is the abandonment of feminine characteristics a good thing? And the adoption of masculine characteristics a good thing?
In this particular instance they diminish the natural advantage males have in physical activities (an undeniable scientific fact) and make a statistically improbable situation. In a warrior culture, males are unlikely to be this incompetent.
>> ^hpqp:
@harlequinn, my apologies for assuming that your question was simply rhetorical, but concede that, since you give an answer to your own question (albeit slapped with a question mark), it comes off as very rhetorical indeed.
So is this the best way to remedy this? Make a movie measuring a girl's worth against her ability to do or better exactly what boys do?
And it's that "answer" that prompted my (dismissive, I admit) comment. This clip shows the main character shooting arrows better than the male contestantsy yes, but that is not the point; the point is, why is she doing that? Because she does not want to be married off; she is confronting the role of "princess to be married" because she wants to be able to make her own decisions about her life. I could go on about how women have historically gained rights by proving their worth in so-called "male" occupations (WWII anyone?) but I think the point is clear enough.



Your answer contains a large amount of assumptions that seem to support my first point, and further underline the importance of media challenging the perception of gender-roles.

1. Arranged marriage is equally unfair in most cultures: half true. Firstly, in cultures where older men choose younger wives (e.g. Middle East), the men have a say while the women do not. Moreover, most cultures throughout history using arranged marriage allow(ed) the male to have mistresses (or even several more wives/concubines), but not vice-versa.

2. If she is the prize, there are 2 male losers but no female ones: Really? So getting married off to someone you don't care for does not count as a "loss"? This is sexist to both the men and the woman in this scenario, while contradicting your previous point about the men being under duress. Now it's the ones who lose that are deprived (of the "prize" that is a wife), while the princess "wins" because she gets a husband. See the problem here?

3. Is fighting tradition a good thing? Arranged marriages last longer: two main underlying assumptions here: "long-lasting marriage" is assumed to be a positive thing, and because arranged marriage relates to "tradition" in the first phrase, it is suggested that tradition is not all that bad. Of course arranged marriages last longer: most of the time they are relationships of dependency (particularly financial, but also psychosocial), and leaving such a relationship would often leave the woman in a very precarious situation (sometimes life-threatening). It is far healthier to be able to leave a loveless relationship when one wishes. More generally, ethical and social progress has always been made by going against the grain of tradition, the latter being the instinct to stick to what's known and familiar out of fear of change.

4. Feminine/masculine characteristics: assumption that such a thing exists, when they are almost all socially constructed. Question: what are the "feminine characteristics" you see being abandoned in this clip? Humble obedience/subservience? What are the "masculine characteristics" you see as being taken on by the character? By answering these two questions you should be able to see what's wrong with those assumptions.

The last paragraph is just ridiculous. Yes, men naturally have more muscle-mass than women, but that has no bearing here (and, generally, anywhere): archery is not about strength (the first contender is so strong he only pulls the string half-way) but skill. That you would see it - and combat in general - as typically male just shows how gender stereotypes are deeply ingrained over time. As for "statistically improbable situations", puh-leez, this is still a cartoon we're talking about, and heroes/heroines will always be "better" than the comedic accessories.

To paraphrase a close friend: the fact that we're discussing the feminism of a cartoon about an adventurous princess just goes to show we have a ways to go before achieving gender equality.

_{oh boy, I went on a rant, didn't I? Sorry for the wall of text!}

On the subject of gender *equality

just another person clinging on to hope that the current system won't fail, because he's doing quite well out of it thank you very much. It already failed good sir, that's why the protesters are in the streets, and they aren't stopping any time soon.

For anyone repeating the 'protesters have no demands' rhetoric, perhaps try reading? These were posted 10 days ago.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme/

Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending “Freetrade” by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.

Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.

Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

Demand four: Free college education.

Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.

Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.

Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America’s nuclear power plants.

Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.

Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.

Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.

Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the “Books.” World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the “Books.” And I don’t mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.

Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.

Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.



Once you've read them, and realize that there are actually demands, and that they have been posted for quite a while now, understand that the movement, by necessity has to be leaderless, so coming up with demands needs to be done in an organic fashion taking into account a variety of viewpoints - this takes TIME. On that note, expect the demands to change and improve with time, those demands are just a snapshot. The whole point of the protests is that things have just gotten rediculous, there are so many issues the Government is not dealing with, so what would be the point of protesting against just one issue?

Protests can involve more than one issue? How unthinkable!!!

Theoretically, you're correct. In America social change can occur by movements - like queer rights, gender equality, etc. But, we're no longer in the 60's - the right has dampered/tampered with every facet of our society to the point where when people are protesting on Wall Street they are not protesting for social change they are protesting for governmental change because the people on Wall Street and all of those corporations own the government. They will not stand for little peons whining about financial inequality because they own the news, they own the jobs, they own everything with a "let them eat cake" attitude; they will never let up with their class warfare.

I'd love to see a huge movement occur because then people would realize how serious they are in order to continue with the status quo. You'd end up seeing microwave technology used on the masses involved. I mean I've seen it before but only on smaller scales.

>> ^Yogi:

Anyone who says we can't change the government through social change, education, or civil disobedience is simply ignorant of history. It's not their fault though because we're instructed that the 60's were the "Time of Troubles" where we had drugs and free love and a war no one liked and nothing significant happened that wasn't brought about by learned great people. The change that occurred was massive and there have been other social changes as well. We threw off slavery in the US before we did that it was thought to be completely impossible...then we fought and African Americans got their just rights as well and that didn't take a civil war.

While I understand and agree with the idea, there is a reason it was called "feminism" and not simply "equalism".

"Sexism", while applying to both sexes by definition, is in reality almost always directed against women; the bulk of the fight for gender equality is about giving women equal rights and status and changing society's view thereof, hence "feminism".

In a world where, over the centuries, men were treated as inferior to women, the movement to fight for equal rights would most certainly have been called "virilism". See what I mean?

>> ^gwiz665:

As in, it should not be feminism, it should be "equalism".

I am baffled by some of these comments. If it had been a male who had slept with the entire cheerleader team I think a lot of these comments would have been about "High-fives" and "Cheers" or some such not about whores/sluts and their definitions. Welcome to the year 2010 and gender *equality... Females are just as allowed to screw around as males. Get over it.