FIND OUT IF YOU’VE CAUGHT FEMINISM!

Morag

This gave me the giggles so I thought I'd share.

http://guysguidetofeminism.com/excerpt-of-the-week/

FIND OUT IF YOU’VE CAUGHT FEMINISM!

Do you believe that women should have the right to:

Vote?
Go to college?
Drive a car?
Open bank accounts in their own names?
Enjoy sex?
Work in whatever occupation they might choose, and get paid the same as men when they do the same work?

Did you answer yes?

Then you better lie down. . . . You’ve probably caught feminism.

The feminist contagion has spread far and wide. It infects both women and men. Most people in North America, Europe and many parts of the rest of the world have caught it. The terrible truth is that, nowadays, most of us support these rights and actually see them as basic rights of individuals in a democracy.


QUESTIONS FOR CONCERNED INDIVIDUALS !

What was it like before we had to worry about being infected? For one thing, women had none of these rights. Ask your mother or grandmother: as recently as the 1960s, she had to get her hubby’s signature to open a bank account.

How did the contagion spread? Not by being ladylike. Women spent a hundred years campaigning for the right to vote (and winning it first in New Zealand.) They fought for a century to control their own bodies and work alongside men in the jobs of their choice.

Yeah, but aren’t things equal now? This disease is relentless. Give ’em the right to vote and they want the right to equal pay. Give ’em that and they want childcare as part of the public education system. And, who knows, when they get that, they’re going to expect an end to rape and partner assault. This disease knows no bounds!

Those infected will admit that things are pretty good here compared with some other parts of the world (and, compared to even 25 years ago). But then they’ll have the nerve to point out that even the United States has never ratified the United Nation’s Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; they’ll tell you that Congress turned down an amendment to prohibit discrimination against women.

What Are the two main symptoms? The symptoms are simple and terrifying. It starts with one empirical observation (about the state of things) quickly followed by a moral position (about how things should be based on that empirical observation.) That’s all it takes!!!

Here’s what to watch out for:

The empirical observation is that, in our society, women and men are still not equal. (Beware: if you find yourself noticing men form the big majority of those who run local, state and federal governments, major corporations, colleges and universities, religious institutions, and media conglomerates. Beware if you find yourself losing sleep because women earn about 70 cents for every buck that men make.)

The moral position is even simpler: it should not be this way.

A Contagion that spreads everywhere! Feminism can spread into every nook and cranny. We’re not just talking about public life, or jobs, or pay. Once the virus invades a person, it starts a mutation in their personal life! You start thinking that in our personal relationships women deserve to have total respect and dignity! That they should be a partner in all decision-making!


DOES THIS VIRUS TARGET MEN?

The virus really has it in for men. doesn’t believe that male biology causes men to rape or pillage or not listen or hog the channel changer. It actually believes that men are basically good!!!! It believes that men can (and should) be ethical, emotionally present, and accountable to our values in our interactions with women — as well as with other men.

Women who’ve caught feminism not only expect men to act in honorable ways, but have a deep belief in our ability to do so.

Beware, my friend. This is very insidious stuff.


WHAT CAN A CONCERNED GUY DO TO STAY VIRUS FREE?!???

* Watch out if you buy a T-shirt with a slogan like: “A Man of Quality Isn’t Threatened by Women’s Equality.”

* Be scared, be very scared if you find yourself thinking that our masculinity is actually confirmed by our willingness to stand up for what’s right, , even when the cause seems unpopular.

* Run for the hills if you wear a T-**** that reads: Real Men Support Feminism.

It's taken from the new book The Guys Guide to Feminism by Michael Kaufman and Michael Kimmel

In just one generation, age-old ideas about women have been swept aside . . . but what does that have to do with men? Authors Michael Kaufman and Michael Kimmel, two of the worlds leading male advocates of gender equality, believe it has everything to do with them—and that its crucial to educate men about feminism in order for them to fully understand just how important and positive these changes have been for them.

Kaufman and Kimmel address these issues in "The Guys Guide to Feminism." Hip and accessible, it contains nearly a hundred entries—from “Autonomy” to “Zero Tolerance”—written in varying tones (humorous, satirical, irreverent, thoughtful, and serious) and in many forms (“top ten” lists, comics, interviews, mini-stories, and more). Each topic celebrates the ongoing gains that are improving the lives of women and girls—and what that really means for men. Informal and fun yet substantive and intelligent, "The Guys Guide to Feminism" illustrates how understanding and supporting feminism can help men live richer, fuller, and happier lives Published by Seal Press. November 2011

So what do you think, cool authors or gender traitors?

Dravokivich

To be honest, I find the first article to be quite childish and the second to be a terrible book review / advert.

Morag

It's meant to be silly, but if it's not ticking your funny bone fair enough.

paulmclaughlin

I'm away to post this in the Ladies Lounge...

Stheno

My male colleagues with whom I bitch about the fact I pay my ex maintenance are so far beyond catching feminism that they would howl with laughter at this article.

It's the ultimate throwback to "how things used to be"

BigDuffman

Wait a second...that has nothing at all to do with sammiches

FetchTheGin

paulmclaughlin wrote: »

I'm away to post this in the Ladies Lounge...

LOL

I wonder would the OP, or anyone else in there "giggle" if it was posted.

krudler

Sharrow wrote: »

It's meant to be silly, but if it's not ticking your funny bone fair enough.

if someone posted the reverse of this in tLL you'd have a sh1t attack.

The Corinthian

Sharrow wrote: »

So what do you think, cool authors or gender traitors?

More like childish offal designed to make money out of misandrist idiots.

Sharrow wrote: »

It's meant to be silly, but if it's not ticking your funny bone fair enough.

Next time I hear a woman taking offence at a boobs joke, I might suggest the same logic.

18AD

The tone of the piece is clearly, to me anyway, mocking anti-equality and misandry, as you point out. I can see how someone might construe it as not doing so, especially if they had the sensibilities of a post. In which case it would entitle them to reckon as they do.

Admittedly I didn't find it very funny, but the authors seem to be doing some good work from what is contained in their respective bios. I think the best approach to outdated ideologies is mockery, because it's fun and effective.

Alopex

What a total crock of sh*t.

Beware if you find yourself losing sleep because women earn about 70 cents for every buck that men make.

Ah that old chestnut. Make out that women get paid less for the same work without pointing out women are more likely to be part time.

Give ’em the right to vote and they want the right to equal pay. Give ’em that and they want childcare as part of the public education system. And, who knows, when they get that, they’re going to expect an end to rape and partner assault. This disease knows no bounds!

Boke. Making out as if most people think rape and partner assault is acceptable when they clearly don't.

I expect he'll sell a lot of copies to women though

LightningBolt

Alopex wrote: »

What a total crock of sh*t.



Ah that old chestnut. Make out that women get paid less for the same work without pointing out women are more likely to be part time.



Boke. Making out as if most people think rape and partner assault is acceptable when they clearly don't.

I expect he'll sell a lot of copies to women though

It's a píss take. If you've failed to get that it's a píss take from the whole article good luck.

The Corinthian

LightningBolt wrote: »

It's a píss take. If you've failed to get that it's a píss take from the whole article good luck.

Q. What do all battered wives have in common?
A. Disobedience.

That too is a 'piss take' but it doesn't make it in acceptable.

Neither is the underlying message of the "are you a Feminist" 'piss take' a good one either as it attempts to claim that you must be a Feminist to believe in a woman's right to vote, go to college, drive a car or enjoy sex - oddly enough you can believe in gender equality without having to ascribe to Feminism.

And if you are not a Feminist, apparently the implication is that you must, by default, be some form of Neanderthal, penis-wielding oppressor and foot soldier of the Patriarchy.

'Piss take' or not, it is offensive, dishonest and puerile.

Alopex

LightningBolt wrote: »

It's a píss take. If you've failed to get that it's a píss take from the whole article good luck.

good luck? You're the moron who's missed that he's satirising a notion that women don't have a right not to be raped. A notion that is not held in high regard in our society yet his lampoon suggests it is:rolleyes:

18AD

No he's not. He's satyrising the notion that some people hold that belief. People think rape is acceptable, people think that joke about wives is funny because it's true. This is a satyr of those people and those beliefs.

Alopex

18AD wrote: »

No he's not. He's satyrising the notion that some people hold that belief. People think rape is acceptable, people think that joke about wives is funny because it's true. This is a satyr of those people and those beliefs.

of course he is.The flow of the paragraph doesn't in any way suggest its a minority view. If he painted the situation as it is he wouldn't sell as many books which is why he puts it that way

18AD

Alopex wrote: »

The flow of the paragraph doesn't in any way suggest its a minority view. If he painted the situation as it is he wouldn't sell as many books which is why he puts it that way

Which paragraph? And what is the minority view? Are you saying they are promoting that view?

How is the situation really?
What's wrong with selling books?

Why would two equal rights activists be ridiculing equal rights? If anything they are ridiculing double standards as the ideas presented in the article.

LightningBolt

Alopex wrote: »

good luck? You're the moron who's missed that he's satirising a notion that women don't have a right not to be raped. A notion that is not held in high regard in our society yet his lampoon suggests it is:rolleyes:

Go ahead and resort to personal abuse, unwarranted. Your original post was a total over reaction to the article.

Alopex

18AD wrote: »

Which paragraph? And what is the minority view? Are you saying they are promoting that view?

How is the situation really?

What was it like before we had to worry about being infected? For one thing, women had none of these rights. Ask your mother or grandmother: as recently as the 1960s, she had to get her hubby’s signature to open a bank account.
Ok. So here he's joking about genuine grievences women had to endure in the past. Fine

How did the contagion spread? Not by being ladylike. Women spent a hundred years campaigning for the right to vote (and winning it first in New Zealand.) They fought for a century to control their own bodies and work alongside men in the jobs of their choice.

now he talks about how things changed. no probs.

Yeah, but aren’t things equal now? This disease is relentless. Give ’em the right to vote and they want the right to equal pay. Give ’em that and they want childcare as part of the public education system. And, who knows, when they get that, they’re going to expect an end to rape and partner assault. This disease knows no bounds!

Jokes continue and he gets on to the rape bit. In the context that suggests society is casually accepting of rape which is frankly ridiculous

What's wrong with selling books?

The point is he is simply profiteering from propagating mistruths. He's just making a fool out of the people who think he's some sort of visionary and buying them.

Why would two equal rights activists be ridiculing equal rights? If anything they are ridiculing double standards as the ideas presented in the article.

don't know what you mean here

Alopex

LightningBolt wrote: »

Go ahead and resort to personal abuse, unwarranted. Your original post was a total over reaction to the article.

You started it mate. Don't try and pretend the "good luck" comment was anything but a snide remark having a go at my "failure to get it was a pisstake"

18AD

But rape is still thought to be acceptable by some. They are mocking this position.

If you go to the website: http://guysguidetofeminism.com/the-michael-ks/
You'll find that they are equal rights activists.

EDIT: Not that you need this information to surmise that they are taking the piss out of people who don't think equal rights are appropriate.

LightningBolt

Alopex wrote: »

You started it mate. Don't try and pretend the "good luck" comment was anything but a snide remark having a go at my "failure to get it was a pisstake"

I'm not your "mate". "Good luck" was a remark aimed at your overreaction.

Alopex

18AD wrote: »

But rape is still thought to be acceptable by some. They are mocking this position.

I know. As I said in the first post its the fact he's implying its a general thing rather than an absolute minority is what I take issue with. Some people still think its ok to kill people for being black but it would be unfair to imply that's the general consensus.

If they actually were just mocking the tiny minority in its real form - pretty odd way of going about it to slip it into a paragraph about society in general.

The Corinthian

18AD wrote: »

But rape is still thought to be acceptable by some. They are mocking this position.

Apparently their position is that rape is still thought to be acceptable by anyone who's not a Feminist.

If you go to the website: http://guysguidetofeminism.com/the-michael-ks/
You'll find that they are equal rights activists.

Actually, you'll find that they are Feminist activists, which is not the same thing; Feminism does not have a monopoly on equal rights, and at this stage in the ideology's evolution, it's questionable that Feminism even represents equal rights any more.

iptba

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually, you'll find that they are Feminist activists, which is not the same thing; Feminism does not have a monopoly on equal rights, and at this stage in the ideology's evolution, it's questionable that Feminism even represents equal rights any more.

Yes.

Also, it's could be described as a revisionist view of history or at least an unbalanced view. If you were a woman in the past, you generally weren't conscripted to fight in wars. You generally weren't expected to do a lot of dangerous occupations e.g. fishing, mining, construction, etc. I'm no historian but I believe for most of history most men didn't have the right to vote either.

Life was more complicated in the past than this article makes out.

And life is certainly more complicated now. It is possible for the pendulum to swing the other way, to use a common metaphor.

Otis Driftwood

Alopex,there is no need to be insulting,choose your words more carefully in future please.

vicecreamsundae

Alopex wrote: »

What a total crock of sh*t.



Ah that old chestnut. Make out that women get paid less for the same work without pointing out women are more likely to be part time.

they're more likely to work part time. they're more likely to work less skilled jobs. the jobs they work are more likely to be considered unskilled (two different things). they're less likely to be promoted.

yes, these are all things that contribute the to 70c 'chestnut'.

the point is why are all these issues the case?
it's not because women are lazy you know. women are more likely to be responsible for looking after children or elderly relatives and unable to work fulltime. they're more likely to be financially supporting their children alone than men are. they're less likely to have had access to good education, and they're more likely to be discriminated at interviews based on the age of their uterus.

you're not supposed to just accept the 70c chestnut at face value, you're supposed to question the various forms of institutionalised sexism that causes it.

The Corinthian

vicecreamsundae wrote: »

the point is why are all these issues the case?
it's not because women are lazy you know. women are more likely to be responsible for looking after children or elderly relatives and unable to work fulltime. they're more likely to be financially supporting their children alone than men are. they're less likely to have had access to good education, and they're more likely to be discriminated at interviews based on the age of their uterus.

you're not supposed to just accept the 70c chestnut at face value, you're supposed to question the various forms of institutionalised sexism that causes it.

Yes one is supposed to question it, but one might not arrive at the same answers as you have.

To begin with they are more likely to be responsible for looking after children, but that's sexism that cuts both ways and Feminism has done little to nothing to redress the legal and social bias that women have where it comes to children. As long as those continues, women will continue being seen as the primary childcarers and thus will carry the bulk of that role.

Then there's the question of being more likely to to be responsible for looking after elderly relatives. Honestly, this is a new one on me and I would have to question if this is the case in reality, or if it really would have a significant impact on salary levels within the whole of society.

As to they're less likely to have had access to good education, this is completely untrue. The truth is that women are now better educated and qualified than men, on average.

And finally there is the question of discrimination in interviews/promotions. Certainly this occurs, but it's just another facet (and hence repetition) of the their being more likely to be responsible for looking after children.

Indeed, related to this is that childcare will impact upon work experience. If you take a year or five out to raise small children, that's a year or five less experience than someone who continued work without interruption. The same goes for part-time work - working 40% - 60% is not, and not going to be seen, as the same in terms of work experience as someone who's working 100% (or more in today's working environments).

In reality, childless women over 40 and women in their early twenties actually earn more than their male counterparts, so most evidence points to the childcarer role being the primary determinant. And is that sexual discrimination? Perhaps, but it's not as simple as discrimination against women (as it also discriminates against men and many women actively choose the role).

So certainly we should question the 70%, or whatever it's supposed to be, but more often than not we are presented with this statistic as some absolute proof of sexual discrimination. And it's simply not any more.

RandolphEsq

The last two questions I answered no to, otherwise I answered yes.

Morag

iptba wrote: »

Yes.

Also, it's could be described as a revisionist view of history or at least an unbalanced view. If you were a woman in the past, you generally weren't conscripted to fight in wars. You generally weren't expected to do a lot of dangerous occupations e.g. fishing, mining, construction, etc. I'm no historian but I believe for most of history most men didn't have the right to vote either.

Life was more complicated in the past than this article makes out.

And life is certainly more complicated now. It is possible for the pendulum to swing the other way, to use a common metaphor.

The notion that women have never had to do dirt work or dangerous work is frankly bull****.

http://www.balmaiden.co.uk/WomenUK.htm

Women and girls have been employed across the mining industries in the UK. After the metallic mines of Cornwall, probably most have been employed in the Coal Mines. It was not uncommon for them to employed underground, which was made illegal after 1842. They were certainly employed underground in the collieries of Scotland, Cumbria, Northumberland, Shropshire, Yorkshire and Lancashire. In Scotland and Northumberland they often carried coal in baskets on their backs, to climb stairs out of the mine. Elsewhere, they hauled waggons on all fours, by means of a chain around their waist, through low passages. In Silkstone, near Barnsley, women and girls died in a mine explosion in 1805, and a further seven (9 to 17 years old) died in a tragic flooding of the Moorside Pit in 1838. In 1841 there were 2350 women employed in the coal mines of the UK, one third of them in Lancashire. After 1842, the women and girls worked at the surface, pushing waggons from the pit head to the sorting screens, or sorting coal at the screen themselves. In some mines the latter continued until the 1930’s.

Some of earliest records of females at the mines, come from lead mining areas of the Peak district, the Yorkshire Dales and Co. Durham. Women were commonly employed (sub-contracted) to wash and dress ores during the 17th and 18th centuries. By the early 19th century this work was mainly done by boys. Females were also employed at the copper mines in Anglesey and Staffordshire.

Females were also employed at the iron mines of Shropshire, where they pulled nodules of ore out of weathered banks, by hand. Other girls carried these nodules away in iron ‘baskets’ balanced on their heads. They also appear to have worked in a similar way at Blaenavon in South Wales.

There were women powder carrier on naval vessels in the 1800s and as nurses on the hospital ship as well as those who were the vanguard of armies.

Again it is the Victoian notions that women should be kept at home and out of sight and were weaker with perpetuated a lot of the myth and cultural biases which still have to be undone.

The Corinthian

Sharrow wrote: »

The notion that women have never had to do dirt work or dangerous work is frankly bull****.

He never said never, he said generally. And generally dangerous jobs were, and still are, carried out by men, not women. But it is not even this that iptba was highlighting, but how this detail has been overlooked in the Feminist version of history, and continues to be overlooked today as men continue to do (or are forced in the case of conscription) the bulk of dangerous work.

Again it is the Victoian notions that women should be kept at home and out of sight and were weaker with perpetuated a lot of the myth and cultural biases which still have to be undone.

And of course Feminism has done a lot to remove this myth and demand that women should be conscripted to the military on a par with men.... :rolleyes:

Morag

The Corinthian wrote: »

And of course Feminism has done a lot to remove this myth and demand that women should be conscripted to the military on a par with men.... :rolleyes:

Feminism is philosophy and not a hive mind collective, and yes many women have worked towards being on equal par in the military, even active service.
There hasn't been conscription in decades and if it was to happen again I don't see any reason to differ.

The Corinthian

Sharrow wrote: »

Feminism is philosophy and not a hive mind collective,

Absolutely, but given that no branch of Feminism has campaigned or even advocated conscription for women on a pare with men, you can pretty much say that some kinds of equality are not part of the Feminist philosophy.

and yes many women have worked towards being on equal par in the military, even active service.

No one doubts that Feminism supports women who choose to be n equal par in the military, even active service, but that's not what I said. Feminism has not sought to dispel the myth of women being weaker through seeking to equalize issues such as conscription.

There hasn't been conscription in decades and if it was to happen again I don't see any reason to differ.

In Ireland no, but it exists in many other countries and Feminism has remained silent. Indeed, in areas where equality would mean a loss of rights of women, Feminism generally remains silent - as I alluded to in my earlier post regarding childcare.

Morag

Well from what I gather it's just not an issue which most women consider one that effects them directly, esp as we've never had it and there are other more important issues which should be tackled, child care and parental leavis is certainly one of them I've never heard anyone say that there should be paternity leave or equal parental leave similar to other countries.

The Corinthian

Sharrow wrote: »

Well from what I gather it's just not an issue which most women consider one that effects them directly

Exactly, which is why you cannot argue that Feminism and equality are equated to each other when it really only considers one side of the equation and ignores the rest - especially if equality may actually cause you to lose rights.

This is why the article you posted is so offensive. It makes a claim that one can only believe in equality if you're a Feminist and not only is this untrue, but it's arguable that Feminism is really about equality. And if you're not a Feminist, you're some sort of troll.

From what I can see, Feminism is about choice (for women), not equality.

K-9

The Corinthian wrote: »

Absolutely, but given that no branch of Feminism has campaigned or even advocated conscription for women on a pare with men, you can pretty much say that some kinds of equality are not part of the Feminist philosophy.

No one doubts that Feminism supports women who choose to be n equal par in the military, even active service, but that's not what I said. Feminism has not sought to dispel the myth of women being weaker through seeking to equalize issues such as conscription.

In Ireland no, but it exists in many other countries and Feminism has remained silent. Indeed, in areas where equality would mean a loss of rights of women, Feminism generally remains silent - as I alluded to in my earlier post regarding childcare.

I think you're assuming that Feminists would want conscription in the first place. Not that many countries have it any more with many scrapping it in recent times.

The Corinthian

K-9 wrote: »

I think you're assuming that Feminists would want conscription in the first place. Not that many countries have it any more with many scrapping it in recent times.

The only thing I am assuming is that Feminists ignore the issue as it does not affect them. And as I said, you cannot argue that Feminism and equality are equated to each other when it really only considers one side of the equation and ignores the rest. So my point still stands.

Zulu

K-9 wrote: »

I think you're assuming that Feminists would want conscription ...

Not meaning to put words in TC's mouth, but I don't think he is assuming that. The salient point is that feminism does NOT strive for equality, but rather lobbies for "equality" where it benifits women rather than equality in all matters. Thus it's not so much striving for equality, but rather cherry picking components under the guise of equality.

Personally, I'd support that opinion. I found the origional post very disengenous. I'm an egalitarian so I don't view feminism as the only option supporting equal rights. Quite the opposite in fact.

Zulu

The Corinthian wrote: »

The only thing I am assuming....

Sorry to post on your behalf - I was typing it up when you answered.

K-9

My point is unless there's evidence that Feminists support Conscription as a principle, why would they look for women to be called up as well?

Would seem an odd thing to do and an odd thing to make a point of!

Fremen

Sharrow wrote: »

So what do you think, cool authors or gender traitors?

I think false dichotomy.

The Corinthian

K-9 wrote: »

My point is unless there's evidence that Feminists support Conscription as a principle, why would they look for women to be called up as well?

Would seem an odd thing to do and an odd thing to make a point of!

Because equality is not about looking after women's interests. It's about balancing the rights and responsibilities of both genders. Oddly enough equality isn't just about women.

As such, the claim that equates Feminism with equality is false.

Zulu

K-9 wrote: »

My point is unless there's evidence that Feminists support Conscription as a principle, why would they look for women to be called up as well?

Because they want equality in society.

But our point is that they aren't looking for equality at all.

goose2005

Sharrow wrote: »

The notion that women have never had to do dirt work or dangerous work is frankly bull****.

http://www.balmaiden.co.uk/WomenUK.htm



There were women powder carrier on naval vessels in the 1800s and as nurses on the hospital ship as well as those who were the vanguard of armies.

Again it is the Victoian notions that women should be kept at home and out of sight and were weaker with perpetuated a lot of the myth and cultural biases which still have to be undone.

The "Victorian" notion of women only applied to the upper/middle classes, who at the time were only the top 10-15% of society. Among the working classes, women had to work in fields, factories, etc, but the most dangerous jobs were still given to men.

K-9

The Corinthian wrote: »

Because equality is not about looking after women's interests. It's about balancing the rights and responsibilities of both genders. Oddly enough equality isn't just about women.

As such, the claim that equates Feminism with equality is false.

Zulu wrote: »

Because they want equality in society.

But our point is that they aren't looking for equality at all.

Yeah, it's about women's rights, not an egalitarian society, it's hardly shocking news. Maybe it's just a bad example you gave because I've never thought of Feminism as pro conscription so I don't see it as an issue.

The Corinthian

K-9 wrote: »

Yeah, it's about women's rights, not an egalitarian society, it's hardly shocking news.

But that's what the 'humorous' piece in the OP is claiming, which is why people have objected.

OutlawPete

Have I "caught" Feminism?

No, but I've been infected by it unfortunately. As too has western society as a whole for the past forty odd years.

Hopefully it and I, will make a full recovery.

sharper

I find "feminism" a term too overloaded to be useful, it means too many things to many people. If you're trying to discuss rights or inequality the introduction of the term usually has a negative effect.

I'm happy to say I'm a feminist in the sense I fully support equal rights for all. I think gender roles are pretty silly and people should be taken as what they are: individuals.

baalthor

K-9 wrote: »

The Corinthian wrote: »

Because equality is not about looking after women's interests. It's about balancing the rights and responsibilities of both genders. Oddly enough equality isn't just about women.

As such, the claim that equates Feminism with equality is false.

Zulu wrote: »

Because they want equality in society.

But our point is that they aren't looking for equality at all.

Yeah, it's about women's rights, not an egalitarian society, it's hardly shocking news. Maybe it's just a bad example you gave because I've never thought of Feminism as pro conscription so I don't see it as an issue.

Not saying they represent all feminists but the main suffragettes were enthusiastically prowar and pro conscription in WW I.
Pankhurst made a deal with Churchill that if women got the vote then her organization would support the war. So they spent the war handing out white feathers to men who were too "cowardly" to join up.

Of course many feminists have been antiwar and have opposed conscription for both sexes.

OutlawPete

With regards to Feminists and conscription, here's a segment of the book: Sex, Lies & Feminism which comments on just that:

Military Service and Conscription – a Pregnant Silence

Military service and conscription are an area where women have always had an advantage over men, and Feminists are not about to complain about it! But they are working hard trying to get women the choice of a military career without the obligation of conscription. Nowhere are Feminist double standards more blatant. Farrell (1993) states this issue of military service in graphic terms:

Imagine: Music is playing on your car radio. An announcer's voice interrupts: 'We have a special bulletin from the president.'... The president announces, "Since 1.2 million American men have been killed in war, as part of my new program for equality, we will draft only women until 1.2 million American women have been killed in war." (op. cit. page 28)

Wars have always involved civilian casualties, but most of the casualties are soldiers and most of the soldiers have been men. So I think it is worthwhile making Farrel's imaginary scenario a political proposal. At least it would expose Feminists as the hypocrites they are.

As a bare minimum, Liberal Masculists might say that the drafting of women as front-line troops should occur on exactly the same basis as for men (whether in war or peace). Increased use of military technology has indeed reduced the importance of men's greater upper-body strength and hormonal characteristics in war, as much of the action is now long-distance. Even infantry warfare involves little upper-body strength. However, this is more a moral issue than a practical one and the argument for mandatory draft registration of women would be strong even in the absence of sophisticated military hardware.

Moral and political arguments aside, conservative Masculists still prefer the traditional division of labour: only men should be subject to conscription and front line duty, but they should receive some special treatment in return. Legal status as head of the household, for example. It might even be used as an argument for repealing women's right to vote: why should women elect governments that can declare war when they don't share equally in the dangers that war involves?

Some Feminists favour opening front-line positions to women who volunteer. However, Feminists don't like the idea of compelling women to undertake such dangerous and unpleasant duties. Of course, many men oppose the idea, as well, but Feminists who hide behind this are hypocrites. Many Feminists pretend that wars are "men's games", which is an outright lie. Most wars have just as much support from the females in the populations involved as from the males. How many Feminists stood up and said that Britain should not defend itself against Hitler, for example ? And I once read of a German mother who so adored Hitler that she said that, if Hitler was really homosexual, she would send her son to sleep with him ! In 1999 the Sri Lankan Prime Minister was a woman, and in that year a Tamil female suicide bomber blew herself up in an attempt to kill her ! In what way was that a "man's game"?

Feminists also say we should concentrate on preventing war because a world without war has no need for conscription. True enough, but that does not stop them from demanding that women have the option to serve on the front lines. Moreover, there is a contradiction between that and the line Feminists take on abortion. You never hear Feminists say they oppose abortion because they are concentrating their efforts on preventing unwanted pregnancies!

Everyone agrees that war and unwanted pregnancies are both evils we should avoid. But in the case of war, Feminists pretend they can abolish the evil and thereby ignore the conscription issue. While in the case of unwanted pregnancy, they focus instead on removing the inconvenience for women – at the cost of a human life!

But this is not the only context in which they suffer from a distorted sense of proportionality: The Men's Manifesto (Richard Doyle, Men's Defense Association, 1992) notes Feminists made a serious demand for a statue of a "combat woman" to be erected at the Vietnam War Memorial in the United States. This was intended to memorialize specially and separately the eight (8) American women who died in that war. The existing memorial would then be shared only by the 58,000 American men who died there.

This complete lack of compassion, gratitude and sense of proportion by the Feminists is absolutely typical. They must feel guilty about all the sacrifices men have made in wartime on behalf of women and children, and that it is one of the weakest points of their case if it leads them to attempt to raise ancillary activities to the same level as front-line infantry fighting.

Zulu

sharper wrote: »

I'm happy to say I'm a feminist in the sense I fully support equal rights for all.

If the important part of that statement to you is the "for all", then I'd suggest that you might in fact be more accurately described as an egalitarian.

A feminist would fully support equal* rights for women.

*The equal here is very debatable.

Apologies for attempting to "rebrand" you, but in my experience, a significant amount of "feminists" that I talk to are really "egalitarians".