Will this feminist narrative become undone in the next world war?

Adamocovic

...back to bed

Grayson

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

There's one problem with feminism.... and that it's all bollocks
On paper, who wouldnt support feminism? I mean equal rights for everyone. Sounds fair right? problem is feminism is about the individual.

By that I mean so many moan about things over here and the west in general. But hold on, what about the middle-east and the like? where women are being treated bad. You never hear about western-feminists trying to come together to sort that sh*t out. No no. why should they? that's a different country. Who cares. So little miss suzie-feminist moans about "things" that effect her. Even if in actual fact there is nothing there. It's easy to moan why you aren't on 50k a year because of "men" when in actual fact you never went to college and knuckled down to achieve that.

So with that said, if there was a next world war watch as certain feminists would sing a different tune. It' about the individual. Who'd want to be on the front lines or in some sh*t storm of a conflict?
It's like a cruise ship and it's being sunk. Then the captain says "Women and children first on the life boats!" - How many feminists would stop and say "that's not fair!" - none. Point is feminism depends on what side of the situation you are on.

By that standard if you talk about homelessness here you're a dick if you're not always talking about it abroad.

lazybones32

lazybones32 wrote: »

The next world war will knock away all the foolishness we've allowed to distract us.

Black, white, gay, trans, straight, left, right aint gonna matter a sheet when the next global conflict occurs.

When resources of energy, land, protein, clean water etc. begin to run out, all this sort of stuff is going to look so luxurious to have ever cared about.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

When resources of energy, land, protein, clean water etc. begin to run out, all this sort of stuff is going to look so luxurious to have ever cared about.

Not sure I get the connection.

We're out of meat. Homosexuality is now a luxury.

Grayson

Deleted User wrote: »

Not sure I get the connection.

We're out of meat. Homosexuality is now a luxury.

Or, We're out of meat, stop women from working.

hairyslug

I watched Starship troopers last night, highly recommended, 7 stars

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Not sure I get the connection.

We're out of meat. Homosexuality is now a luxury.

Grayson wrote: »

Or, We're out of meat, stop women from working.

We might not live to see it but there will be war in the future over protein. When fossil fuels run out, farming as it done at current scales worldwide wont be possible. Meanwhile you have billions of people either eating or demanding to eat lots of meat in their diet because it is what they are used to or what they associate with success or luxury, while meat is way more energy-expensive to produce than crops (hence why I said "protein" instead of just "food). We nowadays eat over 100 kg meat on average per year. It's not that long ago since the average was wayyyy lower, like 15 kg maybe (a bit over half a pound a week each). And to provide such levels of meat as are presently demanded, farming conditions around the world are already required to be brutal for the wellbeing of the animals, so this sort of farming would be required to be expanded to meet demand.

My point was that in the context of wars over food resources, issues such LGBT concerns would take a back seat - they are the sorts of issues that societies at large only really think about when material conditions are secure. Same as environmental concerns like carbon footprint etc.

Also at some point in the future, women will probably be required to return to agricultural work along with men since there wont be any fuel for agricultural machinery to do the work instead.

jeanjolie

Deleted User wrote: »

We might not live to see it but there will be war in the future over protein. When fossil fuels run out, farming as it done at current scales worldwide wont be possible. Meanwhile you have billions of people either eating or demanding to eat lots of meat in their diet because it is what they are used to or what they associate with success or luxury, while meat is way more energy-expensive to produce than crops (hence why I said "protein" instead of just "food). We nowadays eat over 100 kg meat on average per year. It's not that long ago since the average was wayyyy lower, like 15 kg maybe (a bit over half a pound a week each). And to provide such levels of meat as are presently demanded, farming conditions around the world are already required to be brutal for the wellbeing of the animals, so this sort of farming would be required to be expanded to meet demand.

My point was that in the context of wars over food resources, issues such LGBT concerns would take a back seat - they are the sorts of issues that societies at large only really think about when material conditions are secure. Same as environmental concerns like carbon footprint etc.

Also at some point in the future, women will probably be required to return to agricultural work along with men since there wont be any fuel for agricultural machinery to do the work instead.

Unless of course genetic engineering becomes a thing. Perhaps we could make people who are able to survive on a vegan diet.

jeanjolie

jeanjolie wrote: »

Unless of course genetic engineering becomes a thing. Perhaps we could make people who are able to survive on a vegan diet.

That's a great point actually. If we are going to engage in genetic engineering then being able to get "more" out of less protein would be a great characteristic to give people.

...I suppose this is all a tangent to the threads subject though!

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

daisybun wrote: »

I have plenty, both work related and personal, none of which I have any intention of sharing with you. Best of luck with your campaigning for the women of Saudi Arabia however, I hope your awareness/ fund raising/ whatever goes well for you.

Sucks to be you then I guess, I've never felt my gender has held me back in any way shape or form. Decisions I've made has held me back, but then again I expect to be treated equally and that means I don't expect to be treated based on my gender. I would be ashamed of my life if I was ever accused of being a feminist because the feminists we have nowadays have made a mockery of what is should mean to be a feminist

Atoms for Peace

The Soviets had the night witches, an all female regiment that the Germans feared.

/en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Witches

dudara

I'm probay going to regret this, but what's this "feminist narrative" when it's at home now?

The_Captain

Grayson wrote: »

By that standard if you talk about homelessness here you're a dick if you're not always talking about it abroad.

It's not really a good analogy though because women aren't being put to death for the crime of being raped in Ireland.

Alun

dudara wrote: »

I'm probay going to regret this, but what's this "feminist narrative" when it's at home now?

It's something that exists only either in Facebook and Twitter land or in academia and has nothing to do with the real world most of us inhabit at all.

osarusan

Grayson wrote: »

By that standard if you talk about homelessness here you're a dick if you're not always talking about it abroad.

The 'if you really care about X, they why aren't you campaigning about places where it's much worse than Ireland, huh?' is a retarded argument, completely empty.

It could be applied to literally anything anybody campaigns for in Ireland, unless Ireland is actually the most extreme example of that issue in the whole world.

PopePalpatine

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Where does this mish-mash of cobbled-together nonsensical bullshit come from?

4chins and real-life Dennis Reynolds types.

Silver Lynel

Grayson wrote: »

By that standard if you talk about homelessness here you're a dick if you're not always talking about it abroad.

In the context of Feminism, I disagree.

Let's say we had a concept called "Homeism" and our definition was "Homeism is the belief that all human beings should have a roof over their heads and a safe place to sleep at night".

Let's say the stated goal of "Homeism" was to eradicate homelessness, just as the stated goal of Feminism is to eradicate gender inequality.

Now let's say that there are a bunch of "Homeinists" who don't actually do anything to solve the homelessness problem. Instead they complain constantly because they can't get a big house in a nice area for a low price. That would be your equivalent of modern, first world, Feminism.

In my opinion there is a MASSIVE difference between a Feminist who complains all day about there not being enough female superhero movies and a Feminist who campaigns to improve the lives of women in nations where they are genuinely treated like second class citizens.

Not to say that representation in media isn't important, it is. However, it seems like a Feminist who complains about Western popular culture while women are treated terribly in other parts of the world is a bit of a lazy Feminist.

If you believe that certain countries in the world need Feminism and need raised awareness and need better activism then surely you can see that taking up bandwidth with complaints about Manspreading and Mansplaining is counter productive and probably damaging to the movement.

Silver Lynel

Deleted User wrote: »

Not sure I get the connection.

We're out of meat. Homosexuality is now a luxury.

I think the point was that if people are murdering each other over resources then there won't be too much time to sit down and discuss the finer points of human sexuality.

Yeah, I know our city has been bombed into oblivion and troops are moving through the city rounding up survivors but can we just take a moment here to talk about my preferred pronouns?

Cubik

I have never experienced obstacles due to being female either. I think B.A. just means the women who blame difficulties in life on men/being a woman should take responsibility for themselves - I don't think he is talking about all women. This applies in numerous contexts - some people would blame utterly anyone or anything for what's wrong in their lives, instead of focusing on what they have done or can do themselves.

As for women in the Middle East - I think the reason the topic is brought up is because some women in the west pretend their lives are as hard or nearly as hard. When The Handmaid's Tale TV series was being discussed a lot on Twitter, women were actually saying it was close to real life. Here I am with my job, my own property, my own car, my own bank accounts, my registration to vote, my pretty extensive education, access to contraception, my scope to do anything I want (within reason) and life is nearly like The Handmaid's Tale?

And then there are women and girls in rural Afghanistan who are "exiled" to a cave miles from their home every month, because the time of blood means they're unclean to be near. If they have children, the children must go with them. It's actually insulting to those women and girls when it's said life can be horrendously oppressive for women here.

Now there is misogyny for sure (among a minority but it's still there) however screaming about how awful men are (which is what much of extreme modern feminism is)... that is not going to change the attitudes of misogynists, it's just going to make them even more determined to feel how they feel about women.

Silver Lynel

Cubik wrote: »

As for women in the Middle East - I think the reason the topic is brought up is because some women in the west pretend their lives are as hard or nearly as hard. When The Handmaid's Tale TV series was being discussed a lot on Twitter, women were actually saying it was close to real life. Here I am with my job, my own property, my own car, my own bank accounts, my registration to vote, my pretty extensive education, access to contraception, my scope to do anything I want (within reason) and life is nearly like The Handmaid's Tale?

I think maybe we have been conditioned to feel like there is some virtue in victimhood?

If you are living well and earning and buying nice things for yourself then it's undeniable that your success comes at the expense of others. The "others" could be the homeless sleeping in Dublin streets or kids working in cobalt mines in Congo or the women that you mentioned sent to live in caves in Afghanistan.

We are doing well in life and they are living in misery.

So there is a certain degree of guilt that must come with that and a lot of people maybe deal with it by putting up the defense that "my life is bad too"?

Play the victim on Facebook and Twitter and the attention will come rolling in. Your comment or your story might even go viral. Imagine that.

Bragging about your nice house or your nice car is seen as showing off your "privilege" and it seems like this is increasingly becoming a big no-no.

So instead people turn to boasting about their struggles instead.

A Little Pony

troyzer wrote: »

The Red Army had close to a million women serving in the Great Patriotic War. I don't think you could describe the Red Army as molly coddled. 

I fundamentally don't accept the OP's premise that allowing women into the armed services somehow undermines its fighting ability. As long as they're able to pass the same fitness tests as men, there really isn't an issue. You might have had a point 2,000 years ago when unit cohesion and physical strength were paramount but we don't live in that world anymore. The best soldiers are ones who use their head.

The Bolsheviks didn't have any honor, so that is not a surprise to find women in the Red Army.

Ipso

Imagine a war over something so stupid?

Grayson

The_Captain wrote: »

It's not really a good analogy though because women aren't being put to death for the crime of being raped in Ireland.

It is a good analogy. There are some who complain that if you point out women's rights issues in the west you're a hypocrite because you should mention women's rights in the rest of the world. It's not an either/or situation. The post I was replying to said

But hold on, what about the middle-east and the like? where women are being treated bad. You never hear about western-feminists trying to come together to sort that sh*t out

Firstly, there are loads of groups in the west that are vocal about about abuses elsewhere.
Secondly, women's and gay rights are the only area where you hear that stupid argument. You don't hear people complaining about homelessness here being told that the slums in India or Rio are worse. You don't hear people here who campaign against police abuses being told to go to china.

It's an argument used by people who don't like feminism and islam because they get to blend their two favorite subjects.

Grayson

A Little Pony wrote: »

The Bolsheviks didn't have any honor, so that is not a surprise to find women in the Red Army.

That's your argument? Honor? Are you living in the 1800's?

Grayson

Silver Lynel wrote: »

In the context of Feminism, I disagree.

Let's say we had a concept called "Homeism" and our definition was "Homeism is the belief that all human beings should have a roof over their heads and a safe place to sleep at night".

Let's say the stated goal of "Homeism" was to eradicate homelessness, just as the stated goal of Feminism is to eradicate gender inequality.

Now let's say that there are a bunch of "Homeinists" who don't actually do anything to solve the homelessness problem. Instead they complain constantly because they can't get a big house in a nice area for a low price. That would be your equivalent of modern, first world, Feminism.

In my opinion there is a MASSIVE difference between a Feminist who complains all day about there not being enough female superhero movies and a Feminist who campaigns to improve the lives of women in nations where they are genuinely treated like second class citizens.

Not to say that representation in media isn't important, it is. However, it seems like a Feminist who complains about Western popular culture while women are treated terribly in other parts of the world is a bit of a lazy Feminist.

If you believe that certain countries in the world need Feminism and need raised awareness and need better activism then surely you can see that taking up bandwidth with complaints about Manspreading and Mansplaining is counter productive and probably damaging to the movement.

The poster I was replying to said that western feminists never complain about womens treatment in arab countries. It's a blatant lie to state that western feminists don't care. It's also a false equivalency. Just because someone wants to raise awareness about local issues doesn't mean they don't care about international issues.

tomwaterford

tomwaterford wrote: »

jeanjolie wrote: »

Some feminists in the West want women to join in combat alongside men, /quote]

Taught this was already the case?

To whom?

dudara

Silver Lynel wrote: »

In the context of Feminism, I disagree.

Let's say we had a concept called "Homeism" and our definition was "Homeism is the belief that all human beings should have a roof over their heads and a safe place to sleep at night".

Let's say the stated goal of "Homeism" was to eradicate homelessness, just as the stated goal of Feminism is to eradicate gender inequality.

Now let's say that there are a bunch of "Homeinists" who don't actually do anything to solve the homelessness problem. Instead they complain constantly because they can't get a big house in a nice area for a low price. That would be your equivalent of modern, first world, Feminism.

In my opinion there is a MASSIVE difference between a Feminist who complains all day about there not being enough female superhero movies and a Feminist who campaigns to improve the lives of women in nations where they are genuinely treated like second class citizens.

Not to say that representation in media isn't important, it is. However, it seems like a Feminist who complains about Western popular culture while women are treated terribly in other parts of the world is a bit of a lazy Feminist.

If you believe that certain countries in the world need Feminism and need raised awareness and need better activism then surely you can see that taking up bandwidth with complaints about Manspreading and Mansplaining is counter productive and probably damaging to the movement.

There are many forms which feminism can take. These range from the extremely serious issues of female discrimination in Middle Eastern cultures, or female genital mutilation in Africa, down to the somewhat lesser topic of "man spreading" or "mansplaining".

However, all these issues exist and happen in this world. And to dismiss one person's activism as not being worthy because they are not seeking world peace and world equality for all is highly dismissive and highly superior.

coffee_cake

Women are terrible. We should just get rid of them altogether, with their opinions and their rights and whathaveyou

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

jeanjolie wrote: »

I hear people worry that while the West 'weakens' itself with trying to be to egalitarian at the expense of common sense, traditional societies are growing their populations and improving their young people...

No, let's be honest here. You don't hear people worry about that at all. Real people don't worry about things like that.


Get outside and enjoy the sun and a bit of fresh air.

Sweetemotion

Rule 3 respect goes both ways :pac: