Man acceptance of Feminism

[Menelik_I]

We all know the jazz about women emancipation in the last 50 years in countries, however does men needs to accept embrace feminist ideology too ?

Does women really want men to become less masculine, apologise for masculinity and embrace ''full'' equality with women. Then there are technical questions on about collective guilt, group attitude and relativism into the question too.

Does man need to apologise as a ''collective entity'' for having ruled the world ?

I stumbled on the video and I started to think that this might be a very bad idea ... and quite hilarious idea

ETA: Video can't embed, click on the link and enjoy ... erg laugh your self off

[Claudius Gothicus]

Right now most militant feminists are stupid. I'm all in favor of women's rights being EXACTLY THE SAME AS THOSE HELD BY MEN.

nor more nor less. But my opinion is not that important since I'm kinda sexist you know...(I hold the door for lady's etc.)

[hellheaven1987]

I live as myself, neither men or women can stop my right to do so.

[Voodo chile]

But my opinion is not that important since I'm kinda sexist you know...(I hold the door for lady's etc.)

O, i guess deep down i am too. I did the 'ladies first' rule twice this week and then there was a bit of hesitation . I blame it for having a teacher who went on about gentleman stuff all day and watching those 1970s family dramas with traditional values

[Apologist]

Most modern feminists are idiots, not to mention sexist themselves, *cough* Germaine Greer *cough*.

There's no problem with one sex display different traits and qualities, as long as each sex has the exact same rights.

[The Green Giant]

Well we have to give them the same rights, but that starts with us leveling the playing field and promoting them so that they can reach equal levels with men. This can happen by promoting women so that companies are 50% women. We need to help them get to where we are, Title IX is a great start.

[hellheaven1987]

This can happen by promoting women so that companies are 50% women. We need to help them get to where we are, Title IX is a great start.

That is not equal right; you only promote those women because they are women. The correct way is to promote who has the best ability not base on sex ratio.

[Apologist]

That is not equal right; you only promote those women because they are women. The correct way is to promote who has the best ability not base on sex ratio.

Exactly. Did you know now that nowadays, if two candidates are going for a job, one male, one female, and they both have the EXACT same qualities, the business has to hire the female?

I don't understand this whole idea that companies HAVE to have an equal ratio of women. What if the women who are interested in the job simply are not good candidates?

[hellheaven1987]

Exactly. Did you know now that nowadays, if two candidates are going for a job, one male, one female, and they both have the EXACT same qualities, the business has to hire the female?

In this case you probably want to hire the female because you can give less pay to female.

[Incesticide]

Well we have to give them the same rights, but that starts with us leveling the playing field and promoting them so that they can reach equal levels with men. This can happen by promoting women so that companies are 50% women. We need to help them get to where we are, Title IX is a great start.

I disagree. While I am in favour of equal opportunity, I am not in favour of positive discrimination. I know several women who agree with me in that a 50% penetration rate is not required, mainly because they want to get to where they want to be by the strength of their own talents and not with anybody helping them out. I believe that the law in the UK makes things fair for everybody. In the UK it is illegal to set quotas, favouring one candidate over another solely based on their sex or race. Companies, however, are encouraged (they do not need to) to hire women, people with disabilities, or people who hail from an under-represented minority - as long as they are just as qualified as the other option.

Feminists never seem to demand that 50% of sewage workers or 50% of window cleaners or carpet fitters are female. All the effort is aimed at the glamorous jobs of engineer, manager, director, doctor, parliamentarian. Those jobs must be made available for women, as a point of ideology, whether they want them or not and women must do half of them no matter how many men want to do them. It never seems to occur to feminists that many jobs that men do are simply not attractive to women and they are relatively well paid compared to the jobs that women want to do precisely because they are not glamorous jobs, if men didn't want to do them because of the money the jobs would not be filled.

Feminists demand that other women take up certain jobs to strike a blow for their sex. Why? A woman's duty is not to her sex at the expense of her own satisfaction and her own interests. If there is a barrier preventing women from achieving goals they set themselves then it should be removed, but not if that barrier is her own free choice, her lack of desire and motivation. Women and men are different, have different strengths and weaknesses and they have different motivations, if they do not want the same things then giving them the same things is going to be iniquitous. Aiming for equality of outcome is going to be unfair, especially if it is aiming for 50% female penetration in only those careers feminists have decided are important and glamorous enough to be bothered with. It would be much more prudent to ensure that women do have equal opportunities to advance and educate themselves (this is less of an issue in well-developed countries), than to put the cart before the horse and declare that 50% of certain glamorous jobs need to be given to women by dictat.

Does man need to apologise as a ''collective entity'' for having ruled the world ?

We do not. Take any feminist who says that with a pinch of salt.

[Manco]

Another rant by a guy who confuses feminism with "men should be wussies".

I happen to know quite a few dedicated feminists and they are guilty of none of the things you accuse them of. In fact they can't stand for example metrosexuals.

[Charrua]

This video (I'm talking about the video) transcends the political feminist movement, and the counter-movement, AND the balance between them to a more moderate achievement - like Incesticide described.

It's more understandable to the heathen people, in fact, that looks like a lot with some new-age heathenism themes. It's about the switch of paradigm. About being coherent, to some extent.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Feminism is the promotion of a stronger, more confident femine identity, rather than the subservient weak one of centuries gone by. It's a good thing. Beng masculine, after all, involves being courageous, confident and strong. Why should women be seen as acting in a way unbecoming of their sex for displaying similar desirable traits?

Oppression of masculinity isn't feminism, it's dykes with issues. They're embarrasing to women.

[motiv-8]

Feminism is the promotion of a stronger, more confident femine identity, rather than the subservient weak one of centuries gone by. It's a good thing. Beng masculine, after all, involves being courageous, confident and strong. Why should women be seen as acting in a way unbecoming of their sex for displaying similar desirable traits?

You might be the only one in the thread who understands what feminism actually is.

Then again, when the thread is filled with teenage boys who weren't around when the feminist movement began or was socially relevant, it's understandable.

[Odovacar]

You might be the only one in the thread who understands what feminism actually is.

Then again, when the thread is filled with teenage boys who weren't around when the feminist movement began or was socially relevant, it's understandable.

I have little problem with normal, sane feminist, but only the torture chambe could convince me to ask for forgiveness for not committed crimes, with sparkling eyes on youtube like a drugged indoctrinate of a Z-category sect of whackos.

[Claudius Gothicus]

You might be the only one in the thread who understands what feminism actually is.

Then again, when the thread is filled with teenage boys who weren't around when the feminist movement began or was socially relevant, it's understandable.

I study Sociology, so I'm pretty much surrounded by feminists of all kinds every day, in every class.

Semi-Feminazis DO EXISTS and they get a little bit annoying after some minutes. But then I have no problem with feminism in general, it's just that most movements became a joke after the 70's or lost any significance due to women no longer giving a crap.

[Carpathian Wolf]

You might be the only one in the thread who understands what feminism actually is.

Then again, when the thread is filled with teenage boys who weren't around when the feminist movement began or was socially relevant, it's understandable.

I think we do understand feminism...actual feminism and we were discussing the corrupted aspects of it. No point calling people teenagers especially when many of the people posting here are actually older.

[The Green Giant]

But we need to level the playing field by promoting women, how else will be account for the injustice that we have done to them in the past years. WE NEED TO MAKE UP FOR THAT. It is an INJUSTICE NOT YET RESOLVED>

[Lord Rahl]

But we need to level the playing field by promoting women, how else will be account for the injustice that we have done to them in the past years. WE NEED TO MAKE UP FOR THAT. It is an INJUSTICE NOT YET RESOLVED>

Uhh...what?

Do you work or are you looking for a job? Let's say you're job hunting and go to one place for an interview. You have all of the qualifications for the job. The company also interviews a female with the same qualifications. What happens? The female gets the job just because she has a vagina and breasts instead of a penis and testicles. How is that right? How is that justice? I'm sorry but it's not and when I'm looking for jobs I want the job. I'm not going to be OK with being denied the job because a woman gets preferential treatment.

And...

[motiv-8]

Uhh...what?

Do you work or are you looking for a job? Let's say you're job hunting and go to one place for an interview. You have all of the qualifications for the job. The company also interviews a female with the same qualifications. What happens? The female gets the job just because she has a vagina and breasts instead of a penis and testicles. How is that right? How is that justice? I'm sorry but it's not and when I'm looking for jobs I want the job. I'm not going to be OK with being denied the job because a woman gets preferential treatment.

That's laughably bull-. We are in a society in which women are still paid less than men for equal work, EVEN DESPITE a half-century-old law saying that is illegal. Women might get bonuses on an individual, anecdotal basis, but please do go cry a river elsewhere when the statistics show fundamental inequality in favor of males, not females.