Feminism

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

I was in r.e the other day( ce in desguse)
this is what happened:
techer:islam says that all should be eqal bth men and women and that is gr8 islamic cuntryes have better eqalaty beetwen women and men than other religons.
me:but isn't it true that women are stoned to death frore going to shops without theyer husbands or altrvinetly sent to jail?
teacher: you racist stop talking and let me speak.
me:ok
teacher:the laws of allah say that women and men are equal but they have different duties.
me: isn't allah a bit racist?
teacher: up to the princebal( for the 5th time in re).

i was also in anoher class were the techer is parinoid about global warming and he sad that sea level is going to rise 6m in the next 10 years.

*principal

Hmm, you can't say Allah is racist for discriminating females. Racism is for races. The way you should call Allah in this case is Mysoginist or Machist. (Who hates women and sees men superior to women)

Those happenings don't occur in most muslim communities of the world. However harsher "sins" such as murder or marital unfaithfulness are more widely punished than just lack of female submission.


And just as I'm against Radical Islam I'm against feminism. Some of them for example deffend unfaithfulness on the grounds that faithfulness is another symbol of female sumbission, when it really is betrayal of trust.

I was just pointing out that abuse of power in many islamic cuntryes and the techer called me not racist but it's the best translation i can come up with.

how the *************** can you not be a ******** fucking feminist you ******** sexist bastard .

mattabesta wrote:

I was just pointing out that abuse of power in many islamic cuntryes and the techer called me not racist but it's the best translation i can come up with.

Yet you pointed it out in not a very objective way.

mattabesta wrote:

how the *************** can you not be a ******** fucking feminist you ******** sexist bastard .

So in your view not being a feminist makes me a sexist? Ah Matthí I'm glad you're always eager for a new lesson.

Feminism and Machism are two kinds of Sexism. Yeah, that's right. Feminists are sexists. The first are for Female supremacy while the other is for male supremacy.

The fact that most of humanity has been for quite a long period Machist doesn't make feminism good. Both are two reprobable kinds of sexism.

I define myself as a Gynephil, that is, someone who loves women. I don't only feel sexually attracted to women but I respect and appreciate them even more than men. I prefer to hang out with my female friends than with my male friends, and if my girlfriend didn't live so far from me I would spend absolutely my whole free time with her.

But, I'm ANTOFEMINIST, yeah, that's right. I'm anti-sexist and that makes me both anti-machist and anti-feminist.

Feminists want women to nearly occupy the place of men, nearly to act like men. They feel themselves and their gender so inferior to that of men that they nearly want to imitate it, with complete disregard to the fact that women are actually different.

Women have a different endocrynological system and have different biological functions to those of men. Women are biologically made to give birth to children. Women menstruate, women have greater biological strength than men while having intrinsically lesser physical strength.
Women are usually more intuitive and sensitive than men, making them in my view, "more human". Women are more suceptible to emotional changes than men, in general. Feminists nearly regard all these traits of female nature as "weaknesses" that have lead women into submission. That is plain stupid.

I think that women indeed can be engineers, doctors, teachers and deserve same rights as men, but also they have other traits. Women, while pregnant, deserve rest, something men do not require. Women are not as apt as men to be masons, for example as it's better for women to avoid physically demanding works. And that is not inferiority it's merely acknowledging the female nature. Something feminists disregard, they sometimes seem to want to be men with vagina.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

I was just pointing out that abuse of power in many islamic cuntryes and the techer called me not racist but it's the best translation i can come up with.

Yet you pointed it out in not a very objective way.

mattabesta wrote:

how the *************** can you not be a ******** fucking feminist you ******** sexist bastard .

So in your view not being a feminist makes me a sexist? Ah Matthí I'm glad you're always eager for a new lesson.

Feminism and Machism are two kinds of Sexism. Yeah, that's right. Feminists are sexists. The first are for Female supremacy while the other is for male supremacy.

The fact that most of humanity has been for quite a long period Machist doesn't make feminism good. Both are two reprobable kinds of sexism.

I define myself as a Gynephil, that is, someone who loves women. I don't only feel sexually attracted to women but I respect and appreciate them even more than men. I prefer to hang out with my female friends than with my male friends, and if my girlfriend didn't live so far from me I would spend absolutely my whole free time with her.

But, I'm ANTOFEMINIST, yeah, that's right. I'm anti-sexist and that makes me both anti-machist and anti-feminist.

Feminists want women to nearly occupy the place of men, nearly to act like men. They feel themselves and their gender so inferior to that of men that they nearly want to imitate it, with complete disregard to the fact that women are actually different.

Women have a different endocrynological system and have different biological functions to those of men. Women are biologically made to give birth to children. Women menstruate, women have greater biological strength than men while having intrinsically lesser physical strength.
Women are usually more intuitive and sensitive than men, making them in my view, "more human". Women are more suceptible to emotional changes than men, in general. Feminists nearly regard all these traits of female nature as "weaknesses" that have lead women into submission. That is plain stupid.

I think that women indeed can be engineers, doctors, teachers and deserve same rights as men, but also they have other traits. Women, while pregnant, deserve rest, something men do not require. Women are not as apt as men to be masons, for example as it's better for women to avoid physically demanding works. And that is not inferiority it's merely acknowledging the female nature. Something feminists disregard, they sometimes seem to want to be men with vagina.

wow too long dude get your point out in less words it's something you have to learn if you want to communicate esely with pepole nobody wanths to listen to a 100 page report that could get it's point out in 10.

feminism is eqalaty beetwn the sexis.

this is off wiki:

Pro-feminism
Main article: Pro-feminism
Pro-feminism is the support of feminism without implying that the supporter is a member of the feminist movement. The term is most often used in reference to men who are actively supportive of feminism and of efforts to bring about gender equality. The activities of pro-feminist men's groups include anti-violence work with boys and young men in schools, offering sexual harassment workshops in workplaces, running community education campaigns, and counseling male perpetrators of violence. Pro-feminist men also are involved in men's health, activism against pornography including anti-pornography legislation, men's studies, and the development of gender equity curricula in schools. This work is sometimes in collaboration with feminists and women's services, such as domestic violence and rape crisis centers. Some activists of both genders will not refer to men as "feminists" at all, and will refer to all pro-feminist men as "pro-feminists".
and here is the articel in full:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism.

feminism is eqalaty not supirioraty, I'm feminist.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

oligarch wrote:

Its a betrayal of trust only when there is a mutual agreement and so ling as that agreement is obligatory, it is not valid.

If there's no mutual agreement then there can't be unfaithfulness at all. If there's unfaithfulness is necesarily because a vow of trust has been broken, a vow of trust product of a mutual agreement.

But if society dictates that such an agreement is obligatory then it is not valid.

oligarch wrote:

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

oligarch wrote:

Its a betrayal of trust only when there is a mutual agreement and so ling as that agreement is obligatory, it is not valid.

If there's no mutual agreement then there can't be unfaithfulness at all. If there's unfaithfulness is necesarily because a vow of trust has been broken, a vow of trust product of a mutual agreement.

But if society dictates that such an agreement is obligatory then it is not valid.

wtf?

explain to me plz

mattabesta wrote:

oligarch wrote:

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

oligarch wrote:

Its a betrayal of trust only when there is a mutual agreement and so ling as that agreement is obligatory, it is not valid.

If there's no mutual agreement then there can't be unfaithfulness at all. If there's unfaithfulness is necesarily because a vow of trust has been broken, a vow of trust product of a mutual agreement.

But if society dictates that such an agreement is obligatory then it is not valid.

wtf?

explain to me plz

If the only relationship that is considered valid is one in which both participles are expected to be "faithful" to each other, then any mutual agreement of "faithfulness" is invalidated as it is the will of both parties but rather a prerequisite for the relationships existence in the eyes of society.

mattabesta wrote:

wow too long dude get your point out in less words it's something you have to learn if you want to communicate esely with pepole nobody wanths to listen to a 100 page report that could get it's point out in 10.

Give a valid arguement as to how I can make my point in less words instead of justifying your laziness to read. And don't speak for everybody as if you knew what everybody wants or not.
If you're going to discuss in a forum take your time to read what te others are posting so that you can reply.

Being lazy to read is one of the worst and most futile ways to attempt to give strength to your arguements.

Really, and I'm being serious, if you don't bother to read what others write don't bother replying either. It's just pointless to reply to something you haven't read or refuse to read.

mattabesta wrote:

feminism is eqalaty beetwn the sexis.

*Sexes

How can feminism be "equality" among sexes? What do you define as "equality"? In what is reflected the equality between sexes feminism searches?

Implying that feminism searches for equality among sexes is implying that women are inferior to men, something I don't agree with.

Women should not aspire to be like men and should not behave like men do, women should simply have and do have equal rights to men, that is not matter of discussion. And they even must have some special rights men are not eligible for.

Women and men are different. None is worth more than the other, they're simply different.

mattabesta wrote:

this is off wiki:

Pro-feminism
Main article: Pro-feminism
Pro-feminism is the support of feminism without implying that the supporter is a member of the feminist movement. The term is most often used in reference to men who are actively supportive of feminism and of efforts to bring about gender equality. The activities of pro-feminist men's groups include anti-violence work with boys and young men in schools, offering sexual harassment workshops in workplaces, running community education campaigns, and counseling male perpetrators of violence. Pro-feminist men also are involved in men's health, activism against pornography including anti-pornography legislation, men's studies, and the development of gender equity curricula in schools. This work is sometimes in collaboration with feminists and women's services, such as domestic violence and rape crisis centers. Some activists of both genders will not refer to men as "feminists" at all, and will refer to all pro-feminist men as "pro-feminists".
and here is the articel in full:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism.

feminism is eqalaty not supirioraty, I'm feminist.

Not only is that excerpt mainly about "pro-feminism" and not feminism. It is saying that men that support feminism are called "pro-feminists" not "feminists" and you're saying that you're a feminist, so basically you're countering that very same excerpt.

Women have intrinsical rights. They don't need a SEXIST movement such as feminism to fight for something they intrinsically posses.

oligarch wrote:

But if society dictates that such an agreement is obligatory then it is not valid.

The thing is that something dictated by society is not a mutual agreement, as simple as that.

I'm not deffending the impossition of fidelity by society to a couple, I'm talking about the betrayal of trust within a relationship in which there existed a mutual agreement.

And if a mutual agreement existed and was violated and that relationship is within a society that rejects or punishes those who have violated that mutual agreement, and the offended part of the relationship allows social intervention, a punishment to the one who violated that agreeement is, while probably not justifiable, understandable.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

oligarch wrote:

But if society dictates that such an agreement is obligatory then it is not valid.

The thing is that something dictated by society is not a mutual agreement, as simple as that.

I'm not deffending the impossition of fidelity by society to a couple, I'm talking about the betrayal of trust within a relationship in which there existed a mutual agreement.

And if a mutual agreement existed and was violated and that relationship is within a society that rejects or punishes those who have violated that mutual agreement, and the offended part of the relationship allows social intervention, a punishment to the one who violated that agreeement is, while probably not justifiable, understandable.

The Feminist movement is similarly understandable.

oligarch wrote:

The Feminist movement is similarly understandable.

Understandable, yet not acceptable. I'm a person with few or zero tolerance to betrayal, and I have been object of a very severe one which I have forgiven.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

oligarch wrote:

The Feminist movement is similarly understandable.

Understandable, yet not acceptable. I'm a person with few or zero tolerance to betrayal, and I have been object of a very severe one which I have forgiven.

The social repression of women that spawned the feminist movement were not/are not acceptable.

oligarch wrote:

The social repression of women that spawned the feminist movement were not/are not acceptable.

Indeed, but just as the first extreme is not acceptable, the latter isn't either.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Indeed, but just as the first extreme is not acceptable, the latter isn't either.

I would say that the letter extreme is acceptable only insofar as it defeats the dominance of the equally unacceptable former extreme, though does not achieve its ultimate goal which I find to be matriarchal which is no better than the patriarchal former extreme. The Feminist movement seems to have largely done this in the West because it had the momentum that a less radical movement could not possibly have had and once a sort of balance has been achieved, much of that momentum disappeared but since there are still many inequalities there is no reason for it to disappear completely.

oligarch wrote:

I would say that the letter extreme is acceptable only insofar as it defeats the dominance of the equally unacceptable former extreme, though does not achieve its ultimate goal which I find to be matriarchal which is no better than the patriarchal former extreme. The Feminist movement seems to have largely done this in the West because it had the momentum that a less radical movement could not possibly have had and once a sort of balance has been achieved, much of that momentum disappeared but since there are still many inequalities there is no reason for it to disappear completely.

In my view one of the first steps towards the elimination of inequalty is stopo acting as if they were inferior and aspired "to be like the great dominant man". Women are different and should keep different, they should never imitate male conducts, they should never search "to occupy" male's places.

Women have intrinsic rights and they should merely act with complete consciousness that they have those rights instead of acknowledging they don't have them and fight for them like if it's something they had to fight for.

In my personal view as both extremes are equally abhorrent they should be eliminated completely.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

In my view one of the first steps towards the elimination of inequalty is stopo acting as if they were inferior and aspired "to be like the great dominant man". Women are different and should keep different, they should never imitate male conducts, they should never search "to occupy" male's places.

But males have no natural right to these places and conducts nor do females, therefore males and females have equal right to these places and conducts.

Quote :

Women have intrinsic rights and they should merely act with complete consciousness that they have those rights instead of acknowledging they don't have them and fight for them like if it's something they had to fight for.

But in most cases in which women were "acting like they had to fight for something" was because they did not rights and had fight for them.

oligarch wrote:

But males have no natural right to these places and conducts nor do females, therefore males and females have equal right to these places and conducts.

It's matter of taking into account "which places" we're talking about.

oligarch wrote:

But in most cases in which women were "acting like they had to fight for something" was because they did not rights and had fight for them.

The thing is that they keep fighting to get something they don't need to fight for and feminists advocate for a wrong conduct. Just as machism is wrong feminism is wrong too.

It's like a battle of fascisms. No fascism is better.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

oligarch wrote:

But males have no natural right to these places and conducts nor do females, therefore males and females have equal right to these places and conducts.

It's matter of taking into account "which places" we're talking about.

oligarch wrote:

But in most cases in which women were "acting like they had to fight for something" was because they did not rights and had fight for them.

The thing is that they keep fighting to get something they don't need to fight for and feminists advocate for a wrong conduct. Just as machism is wrong feminism is wrong too.

It's like a battle of fascisms. No fascism is better.

wtf?
how is eqalaty and legal and educaational freedom of women wrong?

mattabesta wrote:

wtf?
how is eqalaty and legal and educaational freedom of women wrong?

They are wrong because soon, we just might get women who will eventually ACT like men. Define "tomboy" as a great example. XD

Other than that, I'm fine for women being equal.

Jeiro Sijakeuigwan wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

wtf?
how is eqalaty and legal and educaational freedom of women wrong?

They are wrong because soon, we just might get women who will eventually ACT like men. Define "tomboy" as a great example. XD

Other than that, I'm fine for women being equal.

they are humans too. Why are they not equal to us?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

oligarch wrote:

But males have no natural right to these places and conducts nor do females, therefore males and females have equal right to these places and conducts.

It's matter of taking into account "which places" we're talking about.

oligarch wrote:

But in most cases in which women were "acting like they had to fight for something" was because they did not rights and had fight for them.

The thing is that they keep fighting to get something they don't need to fight for and feminists advocate for a wrong conduct. Just as machism is wrong feminism is wrong too.

It's like a battle of fascisms. No fascism is better.

All of the places and Feminism loses its momentum when there is enough equality so there being prevalent Feminism means that there is not enough equality; I base this on Marxism.

mattabesta wrote:

wtf?
how is eqalaty and legal and educaational freedom of women wrong?

That that is not feminism, those are females' intrinsic rights.

Diogritor wrote:

they are humans too. Why are they not equal to us?

Because even if they deserve the same respect, even if they deserve the same freedom, they're not completely equal to us. They're a different gender with differen characteristics and different needs.

oligarch wrote:

All of the places

Which are they exactly?

oligarch wrote:

Feminism loses its momentum when there is enough equality so there being prevalent Feminism means that there is not enough equality; I base this on Marxism.

For feminism to lose momentum some of its goals or something near its goals has to be achieved. Taking into account that, in a somewhat simplistic way, feminists search women to imitate the attitudes of the male gender, a partial suceess for them would be that women actually adopted some of these attitudes, something I'm completely against of.

Jeiro Sijakeuigwan wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

wtf?
how is eqalaty and legal and educaational freedom of women wrong?

They are wrong because soon, we just might get women who will eventually ACT like men. Define "tomboy" as a great example. XD

Other than that, I'm fine for women being equal.

how cares about some women trying to act like men why not let them?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Diogritor wrote:

they are humans too. Why are they not equal to us?

Because even if they deserve the same respect, even if they deserve the same freedom, they're not completely equal to us. They're a different gender with differen characteristics and different needs.

Just because they are different does not mean they should not be equal.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

oligarch wrote:

All of the places

Which are they exactly?

Every place in every aspect of society.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

oligarch wrote:

Feminism loses its momentum when there is enough equality so there being prevalent Feminism means that there is not enough equality; I base this on Marxism.

For feminism to lose momentum some of its goals or something near its goals has to be achieved. Taking into account that, in a somewhat simplistic way, feminists search women to imitate the attitudes of the male gender, a partial suceess for them would be that women actually adopted some of these attitudes, something I'm completely against of.

It is their right to adopt any attitude that they wish especially since males have no natural right to any attitudes.

oligarch wrote:

Every place in every aspect of society.

Please elaborate comrade. Which places and examples of inequalty.
And I really expect an elaborate answer.

oligarch wrote:

It is their right to adopt any attitude that they wish especially since males have no natural right to any attitudes.

This is a matter of personal views. Females are usually more sensitive than men, that makes them both more perceptive and more suceptible. In the framework in which we live this is seen as weakness and they are not weakness. Females thus inhibit their nature in order to "inhibit their weaknesses". Males are usually less sensitive but "stronger", that's why males have managed to impose their rule. So the response of females to that machist imposition is create their own female version of machism, feminism.

mattabesta wrote:

how cares about some women trying to act like men why not let them?

I do. I admire really female women. And I hate women that try to "imitate the superior man" like feminists.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

oligarch wrote:

Every place in every aspect of society.

Please elaborate comrade. Which places and examples of inequalty.
And I really expect an elaborate answer.

The very existence of Feminism is evidence of inequality. A society that encourages male chauvinism and patriarchism inevitably becomes its own opposite by sparking matriarchism and female chauvinism. Though some guiding Feminist ideals and concepts are chauvinistic in nature, given the nature of the origins of Feminism, it would be impossible women to take the dominant role in society. Striving for matriarchy which is not in fact the aim or end of most Feminists can only lead to the liberation and subsequent equality of women. It can therefore be stated that the very existence and role of Feminism is evidence inequality.

You also say that men are inheritly stronger than women and that there are certain attitudes and roles in society that are inheritly male places. The fact this idea not only exists but is still in practiced in many places in the world proves that it is false. Nothing is sacred or absolute the essence of nature is not one of things but one of processes. The fact that this idea states that it there will never be any progression beyond it is evidence that this idea is transitory and the Feminist movement if evidence that the progression of human though and subsequent progression of civil society beyond this idea has already begun.