"If you're not a Feminist, you're a Sexist"

[MJ the Skeptical]

I agree that they aren't comparable. You didn't ask for something as bad, just something that exists. That was the only example I could think of. I wasn't particularly trying to disagree, just to think of something. I do think when talking about this or similar subjects though it's important to talk about things that are happening presently. Your first two examples are past examples, if it's a fair point to use the past then how long are we allowed to go into the past?

It is fair, because it demonstrates why feminism originated. It demonstrates what women have had to undergo, and how, even to this day, they are often not paid an equitable salary their male counterparts, for doing the same job. That's why it's relevant.

We still don't have a female President. Hilary Clinton's aspirations of running for President, has caused her to gain media scrutiny over her looks. lol I mean, really? She's an incredibly accomplished, intelligent woman, but as long as she is female, she will be judged differently than a man running for office. That's a relevant and very real example.

It is what it is. I enjoy being a woman, but sexism and discrimination didn't just evaporate when women received the right to vote. Change takes time, and we have come a long way, but there are sooo many areas that need improvement.

Men are not marginalized in this way. Although, what I'd like to see change is women not automatically being granted custody of their children in divorce proceedings, simply because they are women. It seems a ''bad'' mother could be given parental rights over a fantastic dad, just because the laws have always favored women.

But, why is that? Because historically, women have raised the children. A paradigm created by Christian man, mainly. But, we won't bring religion into it. lol

I hear your points, and appreciate them.

---

The point was that race was not including and it's irrelevant.

So, what you said proves that white males can't or aren't oppressed? for example all the white heterosexuals look out for each other and keep each other out of being oppressed or something? quite delusional, no?


If we're talking about America, I'd say women have it just as good, worse or better depending where you go and you aren't oppressed to any other degree that men are.

I mean, if you were really oppressed we would put you women on the front lines and more of you would be in jail instead of a 10:1 prison ratio for men.


It wasn't name calling it was a judgement of the words you said, not your character. But I see you're going to play the professional victim card. I guess I'm oppressing you lol.


You really are saying some racist and sexist things. Who brought up race again? Oh yeah, you. And yes, because of the color of someones skin that means they are never oppressed. Do you have any idea how dumb that sounds? you might as well come out as a feminist since you obviously think there is this elaborate patriarchy of white men keeping the rest of you down. Maybe instead of looking at race or gender like a simpleton you should look for actual factors of why we are all oppressed, yes even white people who happen to have penises.

Okay, please provide examples of how white heterosexual men have been marginalized. So far, this is just your opinion.

What I say is true. If it weren't, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Complete bullshit. Hilary lost to Obama because of their stance on the war. Hilary was in favor of it and Obama wasn't. It had nothing to do with gender. Hilary was literally in the lead the whole time until Obama came out with his anti-war rhetoric and change rhetoric. Hilary will likely be the next president, so where will your excuse be then about straight white male oppression. And I did give you an area of oppression, prison statistics and child custody was brought up earlier as well.

---

.
.
.
Since we're talking about America, where are your opportunities as a woman being declined where they are green-lit for men?..

[*Deidre*]

It is fair, because it demonstrates why feminism originated. It demonstrates what women have had to undergo, and how, even to this day, they are often not paid an equitable salary their male counterparts, for doing the same job. That's why it's relevant.

We still don't have a female President. Hilary Clinton's aspirations of running for President, has caused her to gain media scrutiny over her looks. lol I mean, really? She's an incredibly accomplished, intelligent woman, but as long as she is female, she will be judged differently than a man running for office. That's a relevant and very real example.

It is what it is. I enjoy being a woman, but sexism and discrimination didn't just evaporate when women received the right to vote. Change takes time, and we have come a long way, but there are sooo many areas that need improvement.

Men are not marginalized in this way. Although, what I'd like to see change is women not automatically being granted custody of their children in divorce proceedings, simply because they are women. It seems a ''bad'' mother could be given parental rights over a fantastic dad, just because the laws have always favored women.

But, why is that? Because historically, women have raised the children. A paradigm created by Christian man, mainly. But, we won't bring religion into it. lol

I hear your points, and appreciate them.

---

Okay, please provide examples of how white heterosexual men have been marginalized. So far, this is just your opinion.

What I say is true. If it weren't, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Complete bullshit. Hilary lost to Obama because of their stance on the war. Hilary was in favor of it and Obama wasn't. It had nothing to do with gender. Hilary was literally in the lead the whole time until Obama came out with his anti-war rhetoric and change rhetoric. Hilary will likely be the next president, so where will your excuse be then about straight white male oppression. And I did give you an area of oppression, prison statistics and child custody was brought up earlier as well.

You are using prison stats to support your assertion that white, heterosexual men are oppressed? Just so I'm clear.

Not disagreeing about why Hilary lost, but that's not what I posted about.

I agree about legal/custody hearings, but I don't believe that is an entire gender being marginalized, as I personally know men who have been granted joint custody, no problem. So, while it's prevalent, it's far from a problem for men. (as an entire gender)

But, since we're on that, when a teen girl finds herself pregnant, often, the 'fathers' are nowhere to be found. It becomes solely the responsibility of the girl to raise the child, and the teen fathers are not being held accountable.

Why are men given the choice of when to be held accountable for their children?

[CapnAwesome]

It is fair, because it demonstrates why feminism originated. It demonstrates what women have had to undergo, and how, even to this day, they are often not paid an equitable salary their male counterparts, for doing the same job. That's why it's relevant.

We still don't have a female President. Hilary Clinton's aspirations of running for President, has caused her to gain media scrutiny over her looks. lol I mean, really? She's an incredibly accomplished, intelligent woman, but as long as she is female, she will be judged differently than a man running for office. That's a relevant and very real example.

It is what it is. I enjoy being a woman, but sexism and discrimination didn't just evaporate when women received the right to vote. Change takes time, and we have come a long way, but there are sooo many areas that need improvement.

Men are not marginalized in this way. Although, what I'd like to see change is women not automatically being granted custody of their children in divorce proceedings, simply because they are women. It seems a ''bad'' mother could be given parental rights over a fantastic dad, just because the laws have always favored women.

But, why is that? Because historically, women have raised the children. A paradigm created by Christian man, mainly. But, we won't bring religion into it. lol

I hear your points, and appreciate them.

Excellent points. History does lead into the present. As a white heterosexual male, I have to say that I have never felt marginalized or discriminated against personally. I also don't think there is a case for that argument in any major discrimination either way in a legal sense.

Culturally though it's hard to say that women aren't discriminated against. A huge percentage of men that I know personally, most of whom have liberal social values and would never openly say anything racist and highly unlikely to say anything homophobic, are fairly and openly sexist around other men. Probably in a way that would shock many women if they were privy to guy talk. Sexism is far more part of our culture then most people realize. I think that changing laws only does so much to change culture.

Two things to note: It doesn't excuse the sexism in our culture, but the U.S. and Canada are far less sexist than most of the world. Even many European cultures are horribly chauvanist and compared to Latin America and the Middle East we are a shining jewel.

Two: I appreciate your stance on child custody and this discussion.

[*Deidre*]

Since we're talking about America, where are your opportunities as a woman being declined where they are green-lit for men?..

I have to run out for a bit, but will answer this later. I also have some interesting links that have nothing to do with me, but show extreme sexism and discrimination in industries, that have often been male dominated.

The thing is this. I'm not a feminist. And I don't have any issues with men (well, in a general sense lol), but this topic needs to be discussed in a very real and dare I say, sensitive way. Many people of all sectors have suffered greatly in America over the decades, least of which has been Christian conservative men. (who happen to mainly be white, historically)

That is true. I'm not saying they are not discriminated against at times now, but not comparable as to how women have been and still are, discriminated against.

Anyway, maybe I should have avoided this thread. Thanks for listening.

[FlyingNarwhal]

I was really surprise to hear atheist youtuber AronRa say this in one of his videos. Personally, I take major issue with his assertion and blanket statement of all those who disagree with his definition of Feminism. I don't consider myself sexist or feminist first of all, so I think that refutes him. I would consider myself Egalitarian (or Equalitarian) and I personally see that as the best label for someone interested in the equal rights of both genders equally instead of Feminism which unfortunately does focus on women.

From what I've heard personally; The feminists I run into tend to laugh at oppression that happens to men, they don't fight along side the men when the men are marginalized like women can be marginalized and the men's oppression is dismissed as patriarchy. But if it was such an obvious patriarchy then why do so many men struggle, fill up prisons at 10:1 ratio over women and almost never get custody of kids... Anyway, just wanted to get the forums thoughts on this quote and topic.

Some female perspective on this would be most appreciated as well.

Please provide examples of when white, heterosexual men have been or are being ...''marginalized''? (in remote comparison to women/homosexuals/men who are not white)

I brought this up in the last thread that popped up on the topic of feminism. Men are required to sign up for the selective srrvuce when we turn 18. If we do not, we are not eligible for any federal loans or grants (including college loans), if you are an immigrant you can be denied citizenship, federal jobs, and a few other things. You can be prosecuted, fined, and jailed for not registering. Some states take it to the same level as the federal government and will deny you any state loans and jobs, some of these states won't even allow you to have a drivers license. Take a look:

https://www.sss.gov/FSbenefits.htm

Do me a favor too and let me know how many times you count the word 'man' and how many times you count the word 'woman.'

[*Deidre*]

Please provide examples of when white, heterosexual men have been or are being ...''marginalized''? (in remote comparison to women/homosexuals/men who are not white)

I brought this up in the last thread that popped up on the topic of feminism. Men are required to sign up for the selective srrvuce when we turn 18. If we do not, we are not eligible for any federal loans or grants (including college loans), if you are an immigrant you can be denied citizenship, federal jobs, and a few other things. You can be prosecuted, fined, and jailed for not registering. Some states take it to the same level as the federal government and will deny you any state loans and jobs, some of these states won't even allow you to have a drivers license. Take a look:

https://www.sss.gov/FSbenefits.htm

Do me a favor too and let me know how many times you count the word 'man' and how many times you count the word 'woman.'

Thank you. THIS, is a real life true example of an entire gender (men) being required to do something than women are not required to do. Based solely on gender.

EXCELLENT point.

I wonder if this will ever change to include all regardless of gender.

[MJ the Skeptical]

You are using prison stats to support your assertion that white, heterosexual men are oppressed? Just so I'm clear.

No, it was a male vs. female prison ratio. Again, skin pigmentation is irrelevant to the topic and sub-topic.

Not disagreeing about why Hilary lost, but that's not what I posted about.

Actually I think it was.

Was your implication not how she isn't president because she's a woman running for office? and because she's a female they viewed her differently and therefore that's why she's not president? Other women can have no problems with oppression getting into politics. Hilary's been highly successful even though she's not the best politician but will still likely be the next president.

I agree about legal/custody hearings, but I don't believe that is an entire gender being marginalized, as I personally know men who have been granted joint custody, no problem. So, while it's prevalent, it's far from a problem for men. (as an entire gender)

I don't believe either gender is being oppressed more over the other in America. And if they are, I wouldn't be so quick to say it's because of males oppressing them, more so the system oppressing them, or religion oppressing them. Like the contraception thing seems more of a religious problem than a gender problem. You brought up race but I want to keep that a separate issue if we could.

But, since we're on that, when a teen girl finds herself pregnant, often, the 'fathers' are nowhere to be found. It becomes solely the responsibility of the girl to raise the child, and the teen fathers are not being held accountable.

And that's tragic, but I'm sure I could make the corollary of a mother leaving and the father having to take care of the baby on his own.

Why are men given the choice of when to be held accountable for their children?

I noticed you cleverly said when the father is nowhere to be found then she is screwed, well yes but so would a man in the opposite situation. When we're talking about her knowing who the father is, then this fits my opinion a little better. Most of the time, women will get alimony, and child support payments, where as the male in the corollary situations will usually get none of that. Why does the female get those privileges and men rarely do? Could that be viewed as a form of male oppression?

[*Deidre*]

.....

I deleted my prior comment as I didn't mean to indicate that the teen girl doesn't know who the father is. I should have said teen girls plural, and then fathers, to match that. Not that the girl doesn't know who the father is, for that wouldn't make sense to my point. Hopefully, that makes sense now. It wasn't meant to be a clever statement, as you thought. It was a grammar error.

[MJ the Skeptical]

Since we're talking about America, where are your opportunities as a woman being declined where they are green-lit for men?..

I have to run out for a bit, but will answer this later. I also have some interesting links that have nothing to do with me, but show extreme sexism and discrimination in industries, that have often been male dominated.

The thing is this. I'm not a feminist. And I don't have any issues with men (well, in a general sense lol), but this topic needs to be discussed in a very real and dare I say, sensitive way. Many people of all sectors have suffered greatly in America over the decades, least of which has been Christian conservative men. (who happen to mainly be white, historically)

That is true. I'm not saying they are not discriminated against at times now, but not comparable as to how women have been and still are, discriminated against.

Anyway, maybe I should have avoided this thread. Thanks for listening.

If we're talking about historically, that's an entirely different subject, I suppose I was talking about present day America or other very civilized countries. But thanks so much for your comments Deidre. I know I can be a bit blunt but don't take me so seriously. I wasn't trying to insult you just hard to express myself in text form sometimes.

---

Deidre, you and I should be on a tag-team against everyone calling us feminists and giving us our label for us.

[*Deidre*]

The better example is FlyingNeanderthal's example above. That is an entire gender, and that is in direct comparison to how women were treated say when they weren't permitted to vote. THAT, is a true apples to apples comparison.

Child custody hearings are based on an individual basis. But, I will say men often get the shorter end of the stick, when it comes to wanting to gain equal custodial rights to their kids. Alimony/Palimony should be outlawed, except in cases where a woman/man are unable to work due to an illness or condition that prevents them from living the lifestyle they were accustomed to. No one needs to be taking care of anyone, who is healthy, and able bodied to work. It's an archaic system that keeps women (mainly) enslaved to thinking that they can't possibly learn to support themselves, and need a man to do it. I'm against that whole thing, unless there are valid reasons for the financial support. Valid would also be if a woman or man was in an abusive relationship, and they weren't permitted to work. Then, I can see financial support being necessary, but it'd have to be proven in court.

---

If we're talking about historically, that's an entirely different subject, I suppose I was talking about present day America or other very civilized countries. But thanks so much for your comments Deidre. I know I can be a bit blunt but don't take me so seriously. I wasn't trying to insult you just hard to express myself in text form sometimes.

---

Deidre, you and I should be on a tag-team against everyone calling us feminists and giving us our label for us.

aw thank you for this. now i just want to hug you, and stop sparring with you.

me too. i think posting is so flat, definitely. like i was smiling the WHOLE TIME i was posting to you lol

thank you ...this has been an eye opening thread. i admit, there are some areas i'm unware of when it comes to male oppression. (the miliary rape situation would be one such area, as the majority of people who are raped are gay men, not women, and those cases are handled differently) but that's a whole other story.

when will everyone be treated equally?