Do women really need feminism? (73)
StuckinarizonaCottonwood, Arizona USA7 PostsThat is certainly a important social right...
------ This thread is Archived ------
Kapow_: Do women really need feminism?
No, women do not need feminism, societies do.
Feminism is equal rights and equal opportunities for everyone.
Yet some people are not well informed or ill-informed or just define feminism themselves how they are capable of because of their knowledge/background/bias/fear and some times they feel threaten -some men and some women- by a woman who has had the opportunity of getting a job and being independent.
Also, time and place have to be taken into consideration when talking about equal rights and equal opportunities.
------ This thread is Archived ------
lifeisadream: No, women do not need feminism, societies do.
Feminism is equal rights and equal opportunities for everyone.
Yet some people are not well informed or ill-informed or just define feminism themselves how they are capable of because of their knowledge/background/bias/fear and some times they feel threaten -some men and some women- by a woman who has had the opportunity of getting a job and being independent.
Also, time and place have to be taken into consideration when talking about equal rights and equal opportunities.
Feminism is equal rights and equal opportunities for everyone.
Yet some people are not well informed or ill-informed or just define feminism themselves how they are capable of because of their knowledge/background/bias/fear and some times they feel threaten -some men and some women- by a woman who has had the opportunity of getting a job and being independent.
Also, time and place have to be taken into consideration when talking about equal rights and equal opportunities.
------ This thread is Archived ------
------ This thread is Archived ------
Ccincy: I've never claimed to be a feminist in any shape or form.
I agree with women having rights like voting equal pay but some of it makes no sense to me and in my humble opinion it has destroyed the family unit.
agree thx 2 dems,etc.I agree with women having rights like voting equal pay but some of it makes no sense to me and in my humble opinion it has destroyed the family unit.
------ This thread is Archived ------
KremaP: Oh, yes they have and some are even worse than men...
If that's what feminism if for, well no, thanks...
:If that's what feminism if for, well no, thanks...
------ This thread is Archived ------
Kapow_: But... if women made same money as men. Would they need men at all?
Yes,women will still need a man ...for all the things that man mostly expect from women to be and do.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Feminsim has undergone a few changes over the years.
The Suffragettes in about 1900, fighting for the rights of women to vote, and own property, and not be the property of their husband... Basically the right to be a person.
The 1960's version, less clear what they were after, in an era of protest. Perhaps equal pay for equal work, perhaps more recognition in academia.
The current version, often simply objectionable people with a massive chip on their shoulder, no real objective other than spouting venom and hatred for men, in the name of gender equality.
Sure there's still a glass ceiling in business and politics, it is getting less and less, and more women are getting ahead on their own merits. There are a lot of mediocre people calling for affirmative action and quotas, a true feminist would see these measures as a big step backwards.
And there is the subtle indicator we still have a way to go, for example, we still get excited and say- the first female (insert role), ...rather than- (insert womans name) is (insert role) because of the following talents/abilities...
The Suffragettes in about 1900, fighting for the rights of women to vote, and own property, and not be the property of their husband... Basically the right to be a person.
The 1960's version, less clear what they were after, in an era of protest. Perhaps equal pay for equal work, perhaps more recognition in academia.
The current version, often simply objectionable people with a massive chip on their shoulder, no real objective other than spouting venom and hatred for men, in the name of gender equality.
Sure there's still a glass ceiling in business and politics, it is getting less and less, and more women are getting ahead on their own merits. There are a lot of mediocre people calling for affirmative action and quotas, a true feminist would see these measures as a big step backwards.
And there is the subtle indicator we still have a way to go, for example, we still get excited and say- the first female (insert role), ...rather than- (insert womans name) is (insert role) because of the following talents/abilities...
------ This thread is Archived ------
pat8lanips: Feminsim has undergone a few changes over the years.
The Suffragettes in about 1900, fighting for the rights of women to vote, and own property, and not be the property of their husband... Basically the right to be a person.
The 1960's version, less clear what they were after, in an era of protest. Perhaps equal pay for equal work, perhaps more recognition in academia.
The current version, often simply objectionable people with a massive chip on their shoulder, no real objective other than spouting venom and hatred for men, in the name of gender equality.
Sure there's still a glass ceiling in business and politics, it is getting less and less, and more women are getting ahead on their own merits. There are a lot of mediocre people calling for affirmative action and quotas, a true feminist would see these measures as a big step backwards.
And there is the subtle indicator we still have a way to go, for example, we still get excited and say- the first female (insert role), ...rather than- (insert womans name) is (insert role) because of the following talents/abilities...
The Suffragettes in about 1900, fighting for the rights of women to vote, and own property, and not be the property of their husband... Basically the right to be a person.
The 1960's version, less clear what they were after, in an era of protest. Perhaps equal pay for equal work, perhaps more recognition in academia.
The current version, often simply objectionable people with a massive chip on their shoulder, no real objective other than spouting venom and hatred for men, in the name of gender equality.
Sure there's still a glass ceiling in business and politics, it is getting less and less, and more women are getting ahead on their own merits. There are a lot of mediocre people calling for affirmative action and quotas, a true feminist would see these measures as a big step backwards.
And there is the subtle indicator we still have a way to go, for example, we still get excited and say- the first female (insert role), ...rather than- (insert womans name) is (insert role) because of the following talents/abilities...
Definitely, quotas serve a political purpose.
------ This thread is Archived ------
guysimple: Are you sure???
I'm not sure of anything anymore Guy
My original thought was that no special rights should be granted only because of the gender of the person.
If people want to be treated equally they have to prove themselves not have it on a plate...
------ This thread is Archived ------
during the 60s and 70s women were the worse.
------ This thread is Archived ------
lindsyjones: " All humans, male and female, should have equal political, economic and social rights"
To me this is the basic and ultimate goal of a feminist.
The question is, would have we been recognized and treated with equal rights without thus movement called feminism?
My answer is no.
To me this is the basic and ultimate goal of a feminist.
The question is, would have we been recognized and treated with equal rights without thus movement called feminism?
My answer is no.
...and yet we're still not equal.------ This thread is Archived ------
KremaP: I'm not sure of anything anymore Guy
My original thought was that no special rights should be granted only because of the gender of the person.
If people want to be treated equally they have to prove themselves not have it on a plate...
My original thought was that no special rights should be granted only because of the gender of the person.
If people want to be treated equally they have to prove themselves not have it on a plate...
I'd go further and say
" No 'special' or 'additional' rights should be granted to anyone for any reason ..."
Common "Human Rights" ought to override the interest of any minority special interest group ... otherwise we're all espousing the interests that Orwell (and many others) have loud and often warned us against
At the beginning of the book
ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL
and, by the end of the book
ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL ... BUT Some animals are more equal than others !
------ This thread is Archived ------
This Thread is Archived
This Thread is archived, so you will no longer be able to post to it. Threads get archived automatically when they are older than 3 months.
« Go back to All Threads
« Go back to All Threads
More Threads
other can see but not you
the way you look
1830's Music
Happy Birthday MysteriousGirl80
wanting beyond need
Feel Good Music
Common Issues with the BMW X1
The Best of the GOP
How far is too far?
rarotonga
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).