By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Attitudes 100 years since women's suffrage

Jaicee said:
Dulfite said:
Stereotypically assuming, because this site is dominated by men, that we would be sexist is, itself, sexist against men. Not the best start. May want to change the language of the OP.

Secondly, based on my years of experience, this site is significantly left leaning politically, or at least the ones generally commenting are, and lefties are more 3rd wave feminism supporters.

Which brings me to my third point. Feminism, stages 1/2, are basically supported by the mass (rights for women to vote and rights for women to get paid equally), but third wave (women should be able to murder babies in their womb), and fourth wave (all white women are evil, only minorities should gain more) are the two that many disagree with. I don't know any conservatives that don't agree with 1st and 2nd wave feminism, but plenty that disagree with 3rd and 4th. I'd recommend expanding on what you mean by feminism in the OP to avoid confusion.

Since this was among the most up-voted replies (tied for the most), I figured I'd focus on responding to this for now, as it seems to concentrate a lot of people's opinions. I'll go through this in a paragraph-by-paragraph way:

First, let's dispense with the annoying part. You claim here and in your follow-up post on abortion, that women in the tens of millions go around casually 'murdering giggling babies' just for the fun of it so they can have more sex, cue witch cackle. Yet you claim that I'm the sexist here because, oddly, I felt intimidated about dedicating a whole topic to women's issues on an otherwise all-male forum. ...Well just to trying to help you put matters back in perspective.

Concerning your belief that this site "is significantly left leaning politically", two things:

1) The existence of self-described conservative feminists ought to show that you don't actually have to be left-leaning to be a feminist. I mean the survey on feminism I linked you to in the OP (which was the second link) indicated that even 42% of Republican women in this country describe themselves as feminists today! AND...

2) It's interesting that you perceive VGC's political lean as leftist because I perceive it as more right-leaning than my country overall is, particularly when it comes to topics like feminism, women's issues, women's interests, that sort of thing. Unlike you though, I've got actual evidence to support my opinion. For example, when Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court came up and blew up in controversy mainly because he had been credibly accused of sexual assault, 47% of VGC users felt that he deserved to be confirmed anyway, as compared with barely a third of the overall U.S. population contemporaneously. Or something else that's stuck out to me has been the sort of opinions that are given an official platform on the main page. Here for instance is the most popular article I've seen posted thereto to judge by the number of views it got. Also, check out the comment section because the most up-voted entries are exactly the sort you'd think they'd be; exactly the reaction the article, and by implication the site management, intended to elicit. But maybe that's just me and a more typical woman would feel differently. Maybe.

Finally, concerning feminist waves, I think you've grossly oversimplified the contours thereof such as to follow the narrative of the conservative "difference" feminists. For example, I consider myself to be a second wave feminist ideologically, yet my views on women's issues are clearly pro-choice and seem to skew well to the left of yours on balance. Also, the contents of the current (fourth) feminist wave are not uniform; they have differed by country and region of the world and this is especially true when you take into account the starkly different example of South Korea where lesbian feminism (a school that barely exists anymore in the Western world) is far more common than intersectional feminism.

You said stuff before starting 1. So I'll respond to each thought in order:

1) My original response wasn't written to tick you off, but simply point out how some of the language you used could be interpreted as sexist. That wasn't mean shouting at you, or calling you a sexist for the rest of your life. I was simply pointing out something I thought would be helpful for you to see, another perspective. If you don't want to change your OP language that is fine and your right.

2) I never said women murder babies for the fun of it. Women are extremely stressed before, during, and especially after the procedure. Nothing about it is fun and I never suggested women enjoy it, so please don't slander me.

3) Regarding giggling, that isn't subjective. Babies giggle in the womb, and hiccup, and jump and do all sorts of other fun things. They are figuring out life in there and all the fun little things they can do. And sadly, despite all those wonderful indications that they are human, the needle still comes.

4) Regarding the 42% that are conservative feminists... But what does that mean? My wife is a 1/2nd wave feminist, but not a 3rd wave feminist. She hates abortion as much as I do. So again, what do those 42% even mean? I read a poll recently that indicated men are, by a majority, supportive of abortion. That same poll indicated women, by a majority, aren't supportive of abortion rights. Does that mean the majority of women aren't feminists simply because they don't adhere to 3rd wave ideology? Feminism is an unclear term in today's society as to what it means.

5) I never claimed to have evidence that this site was left leaning. It's just the feel I get when reading and making posts. I could absolutely be wrong here, but it is my opinion nonetheless. And Super Court Justices aren't the best proof of a sites political leaning. The electorate are usually okay with whoever a SC nominee is, as they aren't as politically charged as Congress or Executive members. That hearing was about personal stuff, and hardly about political issues or prior court cases, so people had to make a gut decision about who to believe. One side had no witnesses or evidence. It's innocent until proven guilty here, thankfully.

6) I won't pretend to know anything about waves of feminism in other countries. I speak purely on an American perspective.



Around the Network
vivster said:
WolfpackN64 said:

Sometimes you need to aknowledge differences between groups and treat people differently for them to in fact be treated equally. Removing the two genders solves nothing.

The only meaningful difference between men and women in today's society is how they are brought up, which has everything to do with their gender. If there was no gender, then feminine or masculine traits would not exist, hence nobody would discriminate based on them. Women are treated differently because people are taught to believe that they are different. People expect different behavior from different genders and that is the core of the problem.

If you remove gender, people will be treated based on their actual behavior and not their expected behavior because there is no expected behavior. Separating genders has no basis in reality anymore and should be abolished. You cannot discriminate based on gender when gender doesn't exist.

Differences are important on a physiological level, not on a psychological level, gender discrimination happens only on the basis of the latter.

Gender stems from sex, of which there are two. Biological differences create different societal differences and the way people relate to to these differences is their gender identity. The problem is you seem to see gender as something inherently bad. But removing someone's gender is like saying we should do away with the concept of race (in which case I'm talking about the biological difference of skin color and nothing more). You could say we should do away with the concept to quell racism.

The only thing you'll achieve is that racism would be unquantifiable and you will have hampered attempts to quell racism. If you want to solve problems faced by black people, you need to be able to quantify that community. If you want to solve issues women are facing, you need to point out who the people are who are facing that problem, and who the people are that cause.

Getting rid of the concept of gender is not only pointless, it's also simply impossible.



Signalstar said:
I still can't believe that Hillary Clinton, a white woman, lost the white women vote four years ago- to Trump of all people.

Now I don't believe that people should vote for someone just because they are part of the same demographic but I still can't believe that women did not want to see another woman ascend to the highest office in the land.

100 years after the passage of the 19th amendment maybe we can elect a female vice president.

I just can't believe so many Women for Trump overlooked his blatant misogyny and voted against their own interests. There were women who held up signs saying "Trump Can Grab My Pussy Whenever He Wants".

Human beings can be so irrational.

People need to stop seeing it as "people, including women, did not want to see a woman president" and accept the fact that "people, including women, did not want to see Hillary Clinton as president".  



Mandalore76 said:
Signalstar said:
I still can't believe that Hillary Clinton, a white woman, lost the white women vote four years ago- to Trump of all people.

Now I don't believe that people should vote for someone just because they are part of the same demographic but I still can't believe that women did not want to see another woman ascend to the highest office in the land.

100 years after the passage of the 19th amendment maybe we can elect a female vice president.

I just can't believe so many Women for Trump overlooked his blatant misogyny and voted against their own interests. There were women who held up signs saying "Trump Can Grab My Pussy Whenever He Wants".

Human beings can be so irrational.

People need to stop seeing it as "people, including women, did not want to see a woman president" and accept the fact that "people, including women, did not want to see Hillary Clinton as president".  

Exactly! I'm extremely excited for Nikki Haley to run for President, but that's because she has similar values and political thoughts to me. I legit think she is the most qualified to be President for the next Republican. She was a hawk at the UN. Sarah Palin though? No way. She is not qualified.

The idea that people vote for people just because of their gender or race is incomprehensible to me. Vote for who would get the job done the best you'd want it to be done. I knew a conservative girl in high school who wanted Hillary to win the nomination and election in 2008 just because she's a woman. Why? She's gonna do a whole bunch of stuff you don't agree with, why vote for her?

I also knew a girl back than who wanted McCain to lose to Obama simply because he was older. That similarly makes no sense, unless you think he doesn't have the mental capacity to run a country anymore (that wasn't her argument).



Dulfite said:
Mandalore76 said:

People need to stop seeing it as "people, including women, did not want to see a woman president" and accept the fact that "people, including women, did not want to see Hillary Clinton as president".  

Exactly! I'm extremely excited for Nikki Haley to run for President, but that's because she has similar values and political thoughts to me. I legit think she is the most qualified to be President for the next Republican. She was a hawk at the UN. Sarah Palin though? No way. She is not qualified.

The idea that people vote for people just because of their gender or race is incomprehensible to me. Vote for who would get the job done the best you'd want it to be done. I knew a conservative girl in high school who wanted Hillary to win the nomination and election in 2008 just because she's a woman. Why? She's gonna do a whole bunch of stuff you don't agree with, why vote for her?

I also knew a girl back than who wanted McCain to lose to Obama simply because he was older. That similarly makes no sense, unless you think he doesn't have the mental capacity to run a country anymore (that wasn't her argument).

As I said clearly in my post I don't think people should vote based on their demographic. I'm well aware that a large amount of people greatly dislike Hillary Clinton. That is the reason why Trump is president. Thanks to non-white women, Hillary Clinton did win the women vote overall. Let's not forget she won the popular vote by around 3 million as well.

Nikki Haley is a horrible politician and a hypocrite. She was an embarrassment at the UN. I hope her political comeback fails. She was nothing but a Trump lackey who betrayed all of her principles. If Trump-style republicanism fails this election you will see so many of his stooges run away from him. I hope Haley, Pompeo, Cruz, and Pence all suffer for their spinelessness.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1gWECYYOSo

Please Watch/Share this video so it gets shown in Hollywood.

Around the Network
kirby007 said:
can you imagine being a black woman

My mother is black and pretty happy, including a lot of other women in my family.

Black women are doing alright, no need to be saved from something white people decided they need to be saved from.



Farsala said:
JWeinCom said:

When I asked for evidence I wasn't looking for a yes or no, but for the actual evidence. Lol.

I take questions literally.

Here is a study that compiles other more legit studies.

https://www.academia.edu/27607213/Happiness_and_Life_Satisfaction_in_Japan_by_Gender

Some quotes to reinforce my point.

"

The World Value Survey data show for example that Japan (20.8%) ranks together with Bangladesh (16.5%), Iran (22.7%), the Philippines (15.5%), Saudi Arabia (8.6%) and Morocco (7.9%) among the lowest countries regarding “norms on gender inequality




"Tiefenbach and Kohlbacher (2013), however, find a coefficient of 0.45 (on a scale from 0-10) that lends further evidence to both, the universal finding that women are happier than men and to the country specific result that the gender gap in happiness is rather big in Japan compared to other countries"


So in terms of gender equality Japan is close to countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia. In terms of happiness though, women win by larger degree than most countries.

Torillian said:


Given how great it is to stay home, clean, and take care of kids when are you planning to transition to a house husband/dad? 

I would like that, as I love kids and staying home. But I don't have a spouse or kids. I have taken extended breaks from work to stay at home though when needed. Either way in this country it wouldn't work due to the aforementioned gender pay gap and biases.

Thanks for the study. It's interesting. But it, so far as I can see, doesn't address the possibility that women are generally happier than men (which doesn't seem to be the case in the US at least but may be the case generally). Or the possibility that men in Japan are extra miserable for some reason, and you can close the gap without women being less happy.

More significantly, is collective happiness the ultimate objective? For instance, if we had slavery in this country, but slavery was made in such a way that the slaves would were generally happier than the non slaves would that justify slavery? I personally think the freedom for each person to pursue the life they choose is more important than average happiness.

vivster said:
WolfpackN64 said:

Sometimes you need to aknowledge differences between groups and treat people differently for them to in fact be treated equally. Removing the two genders solves nothing.

The only meaningful difference between men and women in today's society is how they are brought up, which has everything to do with their gender. If there was no gender, then feminine or masculine traits would not exist, hence nobody would discriminate based on them. Women are treated differently because people are taught to believe that they are different. People expect different behavior from different genders and that is the core of the problem.

If you remove gender, people will be treated based on their actual behavior and not their expected behavior because there is no expected behavior. Separating genders has no basis in reality anymore and should be abolished. You cannot discriminate based on gender when gender doesn't exist.

Differences are important on a physiological level, not on a psychological level, gender discrimination happens only on the basis of the latter.

There are other meaningful differences. Simplifying things to two sexes(which is not accurate but a necessary fiction for the sake of such conversations), women and men have different brain structure, different hormone levels, and different anatomy. 

Just for instance, suppose I run a football stadium and decide to do away with gendered bathrooms. The bathrooms I do have each have 20 urinals and five bathroom stalls. This would be a situation that is theoretically equal (everyone has access to the same bathrooms), but one group's needs are not being met.



As a general thread warning, let's not discuss politics in this topic EXCEPT to the extent that it's relevant to the issue of treatment of women. For instance, whether or not a particular politician is treated differently based on their gender is relevant. Your opinions on the position of a particular politician probably are not.



Jaicee said:

I'm probably committing social suicide by dedicating a whole topic to women's issues on an otherwise all-male board, but oh well.

The right of women to vote was enshrined in the U.S. Constitution a century ago this year. (Specifically as of August 26th.) A century later, 64% of American women believe the U.S. hasn't gone far enough in the way of securing equal rights for women and 61% describe themselves as feminists. What's more, about half of American men seem to agree with the first view (as you can see at the first link.)

A majority of both women and men who believe that more needs to be done to advance equal treatment for women identify the following items as major obstacles thereto:

-Sexual harassment.
-Unequal legal rights.
-Different expectations society has for women and men.
-Not enough women in positions of power.
-Additionally, nearly half of women also identify family responsibilities as a major obstacle.

Overwhelming majorities of both women and men (82% of 73% respectively) today favor ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning discrimination on the basis of sex.

(See the first link above for this data and more.)

So what say you? Are women here in the U.S. or wherever you live treated equally in your view? Is there more work to do? Or...*sighs*...as I suspect may be a common opinion here on a practically all-male forum...is it your view that women are really just generally lazier, treated better than men, and simply too sensitive?

Let's see if we can have a productive discussion of this topic. Probably not (another thread of mine that's almost certain to get closed ), but just thought I'd try and see if we could get somewhere. Just in case I wasn't controversial enough already!

While I believe in some countries, especially poor countries, women are definitely treated as lesser human beings and suffer a lot of prejudice and need to have their future shaped by society, I believe in most of western rich countries this process have already finished and now feminists are chasing the wind. Women will never be equal to men because, well, they are biologically and mentally different and that is a good thing as it brings different views, aspirations and attitude to the world. And although the media in general wants to paint a different frame, men and women have a tendency to excel at certain activities.

Feminism today is not looking for equality anymore but rather to privileges. You want to be a mother of 3, a wife, a high tier management position in a large company and be beautiful and in shape at the same time? Sorry but probably you won't be able to do it at the same time and this is not sexist, it's just common sense.



Yes women are treated plenty unequally in Pakistan and much more needs to be done but as a believer in resolving social issues through class politics, I hold the view that if we resolve the issues if capitalism and move on to a better system and educate people to view the world through class lens instead, then these other issues will slowly resolve over time through our efforts but if we don't get rid of the root causes, which I believe are economic related, then these inequalities will never end. Sorry but I don't believe having more women oligarchs and presidents and dictators and prime ministers is gonna solve the problems of the world. Like that evil basitch in Bolivia for example or Kim Jon Un's suspected successor. Both are women but that doesn't help women in any which way. Similarly having Hillary Clinton be president wouldn't have helped women in the US and having Benazir Bhutto be Prime Minister didn't help women in Pakistan solely because of that fact. It did help that the PPP was somewhat working for the working class that did help women so again, class politics not identity politics. Having Barack Obama be president didn't help the mass incarceration of African Americans or police shootings.



Just a guy who doesn't want to be bored. Also