Why I'm a feminist.

Fascinating, short (34 min), mini documentary on how feminists try to silence freedom of speech and opposing voices on college campuses. Professor Janice Fiamengo talks about some of the harassment she's received for speaking out against feminism. Incredibly brave woman.

When a post as innocuous as that one ^ gets voted down, it only proves how hypocritical the majority on A2K are, and how opposed to logic and truth that the majority are.

It has happened to me for years;
its no surprize. People do it just because thay dont like u.
I got the idea long ago; I don t care. What DIFFERENCE does it make??

Don t let it bother u.





David

Mememe likes to have a good cry. If you take that away it has nothing left.

It doesn't bother me. I'm aware that most people here don't like me. I wouldn't have it any other way.

But I won't ever pass up an opportunity to point out hypocrisy and in group preference.

Thank you David.

That's true. Here are some legal rights that women have, that men do not:

1. Women have the right to genital integrity

Regardless of how you personally feel about the practice of circumcision (I personally find it barbaric, cruel and completely unjustifiable), the legal fact is that infant girls are protected against any genital cutting of any kind and infant boys are not. Many feminists will argue that female genital mutilation (FGM) is a magnitude of brutality beyond male genital mutilation and while that may be true, I do not find the “it’s only a little bit brutal” argument to be very compelling. It’s like saying cutting off a toe is okay because cutting off a foot is much worse. Ultimately, the argument is immaterial to the fact that women have the legal right to be protected from having their body parts sliced off. Men do not.

2. Women have the right to vote without agreeing to die

In the US, citizens are free to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right to democratically choose their own leaders through the process of casting a ballot in an election once they reach the age of 18. Women achieve this right by the simple act of surviving 18 years. Men may not actualize their basic rights as a citizen without first signing a Selective Service card, in which they agree that at the discretion of the democratically elected government, they will take up arms and die to defend their liberty and way of life. The draft. Men may vote if, and only if, they agree they will face death if required. Women have no such obligation, but they do get to vote for the governments that can potentially send men to meet death. Again, regardless of how you feel about the draft, women have the right to vote without agreeing to be drafted. Men don’t.

3. Women have the right to choose parenthood

I’ve written about this before, but it is worth repeating. Women have three options to absolve themselves of all legal, moral, financial and social responsibility for children they did not intend and do not want. Women may abort the child before it is born, they may surrender the child for adoption without notifying or identifying the father or they may surrender the infant under Safe Haven laws and walk away from all responsibility and obligation. Women cannot be forced or coerced into parenthood, but they are legally allowed to force men into financing their reproductive choices. In many states, men can be forced into financial responsibility for children whom they did not biologically father. As long as a particular man is identified as the father, he will be held accountable. Paternity fraud is legal. In no state is legal paternal surrender permitted without the express agreement of the mother.

Again, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with legal paternal surrender, the fact remains that women have the legal right to choose parenthood. Men do not.

4. Women have the right to be assumed caregivers for children

When parental relationships irretrievably break down, current custody laws assume one primary caregiver (almost always a woman) and one tertiary caregiver (almost always a man). In order to win equal or shared custody, the tertiary caregiver must litigate to prove they are worthy of equal parenting, a proposition that is not only very difficult to “prove”, it is also very expensive. The legal presumption of shared parenting upon divorce – that children have a legal right to an equal relationship with both their mother and their father following relationship breakdown – is strongly resisted by the National Organization for Women (NOW) and other feminist organizations who know that women will almost always win custody of children under the default laws. In actual fact, men who can afford to purse legal remedies and challenge primary custody stand a good chance of winning, because women do not have the market cornered on loving or caring for children. So while the law does not specifically indicate that custody will be awarded to women, the defacto result of primary/tertiary caregiver custody law is that women have a legal right to be assumed caregivers for children. Men do not.

5. Women have the right to call unwanted, coerced sex rape

The original FBI definition of rape specifically identified women as the victims, excluding the possibility of male rape victims. When the FBI updated that, it did so in way that includes a small minority of male rape victims but excluded most male rape victims by retaining the “penetration” clause. Penetration of any orifice must occur for rape to have happened. The FBI does collect another set of statistics though, under the category of “other sexual assault” – it’s the awkwardly named “made to penetrate” category, which includes men who were coerced, tricked or bullied into penetrative sex with women they would otherwise not have had sex with. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey similarly considers the two types of assault separately, despite the fact that occurrences are virtually identical. 1.27M women report rape (p.18) and 1.26M men report “made to penetrate” (p.19). By collecting the information under separate categories, following the legal definitions, women have the right to have their rapes called “rape”. Men do not.

Why does any of this matter? Feminism is under attack in the popular media for failing to address real problems that have real consequences for real people. Despite insisting that feminism cares for everyone, and wants equality for everyone, the facts suggest the opposite is true. Women have more rights than men and those discrepancies need to be addressed. But more importantly, gender is just one thing that defines who a person is, what advantages and disadvantages they might have, what opportunities are in front of them, or foreclosed. Class, wealth, race, ability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion – all of these things have a profound influence on individuals, and the only way to understand how a specific person can be helped or hindered is to see that person as a human being, first and foremost. Perhaps the reason I don’t need feminism is because what I really need is humanism. And maybe you do, too.


http://thoughtcatalog.com/janet-bloomfield/2014/08/5-legal-rights-women-have-that-men-dont/

Everyone voting me down is also voting down all the women who oppose feminism and it's hateful ideology.

...you ******* misogynists!

And what about travesties? For example, lets give fictitious names as Izzythepussy and Davidia, two men who love dressing like women.

Are they included as "feminists" defending their rights even if they are not women but men dressing like women?

I think that there are limitations which must be respected.

It is OK for women (real women) to become doctors, politicians, judges, etc.

But at home, the ruler, the master, no doubt is the man, not so the woman.

This is why I agree with the biblical narration. I understood that woman is a recycled part of man, and by consequence she belongs to man.

There is not a single biblical verse saying the contrary, that men belong to women, but surely are lots of verses giving examples of women who belonged to men.

This is the will of the god of the bible. So, no matter how "religious" the woman fakes to be, because if she is not capable to be obedient to her husband, then this woman won't make it.

Her test is the obedience to her husband, and in religion the word feminism as a social movement is simply abomination to the god of the bible. If travesties and women insist in disobeying the god of the bible, then they won't be forgiven and their souls will be sent to the lake of fire, this to say, a holocaust.

Believe it. Do not deny it. LOL.

OK, I compensatorily voted u back up. I don t want it to hurt your feelings.
However, I wanna stick up for circumcision, which u bad-mouthed.
I very nearly went un-circumcised (for a few months), except that fortunately
I got infantile urinary infections evoking medical advice that I get it,
but I remain horrified at the idea of my going thru life
in an un-circumcised condition.

In all fairness,
u shud not seek to impose celibacy upon misogynists, nono.

"I'm a feminist because "friendzone" and "girls just go for arseholes!" is men's way of attacking women for only dating men they're actually attracted to and screams male entitlement of thinking that women are machines where you put in niceness tokens until sex drops out." --- I agree with most but in some context, women do actually "use" nice guys to do their stuff while bad boys to give them gifts, pleasure, sex, better dating standard etc....

Some points are very well raised indeed. I hadn't thought abt them before reading this post. And we men do "overuse" PMSing to dismiss any reasonable and cogent anger as well. Admittedly

I totally agree with your point about circumcision. Boys need to be better protected against genital mutilation. Those religions who make an obligation of it should change circumcision into a symbolic gesture. Those parents who mutilate the genitals of their kids for no particular reason should be asked to cut their own genitals, since they like the idea so much.

On 2, I thought there was no more draft in the US?

On point 3, you're complaining about a law of nature.

Somewhat off of the Why I'm a Feminist track:

This will seem wishywashy, since it is; my opinions on all this aren't set.

On circumcision, I've read enough that borderline convinced me against it re necessity for hygiene - among all populations, I dunno, re variations on hygiene and possible complications - but my reading was a while ago and I remember no data at this point. As a concept as something good to do, leaving religion out of it, I'm a doubter.

Re religion, I was raised catholic and worked later in a catholic hospital, and circumcisions were done all the time there. I think the price was $2.00, back in the late fifties (I worked as a cashier at one point).

Re how harmful it is re loss of pleasure sensitivity, I'll believe the reports by some who were circumcised later in life that there is noticeable loss at least for those some. I've also read that many men are pro circumcision, glad they had it.
That doesn't mean that I wouldn't like to see circumcision go away if it is only done for ceremony, and that hygiene data back that up (not sure); since many men are fine with it, prefer it, maybe it should be a choice for later on.

My impression, again from reading, is that the loss of sensitivity/pleasure that happens with female genital mutilation is huge. More huge. Most huge.

Making a law in the U.S. against circumcision? I'd rather see culture change, or choice change.
On a law against FGM, I'd likely be for it.

I remember that there was at least one previous thread here on a2k with circumcision discussed.

People in general use each other....one thing I've learned is this : it's not about a battle between the sexes...it's human /human.

Yes, it's off track feminism but it's relevant as a form of gender inequality that goes against the usual direction. To mutilate the genitals of kids is bad, whatever the gender of the kid.

Adults can make their own decisions about their own genital parts. They can cut them, pierce them, tattoo them or change sex if they want to - i have no problem with that.

About cut men saying they are ok with it, that's how female circumcision get perpetuated in Africa as well: surprisingly enough, adult women insist on doing it to their daughters. Sometimes it's done by females on females. So that's not an argument. People tend to internalize these things. I guess it's more convenient to think your parents mutilated you for a good reason than just to cut down on your sexual pleasure...

On hygiene, I honestly find this argument rather absurd... The removal of body parts is perhaps a not a rational approach to hygiene in this day and age, when soap is available in many shops, even in my country... I spend more time washing my ears every day than you-know-what, but I am not ready to cut off my ears yet. Never heard anyone suggesting that we should cut the labias off little girls to make it easier to wash...

All this said, i agree that male circumcision is much milder a practice than female excision, much less debilitating and painful. There is no comparison really. A better comparison for the ablation of the entire clitoris would be the ablation of the entire penis*. Sobering thought...





* anatomically or rather embryonically if that's a word, the clit is the female equivalent of the dick minus the urinary tract----so you galls HAVE a dick, you just can't pee with it. ;-)

Yes on this:
Adults can make their own decisions about their own genital parts. They can cut them, pierce them, tattoo them or change sex if they want to - i have no problem with that.
on this: anatomically or rather embryonically if that's a word, the clit is the female equivalent of the dick minus the urinary tract----so you galls HAVE a dick, you just can't pee with it. ;-) What a thought!

On hygiene, I was talking about it being related to, ah, disease catching among the non-circumcised. I remember that as part of the older reasoning on the necessity of it.

Circumcision has been correlated with lower risk of AIDS transmission from woman to man (not vice versa), perhaps due to a thicker, harder gland skin in circumcised men. I think it works for some other STDs too.

Seriously though, I'd rather keep my willy intact and use condoms to get the health risk down to 0.0001, than 'harden my gland skin' to lower the risk by a mere 20 or 30%...

Nods.
And the choice is taken away from those circumcised as babies.

I will differ in that I think that men who post that they are fine they were circumcised early on aren't all somehow brainwashed by the culture.
On the other hand, whadda I know?

Agreed, but I'm glad I've still got all of my, (truly mighty,) penis. If nothing else it comes in handy turning off the light when I'm in bed.

This is just full of whiny men sad because the girl is touching someone else's dick instead of theirs and they might now get in trouble for sexually harassing people.

Gross.