I heard this radio journalist today say she was a feminist and a liberal. Which got me to thinking, I don't actually know what a feminist is.

Dictionary: one who believes that women should be allowed the same rights, power, and opportunities as men and be treated in the same way.
OK. On rights, I guess women have the same legal rights, here anyway, as men. Are there other kinds of rights in question?
Power. Now power is a wide field for discussion. For a start I think many, many women are oppressed, in the work place, in marriage or relationships. So to the extent they are oppressed, their power is diminished.
And of course in many parts of the world the oppression is absolute and the power is zero.
Opportunities. Well no doubt there is the glass ceiling and it's still a male dominated economy etc.

But a lot of people would believe all these issues should be addressed and wouldn't call themselves feminists. Men for a start.
So maybe there's more meaning in the term than the dictionary says. Can a woman be a feminist and be a conservative?
Julie Bishop no doubt believes all those issues should be tackled but would she want to be called a feminist?
Maybe there has to be an element of activism in it.
Maybe they have to burn their bras and be uncomfortable, some of them anyway.

If a feminist doesn'thate war then surely they are illegitimate

http://img0.joyreactor.com/pics/post/funny-pictures-auto-feminist-judge-369390.jpeg

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 1^st, 2013 at 3:02pm:

I heard this radio journalist today say she was a feminist and a liberal. Which got me to thinking, I don't actually know what a feminist is. Dictionary: one who believes that women should be allowed the same rights, power, and opportunities as men and be treated in the same way. OK. On rights, I guess women have the same legal rights, here anyway, as men. Are there other kinds of rights in question? Power. Now power is a wide field for discussion. For a start I think many, many women are oppressed, in the work place, in marriage or relationships. So to the extent they are oppressed, their power is diminished. And of course in many parts of the world the oppression is absolute and the power is zero. Opportunities. Well no doubt there is the glass ceiling and it's still a male dominated economy etc. But a lot of people would believe all these issues should be addressed and wouldn't call themselves feminists. Men for a start. So maybe there's more meaning in the term than the dictionary says. Can a woman be a feminist and be a conservative? Julie Bishop no doubt believes all those issues should be tackled but would she want to be called a feminist? Maybe there has to be an element of activism in it. Maybe they have to burn their bras and be uncomfortable, some of them anyway.

The feminism we have today is a type of neo-Marxism. Marx, we may recall, claimed "the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed." (To be fair, a very similar idea can be found in Hegel before Marx; yet Marx was a 'young Hegelian' at one stage so it makes sense that he adopted Hegel's ideas).

Around the time of WW1, the international socialists could not understand why the "oppressed" classes voluntarily went off to war to fight for their nation. So Marxists in the Frankfurt School claimed they were brainwashed by their fathers and bourgeoisie propaganda. What occurs here in the Frankfurt School is one of the most fundamental transitions of thought of the 20th century: Marx's class and economic distinctions were then turned into cultural distinctions: the oppressor was now to include males, the oppressed were the females, the white nations were the oppressors, the non-white nations the oppressed; in short, authority is bad and equality is the holy grail of morality.

Anything that is not equal is bad. This is how they justify all their rage. Claim something isn't equal, and then throw expletives at it or whoever upholds it.


Equality of opportunity in the West has been achieved - their historical goal has now been completed. But not satisfied with that, they now see inequality of outcome as the next goal to rectify. This is why they attack pay inequality, (even though men and women get paid the same for the same job). This is why they attack men in power, (even though women have the same opportunities as men to achieve power).
 

Postmodern Trendoid wrote on Jul 1^st, 2013 at 5:27pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 1st, 2013 at 3:02pm: I heard this radio journalist today say she was a feminist and a liberal. Which got me to thinking, I don't actually know what a feminist is. Dictionary: one who believes that women should be allowed the same rights, power, and opportunities as men and be treated in the same way. OK. On rights, I guess women have the same legal rights, here anyway, as men. Are there other kinds of rights in question? Power. Now power is a wide field for discussion. For a start I think many, many women are oppressed, in the work place, in marriage or relationships. So to the extent they are oppressed, their power is diminished. And of course in many parts of the world the oppression is absolute and the power is zero. Opportunities. Well no doubt there is the glass ceiling and it's still a male dominated economy etc. But a lot of people would believe all these issues should be addressed and wouldn't call themselves feminists. Men for a start. So maybe there's more meaning in the term than the dictionary says. Can a woman be a feminist and be a conservative? Julie Bishop no doubt believes all those issues should be tackled but would she want to be called a feminist? Maybe there has to be an element of activism in it. Maybe they have to burn their bras and be uncomfortable, some of them anyway. The feminism we have today is a type of neo-Marxism. Marx, we may recall, claimed "the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed." (To be fair, a very similar idea can be found in Hegel before Marx; yet Marx was a 'young Hegelian' at one stage so it makes sense that he adopted Hegel's ideas). Around the time of WW1, the international socialists could not understand why the "oppressed" classes voluntarily went off to war to fight for their nation. So Marxists in the Frankfurt School claimed they were brainwashed by their fathers and bourgeoisie propaganda. What occurs here in the Frankfurt School is one of the most fundamental transitions of thought of the 20th century: Marx's class and economic distinctions were then turned into cultural distinctions: the oppressor was now to include males, the oppressed were the females, the white nations were the oppressors, the non-white nations the oppressed; in short, authority is bad and equality is the holy grail of morality. Anything that is not equal is bad. This is how they justify all their rage. Claim something isn't equal, and then throw expletives at it or whoever upholds it. Equality of opportunity in the West has been achieved - their historical goal has now been completed. But not satisfied with that, they now see inequality of outcome as the next goal to rectify. This is why they attack pay inequality, (even though men and women get paid the same for the same job). This is why they attack men in power, (even though women have the same opportunities as men to achieve power).

Source?

The Authoritarian Personality by Adorno, Dialectic of Enlightenment by Adorno and Horkheimer, anything by Judith Butler, and any feminist literature since the 1960s.

Feminist:

A woman who becomes a 'slave' to the World of Men in the name of Power, rather than Procreation.
...using men who are slaves to the World of Women (procreation, sexual pleasure, etc)
as their justification of feeling persecuted.

A Feminist is the wife of a rich man (no kids) who had sex with a poor  married man (5 kids)  who worked for her husband as the Janitor.
A Trophy wife to her husband, a whore to the Janitor.

A feminist?

I know a woman who would thump them 'til their noses bled. She considered them traitors to her own sex. She considered a woman's role to be as savage and hard as it took to nurture and raise her children and support her partner though thick and thin.

Castrating the yearlings meant no more than doing the dishes - it was just work. She was a man's woman, not some dreamed-up figurehead for the disappointed.

If there were more women like her in the world, and fewer feminists, society might just have a chance.

And she was two generations younger than my grandmother, in case you were wondering.

So - er... which powers, Rights and opportunities do women NOT possess? How does any of this equate to any 'oppression' at all?  they vote, they get to stand for election and even get parachuted into safe seats where they can genuinely compete.....(hello!!)..... they get education, they get all rights under social security, they get the same protection of the law - even better since they get lower sentences overall than men do for the same crime - they are nowhere paid less....they get the privilege of being 99% the 'primary caregiver' thus they get the lioness' share of the house and the kids and CS...there are more women students than men - they get handups and preference in the public service and other jobs - they are perceived, through the currently flawed education system, as being somehow 'better' - they rely on 'education' rather than true ability which used to be the yardstick, and thus, through having more time available since many do not have to hold a job to support  a family, they get ahead there, many employers consider them more easily controlled and thus better - where are these 'oppressions'?

Back in the 1970's when tertiary education became free - women flocked to it and gained an upper hand for the simple reason that men were working to support their families and had no such opportunity - and most real jobs did not require a meaningless degree.  Now you need a degree to be a clerk-n-jerk in the public service, and real talent is ignored.

In 1986, the feminist academic (there is such a thing in reality in 'social science') Meredith Burgmann put forward a plan to 'equalise' girls in school (they already had true equality, BTW and could ao whatever they wanted), by altering the curricula and the marking standards and so forth to more suit girls , since they were alleged, on the basis of one study in the United States that covered 24 girls with 'issues', to be 'suffering' in a 'girl-hostile' environment.

Same thing in the public service where I used to work - the creation of a 'woman-friendly environment' became a 'man-hostile environment'.  Doubt me?  Look next time you go into a government office.

Our Centrelink office here has about 25 employees - 22 are women.. that's equality for you - if it was 22 men there would be screams loud and clear across the land about 'misogyny' and 'discrimination' and 'oppression'.  the few men are well - let's just say only one has any balls...

For every woman who is not getting everything she thinks she is entitled to - there are probably three men these days due to feminist-oriented policies such as EEO (AA by another name) in the public service and all the other things that privilege women over men.

There is a second definition of feminism, BTW - one dedicated to women's interests ALONE...as if somehow these things have no impact on men as well.

                                      ;D

I've since thought of a right that has been gained and it's an important one, though it wasn't gained through any class struggle.
It's the right not to have unwanted pregnancies, which has been gained through medical science, with the pill and morning after pill.
This has been no doubt the single biggest life changer for women, enabling them to participate more fully in the working society.
I wouldn't include abortion rights in this. Why should there be abortion at all when the pills exist?
No doubt I'm going to cop abuse over that statement.

Feminists are basically women who've never gotten over the fact that they were born
without a pocket-billiards set of their own, so have dedicated their lives to making the
lives of those who were born with a pocket-billiards set as much of a smacking misery
as is humanly possible.

Simple

A 'feminist' is one who is aware

that women comprise half the world's population

that women comprise the majority, by a wide margin, of single parents

that women don't need to seek validation from the other half of the world's population

It's the OTHER half of the world's population which needs to wake up to the fact they are merely half the population

and suck their heads in

What is a feminist? - usually ugly as sin.

muso wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2013 at 6:16pm:

What is a feminist? - usually ugly as sin.

Incorrect in addition to being unoriginal

A feminist is a (female) person who would make a similar clichéd and sexist remark as I just did (except about men), and get nods of approval from other women, just as I'd get nods of approval from most other men for my remark.

PZ547 wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2013 at 6:09pm:

Simple A 'feminist' is one who is aware that women comprise half the world's population that women comprise the majority, by a wide margin, of single parents that women don't need to seek validation from the other half of the world's population It's the OTHER half of the world's population which needs to wake up to the fact they are merely half the population and suck their heads in

Where were the feminists in the late '60's and early '70's? Where were they when I, as a lad, stood in admiration watching young women working on their father's farms, who could lift and throw bags of wheat onto the back of a Dodge 5-tonner and then drive the truck, once loaded, to the local granary? Those bags, BTW, used to average 50kgs - about average weight-loss needed by the heifers often seen in places like Coles with their screaming, undisciplined, fatherless rug-rats.

Now we have a world where cement is sold in 25kg bags and it's supposed to take two blokes to handle a bag - in OHS speak, 'to minimise injury'.

Now we have a world where a woman can marry, work at a part-time job (while hubby's slaving full-time to pay the bills) 'til the kids come along, quit working and then get bored with housework and child-minding, have a bit of nooky on the side and then exit the relationship with half the joint accumulated assets of the marriage they walk away from - usually at their own instigation.

So you get the house, the car, the kids, 50% of MY super and child-support to boot. So, you get half - but the bigger half.  8-)

And now we have feminism!  Along with all the other ...isms of a 'modern' world   ;D ;D ;D

While I'm the first to admit that some women have suffered horrendous problems with, and because of, their choice of mates, I fail to see why all males should suffer for the sins of a few.

At the same time, I resent the fact that women's capabilities and responsibilities have been eroded by the grindstone of feminism.

I reckon if they put half the effort into maintaining their relationships as they do bitching about their failed ones, there'd be a lot more happy families.

Once you remove the need, and drive, for sex from the equation - all you have to do is deal with the d**kheads in society (which seem, for some obscure reason, to be multiplying at an exponential rate).

Of course, I'm a mere male - so my opinion is automatically invalid.

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 10:29am:

I wouldn't include abortion rights in this. Why should there be abortion at all when the pills exist?

Maybe it's because contraceptives can be a nuisance sometimes. Condoms can be uncomfortable and pills can be scary. Who knows what that medication is doing to your body? I think some women are freaked out that sex is supposed to be fun yet so frightening and scary at the same time. Modern contraceptives are a desecration of your body, that's why. If men won't wear condoms, women won't take pills.

Mnemonic wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2013 at 8:34pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 10:29am: I wouldn't include abortion rights in this. Why should there be abortion at all when the pills exist? Maybe it's because contraceptives can be a nuisance sometimes. Condoms can be uncomfortable and pills can be scary. Who knows what that medication is doing to your body? I think some women are freaked out that sex is supposed to be fun yet so frightening and scary at the same time. Modern contraceptives are a desecration of your body, that's why. If men won't wear condoms, women won't take pills.

Now that's an observation that needs more investigation.

The condom had been around for centuries before the Pill. The reasoning behind that is obvious - prevention of pregnancy.

When the Pill first became available, condom use declined to almost zero, despite the risk of STD's. Which were then minimal anyway.

Now, you almost take your life in your hands if you don't use a condom - and it's primary use is not to prevent pregnancy.

So what's changed?

Feminist?
...a great Achiever in a positive light.
...barren and bitter in a negative shade of grey.

:-X

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2013 at 8:03pm:

So you get the house, the car, the kids, 50% of MY super and child-support to boot. So, you get half - but the bigger half.  8-)

If you don't trust women, don't get married, don't have sex and don't have kids. That's how simple it is. Just donate your sperm to a sperm bank so you never have to see her face and never have to know her.

There will be less population growth and we will have to let in more immigrants from China, India and the Middle-East, but at least you'll be free.


Lionel Edriess wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2013 at 8:03pm:

And now we have feminism!  Along with all the other ...isms of a 'modern' world   ;D ;D ;D

If there's one thing I don't like about feminism, it's the trend against violence in films, especially for boys. Until recently, until the last century boys grew up with violence. Boys dreamed of being cowboys, warriors, baton-wielding policemen, gangsters, thieves and dangerous criminals. They played with toy soldiers. They stepped on insects, got into fist fights, poked spiders, broke sticks and set up booby traps. They formed gangs, broke windows, hit people's front doors with cricket bats, vandalised property and caused trouble in the neighbourhood.

The reason why so many of today's movies are so unappealing is because we don't see men and boys doing what they used to do -- stirring up trouble, getting into a fight and either winning or losing. There are too many metrosexual men in movies.

Thanks goodness for Puberty Blues where boys started being boys again. Where's me pie??? You're dropped. Go fetch me a chiko roll, ya mole!!!!

If the feminists think feminism is conflict free, they should make a movie on girl-on-girl bullying in schools. Take that. Nobody's a saint.

A true feminist would probably never claim to be one

Don't even start!

There was a piece in today's paper about banning throwing sticks for dogs to fetch.

Apparently they can get hurt!

Like humans, there is no thought given to the dangers faced by our, or their, ancestors in the wild.  ;D

I can just imagine Cro-Magnon man being threatened with expulsion from a nightclub. Or Canis Lupus being told to be careful about what they eat.

We have such freedoms for which to thank our arbiters.

'Tis a pity our governments are not truly representative of the public good in today's world.

Postmodern Trendoid wrote on Jul 1^st, 2013 at 5:27pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 1st, 2013 at 3:02pm: I heard this radio journalist today say she was a feminist and a liberal. Which got me to thinking, I don't actually know what a feminist is. Dictionary: one who believes that women should be allowed the same rights, power, and opportunities as men and be treated in the same way. OK. On rights, I guess women have the same legal rights, here anyway, as men. Are there other kinds of rights in question? Power. Now power is a wide field for discussion. For a start I think many, many women are oppressed, in the work place, in marriage or relationships. So to the extent they are oppressed, their power is diminished. And of course in many parts of the world the oppression is absolute and the power is zero. Opportunities. Well no doubt there is the glass ceiling and it's still a male dominated economy etc. But a lot of people would believe all these issues should be addressed and wouldn't call themselves feminists. Men for a start. So maybe there's more meaning in the term than the dictionary says. Can a woman be a feminist and be a conservative? Julie Bishop no doubt believes all those issues should be tackled but would she want to be called a feminist? Maybe there has to be an element of activism in it. Maybe they have to burn their bras and be uncomfortable, some of them anyway. The feminism we have today is a type of neo-Marxism. Marx, we may recall, claimed "the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed." (To be fair, a very similar idea can be found in Hegel before Marx; yet Marx was a 'young Hegelian' at one stage so it makes sense that he adopted Hegel's ideas). Around the time of WW1, the international socialists could not understand why the "oppressed" classes voluntarily went off to war to fight for their nation. So Marxists in the Frankfurt School claimed they were brainwashed by their fathers and bourgeoisie propaganda. What occurs here in the Frankfurt School is one of the most fundamental transitions of thought of the 20th century: Marx's class and economic distinctions were then turned into cultural distinctions: the oppressor was now to include males, the oppressed were the females, the white nations were the oppressors, the non-white nations the oppressed; in short, authority is bad and equality is the holy grail of morality. Anything that is not equal is bad. This is how they justify all their rage. Claim something isn't equal, and then throw expletives at it or whoever upholds it. Equality of opportunity in the West has been achieved - their historical goal has now been completed. But not satisfied with that, they now see inequality of outcome as the next goal to rectify. This is why they attack pay inequality, (even though men and women get paid the same for the same job). This is why they attack men in power, (even though women have the same opportunities as men to achieve power).

We shouldn't kid ourselves. Feminism is a destructive antisocial ideology. It's not a 'cause'. If we were to talk about liberating children from forced labor, then that would be a cause. These Bull-dykes wont be happy until they have accomplished their goal, which would be the complete elimination of all males. And, Aussieland is an ideal environment for this to happen in. The Aussie male, being particularly weak and submissive, will gladly submit to any set of rules that helps him go unnoticed. He not only wont offer any resistance, but will be more than a willing participant in implementing the outrageous imposition that 'equality' represents.

One reason for abortion has since occurred to me, or was in fact pointed out to me, but I guess this won't sit well with some.
That is, since we've had ultrasound and other medical tests, it's now possible for people to know in advance many of the gross impairments a child will be born with. They can then have the choice of termination, which I would fully support.

BTW, I'm impressed by your contributions Lionel Edriess and GA

I don't believe women should aim to be equal to men.

Surely they can set their sights higher than that?