- Yes
- No
0 voters
There should be a ādependsā option
2 Likes
I think minnii has a good idea of what feminism is/means/should be. More than any woman, and CERTAINLY more than any man 
1 Like
You should also note what do you mean by feminism because it is obvious that people oftenly have many (mis)understandings about it.
1 Like
Watching borat and talking to that girl sparked my thread
Although borat mocked the feminists, what they were saying in that movie made sense to me at least
1 Like
I honestly donāt know, sometimes I get it, other times itās just plain stupid and infantile. A way to maskarade dysfunctionality.
I belong to a feminist group, we do self defense classes. I donāt agree with a lot of what it is said, doensāt make me any less of a feminist. Or more, even.
1 Like
Well we can agree on this stuff
On a lighter less serious note!
I pressed no because I donāt like what the name implies.
Any thread about Religion, Abortion, Feminism or Politics is bound to end up in a food fight.
3 Likes
Letās have a food fight over wi-fi! I just trew a piece of chocolate cake
2 Likes
Thank you now Iām eating it!
2 Likes
Someone trow me a potato, so I can praise our lord!
3 Likes
throws pasta @Minnii
1 Like
No meatball? Now Iām disappointed 
the name implies that every man and woman is 100% equal. And that is it. if you hear a āfeminismā go on and on about how women are better or deserve more or what the ā ā ā ā ever, they are wrong and ignorant.
if a man hits a woman, she hits back. if a woman hits a man, he hits back. (though violence is not the answer, but if Iām being hit, I WILL hit back, and if I hit you, I expect to be hit back)
we get paid equally.
the ā ā ā ā ā ā ā ā ā ā ā ā ā ā being called a āpu$$yā for being weak? just stop
feminism.
sorry I just ranted at you, I didnāt intend to but it happened. nothing personal
The name implies something different to everyone. No two people think alike.
Fair enough
. Violence is not the answer 
I agree to the rest of your post though.
As it was taught to me, there can be at least two, rather opposing views on it.
What they share is the observation that thereās a set of traits/roles/values that are traditionally associated with women, and a set of traits/roles/values that is traditionally associated with men. Then, secondly, many of these are kind of opposite, like emotional-rational for example. And, thirdly, one side of such opposing pairs is evaluated harder/better/faster/stronger. This seems to be agreed upon. Then there are several ways to respond to that situation, which starts confusing things for me.
One would be to tinker with the evaluation in the third aspect of the situation: subscribe to the traditional distribution of the traits/roles/values, but work towards a more equal appreciation of them, or even turning the asymmetry around altogether. Like reappreciating a stay-at-home mother, may be one example of this.
Another way of responding to that situation, could be to say no things in that very first aspect of it need to change: no more traditional divisions between male/female roles/values/traits etc. An example may be to urge women to take CEO positions, and help them to be able to do so in the first place of course.
These seem both good things to me, but they do clash sometimes. For you see successful women in business āblamingā stay at home moms for, idk, dependency and what not. That might be someone of the second type of response disagreeing with someone of the first type of response. While the stay-at-home mom may respond, that the CEO had taken over male values/traits/roles and has success, only because these are deemed better, and thus that she is supporting that structure. Thatās about what I gathered on it, Iām sure there is moreā¦
1 Like
I said that in my post
Sorry I missed it the first time
Donāt mind me!
1 Like