equal rights for women

[Anarchic Tribes]

'All women should vote because people protested and fought with their lives for their right to vote.' For what?
Maggie thatcher and condaleeza rice are just two classic examples of what really pisses me off about 'feminists'.
Thatcher from a working class background, rice said she had to work twice as hard because of her skin colour and gender. Never mind women not voting, the women that are voted for have done far more harm for women's rights.

I recently saw a debate going on about how important feminists are. The ones on the 'for' side were either women or under the thumb men just borrowing their girlfriend's computer. Unfortunately the 'against' side were all men, so their views were discounted due to the fact they were just men. Sexist pigs that learn nothing.

One of the arguments used against these men was that they had never walked in a woman's shoes. Never known what it feels like be stalked, to have to sleep with the boss to get that promotion, to be attacked in the street at night.
Of course, had this women ever walked in a man shoes she might've grasped the idea that it would feel no different for a man in any of the above situations.
And, how can someone wearing women's shoes possibly understand anything about sexism or human rights.
If I ever have to spend a day in a woman's shoes, I'd have a lot less respect for other people in women's shoes at the end of it.
Women's shoes were so designed by men. If a woman gets into a position where she can design shoes for women, will she stop designing painful, uncomfortable, dangerous and stupid-looking shoes? Or will she carry on this fine tradition of oppressing women's feet so she can stay in her male designer world? And what is she wearing on her feet?

Power hungry women do nothing for women's rights, so who does, and how do they?

[workerscommunes]

Would you mind clarifying what your definition of a femnist is?

[Anarchic Tribes]

I'm not sure if I have a definition.
This is what a dictionary says:
A person whose beliefs and behavior are based on feminism.
Feminism:
1) Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.
2) The movement organized around this belief.

And then there are people that say they are feminists. I don't know what their definition is.

[theyellowspot]

you seem to be painting with an incredibly large brush those you call feminists. just like any other label, "feminists" are huge group, that's incredibly diverse. most people i know who call themselves feminists would never dream of doing something like being prime minister (or whatever) of england, or secretary of state of the US. most of them believe that feminism is nothing without anarchism, and vice versa. and do you really think that men and women (not to mention all those that don't easily fit into those labels) feel the effects of this fucked up society in the same way?

[Anarchic Tribes]

you seem to be painting with an incredibly large brush those you call feminists.

Well that was kind of the idea. I mean, from the president of england to the bint in the stilettos to the power-tripping 'feminist', more women seem to be against the belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.
I wasn't thinking about the few that call themselves feminists and anarchists (although now I have it made me laugh), because I don't know any.

do you really think that men and women (not to mention all those that don't easily fit into those labels) feel the effects of this fucked up society in the same way?

How would I know? I think that women are more vulnerable than men in this fucked up society, but it doesn't help to give instances to compare. If someone is feeling scared or hurt, if someone is feeling humiliated or embarrassed, what makes you think it's worse for a woman than for a man?

[claptonpond]

Anarchic said:

I wasn't thinking about the few that call themselves feminists and anarchists (although now I have it made me laugh), because I don't know any.

I'm a bit surprised by that. How can you be an anarchist without being (at least in principle) a feminist?

[theyellowspot]

Anarchic said:

I wasn't thinking about the few that call themselves feminists and anarchists (although now I have it made me laugh), because I don't know any.

what's funny about that?

How would I know? I think that women are more If someone is feeling scared or hurt, if someone is feeling humiliated or embarrassed, what makes you think it's worse for a woman than for a man?

well, i didn't necessarily say "worse", i said different. i find it absurd to think that men and women are treated the same, that they feel the effects of this society the same, or even that all women or all men feel things the same/are treated the same. that's why i try not to paint qroups of people with such huge brushes.

[Anarchic Tribes]

How can you be an anarchist without being (at least in principle) a feminist?

Would that depend on who's dictionary we're using?
But in theory I agree. I still don't know any. Or many anyway. There's my mother I suppose, but she's definately a sexist pig.
Enough of the anarchists, I don't know any of them either.
Why aren't all women feminists? Why is it that once women grasp the idea that they needn't be oppressed by the male-dominated world, do they then turn into oppressive power-hungry bints that strop out when they're told no?

[Anarchic Tribes]

what's funny about that?

Not sure, but something must've been to have made me laugh eh.

well, i didn't necessarily say "worse", i said different.

Tell me then, how different does a man feel than a woman after having been raped, for example? I've already said that I believe there is a difference in life itself. Mostly that women are more vulnerable and also it is indeed harder for them to get to the top (or even just off the bottom). My point there was that using instances to show that life is harder for women than men isn't helpful.
To say that a man doesn't understand what something feels like is sexist (with the examlpes that were used as above).
We're not talking about menstruating here. These are everyday examples of things that can happen to anyone of either sex, being used to compare how people feel as a basis for why there is inequalty. And it doesn't help.

[Anarchic Tribes]

Well someone knows what I'm going on about anyway

www.pa.msu.edu/people/mulhall/mist/faf.html

[FreeLandofAIM]

Thatcher was a power hungry monster, but Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, Shah of Iran, Czar of Russia, Caesar, Henry VIII were power hungry monsters too.

Therefore, with your arguement, you are possibly suggesting that power and civil rights should not be given to women on the basis of Thatcher and Condoleeza Rice.

You could therefore say that power and civil rights should not be given to men because of Hitler and Stalin.

Or that power should not be given to Black people because of Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe.

This is the sort of argument used to put revolutions and change for better civil rights in a bad light.

In other words, utter bollocks.

You are always going to get utter bastards, that's nothing to do with their gender, but their agenda.

[Anarchic Tribes]

Thatcher was a power hungry monster, but Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, Shah of Iran, Czar of Russia, Caesar, Henry VIII were power hungry monsters too.

Er yes, so were/are lots of people

Therefore, with your arguement, you are possibly suggesting that power and civil rights should not be given to women on the basis of Thatcher and Condoleeza Rice.

Possibly, if you want to look at it like that.

You could therefore say that power and civil rights should not be given to men because of Hitler and Stalin.

You could yes.

Or that power should not be given to Black people because of Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe.

What happened to the civil rights bit?

This is the sort of argument used to put revolutions and change for better civil rights in a bad light.

It wasn't supposed to be an arguement, I was just saying what pisses me off about 'feminists'/power tripping women.
They are the ones that are making gender the agenda and in doing so make things worse.
Therefore, with your arguement, you are possibly suggesting that all 'feminists' are utter bastards talking utter bollocks. Or was that just me

[workerscommunes]

Wher on earth did you get the impression that Condoleeza Rice and Margaret Thatcher had anything to do with feminism (apart from the fact that they happen to be women)?

[Anarchic Tribes]

WC, 'where on earth' is a personal question? Like er england for now, we know that
I'm not really sure what I've said exactly that you don't understand. First you ask me to clarify my definition of a feminist, now you're asking me topological questions?
Please explain.

[Anarchic Tribes]

Equal rights for women?
What does it mean?
Women (and men I don't doubt) stood up for themselves and their right to vote. But was this act not just as blind as the 'gay' marriage issue?

Imagine a different scenario: Imagine the combined power of those women (and men maybe) stood up and shouted 'Bollox!' to your votes. Imagine the effect of all the 'gays' and 'gay rights' people standing up and shouting 'Bollox!' to marriage.

If you know where I'm coming from, if you understand what I mean, but are thinking 'shouting Bollox won't change anything', think again. I'm not talking apathetic 'yeh bollox to the world'. But seriously think of the effect it would have if as much energy was put into shouting Bollox! as was all the other campaigns/protests etc.
There is no argument to the fact that, if men can vote and women can't, that is 'Bollox!'
There is no argument to the fact that, if people can get married, people can get married, gender is irrelevant.
There is much to argue against 'marriage', as is there much to argue against 'feminism'. As the following thread might show (although I've only read the first of 65 pages, and don't know how it pans out):
forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=378220

but take what the guy at the start says:

First off, they killed of chivalry. Chivalry was one of the few things in this world that was pure and good, and they just slaughtered it. Of course it was fairly easy for them, if a guy gets yelled at for holding a door for a girl, he won't do it again.

Now, other than "they killed of chivalry", I don't have much to argue with this guy on this point. (Doesn't mean I don't think the guy's a sexist pig, I'm quite sure they are).
But I do know 'feminists' that don't want 'men' holding the door open for them as it's sexist as it somehow (fear most likely) implies they aren't capable of opening the door for themselves.
Well how selfish and sexist is that, and you only have to look at the above posted thread to see the consequences of such behaviour.
I don't know if you've ever been in a 'going through the door in the same space of time' occasion, but personally speaking, if it was physically appropriate, I would hold the door open whether I was a man or a woman, whether it was a woman going through the door or a man. What difference does is make?
Who says 'chivalry' is sexist? The lady that expects the man to open the door? Or the lad that get's dissed for being helpful?

The problem I see with 'feminists' is that they give guys like in that thread an argument. And THAT is counter-productive to obtaining equal human rights.

How different does it feel for a man to get shouted at for holding the door open, to a how a woman feels when she has that blasted door held open for her?
Seriously, come back at me on this one. I'm not looking for an argument, but good ideas are always useful to debate if progression is to be made.

I might go have a look at the rest of that thread now, but seriously, I reckon it'll ALL be Bollox! ;D