Question for all

[Chelle]

Let's see. I'm a grown woman of 35 years of age, I work as a loan officer at a bank that I've been employed with for 10+ years. I have two small children, ages 7 and 6.

What exactly makes someone a 'feminist'??

I don't consider myself to be someone that is looking for special treatment just because I'm a woman. I do however, expect respect.

Don't law abiding, productive and responsible people of society deserve such?

I think it boils down to common courtesy and respect for other people... right?

Just wondering.

Chelle

[MO]

There is nothing in that description to make you sound like a feminist. Feminists are angry, bitter women who basically hate men. While most women are comfortable with being different but equal to men, feminists try to be like them. They claim they are invincible and can run with the big dogs, but when things get tough, they want to jump back on the pedestal and say, "protect me!" Then they file "sexual harassment" charges and hire Gloria Allred.

They are the opposite of femininity.

[yup]

Aint that the truth...

[Zhavric]

MO said:

There is nothing in that description to make you sound like a feminist. Feminists are angry, bitter women who basically hate men. While most women are comfortable with being different but equal to men, feminists try to be like them. They claim they are invincible and can run with the big dogs, but when things get tough, they want to jump back on the pedestal and say, "protect me!" Then they file "sexual harassment" charges and hire Gloria Allred.

They are the opposite of femininity.

That would be "femanazi" that you just described. Be careful. There are a lot of femanists who aren't femanazis... women like Chelle who are cool and down to earth.

The problem is a lot of Femanazis call themselves femanists.

Besides, how do ever expect to get a chick in the sack if you keep calling her a feminazi?

[Ted]

Feminists simply promote equality for gender in the eyes of the law. Nothing wrong with that. The problem, however, is that often the more radical ones (yes, feminazis) try to abolish every tradition of Western culture and promote the concept that men and women are biologically identical in every way. Example: Let's say I am an employer and I'm looking to hire someone for a job of sorting things on tall shelves. People have to be tall to reach the things to sort them. Women are biologically shorter than men, and so are unable to do this job as effectively. This simple truth infuriates feminazis, and they pull up all sorts of claims of sexism and discrimination, when in reality, it's just a question of finding a person who can reach the shelves.

[remedios]

Any person can reach the shelves, so long as the cheap-butted employer goes out and buys a $10 step-stool.

But let's just argue it based on your analysis. No shelf exists that "most" men could reach that a healthy fraction of women couldn't reach also. For that reason, any employer who uses shelf height as an excuse for not hiring women is OBVIOUSLY sexist. Such an employer simply doesn't want to hire women, but has come up with this pathetically inadequate reasoning to justify its bias.

[Ted]

It's irrelevant. If I'm an employer, I should be entitled to the occasional eccentricy. There's a huge fraudulent movement out trying to convince poeple that everyone is biologically identical in every way. I'll give another example--let's say that I'm looking to hire someone for a really dull and boring job. Women are proven to be better at dull jobs, sue to their longer attention spans. WOuld it be sexist to hire a women for the position, as they are probably more focused in that line of work than an equally qualified man? Whom to employ should be the decision of the employer alone.

[remedios]

It's irrelevant. If I'm an employer, I should be entitled to the occasional eccentricy.

Silly me - I was actually responding as though you were trying to advance a legitimate, reason-based justification for not hiring women, when in fact, you were simply trying to raise false pretext.

There's a huge fraudulent movement out trying to convince poeple that everyone is biologically identical in every way.

Remember, you're talking to me. I did not argue that everyone is biologically identical in every way. I actually argued that the owner would be perfectly justified in not hiring short people. If, however, he refuses to hire tall women (who are, by your definition, qualified for the job, i.e. they can reach the shelves) he IS discrimating solely on the basis of sex, for what dark reason I can only imagine - unless you can come up with another zinger, that is.

I'll give another example--let's say that I'm looking to hire someone for a really dull and boring job. Women are proven to be better at dull jobs, sue to their longer attention spans. Would it be sexist to hire a women for the position, as they are probably more focused in that line of work than an equally qualified man?

Explain to me how men exclusively filled the professions of accountant/bookkeeper for all those years before "tedium-resistant" women started working? Apparently they managed it with much success. Isn't that the dictionary definition of being qualified for the job??

Arguing that all women are the same (different from all men) is AS unsupported by reality as arguing that all people are the same.

No one here is arguing that people should not be evaluated on their merits and qualifications for the job in question. I will not be convinced, however, that someone walking around with a general presumption that all men are one way, and all women another, is actually capable of evaluating someone on their merits. Such a person is evaluating everyone with a skewed lens.

Whom to employ should be the decision of the employer alone.

I agree. Let's let everyone affect the lives of the people they come in contact with their particular brand of selfishness.

[Amelia]

Zhavric said:

Besides, how do ever expect to get a chick in the sack if you keep calling her a feminazi?

A

If you think of sexual intercourse as "getting a chick in the sack", then I pity you.

[MO]

If you think of sexual intercourse as "getting a chick in the sack", then I pity you.

lol Women are fooling themselves when they think they are empowered by being sexually "liberated". All you hos can keep telling yourselves that the numerous metrosexual girly men that you sleep with have a profound respect for you. In their minds they just bagged a chick. Women have never been so low, thanks to feminism.

[USA50]

Feminism is like a lot of other things in the American experience – they arose in response and self-defense against hateful, often illegal policies and actions by the conservative element of society.

Unions were the response to slave-like working conditions in factories. The Civil Rights Movement was the response to a hundred years of discrimination, physical violence, and the denial of Constitutional rights perpetrated on Blacks. The student movement of the 60’s was the response to vicious, illegal war and lies waged for political reasons.

Feminism just looks like hate to conservatives, because they don’t understand why some minority just doesn’t roll over an love their mistreatment. Feminisms has nothing more to do with hating men than unions have to do with hating jobs, or Blacks hating Whites, or students in the 60s hating the country that nourished them. It all had to do with showing anger and impatience at being treated like fools, second-class citizens, and criminals for simply wanting to be treated equally.