Feminism?

[Encyclopedia]

Personally I'm a fan of feminism generally speaking. There's plenty of sensible feminists if you look outside tumblr. But people love giving extremists attention and I think that's why feminism seems to have become synonymous with feminzaism to a lot of people.

Loads and loads of good stuff and opinions are available on the internet that gets largely overlooked thanks to that.

A label given to people who have a perfectly acceptable belief that women deserve equal laws and rights to men, that's been taken over in the western world by several radical, keyboard warrior, anti-men nutcases that have spearheaded it into a movement against a world that they believe is out to get them.

Antics can be either hilarious, such as the several ludicrous ways in which they believe they are being oppressed, and several different new types of ways in which they are apparently 'raped', to disgusting, such as causing a grown man to deliver a teary-eyed apology after making a major breakthrough in astronomy for wearing a shirt he received from a friend. The latter makes me thankful that the 'feminazis' disguised as feminists aren't really here, otherwise my blood vessels would not be in the best shape.

He recieved criticism from several people in the field as well you know. Both men and women. People who thought it was innappropriate and thoughtless considering the times and the ongoing discussions within the field.

I also think the tears were of genuine regret from a decent bloke who didn't want to send a message like that and not through any kind of bullying.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Things like that are disgusting. There have been stories about this in the past in Britain too. You'll have to excuse the source.

The problem is that it's a cynical attitude that assumes all men are evil animals, and that if a woman regretted a decision that she made, then clearly she was somehow tricked because as a woman, her judgement is (and always has been) impeccable.

When it comes to sex, there is a whole lot of trust between two consenting adults - not just a woman trusting a man, but a man trusting a woman as well. 99% of the men I know don't fit Dunham's cynical stereotype, but she will happily tarnish them all the same.

 

[Joel]

Stop it.

Just because women have disadvantages in some areas, doesn't mean that men don't have valid complaints as well.

Did I say there's no issues that effect men? No. Men go to prison at higher rates for the same crimes, men are the ones who get drafted and sent to war. That doesn't cancel out everything else, nor does it discredit feminism as a movement.

What I said was that it's delusional to believe that men actually have it tougher and that feminism has tipped the scales in favour of women.

Just because black people often face racism, doesn't mean that sometimes white people don't face it too. And just because women often face sexual discrimination or whatever, doesn't mean that sometimes men don't face it too. Someone else's suffering or hardship does not diminish your own.

I agree with you. It's also OK to admit that racism and sexism disproportionately impact the lives of women and non whites in the western world. What I get frustrated with is that every discussion about racism or sexism involves white people or dudes saying "what about reverse racism or sexism against men?"

🤬, if everyone could just admit that then maybe it could be less of a Men Vs. Women thing, and more of a "let's get some social equality going up in here" thing.

Nobody claimed that men have it harder than women on the whole, or that white people have it worse than blacks on the whole, but this sort of massive dismissal of the issues of any group that isn't the majority does no one any favours.

No, but when every single discussion about sexism or racism ends up with "but what about the men/white people" it doesn't do women or minorities any favours either. The point of it being feminism and not egalitarianism is that women are the disadvantaged gender, historically and still today.

That it can happen in any cases is pretty scary if you're a guy.

Of course it can. But overwhelmingly these things happen more often to women.

Straw man alert. That is not consensual sex, and is not at all what's being discussed. Saying yes when you mean no isn't consent. Being coerced or threatened into doing something is not consent. I doubt you'll find many people who disagree with this.

I didn't mean to say anyone would call that OK, but just to illustrate that there's more nuance to this than yes or no. I don't think anyone would disagree with that extreme example but I do think a lot of people have views on consent that are a little black and white.

On the other hand, consenting and then changing your mind the next day is still consent. That there are people arguing that this is valid is a problem.

So let's talk about them. Teenage girls on tumblr and a small group of crazies aren't influencing the broader culture and laws. I don't think there's a problem if you're a mature adult who can read nuanced social situations, certainly it'd be ridiculous if you could retroactively revoke consent, but I think that's something that gets exaggerated, like the Sharia Law stuff, it's a scary idea but it doesn't seem to be happening very often.

 

[Imari]

What I said was that it's delusional to believe that men actually have it tougher and that feminism has tipped the scales in favour of women.

And why did you say that when nobody suggested that men had it tougher than women? Were you fighting straw men, or were you trying to minimise the state of mens affairs by comparing them to womens?

I agree with you. It's also OK to admit that racism and sexism disproportionately impact the lives of women and non whites in the western world. What I get frustrated with is that every discussion about racism or sexism involves white people or dudes saying "what about reverse racism or sexism against men?"

Why shouldn't they?

Why is it not relevant for people to recognise that a lot of what is decribed as women's issues are actually people's issues, and would be better dealt with in a general manner than just with the focus on women?

No, but when every single discussion about sexism or racism ends up with "but what about the men/white people" it doesn't do women or minorities any favours either. The point of it being feminism and not egalitarianism is that women are the disadvantaged gender, historically and still today.

"Every single discussion"? That's your argument?

Of course it can. But overwhelmingly these things happen more often to women.

Women can be falsely accused of rape?

Last I checked, it was bloody difficult for a man to successfully accuse a woman of rape at all. I'd think you'd have a better chance of winning the lottery than successfully pushing through a false accusation of rape against a woman.

I didn't mean to say anyone would call that OK, but just to illustrate that there's more nuance to this than yes or no. I don't think anyone would disagree with that extreme example but I do think a lot of people have views on consent that are a little black and white.

You either give consent or you don't. It's entirely black and white. That's the point.

There's a bunch of situations where it seems grey, but often you'll find that there's some other crime perpetrated leading up to the rape/not-rape that makes it non-consensual by definition. It merely takes the intelligence to see that intimidation, threats and drugs are not replacements for consent.

So far, I think you're probably the only one that thinks that's a grey area.

So let's talk about them. Teenage girls on tumblr and a small group of crazies aren't influencing the broader culture and laws. I don't think there's a problem if you're a mature adult who can read nuanced social situations, certainly it'd be ridiculous if you could retroactively revoke consent, but I think that's something that gets exaggerated, like the Sharia Law stuff, it's a scary idea but it doesn't seem to be happening very often.

So just because it doesn't happen much it's OK, is what you're saying?

Sweet. I think we should have that approach to more laws. As long as only a few people are wrongly convicted, it's fine.

So, you have this situation where a women has consented the night before and then the next day decides it was rape and the two of them end up in criminal court. What sequence of events happened where that man might deserve to be found guilty of rape? Because as far as I can see that's a 100% wrongful conviction rate.

I'm willing to accept a small rate of false convictions for the greater good of society, it probably happens with almost any law. But there needs to be an actual crime that's being prevented. What is it in this case?

 

[Joel]

And why did you say that when nobody suggested that men had it tougher than women? Were you fighting straw men, or were you trying to minimise the state of mens affairs by comparing them to womens?

You're right, nobody in this thread actually said that. I'm speaking in a general sense about what I've read and the tone these discussions take. The OP of this thread said he believes feminism has evolved into just bashing men and believing women should rule, perhaps I stretched his position a bit too much but this thread appears to have started from an idea that feminism has gone "too far", which would suggest that the balance is shifted.

I concede that it was wrong of me to say that.

Why shouldn't they?

It's fine to talk about these things, like I said earlier, men are sent to prison at a much higher rate, we can talk about these things but we don't need to derail discussions about completely different issues to do so. It's not mutually exclusive to be a feminist and be concerned that so many young men are dying from suicide. It's not mutually exclusive to believe that affirmative action/diversity quotas are wrong and that black people are discriminated against by employers.

Why is it not relevant for people to recognise that a lot of what is decribed as women's issues are actually people's issues, and would be better dealt with in a general manner than just with the focus on women?

Which issues are you talking about? I agree in a sense but in general they aren't really people's issues, they're issues that disproportionately effect women. Sexual assault and sexism is something that's primarily a women's issue, women are deprived of opportunities and sexual assaulted at much higher rates than men. That there's so few women who are heads of state and such a low percentage of women in politics or in high positions in business isn't really a people's issue, it's a women's issue.

"Every single discussion"? That's your argument?

My argument was that the talk about egalitarianism instead of feminism is a smokescreen that derails discussions about feminism. "What about men's issues?" isn't an indictment of feminism, just like volunteering a food bank doesn't mean you don't care about clean water in Africa.

The focus on women is because that's the purpose of the movement itself. Feminism, like it says on the tin, is a movement to achieve equality for women. Gay rights movements are to achieve equality for gay people. The civil rights movement was to acheive equality for black people. None of these things are mutually exclusive, and supporting one doesn't come at the expense of the other, they're just different aspects of equality movements and focus on a specific group that's discriminated against.

Women can be falsely accused of rape?

Last I checked, it was bloody difficult for a man to successfully accuse a woman of rape at all. I'd think you'd have a better chance of winning the lottery than successfully pushing through a false accusation of rape against a woman.

I was talking about feeling too intimidated to say no.

You either give consent or you don't. It's entirely black and white. That's the point. There's a bunch of situations where it seems grey, but often you'll find that there's some other crime perpetrated leading up to the rape/not-rape that makes it non-consensual by definition. It merely takes the intelligence to see that intimidation, threats and drugs are not replacements for consent.

So we actually fully agree here. I'm not sure what you think I believe about consent because I agree with all of this. I was addressing the idea that there's a vague "new" kind of rape when really it's just similar reasonable person tests like we would apply to (non sexual) assault or any other crime.

So far, I think you're probably the only one that thinks that's a grey area.

I think you're overestimating people's attitudes about consent if you think everyone fully understands coercion when it comes to sex.

So just because it doesn't happen much it's OK, is what you're saying? Sweet. I think we should have that approach to more laws. As long as only a few people are wrongly convicted, it's fine.

No. That's not at all what I said.

I said it's something that gets talked about a lot online for how little it really happens, like the discussions about Sharia Law in Europe. I never said something like that is OK or that it's acceptable, I said that it happens incredibly rarely but gets talked about in these discussions as if feminists are throwing men in jail en masse after women regret a one night stand.

So, you have this situation where a women has consented the night before and then the next day decides it was rape and the two of them end up in criminal court. What sequence of events happened where that man might deserve to be found guilty of rape? Because as far as I can see that's a 100% wrongful conviction rate.

There's nothing that would make that right. I never said that sequence of events was acceptable. I said it's happening very rarely and I think it's a silly thing to use a counterpoint to feminist discussions about rape or sexual assault.

Honestly I don't think our views are really all that different. I just don't view feminist as a pejorative and I don't view the movement as harmful. There's some crazies on tumblr and some lefty loony professors at colleges out there but I don't really see feminism as a movement that's harming me as a guy.

 

[Exorcet]

Sorry if this has been done before, I did a quick search and nothing showed up.

What are your opinions on feminism? Recently, feminism has gained some controversy, to the point where some people are nicknaming them "feminazis." To jog your memory, feminism is supposed to be women being active towards rights equal to that of men.

My opinion? In recent times, feminism has evolved into simply bashing men, nitpicking at the smallest things and calling them sexist, accusing everything of symbolizing rape (I cannot explain here you'll probably die from cringing) and believing women should rule; which utterly goes against the concept of equal rights. Scarclely will you ever find an active feminist who's actually going for equal rights for men and women.

I'd say what you described isn't actually feminism. It is something else that is hijacking the name.

I don't identify with the movement so much though, I'd rather focus on general equality since it includes everyone. I can see why a specific movement will remain though, some people have different priorities, and in some cases there can be very specific problems that need addressing.

 

[LeMansAid]

It's quite an unfortunate monicker really, considering for example what people take Islamism to mean. To be honest, unless we're going to accept having homosexualism and an array of other "positive" "isms", the term feminism should just be done away with.

Why say "I'm a woman, I deserve ..........." when we could say "I'm a human, I deserve ..........."? It was cool for effect for a while, but now both heroin and heroine are so passe.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

I agree with @Noob616 in that I don't like how egalitarianism usually gets brought up with this discussion. Surely feminism is egalitarianism, but where you're arguing that men (generally) already do have (a lot of) the rights they deserve, whilst women don't?

Great way to turn up the smug-o-meter I suppose......

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Just to add to the discussion - as I think I have similar views to both @Imari and @Noob616 - the term "feminism" has taken on a broader meaning here, but as with most things, the vocal minority (the Tumblr crowds, the constantly-offended) have sort of soured the idea for some people. I'd say all my friends are feminists in the classic sense - I don't think I'd really be friends with someone who saw women (or men) as inherently greater - but I have run into a few women who take the more extreme thoughts to heart. I had a girl on campus berate me a year ago for holding the door open for her. I had noticed her reflection behind me as I opened the door, so held it afterwards for her to go into the building, and got a dressing-down about how I shouldn't assume a woman needs my help. Stuff like that? I've no patience for those who'd rather misconstrue general acts of kindness (that, it should go without saying, I extend to all people, not just women) as some sort of offence.

 

[PeterJB]

I find the double standards involved in this sort of topic. Take Buzzfeed for example, they routinely do articles dedicated to showing raunchy pictures and gifs of famous Hollywood actors and male models that women and gay guys can swoon over. If they did the same thing with famous women there would be complains left, right and center. In a similar way that a legion of girls swooning over and stalking someone like Justin Bieber or One Direction is seen as acceptable, if the roles were reversed (though groups of guys going after girl groups is quite rare), that would be considered harassment. Famous women in Hollywood can't be seen wearing the same dress more than once, whereas men just wear a suit and it's fine, interestingly enough though a lot of that criticism comes from other women. Men tend not to care so much how other famous men dress, whereas famous women receive criticism and scrutiny from both men and women.

 

[Encyclopedia]

I agree with @Noob616 in that I don't like how egalitarianism usually gets brought up with this discussion. Surely feminism is egalitarianism, but where you're arguing that men (generally) already do have (a lot of) the rights they deserve, whilst women don't?

Great way to turn up the smug-o-meter I suppose......

I see egalitarianism as an umbrella term, which feminism fits under, along with for example civil rights.

To be honest, the whole arguement that it should be egalitarianism not feminism etc etc. often comes off as deflective to me.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Just to add to the discussion - as I think I have similar views to both @Imari and @Noob616 - the term "feminism" has taken on a broader meaning here, but as with most things, the vocal minority (the Tumblr crowds, the constantly-offended) have sort of soured the idea for some people. I'd say all my friends are feminists in the classic sense - I don't think I'd really be friends with someone who saw women (or men) as inherently greater - but I have run into a few women who take the more extreme thoughts to heart. I had a girl on campus berate me a year ago for holding the door open for her. I had noticed her reflection behind me as I opened the door, so held it afterwards for her to go into the building, and got a dressing-down about how I shouldn't assume a woman needs my help. Stuff like that? I've no patience for those who'd rather misconstrue general acts of kindness (that, it should go without saying, I extend to all people, not just women) as some sort of offence.

Next time you get berated by a bitter feminist for holding the door open your response should be, "I'm not holding the door for you because you're a woman, I'm holding it because my parents did a good job raising me and because you are a human being. If you were a man, I'd hold the door for you just the same".

 

[JMoney]

Feminism has a good place in underdeveloped countries, where there ARE major disadvantages for women. In most of the first world, however, women are pretty much equal. There isn't any cause to stage protests and be unruly like the actions organizations such as FEMEN have taken.

 

[Prenny]

For me Feminism is Ok, i have no problems, i'm cool with that, unless you exagerate by wishing the death of all man and starts hating every male living beings.

 

[ClydeYellow]

Why say "I'm a woman, I deserve ..........." when we could say "I'm a human, I deserve ..........."? It was cool for effect for a while, but now both heroin and heroine are so passe.

To answer your question: because women are still playing second-wheel to men in our society. Ours is still a culture that needs slutwalks to be reminded that when a woman is violated she is a victim, not a "slut" who "deserved it" because of how she dressed or acted. Surely, the instances of feminists living in countries where women are more strongly repressed are more urgent, but the fact that someone has it worse than us doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive to improve the living conditions in our society.

Besides, third-wave feminism is a very trans-national movement - the theories produced in Western universities may one day drive the political movements in North Africa or Arabia or other countries where women are more repressed than in the West.

If anything, I believe the most grave mistake done by feminists was to use the term "masculism" to indicate misoginy and the oppression of women by patriarchal cultures. This is why the term "feminism" is often seen in a negative light, and feminists are accused of being hypocrites.

P.S: one could argue that nowadays feminism is not as much feminism as it is anti-genderism, and that the name "feminism" is retained for reasons of historical continuity more than anything else... But that's just my opinion, and someone may come and find another reason for the continuing use of the term.

P.P.S: a civilized discussion about feminism on the internet? Oh, that's why the floor in my house's been so cold as of lately, hell must have frozen over.

 

[Johnnypenso]

To answer your question: because women are still playing second-wheel to men in our society. Ours is still a culture that needs slutwalks to be reminded that when a woman is violated she is a victim, not a "slut" who "deserved it" because of how she dressed or acted. Surely, the instances of feminists living in countries where women are more strongly repressed are more urgent, but the fact that someone has it worse than us doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive to improve the living conditions in our society.

Besides, third-wave feminism is a very trans-national movement - the theories produced in Western universities may one day drive the political movements in North Africa or Arabia or other countries where women are more repressed than in the West.

If anything, I believe the most grave mistake done by feminists was to use the term "masculism" to indicate misoginy and the oppression of women by patriarchal cultures. This is why the term "feminism" is often seen in a negative light, and feminists are accused of being hypocrites.

P.S: one could argue that nowadays feminism is not as much feminism as it is anti-genderism, and that the name "feminism" is retained for reasons of historical continuity more than anything else... But that's just my opinion, and someone may come and find another reason for the continuing use of the term.

P.P.S: a civilized discussion about feminism on the internet? Oh, that's why the floor in my house's been so cold as of lately, hell must have frozen over.

It's mostly men here. If this forum was mixed closer to 50/50 you'd see the sparks fly

 

[FiftyBelowZero]

Why say "I'm a woman, I deserve ..........." when we could say "I'm a human, I deserve ..........."?

All of my yes. One gender does not deserve more or less than the other gender. 👍

 

[ClydeYellow]

All of my yes. One gender does not deserve more or less than the other gender. 👍

Heh, you know, most of the times feminists says "I'm a woman, I deserve equal rights, equal representation and freedom to choose my own path in life".

Of course, I am not even deigning of any attention the mysandric pop-feminists / feminazists that have taken over the political and cultural dialogue over gender issues. They're no better than any other supremacist group.

 

[Rich S]

I would be a little hesitant to label feminists as "nazi's" reason being there's been a growing trend amongst conservatives in the USA or authoritarian minded individuals to label their opposition as Nazi's first (before their accused of being Nazi's).



NOW, that doesn't mean that some feminism policies are not authoritarian, the war on questionable rape is an fascist style principle.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I would be a little hesitant to label feminists as "nazi's" reason being there's been a growing trend amongst conservatives in the USA or authoritarian minded individuals to label their opposition as Nazi's first (before their accused of being Nazi's).

NOW, that doesn't mean that some feminism policies are not authoritarian, the war on questionable rape is an fascist style principle.

Democrats have a long history of directy or indirectly calling Republicans/conservatives/tea partiers Nazis. I could pull up dozens of references but two will serve to illustrate:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...he-didnt-know-it-was-already-caught-on-video/

http://www.seanbond.me/goptea-nazi-germany/

 

[Maccer_42]

Stumbled onto the channel of YouTuber Karen Straughan she posts vlogs discussing gender issues, but she isn't the typical female YouTuber you see talking about these issues, I'll leave one of her videos here and let you check out the rest (of which she has many) if you so desire instead of clogging up this thread with a bunch of youtube links. Which I would recommend as I think they are rather interesting discussions.



Now I'll be the first to admit, I'm stupid and gullible, if someone is articulate and presents their points well in a way that makes sense to me I often believe them, as I get older I try to be more sceptical and not take in information that twists facts to fit an agenda, but I'm still easily misled, hopefully some more educated members than me will know if she talks sense or nonsense.

I just find it interesting and refreshing to see a women talking about gender issues with a different stance to the majority.

 

[mustafur]

Yeah i have listened to alot of her Vlogs, she raises big points, and Exposes the sexist Feminists for what they really are.

Big point, How come women can vote have equal rights to men in every conceivable way by law yet Men have this burden that Women don't:

• 
  United States of America – While the United States does not technically have compulsory military service, all men between 18-25 must register in the Selective Service System so that conscription can be ready should the need for it arise.

In today's society I don't see how this shouldn't include both Men and Women.

like:

• 
  Norway (6–12 months both sexes )

But funnily enough Female Privilege still exists in this case as well: Norway has mandatory military service of nineteen months for men between the ages of 18.5 (17 with parental consent) and 44 (55 in case of war). Beginning in 2006, the armed forces will also invite females to take a pre-service medical examination, but they will not be drafted unless they sign a declaration of willingness. The actual draft time is six months for the home guard, and twelve months for the regular army, air force and navy.


or better yet remove it entirely.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

Just conjecture, but you could perhaps argue that laws like those are a legacy of a sexist way of thinking - that only men are capable of serving on the frontline (and women are better suited back at home looking after the children etc etc).

 

[Johnnypenso]

Just conjecture, but you could perhaps argue that laws like those are a legacy of a sexist way of thinking - that only men are capable of serving on the frontline (and women are better suited back at home looking after the children etc etc).

I don't think there is anything sexist about thinking that men on average are likely more capable of better serving on the front lines. Just from a brute strength standpoint, the average man can carry more equipment over a longer distance than the average woman. On average they are better cops and firemen as well, along with a host of other occupations. There are all kinds of occupations where a man's inherent strength advantage makes him a better, more productive job candidate. If my house is on fire and I fall down and bust my ass, I'd rather have some burly 220 pounder bust down my door to pick me up and carry me out, than a 120 pound woman who has to call for help to carry me while my ass is on fire. There's nothing sexist about that, it's human nature.

 

[Crispy]

Do I agree with what Feminism is on the Internet? Where the mere mention of something a man has done sparks an outrage from lonely individuals? *Cough* Tumblr Most of them are sexist themselves so no.

Real feminism benefits more than just women. Feminism tries to do away with things where women have advantages too, despite what Reddit might want people to think.

Also something that effects women more, is not inherently sexist. School dress codes are not sexist because they don't let you show your cleavage or ass. If a guy wore a tanktop that showed most his bare chest, he would be dress-coded all the same. Girls just tend to want to sexualize themselves more, which if you were against sexism you would be actively fighting against.

(And please stop saying Miley Cyrus is a feminist icon. She does nothing more than teach girls that the only way to get through life is to grind, shake your ass, and show your cans)

 

[TRGTspecialist]

I don't think there is anything sexist about thinking that men on average are likely more capable of better serving on the front lines. Just from a brute strength standpoint, the average man can carry more equipment over a longer distance than the average woman. On average they are better cops and firemen as well, along with a host of other occupations. There are all kinds of occupations where a man's inherent strength advantage makes him a better, more productive job candidate. If my house is on fire and I fall down and bust my ass, I'd rather have some burly 220 pounder bust down my door to pick me up and carry me out, than a 120 pound woman who has to call for help to carry me while my ass is on fire. There's nothing sexist about that, it's human nature.

On average of course, I was more referring to the fact that women were/are not considered for the frontline even if they do meet physical/mental standards.

 

[mustafur]

Just conjecture, but you could perhaps argue that laws like those are a legacy of a sexist way of thinking - that only men are capable of serving on the frontline (and women are better suited back at home looking after the children etc etc).

Think for a second, your comparing women to a role they are not forced to do, to men who are. Women being subjected to not going does not compare to be drafted to a war and risk life.

I think in todays modern world either make both to same standard or remove the draft entirely.

You can not give a life risking Forced responsibility to one gender and not the other.

 

[Joel]

Also something that effects women more, is not inherently sexist. School dress codes are not sexist because they don't let you show your cleavage or ass. If a guy wore a tanktop that showed most his bare chest, he would be dress-coded all the same.

Well no, it's not "sexist" in the sense that it implies men or women are inferior to one another, but the rules are clearly drawn up to limit what women and girls wear. Schools don't create dress codes to stop the trend of dudes wearing deep V-necks or short shorts. The rules are clearly aimed at skirts and low cut shirts or tank tops (because bra straps and shoulders are such a turn on).

The rationale you get from schools is that it's a "distraction" and that school should be about learning. Think about the message that's sending, that the way a woman dresses is too distracting for a nearly adult male who is old enough to drive a car and use guns to pay attention in class. And that it's her fault that guys can't stop ogling her legs or chest and pay attention. That the men around her can't handle seeing a bit of cleavage or a leg so she needs to change how she's dressed.

Your experience may be different than mine, but what happened at my high school was girls would be told to do the fingertip test in front of all of their friends and then told to go change if it broke the rules. And a lot of times girls would be told to change their skirts while guys wore shorts that were roughly the same length, or their friends wore shorter skirts but had shorter arms so they passed the fingertip test. The fingertip test or X distance from the knee sounds reasonable until you consider how different people's proportions can be, if I wore a fingertip length pair of shorts I'd pretty much be wearing the same shorts as Bruno, but it'd be OK within the rules.

Girls just tend to want to sexualize themselves more, which if you were against sexism you would be actively fighting against.

That doesn't really follow. Why should a feminist have to support restricting women's choices to be "truly" against sexism? A short skirt doesn't sexualize itself, why is it the girl's responsibility to not sexualize herself, why isn't it the responsibility of guys not to sexualize women? Why is it about girls "sexualizing themselves", and not about boys and teachers/administration sexualizing teenage girls? The sexism here is the idea that men can't control themselves so it's up to women to cover up. "Boys will be boys". Think about the implications of that idea, that men can't control themselves and it's up to women to cover up. I don't know about you, but I find that idea insulting.

I shower naked with other dudes after playing sports. Am I sexualizing myself when I do that? What if I was gay, would I be sexualizing myself then? What if I knew one of my teammates was gay, would I be sexualizing myself then? What about when I took my shirt off so a female doctor could use a stethoscope, was I sexualizing myself then? Do I sexualize myself when I mow the lawn with my shirt off? What about when I wore tight pants when I played on the high school football team? Or when I wore running shorts to school that were shorter than my knees? It sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? Because we don't have an underlying bias that men's bodies are inherently sexual.

Think for a second, your comparing women to a role they are not forced to do, to men who are. Women being subjected to not going does not compare to be drafted to a war and risk life.

I think in todays modern world either make both to same standard or remove the draft entirely.

You can not give a life risking Forced responsibility to one gender and not the other.

Does anyone disagree? Have you seen feminists saying that it's OK that only men get drafted? Have you missed the movements by feminists to have women allowed to enlist in the military?

Countries having mandatory drafts or service for males isn't some brand new 21st century radical feminism thing, as mentioned above it goes back generations to the idea that men are the protectors and breadwinners and women are the caregivers and homemakers. It's not a grand hypocrisy of feminism that laws made hundreds of years ago by men from an era where men were the only ones who fought wars are disproportionately affecting men.

 

[FiftyBelowZero]

(And please stop saying Miley Cyrus is a feminist icon. She does nothing more than teach girls that the only way to get through life is to grind, shake your ass, and show your cans)

There are quite a few things wrong with what you just said.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Well no, it's not "sexist" in the sense that it implies men or women are inferior to one another, but the rules are clearly drawn up to limit what women and girls wear. Schools don't create dress codes to stop the trend of dudes wearing deep V-necks or short shorts. The rules are clearly aimed at skirts and low cut shirts or tank tops (because bra straps and shoulders are such a turn on).

The rationale you get from schools is that it's a "distraction" and that school should be about learning. Think about the message that's sending, that the way a woman dresses is too distracting for a nearly adult male who is old enough to drive a car and use guns to pay attention in class. And that it's her fault that guys can't stop ogling her legs or chest and pay attention. That the men around her can't handle seeing a bit of cleavage or a leg so she needs to change how she's dressed.

Your experience may be different than mine, but what happened at my high school was girls would be told to do the fingertip test in front of all of their friends and then told to go change if it broke the rules. And a lot of times girls would be told to change their skirts while guys wore shorts that were roughly the same length, or their friends wore shorter skirts but had shorter arms so they passed the fingertip test. The fingertip test or X distance from the knee sounds reasonable until you consider how different people's proportions can be, if I wore a fingertip length pair of shorts I'd pretty much be wearing the same shorts as Bruno, but it'd be OK within the rules.

That doesn't really follow. Why should a feminist have to support restricting women's choices to be "truly" against sexism? A short skirt doesn't sexualize itself, why is it the girl's responsibility to not sexualize herself, why isn't it the responsibility of guys not to sexualize women? Why is it about girls "sexualizing themselves", and not about boys and teachers/administration sexualizing teenage girls? The sexism here is the idea that men can't control themselves so it's up to women to cover up. "Boys will be boys". Think about the implications of that idea, that men can't control themselves and it's up to women to cover up. I don't know about you, but I find that idea insulting.

I shower naked with other dudes after playing sports. Am I sexualizing myself when I do that? What if I was gay, would I be sexualizing myself then? What if I knew one of my teammates was gay, would I be sexualizing myself then? What about when I took my shirt off so a female doctor could use a stethoscope, was I sexualizing myself then? Do I sexualize myself when I mow the lawn with my shirt off? What about when I wore tight pants when I played on the high school football team? Or when I wore running shorts to school that were shorter than my knees? It sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? Because we don't have an underlying bias that men's bodies are inherently sexual.

You are presuming that the word "distraction" implies that men will be distracted by women wearing more revealing clothing without a dresscode.

First, as I understand it, the purpose of dresscodes in Canadian schools is to keep the focus on learning and away from who is wearing the latest fashion trends, who has the most money to spend on clothes, who is the coolest etc. The theory is that at school we are all scholars first, and outside of school is the place to express your individual style. This is predominantly a Catholic High School thing where the boys and girls wear a standard uniform. You can agree or disagree with the philosophy but I like it personally. It isn't about "boys controlling themselves" as much as it is about keeping the focus on learning.

Second, teenage boys being distracted by sexy teenage girls is normal and vice versa. You can't change human nature, it is what it is, and from my high school experiences, the sexiest, best dressed girls got all the attention and the frumpy ones not so much. We can debate whether or not this is actually a distraction from learning or not of course, but the concept of boys being distracted by girls and vice versa isn't anything new or sexist either, nor is a policy that accepts that reality and attempts to deal with it. To me the debatable part is whether or not this distraction is actually a detriment to learning.

When it comes to schools the whole idea of a uniform makes sense to me. You are there to learn and socialize but you are only in school 30 out of 168 hours in a week, so you have plenty of time to show off your individuality outside of school.