care-tags.org

^ probably because it doesn't directly affect you (you're what? 21? probably not looking to get married yet) and because it seems kind of inevitable to most rational people that it will happen in the next few years. plus, on a day to day basis, do you frequently come across people who are opposed to it? i do not.

Semi related: Can I actually say I'm part of a movement if I do nothing for it besides believing? It's always felt very disingenuous.

if i say i'm interested in helping male victims of domestic abuse, is the difference between how accepted this is whether or not i do it under the guise of feminism or men's rights? if so, that's shitty.

I see lots of arguments against being an MRA because women obviously have it worse. I don't think "who has it worse" is a worthwhile discussion. But if you're doing good and helping people who need help, does it matter what you are? Or who you help? If it's a race to the bottom to see who can advocate for/help the least advantaged individual, shouldn't all gender issues be abandoned in favor of ending genocide, starvation, spread of diseases like AIDs and malaria in africa, and children forced into war?

Unrelated, I'm interested less in studies, and more in anecdotes. I've never encountered (in a very conservative state, ranked like 49th in education spending) ever, girls being disadvantaged in regards to science or engineering, and I know we've got a lot of college aged girls on this forum. As a guy, I may just be ignorant, but what does this actually look like on an individual level? People being discouraged from doing certain majors? I only have experience going the other way- people questioning my sexuality/masculinity for my interests in artistic/fashion endeavors.

I can't personally explain how it came to be this way, but engineering majors tend to be male dominated. this is one of many factors which might keep women from studying engineering.

i think any feminist would be happy to see you or anyone help male rape victims. I think most feminists would be startled or alarmed when systems designed to protect children or women screw upstanding men over-- when poorly socialized women are given custody over economically and socially stable men, or when police are called in a domestic abuse situation and apprehend a male victim. no one is against men's rights or believes they don't deserve them, but when you invoke the term 'MRA' you are alluding to one of the most socially regressive voices in the conversation, and you'd have to be completely unaware to understand why people react to the term.

I asked for the individual experiences mostly because most women who see their lives ending with motherhood here have that going for them because they're mormon, and it's the mormon church which is 50 years in the past, not necessarily the rest of the state. So I guess I'm unsure what disadvantaged (in regards to STEM and the like) women actually look like in the "real world"- i.e. what stops women from becoming scientists when it's not because they live in a crazy state like Utah.

In regards to what ben is saying, i guess the label i'll use is "Advocate for Helping People" to avoid any connotation.

A lot of people seem to have the misconception that feminism is strictly female orientated. This is wrong, at least from my perspective (and other feminists i've encountered irl). The reason i call myself a feminist is A) to (hopefully) present Feminism in a positive light B) as a sign of solidarity i.e. i ally myself with other feminists focusing on other things that might not be the most important to me C) because i think it is important to show and acknowledge that women have been and in many ways still are experiencing some form of oppression, and D) i believe that solving many female orientated problems will solve men's problems as well e.g. if the traditionally 'feminine' is no longer viewed in a more negative light then it will be more okay for men to participate in it. I do acknowledge that men have problems that are unique to them, but i do not think another movement is necessary to solve them.

, it's a secular but conservative country. The government panders to the religious groups more often than they should.

Sorry to keep posting, but what is everyone's opinions on enjoying and consuming media that may have themes that don't necessarily align with social movements you belong to? For instance i like to listen to A$AP Rocky occasionally but one can definitely point to instances where he has been less than ideal in terms of gender equality, the same goes for danny brown. Now i generally try to avoid songs or movies or books that express themes that go against feminist sensibilities, but sometimes they're really good. Should i not even listen to the artist because they have a couple songs that are bad? I know my SO, FeministFatal, refuses to listen to Pharrel or Robin Thicke because of the song blurred lines same goes with R. Kelly because of alleged sex crimes. I think that in this instance it is certainly justified to refuse to listen to the artists as well as actively campaign against them. But what about songs that aren't just basically rape apologia? Can i listen to Dope Fiend Rental by Danny Brown? If not can i listen to other songs by him?

I've dealt with similar issues in hip-hop, particularly with regard to misogyny. In my personal experience it's seemed to be a matter of execution and extremity of the misogyny that makes it tolerable vs intolerable. Take Xxplosive by Dr. Dre - incredible beat, catchy song, but that first verse is just SO heavy handed, it makes it impossible for me to enjoy. Other songs referring to women as hos or bitches in a less extreme/violent way I don't tend to have a problem with. To be fair, I'm also not the victim of the language. I know can't enjoy a lot of the hip-hop that I do simply due to its explicit or misogynistic content.

This actually reminds me of a question I've been meaning to ask. Was listening to my local hip-hop radio station and they had a call-in section asking men how much they'd be willing to spend on their side piece. The entire concept of a side piece sickens me for obvious reasons, and I've never once heard anyone refer to a woman having a side piece. Obviously there's no concrete line you can refer to when it comes to appreciating the context behind an aspect of a culture vs embracing that aspect of that culture vs condemning that aspect of that culture. This covers religious quarrels, nationalism, taught racism etc. - how do you determine what can be written off as acceptable in context? When can you say "this aspect of this culture that is not mine is not acceptable to any culture"?

The "social progressivism" that is feminism is not something I agree with outside of 3rd world countries where inequality based on gender is nearly mandated. Call me a humanist, the goal should be equality, not the rights of a sect. How is it academically valid or realistically applicable to subject your personal experiences with harassment based on gender to legislation? Does this phenomenon of "domination" (male/female dominated fields) exist on both sides of the fence? It does, so pin-pointing instances is a complacent tactic being used to further an agenda. It's not right that a female should feel targeted by her male counterparts in a field such as engineering, but how do you compare that to the alternative (ie. male nurse jokes) and "train" society otherwise?

Maj's point is that the two genders are treated separately throughout development, and thus chose different paths. However, is this a topic that feminists should be fighting to change? Absolutely not. It's not discrimination against women (if it is, it's just as much discrimination against men), and there aren't men/women/the patriachy/the matriarchy/the reptilian agenda pulling the strings behind the parents and teachers having expectations for their son or daughter. This idea takes a female perspective of male dominated fields and sets out with an initiative to find somebody to blame. When ab167 says "this fields is male dominated" she is only stating a fact, yet is using it as a decisive tool to prove a point. Although, the "point" she has is unclear. Are you proposing that it is inherently bad that more men are in this particular field than women? That women have been persuaded and influenced throughout their life to choose otherwise? Would you be saying the same had the roles been reversed? I can guarantee you've been in a situation where you a part of the majority, and a/the minority felt discriminated against. Yet since it wasn't you, it is not of memory or acknowledgement. How is your experience with "guys counting girls in the class" comparable to elsewhere? Are a few people making jokes enough for you to say that women are irrefutably seen as lesser beings in this field? Is this cognitive (confirmation) bias or societal discrimination?

To summarize, what 'is' and 'isnt' valid and changeable discrimination? Does counting the amount of girls in your engineering class equate to sexism or lackluster humor based on sexual desire? Is your professor not stepping in a sexist action or a difference in tolerance? Is bullying among small children more prevalent amongst males or females, and if so, is that sexism? Is having different initiatives for your son than your daughter sexism or is it based on subjective ignorance? It's not like slavery or segregation. These 'gender roles' aren't plastered on signs and people don't go to prison for not doing as 'expected' of them. There needs to be a more testable, provable, and re-workable groundwork for such claims, because as it stands, everything comes down to subjective experience and interpretation (in this context).

With that said, where is the talk about men vs. women in divorce and/or custody cases? Or the incarceration rates? Why is it that we understand the reasoning behind why certain races make up the majority of the prison population (based on region), yet we can't understand any circumstance where women are a minority? Do we continue to completely ignore biological factors when talking about sports or the work force? Does rational discussion go out the window because we are talking about a subject that has a reputation for people to militantly disagree with you because they have the right to 'take offense'? Everything in here seems like vague questions and then people heroically overgeneralizing against contentions that haven't been raised.

hello, sorry to post something that isn't really a response to any of the posts so far but I thought some of you might be interested in this: I recently watched D. A. Pennebaker's film Town Bloody Hall (feat. above). It's a documentary that records a 1971 panel on the "women's liberation" movement. It mostly centers on Germaine Greer (reppin' my home country, australia), who had become a celebrity after the success of her book, The Female Eunuch, a book that was/ is central to the feminist movement. What's interesting is the range of feminist perspectives represented by the panelists, from proto-third wave to beat poetry inflected lesbian radicalism. It's in the "cinema verite" style so there are no talking heads, no voice-of-god voice overs, no cut away graphs etc and so its not anywhere near as politically coercive as a lot of contemporary documentaries. I really recommend to anyone interested in the dividing lines of feminism and the history of feminism. It also features some pretty big 'intellectual' celebrities: Norma Mailer, Germaine Greer, Susan Sontag and Betty Friedan and its cool to watch them back in the day and see Greer shoot down Mailer for his small mindedness.

you can watch the whole thing here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXM6KuD8ZNI ... if anyone does decide to watch i'd be really interested to know what you think about it

hey cant we all be friends

starting to read some of the links ab167 posted.. the shakesville author, in my opinion, shouldn't be considered a source. She has some statistics, yeah, that i'm sure are true, but she doesn't source anything. And statements about how she is only considered a vagina and uterus surrounded by meat isn't really credible in a discussion like this?

Also, the site seems to be full of blatant lies about the causes of obesity and how the human body works.

there are crazy extremists in regards to all belief systems. you should disregard that garbage because of the "crazy extremist" part, not the feminist part.

my mom is a real estate agent. she got a lead through her company the other day for a house but the sellers had no interest in even speaking with her because she was a woman. pretty ridiculous to deal with.

fortunately she will get a 25% referral fee and if my math checks out, 25% of her commission for 0 hours of work is pretty good compared to 100% for many hours of work. still, it blows my mind that living in a relatively liberal area still has people with this mindset. apparently the sellers had a bad experience with a woman agent before, but i don't exactly understand how someone can rationalize that all women real estate agents are incompetent because of that one experience. dude clearly thinks pretty low of all women in this case, and even had to get his wife to be the one to say that they weren't interested in using a woman.