funkshen;6289471
[QUOTE said:
discrimination and oppression didn't end on the day that women got the vote. it didn't end when married women didn't have to leave the public service anymore. it didn't end when women could choose to use contraception or have an abortion. have you not heard the expression "
history matters"?
Again, you're saying that it matters because things are still bad, but this still means that it’s a problem because things are bad now.
Picture 3: good point. Society has certainly played a role in continuing to prescribe to women an aesthetic;
Men evolved to prefer thinner women so they probably always will, more or less. It is wrong for her to expect that men find her attractive, which she
does given her opposition to "beauty standards". This can also be thought to extend to things like models, actresses etc. being thin, but again this is based on what people like, so she's the one imposing her views on others.
I think it’s a bit whiny to claim that thin women in the media make her feel ashamed of her fat, and in real life it's unlikely she has experienced fat-shaming outside of school (where fat boys are often teased just as much). I wouldn't put it past her to have sought relationships/sex with men knowing full well they aren't attracted to fat women, and then use this as victimisation masturbation-fodder.
picture 4: similar, but taken to the extreme of the woman in picture 3's. this woman, like many, feels that because she does not conform to the socially prescribed aesthetic, she is judged as less valuable.
Obese men haven't exactly got it that much better.
picture 6: you'd have to wonder what her broader point is. i'm willing to consider that she isn't being an idiot; her point is, rather, that gender studies should be considered as of less value than, say, any other liberal arts major: history, sociology, art history, so on and so forth. i don't see the problem in that.
She doesn't say other arts degrees, she says
anyone else's degrees, so I think it’s a fair assumption that she is expressing a similar sentiment to the photo above. She studied a degree that has not enhanced her employability beyond being a college graduate
per se, and yet given her ideological attachment to what she studied she feels entitled to employment because of it. She's not just saying that she thinks her degree is good, she's saying she needs feminism, which almost certainly involves direct or indirect government subsidization of a job of hers, despite her lack of productivity.
picture 8: i see no need for women to be subject to ritual and dehumanising abuse in public
Nor do I. I clearly included it for the sake of juxtaposition.
picture 9: protesting the social prescription of "girly" and "manly" activities. right on.
This isn't really related to feminism, but if he's teased about being manly this almost certainly extends beyond his love of poetry, and is probably about being effeminate in general as men who like poetry are more likely to be. Which, you'll probably say he shouldn't be judged for, but the hilarious tragedy of feminism is that feminists themselves tend to be, romantically, very intolerant of beta males. This means more low-IQ alphas reproducing and less beta males having families to care about and raise high-IQ kids. So it’s in society's interests for him to act in a way such that others perceive him as being masculine.
picture 10: women should be free to wear what they want, within reason. women wearing trousers used to be considered abhorrent.
Used to be. Nobody is going to give them shit for not wearing skirts in the middle of winter (and yes, I'm familiar with the recent French ruling regarding trousers).
picture 12: right on. just because you're a woman doesn't mean you should know how to cook; or, that it is something that you regularly do. protesting socially prescribed values and roles. right on.
The 1950's called, they want their butthurt back.
Women aren't expected to be able to cook, and any man that publically says he expects women to cook for him will be instantly labelled a sexist.
On a remotely related note, couples in which men and women equally share the housework are more likely to divorce.
picture 13: this guy shouldn't feel unmanly for engaging in consensual sex with his girlfriend, no matter what they do together.
Fear of homosexuality is natural, so its natural he feels this way. Unless he goes blabbing about it to everyone and expects them not ot judge him, its dumb to say he "needs" feminism, or that it has to do with feminism in the first place as its more homophobia.
I've seen that video, and tend to agree with the top comment.
Being serious though, its fundamental human nature to disapprove of female promiscuity for what should be obvious evolutionary reasons.
Anecdotally, I don't think that it's entirely because men are judgemental of women who have taken heaps of cock (though they certainly are), but rather said women tend to make poor partners due to their personality and behaviours. So its not just because men don't like women who have had a lot of sex, they dislike the personality and qualities of women who happen to have a lot of sex (or possibly even lead her to having a lot of sex). Based on my personal experience, I agree entirely. 'Sluts' tend to be more aggressive, less friendly, less feminine and all-in-all less pleasant.
Although this is about identifying 'sluts', I think in the process it elucidates the problems with them.
From a more objective and practical standpoint, it is known that there is a significant negative relationship between the number of past sexual partners a woman has had, and the length of her marriage. Thus, avoiding sluts can be thought of as socially beneficial behaviours. Of course, its easy to say that this is because of men's nasty slut-shaming personalities, but its almost certainly not, because one struggles to think why they would marry a slut in the first place. Rather, it is more likely that again, the personality types of women who tend to sleep around make them less suitable for long-term, monogamous partners, and its also likely that these women themselves struggle to maintain attraction to one man and sexually limit themselves to one man.
picture 15: again, protesting socially prescribed values and roles. women should not feel ashamed, nor should they be stigmatised, for enjoying or participating in activities that society considers to be male-only.
'I need feminism' suggests that this apparent double-standard is an example of injustice towards females. However, the exact same is true for men. Traits considered ideal for women make a man unmanly. And this is
not just other men calling him a pussy; the vast majority of women are not attracted to effeminate men, quite the opposite.
And in making women just like men, they are diminishing the point of women altogether. If women essentially become "men with vaginas", why on earth would you expect relationships and families to work? When society does have strong gender roles in place, the accompanying masculine and feminine natures of men and women respectively were complimentary, leading to a greater harmony between the sexes (abusive husbands notwithstanding) and a stronger family unit. In modern times, in what can be described only as entirely predictable, we see a degradation of the family unit and a continual move towards becoming a bonobo mutual masturbation society where men and women increasingly have less use for one another, where people are not getting married and where existing marriages are breaking down and where women are experiencing hue rates f depression.
It is profoundly ironic that feminism, of all things, is so opposed to and takes such joy in the elimination of femininity.
picture 16: yeah well if you want to do it then do it. she probably means she doesn't want guys to be put off by her doing so. fair enough.
To the extent this is true (it’s absolutely not, every survey I've seen on the subject shows that men overwhelmingly like it when women make the first move), it's the fault of women. I mean there is literally a facebook group called "I'm the girl, you're the guy... You text me first. Or we don't talk today." And it CERTAINLY does not "need" a giant ideological revolution. Even if you think it's reasonable for her to want this (which it isn't really, most men would love the prospect of multiple women hitting on them and them getting to choose which women to respond to), its trivial bullshit, which is why its unreasonable.
picture 18: right on bro. due respect to the women in your life who helped you become who you are.
"who he is" looks like a fat faggot loser, who hilariously and almost certainly has extreme difficulty in attracting women (even controlling for his obesity). I have no idea, he might not have been raised by a single mother but in any case this picture implies support for such a thing, which certainly is bad (obviously not criticising widows, divorcees etc). And I'm not sure why this necessitates feminism?
picture 19: pretty true. i'm guilty of this. it's hard to write about female superheroes.
Who, male or female, gets their "superhero novels" seriously any way? Why does this "need" a giant ideological revolution?
And why do you think that is?
-------
Im a little confused. If your support for these things is based on some liberal-tarian "people should be able to what they want" and NOT on the practical implications for society, then why can't I just as easily turn around and say that people ought to be able to judge others and discriminate on the basis of past sexual partaers.