By hating labels - 23/10/2012 08:21 - Australia
Add a comment - Reply to : #
The whole not wearing bra thing, from my understanding, is that men want nice perky breast and the woman have to keep them nice and perky and wear bras. Not all woman want to wear them so they don't. Usually people complain saying its indecent to not wear one when usually the breast is almost always covered by a shirt. So they rebelled and burned the bras, saying they won't be held down by society standards. There's more to it but I think that's one of the reasoning.
#105, they didn't actually burn the bras, though. They were planning on doing it IIRC, but decided against it. Also, fun fact, bras at the time of the bra-burning-but-not incident were actually a Madonna-esque cone shape, not the perky, cleavagey bras we think of today. But the idea is the same. :) Personally, I don't wear a bra because I see no reason to (the boob sagging thing is a myth) and it seems like a waste of money... But that's just me.
Comment moderated for rule-breaking.Show it anyway
Boob sagging IS a myth. It's caused by genetics, time, and pregnancy. I think it's funny that people are thumbing me down, as though that'll make the boob-sagging myth more true. Even bra companies admit that bras only hold up your boobs while you wear them, but don't prevent sagging. Hell, there's more evidence in favor of bras being linked with breast cancer than preventing boob sagging (though the evidence is far from definitive.) So... Bras are pointless unless you're trying to make your boobs look a certain way when you wear them. :P
163 - You were thumbed down after the second sentence. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe you just wrote, "Boob sagging IS a myth. It's caused by...". Dumbass, if you're admitting that it's "caused by" something, you are in fact admitting its existence, thereby declaring it IS NOT a myth. Clearly you are in over your head, as you just obliterated your own argument.
You should frame a giant copy of the 19th amendment, just to freak them out.
Well if they stop talking to you for more than 30 seconds after that, maybe it's better you don't talk to them in the first place.
Feminism is a disease, like racism, sexism, and all of the other -isms in society, brought on as a result of chronic ignorance and stupidity. I don't think they're avoiding you because they think its a disease. Most feminists are irritating and annoying, and are best left to themselves anyway. They shouldn't have taken your sibling's word for it, though.
What the fuck are you talking about? How stupid are you to compare feminism to racism and sexism, while all that feminists want is equality for everyone? I find it such a shame that feminism has become a synonym for 'women who wants to be treated better than men', or something like that. That is completely the opposite of what it truely means. /sigh.
"Why would their sister, obviously female, call them a feminist like it's a negative term, if the true definition of feminism is women that want equality for everyone?" Because nobody gives a shit about the true definition. It's sad, but a lot of people (on this site) have a wrong idea of feminism - all thanks to women who demand that the other gender pays their diner (or something similar) because they're feminists. Also, feminism is not only for women, it's for everyone who is against discrimination (based on your gender).
Feminists have gone wrong as of late, however. They believe that in a perfect world, men and women would have the exact same goals in life and would be equally good at everything. What they ignorantly undermine is the very real fact that men and women are totally different biologically and therefore have different goals in life all together. Therefore, unless feminists wish to inject high amounts of estrogen into men, we'll always be extremely different. Note that in every single other species on the planet, males and females have different roles. It's not sexism, it's natural. That's not to say that barring women from voting or driving cars or any other idiotic attempt to contain women is a good thing.
Feminism is thinking outside of the box. Society tells women how they should act, how they should dress, that they must change their names when they get married, what kind of jobs they should take, and so much more. Feminism is a different way of thinking and not following the norm.
To me, feminism is my ability, as a woman, to do what I want to do and follow MY dreams. It seems some have taken it upon themselves to force their own idea of feminism down our throats. If I want to be a mother, a wife, an astronaut, an MMA fighter....THAT'S my right and that's what I believe in. Not some one size fits all crap.
"So someone who is against discrimination of men is a feminist too? " Euhm... Yeah? If you want society to fully accept Tommy's dream of becoming a ballet dancer and Susan's to become a truck driver, then you are a feminist. If you think right now 'Ow, that's so gaaaaay' or 'Girls are too weak for that', then, well, you are not. Simple as that. We just link feminism almost automatically with women, because they were the ones that started the equal-rights-for-everyone process. And because women's rights are more violated in the world than men's.
"To me, feminism is carrying a gun, so I can rip a giant hole in the chest of bastards who try to fuck with me. But that's just me." Do I really need to throw a dictionary at your head so you could search for the difference between 'violent intimidation' and 'feminism'?
Do I have to throw a dictionary at your head so you can know the difference between self defense and violent intimidation? Did you miss the parenthesis where I explained what I meant by "fuck with?" I was simply expressing my view on feminism, which I think is something a lot of feminists miss, which is that the ability to defend oneself is of utmost importance. Women are disproportionally the victims of violent crime, while men are disproportionally the perpetrators of violent crime. I'm not saying that men are evil or violent beings by nature. I'm just saying that as the physically weaker sex we must make certain that those stronger than us do not take advantage of that. There are a disturbingly high number of cases when a woman is raped or assaulted in public and people just stand by and watch it happen. We cannot rely on anyone to protect us but ourselves. Equal pay and reproductive rights are all well and good, but they are meaningless if we can't defend our life and limb.
"I was simply expressing my view on feminism" Yeah, I got that. But your view on feminism is wrong. Yes, it is absolute disgusting how much (sexual) violence women have to endure daily and yes, self-defense is important, but feminists don't want you to claim your rights (which are mostly about economics and social life in the debat of feminism) with violence. "Feminism is the advocacy of women's rights- equality to men. That means by nature, it has nothing to do with discrimination against men." Boaf, I don't know. I'm going to check some dictionaries right now on the definition of feminism, but anyway, maybe it's time to change the definition? We always think of equality to men because women had so little rights in those days... But nowadays, why can't we focus on equality for both of us? There is also a lot (subtle) sexual discrimination of men, maybe society is finally mature enough and ready to face those problems.
Who are you to tell me my view on feminism is wrong? I place higher importance on self defense than on other things when it comes to feminism. There's nothing wrong with that. What's "wrong" is you equating my advocacy for self defense with violent intimidation. If a man is about to rape or beat me, that's violent intimidation. If I in turn put a bullet through his chest (rather than hope for help that statistically is highly unlikely to arrive in time) that is self defense.
"Who are you to tell me my view on feminism is wrong?" Djeepee, pleased to meet you. What's wrong with your view on feminism? That it has a little to do with feminism. Beating or raping a woman has nothing to do with sexism (which feminism is all about), but with violating the human rights. Just like killing someone is about violating another person's right. Yes, self-defense is another case, but you're talking so easily about killing someone that it frightens me. On a sidenote: there are countries where feminists are concerned about beating/raping women, but that's only because those women has little to no rights to defend themself, as opposite to men. You get raped? Marry your rapist or be considered a whore, your choice. Your man beats you? So what. You slept with another person? Alright, let's molest or kill you. You can't compare those situations with the Western world.
@gracehi. While I respect your right to self defense, unfortunately, guns are also the cause of irreversible errors. I know that I've been in situations where I was just happen to be walking in the same direction as someone and they were "intimidated". I don't want to get a bullet in the chest because of someone's paranoia or a misunderstanding. I'm not saying you're paranoid, but I know for a fact that this country has a "shoot first, ask (maybe) later" mentality which is unhealthy/lethal for those of us that society disparages. What about self-defense classes, mace, etc?
You are clearly very nieve on the subject of violence against women in this country. Do our laws protect us better than in some other places? Yes, but that's not saying much. Have you heard of Maria? She was a victim of rape who has gone public with her plight but withholds her last name. She was raped in a New York subway in plain view of two subway workers who did nothing to help her except call the police. They sat and watched as she was raped twice and watched as her rapist fled before police arrived ten minutes later. She sued the company and the two workers. The judge threw out her case because the workers and the company had no legal obligation to help her. If she had fallen and broken her leg because of unsafe conditions, they likely would have settled out of court, but because she was raped due to unsafe conditions she had absolutely no right to any type of compensation. The difference is that a broken leg is just as likely to happen to anyone, but rape is a crime that primarily victimizes women. New York also has a ban on all guns within city limits, which is a violation of Maria's Second Amendment right. Had she had a gun that night, there would be one more dead rapist and one less rape victim in the world. There is also the case of Jaycee Dugard. She was kidnapped by a repeatedly convicted rapist at the age of 11 and was his sex slave for 18 years until she was finally rescued. She was imprisoned in his backyard, and neighbors reported to the police that there was someone living back there. But when they searched his home several times they never bothered to search his backyard, only his house. Rapists are almost always repeat offenders, yet our judicial system is constantly giving them sentences that allow them back out in the public to destroy more lives. Had her captor been sentenced to life imprisonment on any one of his previous convictions, Jaycee would not have had to endure that nightmare. If the police had also taken reports about him more seriously and been more concerned with protecting the public, her ordeal would have ended much sooner. It is true that anyone can be a victim of violent crime including rape. It is also true that women are disproportionally victims of violent crime. And yes it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with sexism, but it can. A man who rapes a woman has no respect for women. That is sexism in its worst form. Generally, though, the disproportionate number of female victims of violent crime is just the natural order of things. What has everything to do with feminism, though, is how we as individuals and communities work to solve the problem. We can't simply disregard the phenomenon as having nothing to do with sexism. If we ignore the problem as simply the way of the world, then that is sexism. We must demand that our legislature impose tougher minimum sentences on violent criminals and uphold our right to self defense and to bare arms, and that our law enforcement be more diligent in protecting the public from violent criminals. Whatever happens though, we cannot rely on our government, our law enforcement, or anyone else to protect us, because even in the best circumstances, they often fall short. We must take our protection into our own hands. You say you are frightened by the ease with which I talk about killing someone, but what frightens me is the number of violent people preying on the defenseless and the innocent. I, for one, refuse to be a victim.
125, Many things can be the cause of irreversible and tragic mistakes, including guns, however, I think that the pros of the availability of guns to law abiding citizens outweigh the cons. Illegalizing guns only makes them unavailable to law abiding citizens, not criminals. But that is ever at the center of the the debate on gun control, so let's not get too wrapped up in this tired subject. However, I would like to add that no rational person would shoot you simply for walking in the same direction as them, and if someone did do that, the law would be on your side. Mace and self defense classes are fine, but there are situations when they won't help you, such as when your attacker is on drugs and impervious to pain, or when your attacker has a gun, or when you have multiple attackers at once. Also, things like mace can be turned on the victim, but there is a less than one percent chance of that happening with a gun. If others choose alternative means of self defense, then that's up to them. Personally, however, I feel much safer with a gun, and I fervently believe in my right to carry one.
Shame on todays feminists, especially those focusing on third world countries where the women is stoned by her village after being raped, girls can't go to school during their periods, they get forced into marriage before puberty, and their bodies are often mutilated. I think far too many people don't understand feminism at all.
#50 - The way I understand it, both feminists and masculists (in this case NOT meaning anti-feminists) believe in equality between genders. The difference is their approaches: feminists fight for equality mainly by helping women get the same treatment as men (equal pay, ability to dress like men, sexual freedom, etc.), while masculists fight for equality mainly by getting men the same treatment as women (more custody rights in divorce, taking male victims of abuse seriously, equal punishments for female criminals, etc.) Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. So what you said is closer to masculism. But really, the goal is the same. :)
134, what crack are you smoking? New York does not have any laws stating citizens cannot carry guns. A new york citizen can carry a gun as long as they have the proper licenses and paperwork. New york has one of the strictest gun policies around. That does not take away your right at all. As long as you through proper procedure you can have a gun.
131, it sadness me how you use the horror of an 11 year old girl to further you cause of gun barbarity. Are you using her to suggest that everybody should carry a gun? That the little girl should have a pistol at her side in order (in the EXTREMELY unlikely case) she gets kidnapped? People do more harm than good with weapons. This my be my own ignorance, but every single "pro gun" story I hear it always involved a 'hasty generalization' logical fallacy.
It's hard for it to be a progressive idea when most feminists are selective feminists. Want equal rights when it comes to pay, but demands to be treated differently. I'm all for equal pay for each gender, I am just not for the whole equality while being treated differently thing. It has to be all the way up to equal or you aren't looking for equality, but superiority.