Comments on: Feminists and Equality

By: PurplePeopleEater

PurplePeopleEater — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 02:55:47 +0000

LOL

That is all.

By: JacStar

JacStar — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 02:48:58 +0000

I would have got back to you sooner, but i was barefoot and in the kitchen. The husband demanded a hot meal and woe is me.

You make significantly good points Ms. PurplePeopleEater – i'd would have quoted all these things in the post itself, if I had any law/crime book in front of me… The husband doesn't really allow me to read such educational literature. Far be it for a woman to get ahead in life.

By: PurplePeopleEater

PurplePeopleEater — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 02:40:29 +0000

Toting around your gender as if it entitles you to something is simply hypocritical. That's what the male population used to do that got feminists' panties in a twist in the first place, right?

That being said, I obviously do not agree with males being superior to females and that nonsense. I also do not mean to offend anyone. I just have a real problem with "Because I'm a woman" being the only reason or justification used by some people. That doesn't solve anything. It's exactly as you said Jacki – prove yourself. Give us something besides gender to work with, then you can be on an equal playing field.

Sorry for the multiple posts…I just really wanted to do a post like this justice in my comment

By: PurplePeopleEater

PurplePeopleEater — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 02:39:38 +0000

Assault is assault. It is not any worse simply because it was committed by a man against a woman. It is wrong to hit people, PERIOD. Gender should not be of any importance. The reason we attribute so much importance to it is a result of societal and moral construct, and a lot of this traces back to the feminist movement. Domestic assault is argued to perpetuate the paternalistic constructs of history in a contemporary society, but obviously it's not paternalistic if a woman hits a man, in retaliation or not. Isn't that the kind of double standard feminists are looking to absolve?

Everyone is equal as persons under the law, with rights to live autonomously and securely under the constructs of law that have been institutionalized. That's the extent of equality. It is nonsense to think that all people are equal in all ways, because Jacki is right – it is simply impossible for that to be the case.

By: PurplePeopleEater

PurplePeopleEater — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 02:38:51 +0000

For example, let's look at domestic assault. Domestic assault is defined as non-consensual contact by an individual against their intimate partner. Nowhere is it defined as when the male partner of an intimate relationship assaults the female. This perception is not entirely incorrect, as statistically females are victims of domestic assault more than males, and experience more severe levels of violence than males. But this does not take into account that there are males who are abused by females, nor does it account for same-sex couples who are certainly not absolved from domestic assault occurring. I'm a Criminology student, by the way, so I'm not just pulling this out of the air.

By: PurplePeopleEater

PurplePeopleEater — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 02:37:13 +0000

The feminist movement, when claiming that it is equivalent to equalist, refers to being equal in humanity and as persons.

This applied 60+ years ago. The world has changed, but for the most part I find that feminist ideals have not. I personally get very irritated by those who claim to be feminists who simply tote that man-hating "We are equal!" business. Hating men isn't exactly promoting equality, now is it? As was previously said, it is about ETHICAL treatment.

By: Danny Brown

Danny Brown — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 23:52:03 +0000

It does seem strange that there are calls for equality (and rightly so) yet it's not taken into context at times. Of course there will be times that women can't do a certain something, and vice versa too – men won't be able to so something because of gender. It does work both ways.

Yet having a hissy fit about it isn't always the answer. As you say, prove the doubters wrong (if it's possible, obviously) and do it, or accept it can't be done and move on.

As my good friend Joey says, not everyone can be a penis model.

By: JacStar

JacStar — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 23:49:17 +0000

LOL I wish i could treat my boss like you treat your dad. Do you know how great it would be to get away with the yelling?

Ethical treatment… exactly

By: JacStar

JacStar — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 23:47:59 +0000

Thank you for sharing Ralene. As you can tell by any of my posts, I don't support the "not be heard" aspect either. Quite frankly, I usually don't know when to shut up lol

By: Dre

Dre — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 23:32:31 +0000

That's funny. I was just thinking about this when someone left the seat up in the women's room and I almost fell in.
You're pointing out a common oversimplification made by many in the equality movement, which wrongly assumes that everyone is created equal. This is impossible. Regardless of how many laws you pass or sexual harassment prevention workshops you hold, not everyone is created equal.

That doesn't mean that some people are better or worse than others. It does mean that everyone is different. I can't treat my hearing-impaired father the same way I treat my boss. If I treated them equally, I would always be shouting at my boss, or making my father say "What? I can't hear you. I turned up my hearing aids. What?"

Fortunately, I have common sense, which tells me that while I can't treat these two people equally, I can choose the most ethical way to treat them on an individual basis.

Feminism should stand for ethical treatment–not equal treatment.