The Real Reason why Feminists will never get anywhere

Feminism has come a long way in their ideas - one thing still left to do is to get equal rights to fight alongside men on the battlefield.. e.g 50% men and 50% woman

.. if any feminist was to say 'YES! WE NEED THIS!" you must be completely retarded to want to kill other human-beings in combat

and for any feminist to say 'uhhh we don't want THAT equal right' I would have to ask why not ... it is one of your main principals to have equal rights in everything that men do.

I think this argument is one of the most important when it comes to talking about feminism ... it shows a deep hole in the principals and ideas ..

 

what shows a deep hole?

how many feminists have you heard argue against equality in the military? i'd like to see reputable sources of these attitudes.

 

I have heard women that called themselves feminists say killing is a man's job, and women give live, so therefore should not be in combat.

 

The point is no feminist argues against equality in the military frontline... that is the point .. no feminist discusses what im talking about .. its a fundemental hole in their cause.

Their cause - to have equal rights .. to the same of men.


as for the reputable sources of the attitudes .. the point is NO FEMNISTS HAS THESE ATTITUDES .. and they are the only two attitudes available when discussing this from a feminists perspective ... AND SINCE NOBODY talks about them .. that is why its a deep fundemental hole

 

that is really really funny ... to say that killing is a mans job is to put the man below them .. therefore classing man as an animal and not the same level as the 'human' female

As for the giving life .. I don't see how a female can give life without a man.

for a feminist to say the entire thing that you have just said is basically to put them back into the mindset of a 1920's housewife. therefore destroying their cause completely.

 

feminists do discuss these things and do share your thoughts. the feminist ideas vary...

 

are you a feminist? if so .. what are your thoughts.

 

Sebastunes, I find your argument to be very weak. You claim to know what all feminists think and say. How exactly do you know that? I agree with DazedGypsy.

 

I'm not a fan of feminists at all and have found most to have very similar attitudes in much less obvious ways.

 

yep i am not a fan either. Its funny .. when this debate comes up .. there is no feminist to be found in sight

 

feminist have gotten somewhere...

 

you would benefit from opening your mind and talking to more folks. (to the OP)

 

I have run into feminists during such discussions quite a bit on here. I've also run into ex-feminists or people that consider themselves more of anti-sexistists. The latter groups seem to agree quite well.
I really think feminism has just about completed it's goal in this country (I read a really cool article on here about how the salary gap is complete bullshit, but I lost the bookmark, if anyone knows what I'm talking about, please post link). If anything social leaning is way towards the female. I want to start the male revolution =P

 

Oh really? please enlighten me on the weakness of my argument .. and of course .. give me your opinion ...

I do not claim to hold telepathic mind powers of how to get into the minds of a feminist .. I do claim however to know the principals of feminism - which of course is to have equal rights to males.

Are you arguing that main principal?

 

OK, I think feminism is more than just pushing for the Equal Rights Amendment, but that seems to be what you've boiled it down to. Well, OK, here is the ERA:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.


The weakness of your argument is that you've focussed on the "right to fight and kill in combat." What right is that? It's a concept, but I don't know that's it's proper to view as any kind of right. I mean, everyone except the most radical of feminists, of whom there are very few, knows that men and women are not created equally, physically.

For instance, women tennis players are not pushing for the "right" to play 5-set championship matches, because they know they are not physically up to it (uh oh, I'm gonna get it now).

 

So, the OP should open his mind and talk to more folks?

From an earlier post DazedGypsy stated:

to which Sebastunes replied:

Sebastunes specifically asked for your (DazedGypsy) thoughts on the issue being addressed before and yet rather than being answered he was addressed as being closed minded.

I would like an answer to that question myself.

Next on the list:

I believe that you need to reread the description you quoted about the ERA before arguing how it doesn't apply.

Take this part:

The statement does not say equality of rights shall not be abridged for women. It says equality of rights shall not be abridged based upon sex.

So, men are often not given a choice and are sent into frontline situations that women are not. If women would be placed into frontline situations then that would leave more job openings for men in non-frontline situations. Because women are automatically excluded from these dangerous jobs they disproportionately fill vacancies in jobs that do not meet that criteria and thus opportunities for men to serve in that capacity are reduced. Or, in other words, their opportunities to not serve in combat are abridged based upon their sex.

But, to go further, feminism is about more than the ERA.

Here are some definitions for feminism.

The first two of these are simply limited to what amounts to the ERA description listed above:

and...

However, with respect to the statement by sunfighter feminism is more tan that as described in the next listed definition:

The two important parts to this are "supporting the equality of both sexes in all aspects of public and private life" and "a theory or movement that argues that legal and social restrictions on females must be removed in order to bring about such equality"

The point is that the comparison of the equality between how the two sexes serve in the military does not use the term "right" anywhere. It is an aspect of "public and private life". Women not being allowed to serve in the frontline/combat is a legal and social restriction which limits how women may serve in the military. Feminism in this definition does not use the word "right" but states that such restrictions should be removed. Equality means the good and the bad rather than just the good.

Now, this is the annoying part. If the ERA is just looked at, the topic addressed is valid because the opportunities for men are being restricted. If a broader definition of feminism is used then it would appear to still be a valid topic. (Note that I did not even pass judgment on the answer with the two previous sentences.) However, the topic is being dismissed as not being valid by some posters who will decry the OP for not listening after refusing to answer the question and then dismissed by other posters because it is not a right being denied when it is clearly a case in point of the denial of an equal right for men to be considered in some jobs within the military.

So, why not actually address the merits of the question? There are many groups that demand women be treated equally. How come it is not important that women be allowed to serve the same as men and achieve an equal death rate? How come much emphasis is placed on increasing the number of women in the math and science fields and yet no emphasis is placed on having women comprise 50% of the shop classes?

Why are some occupations worthy of pushing women in equal numbers but not all? Despite there being exceptions, could it be that women in general are less willing to take jobs where they "get their hands dirty" despite that these are entry jobs for supervisor positions in many areas?

I could go on but that is it for now.

 

"Equality of rights under the law" does not apply to "opportunities", like serving in combat, as I read it.

 

Again, you are not paying attention to what is listed.

It shall not be abridged based upon sex. This applis to men as well as women.

The opportunity being abridged for men is the opportunity to serve in a spot that is not in combat. It is abridged because women fill the noncombat roles but not the combat ones.

 

Yes Sir you are indeed correct on all fronts you have obviously thought about this as much as myself