• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How can someone be a male and be a feminist at the same time?

Alceste

Vagabond
I talking about not taking no for an answer. I'm talking about following me around for 20mins harassing me for my number. I'm talking about following me into the same carriage just to stare me down. I'm talking about slyly trying to rub your fingers on the side of my leg then straight up putting you hand on my thigh. I'm talking about standing up on a train and a man much taller than you putting his hand near your crouch and then staring at you when you move away. I'm talking about a man in his 30s asking me to get in his car that he will drop me home when I was 15. I'm talking about shouting out "nice boobs" or "nice legs." I'm talking about trying to put your hand on my ****. I'm talking about being chatted up by a 60 year old when your 14 and in your school uniform. I'm talking about making fisting signs at me from your van when I'm about to cross the road.

And even just telling a woman she is beautiful or sexy while she is walking down the street minding her own business and not in a social situation, to me is a sign of dominance.

I can totally relate. The idea that any strange man offering a teenage girl a lift could mean anything other than an extremely heightened risk of sexual assault is completely alien to me. I thought everybody knew there are no good samaritans prowling around looking for teenage girls who only need a lift home.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
I can totally relate. The idea that any strange man offering a teenage girl a lift could mean anything other than an extremely heightened risk of sexual assault is completely alien to me. I thought everybody knew there are no good samaritans prowling around looking for teenage girls who only need a lift home.

I underlined some of your words. It's fine to see it this way, all the way, as long as you continue with your viewpoint on the occasion that a teenage girl is in difficulties, and an old man sees her and does not stop to help, but drives on. Later, if anything should happen to her, all the world would criticise him.

A couple of months ago a mate's 15yr old daughter was round her boyfriend's. They had a row. She walked out at 11pm and set out to walk home. It's several miles from Reculver to Sturry. A man stopped for her in Herne, and took her to her door.

Pick at the peripheral mistakes, Criticise her boyfriend for letting her go? If he had kept her round his, would he be criticised for kidnap? It goes on. Pick holes, but a decent man gave a girl a lift. Criticise her parents for giving her such freedom. Wriggle, if you plx, but if you make a 'strange prowler' out of every old man, then you've lost something.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
I underlined some of your words. It's fine to see it this way, all the way, as long as you continue with your viewpoint on the occasion that a teenage girl is in difficulties, and an old man sees her and does not stop to help, but drives on. Later, if anything should happen to her, all the world would criticise him.

A couple of months ago a mate's 15yr old daughter was round her boyfriend's. They had a row. She walked out at 11pm and set out to walk home. It's several miles from Reculver to Sturry. A man stopped for her in Herne, and took her to her door.

Pick at the peripheral mistakes, Criticise her boyfriend for letting her go? If he had kept her round his, would he be criticised for kidnap? It goes on. Pick holes, but a decent man gave a girl a lift. Criticise her parents for giving her such freedom. Wriggle, if you plx, but if you make a 'strange prowler' out of every old man, then you've lost something.

Whatever you lose by being suspicious of strange men offering you lifts is nothing compared to what you're likely to lose by hopping in the car.

It amazes me you're not aware of those risks at all, or that you think a teenage girl should ever hop into a car with a strange man in the middle of the night for any reason.

Honestly, she was safer walking.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
When uberrobonomicon4000 commenced the thread, 'How can someone be a male and be a feminist at the same time?' I still was not sure about this. Over a few months, whenever I had had the opportunity, I had already asked (mostly) women about this. Women of every age and background.

Their responses had ranged from 'weird idea' to 'creased up laughter'. One (a child psychologist) out of many thought it might be possible (for a man) to be of feminist mind, but that his place would evaporate 'when the chips went down'. She said to me, 'Easy. If you find a 'more fundamentalist feminist', ask lots of questions, and you will find (if you ask enough) that the answers, slowly turn you, a man, any man, into the personification of everything that they are angry about. You can empathise, but could never truly join their ranks. Find out for yourself'.

I asked a strong feminist many questions, and slowly I felt myself becoming the personification of the faults. She did not answer my questions 'When they.... do this, or when they....do that.' Her answers slowly turned to ''When you..... do this.'!

And so, I believe I can empathise with feminism. I believe that I can do my bit to seek a more equal society (and world?), but, like that woman told me, men 'can be feminist up to a point', but when the chips go down, very few men (if any) would be allowed to stand in the female ranks. Strangely, at Greenham Common all those years ago, when the Greenham Common Women had camped outside and demonstrated against the presence of USA missiles, they aggressively turned away men who came to support them. Click Click!

For me, I have found that men cannot fundamentally be male and 'allowed to be feminist' thru' and thru, at the same time. But we can be egalitarians, and that reaches far beyond, I believe. I not only think uberrobonomicon4000 was very brave to run this thread. I think that, fundamentally, he is right.

If this was a real debate, he would have to win my vote.
 

dust1n

Zindīq
Aye. A confirmation of my suspicions that debate-method is completely disregarded; and it doesn't really matter, as long as they reach our own views... le snooze.
 

dust1n

Zindīq
Hi.... again. Thanks for all your post. I reduced to simplify...... :D

OK..... so your needs are incredibly complex. That's cool. Question:- Generally speaking, would you say that you are a happy and contented person? Some level of fulfillment?

Yes. And the purpose of this question?

The mathematicians call it elegant, I think?
My brother in law was an analyst for IBM over 40 years ago. I once suggested to him how complex his job must have been. He said, 'Not at all. You're totally wrong. It's utter simplicity.'
It would appear that the most capable people find their worlds to be simple, and maybe that is why they look upon those outside their world as if children.
To me, everything of value seems to turn out to be simple, everything that is rubbish (or false) seems to be complicated.
Right, have fun with that.

Are you classist? Would you found a club and insist on controlling who could join. Would you operate an exclusive world? Would you start a thread and insist that you would decide who could play or debate?
And I literally have no idea what you are talking about here. Sorry, I thought I responded to this already, but apparently I didn't get around to it soon.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
And I literally have no idea what you are talking about here. Sorry, I thought I responded to this already, but apparently I didn't get around to it soon.
I find it amazing that (some) people who claim intellectual complexity suddenly have difficulty over the most simple questions and points.

Then why respond again? I only asked:- Are you classist? Would you found a club and insist on controlling who could join. Would you operate an exclusive world? Would you start a thread and insist that you would decide who could play or debate?

Well........would you?
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Aye. A confirmation of my suspicions that debate-method is completely disregarded; and it doesn't really matter, as long as they reach our own views... le snooze.

Nay! A confirmation of your suspicions that your debate-method is disregarded. Different?
 

dust1n

Zindīq
I find it amazing that (some) people who claim intellectual complexity suddenly have difficulty over the most simple questions and points.

When did I claim intellectual complexity? I find it amazing that (some) people passively refer indirectly about the person that are directly addressing.

BTW, I almost always responds, when someone addresses me. You addressed me and asked me about anarchism, then responded to me about something about complexity, and then responded with a disregarding anecdote about conversations you have with women and what not. So was there a point about asking me about my how content I am or or not? I mean, I'm sorry you think points that are never stated and are masked in non sequitur questions are somehow the 'most simple questions and points.'

Then why respond again? I only asked:- Are you classist? Would you found a club and insist on controlling who could join. Would you operate an exclusive world? Would you start a thread and insist that you would decide who could play or debate?

Well........would you?
Classist being someone who discriminates against someone because of their social or economic class, then no, I am not a classist. I would not found a club and insist on controlling who could join; as evidenced by the fact I have never founded a club at all in the first place. As for the second question, I have no idea what to 'operate an exclusive world' means. Are you asking, if I had the option, would I have, like, my own Earth where I control all the physics of that Earth or something, so that I could control others in some weird abstract manifestation? No, I don't think so. Would I start a thread and insist that you would decide who could play or debate? If I wanted to limit a thread to a particular discussion of people, I would be it in the correct thread. Like, if I wanted a Muslim only thread, I would likely put it in the same-faith debates. I'm actually in the process of trying to start the first 'private debate' on the thread since, they are new and all and never been tried. So, to answer your question... yea, I suppose I would since out of the couple hundred threads I'm started, I'm sure a handful have stipulations about who I am asking specifically to debate.

But, I'm really not sure where any of this going. I'm sorry that your point is lost to me. Perhaps it is just so simple that my mind just simply can't see it. I must be one of those guys who have over-intellectualized the world to a degree that I've lost out on some fundamental happiness or satisfaction that I guess others are all in on because they've found ways to narrate-- to themselves-- the world and their experiences in the simplest ways possible, and, admittedly only find value in the simplest of explanations, and that complex explanations are just false by vice of being inconveniently complex.

Nay! A confirmation of your suspicions that your debate-method is disregarded. Different?

Well, I believe what I said to be true, which means that what you said what also be true. But I still hold there is little regard in the assessment of how debates should be conducted. For one, I find it hilarious that this is considered a winning debate:

Quote:
Well show me your feminist philosophy instead of going on and on about nothing.

I’m still waiting for you to give a creditable response. I haven’t gotten one yet.
You said:


Originally Posted by uberrobonomicon4000
Feminism loses all credibility soon as someone brings up issues besides equal rights. Because it gets into issues with how people should act and treat one another (men and women), in public, that they should have learned in first grade, on the playground or in their backyard. That is just the sad reality of it and to think some adults want to act like children disgusts me.

...snip...

Furthermore, you said that Feminism "gets into issues with how people should act and treat one another (men and women), in public, that they should have learned in first grade, on the playground or in their backyard."

I asked who in feminism said something about how people show act, and that we should teach first graders about feminism, on the playground or in the backyard. If you can't quote some feminist text as saying that, then you just completely made up the claim that feminism gets into issues and says that should be learned in first grade, on the playground or in their backyard.

Quote: Point out the double standard then and stop going on and on about nothing.
I just did, but I will again.

You said:

"Feminism loses all credibility soon as someone brings up issues besides equal rights. Because it gets into issues with how people should act and treat one another (men and women), in public, that they should have learned in first grade, on the playground or in their backyard. That is just the sad reality of it and to think some adults want to act like children disgusts me."

You implied that because feminism gets into issues with how people should act, it loses all credibility.

In the same post, you also said:

"Women can handle their own issues and men can handle theirs. As in women can debate other women on topics that concern them just like men can. If there is to be some common ground between two subjects based on equality, then men shouldn’t interfere with the progress of women and women shouldn’t interfere with the progress of men."

You said that men shouldn't interfere with the progress of women and women shouldn't interfere with the progress of men. Interfering is an action. If you say someone shouldn't interfere, you are saying they shouldn't act.

So why does feminism lose all credibility when it gets into "issues with how people should act," but you can comment on how men and women shouldn't interfere and expect to retain credibility.

It's a double standard because when feminism comments on people "should act," it loses credibility.

But when you comment on how people "should act," you are saying so as if you had credibility.

Either something loses credibility when it talks about issues like "how people should act" or it doesn't. But if you maintain that feminism loses credibility when it talks about people should act but you don't when you talk about how people should act, then you are applying two different standards to the same thing, depending on who is doing it. You hold yourself and feminism to two different standards.
This was completely ignored. Of course, after being accused of engaging in "antics those who choose not to debate the topics."





I also find it confusing that you come back at this point and say:

For me, I have found that men cannot fundamentally be male and 'allowed to be feminist' thru' and thru, at the same time. But we can be egalitarians, and that reaches far beyond, I believe. I not only think uberrobonomicon4000 was very brave to run this thread. I think that, fundamentally, he is right.

If this was a real debate, he would have to win my vote
After this dialogue 6 days ago:

LOL did you catch that he said that a man CANNOT be a feminist?

Do you agree or disagree?

Hi.......... I agree that a man can be a feminist.. I think a man can choose to call himself anything he feels happy with, or correct with, so I am comfortable in accepting a feminist male as is. And so I feel that a man CAN be a feminist by title. And I feel that a woman, a feminist, could accept an equal rights activist male as an egalitarian. Both males having similar tenets in the area of female rights, but one choosing a title showing more focus upon that, whilst the other choosing to focus upon equal rights in a whole mass of varying areas. Both could, for instance, walk in a pro-feminine parade, or whatever.

But I feel close to Uberonon.... in his choice of title for equality tenets.

Hey, I'm all for a man being able to identify himself however he wants. More power to him.

Where in your position are you in agreement with the proclamation that a man CANNOT be a feminist, however?

I think I have just answered this one post up...... or two osts up, maybe.

So, over the course of six days you went from agreeing that men "I agree that a man can be a feminist.. I think a man can choose to call himself anything he feels happy with, or correct with, so I am comfortable in accepting a feminist male as is." to "For me, I have found that men cannot fundamentally be male and 'allowed to be feminist' thru' and thru, at the same time."

I guess a male can be a feminist, by but title only, or something? So much for simple...


Er - one who embraces the philosophy and cause of feminism is a feminist. I don't know how I can make it any simpler for you.

You don't have to be Christ to be Christian either.

Apparently twelve words isn't simple enough, Alceste.
 

Wherenextcolumbus

Well-Known Member
I can totally relate. The idea that any strange man offering a teenage girl a lift could mean anything other than an extremely heightened risk of sexual assault is completely alien to me. I thought everybody knew there are no good samaritans prowling around looking for teenage girls who only need a lift home.

Thanks and I can guarantee you he wasn't trying to "help" me I wasn't in any trouble and it was a sunny afternoon, he was giving me the eye and told me to get in his car.
Funnily enough it happened again to me yesterday, seriously, just went out for 20mins, and some guy "couldn't find the road he was looking for" I said I don't know that road, he tried to make the conversation longer by asking "are you sure, it's meant to be around here" full on grinning at me, I said I don't know and walked off, I was thinking "this guy is going to follow me isn't he?" Yep he did, slowed down next to me "do you want me to drop you." No no I don't.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Whatever you lose by being suspicious of strange men offering you lifts is nothing compared to what you're likely to lose by hopping in the car.

It amazes me you're not aware of those risks at all, or that you think a teenage girl should ever hop into a car with a strange man in the middle of the night for any reason.

Honestly, she was safer walking.

I was answering your prejudices about strange, prowling, etc.

I won't need too many lessons from you in basic security, since I taught 'security' as a subject for many years. Risk assessment was bread-and-butter for me.

And although it was not my area or expertise, I reckon I've arrested more sexual offenders (by chance) than you..... are you an armchair expert by any chance?

Oh..... I think I'm done here, can discover no more, all save a 'last post'.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
When did I claim intellectual complexity? I find it amazing that (some) people passively refer indirectly about the person that are directly addressing.

BTW, I almost always responds, when someone addresses me. You addressed me and asked me about anarchism, then responded to me about something about complexity, and then responded with a disregarding anecdote about conversations you have with women and what not. So was there a point about asking me about my how content I am or or not? I mean, I'm sorry you think points that are never stated and are masked in non sequitur questions are somehow the 'most simple questions and points.'

Classist being someone who discriminates against someone because of their social or economic class, then no, I am not a classist. I would not found a club and insist on controlling who could join; as evidenced by the fact I have never founded a club at all in the first place. As for the second question, I have no idea what to 'operate an exclusive world' means. Are you asking, if I had the option, would I have, like, my own Earth where I control all the physics of that Earth or something, so that I could control others in some weird abstract manifestation? No, I don't think so. Would I start a thread and insist that you would decide who could play or debate? If I wanted to limit a thread to a particular discussion of people, I would be it in the correct thread. Like, if I wanted a Muslim only thread, I would likely put it in the same-faith debates. I'm actually in the process of trying to start the first 'private debate' on the thread since, they are new and all and never been tried. So, to answer your question... yea, I suppose I would since out of the couple hundred threads I'm started, I'm sure a handful have stipulations about who I am asking specifically to debate.

But, I'm really not sure where any of this going. I'm sorry that your point is lost to me. Perhaps it is just so simple that my mind just simply can't see it. I must be one of those guys who have over-intellectualized the world to a degree that I've lost out on some fundamental happiness or satisfaction that I guess others are all in on because they've found ways to narrate-- to themselves-- the world and their experiences in the simplest ways possible, and, admittedly only find value in the simplest of explanations, and that complex explanations are just false by vice of being inconveniently complex.

Well, I believe what I said to be true, which means that what you said what also be true. But I still hold there is little regard in the assessment of how debates should be conducted. For one, I find it hilarious that this is considered a winning debate:

This was completely ignored. Of course, after being accused of engaging in "antics those who choose not to debate the topics."

I also find it confusing that you come back at this point and say:

After this dialogue 6 days ago:

So, over the course of six days you went from agreeing that men "I agree that a man can be a feminist.. I think a man can choose to call himself anything he feels happy with, or correct with, so I am comfortable in accepting a feminist male as is." to "For me, I have found that men cannot fundamentally be male and 'allowed to be feminist' thru' and thru, at the same time."

I guess a male can be a feminist, by but title only, or something? So much for simple...

Apparently twelve words isn't simple enough, Alceste.

So many words, such a complicated stance, about such a simple fact discovered.

I've got a theory..... The shortest posts can have the most impact, and be most memorable for the majority. Now....... just how many do you reckon will remember all that post, stuffed together with all those quotes, many not mine?

I'm done. Need to move on. Pastures anew.....

Peace
 

dust1n

Zindīq
So many words, such a complicated stance, about such a simple fact discovered.

I've got a theory..... The shortest posts can have the most impact, and be most memorable for the majority. Now....... just how many do you reckon will remember all that post, stuffed together with all those quotes, many not mine?

I'm done. Need to move on. Pastures anew.....

Peace

My intentions weren't to have the most impact or to be the most memorable for the most number of people.

I guess I'll just assume all those loaded questions your threw my way didn't work out how you planned or wanted.

Good day, bud.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
I was answering your prejudices about strange, prowling, etc.

I won't need too many lessons from you in basic security, since I taught 'security' as a subject for many years. Risk assessment was bread-and-butter for me.

And although it was not my area or expertise, I reckon I've arrested more sexual offenders (by chance) than you..... are you an armchair expert by any chance?

Oh..... I think I'm done here, can discover no more, all save a 'last post'.

It's not prejudice, it's just common sense. If you don't want to have to fend off unwanted sexual advances, don't get into any situation where you are alone with a man you don't know. Even if only one guy in ten is a creeper, those odds still suck, and when it comes to random guys saying "hop in my car" the ratio is way higher than that.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
You understand me. :yes:

I'll supply the sauce.

0004116700879_500X500.jpg
 
Top