What Does "Feminism" Mean to You?

[Sir Doom]

First, why can't women join special forces? I'm curious to read your answer why it's a reality. Perhaps the answer you gave was sexist. It doesn't mean you're a bad person, but it can mean your view of women's abilities might be skewed.

I used to ask this question a lot when I was in the US Infantry. Now, its not Special Forces by any means, but its still combat arms and still men only. I got the same answer pretty much every time. Apparently, when men see a woman in danger they suddenly forget all of their training, lose their mind and want to 'save' the woman. Essentially, the same answer GI Jane was giving (which is one of the many reasons I hate that stupid movie with a passion).

Here is the reality. A soldier is expected to save his fellow soldiers anyway. That's kind of the point. I had buddies in the infantry that I would have shot my commander in the face to save. How would a woman being there change that? It wouldn't. Its an outdated misconception that will NEVER go away so long as we don't just pull the trigger and let it happen.

For my part, if you are shooting in the same direction as me, then not only will I welcome your presence on the battlefield. I desire it. I want you there. There were plenty of soldiers I knew that were useless as infantry. And plenty of women I've met that wouldn't have been. Makes no sense to exclude anyone that has the desire and the ability, but allow someone that has no desire and can't hack it just because his junk swings.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I used to ask this question a lot when I was in the US Infantry. Now, its not Special Forces by any means, but its still combat arms and still men only. I got the same answer pretty much every time. Apparently, when men see a woman in danger they suddenly forget all of their training, lose their mind and want to 'save' the woman. Essentially, the same answer GI Jane was giving (which is one of the many reasons I hate that stupid movie with a passion).

Here is the reality. A soldier is expected to save his fellow soldiers anyway. That's kind of the point. I had buddies in the infantry that I would have shot my commander in the face to save. How would a woman being there change that? It wouldn't. Its an outdated misconception that will NEVER go away so long as we don't just pull the trigger and let it happen.

I can see where you're coming from.

For my part, if you are shooting in the same direction as me, then not only will I welcome your presence on the battlefield. I desire it. I want you there. There were plenty of soldiers I knew that were useless as infantry. And plenty of women I've met that wouldn't have been. Makes no sense to exclude anyone that has the desire and the ability, but allow someone that has no desire and can't hack it just because his junk swings.

Thank you.

 

[Mr. Skittles]

First, why can't women join special forces? I'm curious to read your answer why it's a reality. Perhaps the answer you gave was sexist. It doesn't mean you're a bad person, but it can mean your view of women's abilities might be skewed.

Second, I've taken women's studies in college, too. In one class, an entire mid-term was focused on the writings of Simone de Beaviour's "The Second Sex." As critical as the Second Wave of feminism was of work opportunities were for women, none of the women nor the professor complained or badgered men. In fact, the men who took the course were welcomed for their perspective on feminism in the then-1990's. Back then, we were just seeing the dawn of Third Wave Feminism.

Lol typical female answer (no offense) as you said "perhaps your response was sexist."

In actuality I said because the military believes physiologically a woman a trained woman in comparison to a trained man is inequal and this is not my words but of the words of many recruiters of the US military. The main theme of any special forces unit is to see how dedicated you are and whether or not you can exercise mind over matter. I've seen grown men cry doing just an hour of Navy SEAL training out here in San Diego. I think there are real physiological differences that put men ahead of women. Its not sexist to think so.

BTW before you bite my head off for the "typical female" comment I am referring to women who are defensive about a man who thinks that immediately what is said is feminist

 

[Mr. Skittles]

I led several discussions with men-only in our meditation group a couple of years ago, and asked questions on their views concerning books like 'The Myth of Male Power." I even started a thread here on it, and continue to listen, since I have a husband and three teenaged boys that I love and care for and wish for their well-being.

Presume much?

Leading a discussion on "The Myth of Male Power" is not the same as taking a woman's studies course. Like I said 120 people both courses (I estimate because it could've been more).

I felt like it was a Sesame Street song: "Men do this, men do that, wahh wahh wahh, wahh, wahh, wahh"

me and the other guys are like "how can women expect equality if they're badgering men and any criticism is considered sexist?"

One of the guys even brought up the fact (excuse me theory) that a females participstion in sexual objectification means she vicariously promotes it. OMG did he get reemed a new anal canal.

"Isn't prositutes sexual objectification?"

"No a woman can do what she wants with her body!"

Double Standards!

 

[Me Myself]

So my point is how can feminism teach equality while badgering the other and yes I took two courses of feminist philosophy and women's studies and yes they do badger men I was there lol.

Would you talk about that?

 

[Mr. Skittles]

Would you talk about that?

Its been awhile but back in 2006 I had to complete two general ed courses at UCLA one women's studies and since I was a philosophy major one feminist philosophy course. Each lecture had over 100 people. The only author of both course I remember was Catherine Mackinnon who even thought soft porn was sexual objectification. Majority of lecture was spent discussing what the professor was looking around campus, newspapers, billboards. The whole time she was lecturing women on not allowing men to overrun relationships.

I was like "is this a counseling session or a class?" Pretty much in that semester majority of the women were just badgering men.

 

[painted wolf]

I've taken a philosophy of feminism course. I've taken a woman's study course (all course to fulfill my general education requirements lol). Your talking about over 120 people in one lecture. All the women do in those courses was complain complain complain. I was 1 of 5 guys in those courses. I even argued with one girl on the movie "G.I Jane" and why in reality women couldn't join special forces (not saying no women can't but for physiological reasons at this time I don't see it possible). She got mad and called me sexist.

So my point is how can feminism teach equality while badgering the other and yes I took two courses of feminist philosophy and women's studies and yes they do badger men I was there lol.

I'm sure that will come as a surprise to all the women serving in special forces around the world. :sarcastic

wa:do

 

[waitasec]

Leading a discussion on "The Myth of Male Power" is not the same as taking a woman's studies course. Like I said 120 people both courses (I estimate because it could've been more).

I felt like it was a Sesame Street song: "Men do this, men do that, wahh wahh wahh, wahh, wahh, wahh"

me and the other guys are like "how can women expect equality if they're badgering men and any criticism is considered sexist?"

One of the guys even brought up the fact (excuse me theory) that a females participstion in sexual objectification means she vicariously promotes it. OMG did he get reemed a new anal canal.

"Isn't prositutes sexual objectification?"

"No a woman can do what she wants with her body!"

Double Standards!

here's a thought...
why not deal with individuals rather than say, 'how can ALL x expect this if some x do that'?

 

[Sir Doom]

Just for the record, there is a massive difference between Special Forces and Navy SEALS. Please do not equate them.

You seem to be talking about the training as opposed to their roles in the real world when you say the 'theme' is mind over matter. You are correct that an emphasis on physical power is far out-shadowed by physical and mental endurance. This, to me, is one of the most important reasons why women should be allowed in. Its not a weight-lifting contest. It's not a foot race. Its an endurance trial to separate those that can hack it from those that can't. And it needs to be the ONLY thing that separates those that do the job from those that don't. If a woman wants to be a SEAL, let her go through the training like everyone else. If she can hack it, put her on a team. Likewise with Special Forces, Delta Force, PJ's, Rangers, Infantry, Combat Engineers, etc, etc, etc. If you can hack it I WANT you doing it.

What other qualifier could possibly matter?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Just for the record, there is a massive difference between Special Forces and Navy SEALS. Please do not equate them.

You seem to be talking about the training as opposed to their roles in the real world when you say the 'theme' is mind over matter. You are correct that an emphasis on physical power is far out-shadowed by physical and mental endurance. This, to me, is one of the most important reasons why women should be allowed in. Its not a weight-lifting contest. It's not a foot race. Its an endurance trial to separate those that can hack it from those that can't. And it needs to be the ONLY thing that separates those that do the job from those that don't. If a woman wants to be a SEAL, let her go through the training like everyone else. If she can hack it, put her on a team. Likewise with Special Forces, Delta Force, PJ's, Rangers, Infantry, Combat Engineers, etc, etc, etc. If you can hack it I WANT you doing it.

What other qualifier could possibly matter?

I must spread frubals before giving some to you again.

Excellent post.

 

[MoonWater]

Leading a discussion on "The Myth of Male Power" is not the same as taking a woman's studies course. Like I said 120 people both courses (I estimate because it could've been more).

I felt like it was a Sesame Street song: "Men do this, men do that, wahh wahh wahh, wahh, wahh, wahh"

me and the other guys are like "how can women expect equality if they're badgering men and any criticism is considered sexist?"

One of the guys even brought up the fact (excuse me theory) that a females participstion in sexual objectification means she vicariously promotes it. OMG did he get reemed a new anal canal.

"Isn't prositutes sexual objectification?"

"No a woman can do what she wants with her body!"

Double Standards!

How is it a double standard to say a woman can do what she want's with her body?

 

[painted wolf]

I must spread frubals before giving some to you again.

Excellent post.

Agreed and got'em.

wa:do

 

[Mr. Skittles]

How is it a double standard to say a woman can do what she want's with her body?

Because if I am a porn director and I have a porn model who is willing to have sex on camera, to a feminist I am objectifying her. Yet the feminist isn't looking at the decision by the model she is looking at the male behind the scenes who is ochestrating the whole thing.

The point is feminist can't say women are objectified by men if there are women willing to objectify themselves. I mean none of these girls have a gun to their head.

Look at pimps. There is a street near my place of residence where pimps are all over. The demean these girls. From what I know some actually come from decent homes. Some actually go to college. But most are convinced that a gaudy flamboyant looking man is out to help them so they sell their bodies. Is this objectification? Yes but these women who are autonomous beings are also responsible for objectifying themselves. That is my point. In the lectures and seminars I have experienced too many women dodge responsibility.

 

[nnmartin]

that's true for sure.

who are the prostitutes?
who are the strippers?
who are the porn stars?
who are the scantily clad models?

These women are objectifying themselves!

The feminists should direct their anger towards them.

Yet another case of PC reverse-justification BS.

 

[MoonWater]

Because if I am a porn director and I have a porn model who is willing to have sex on camera, to a feminist I am objectifying her. Yet the feminist isn't looking at the decision by the model she is looking at the male behind the scenes who is ochestrating the whole thing.

Not all feminists are against porn. I am one who is fully in favor of it.

The point is feminist can't say women are objectified by men if there are women willing to objectify themselves.

Why not? Sure women enable it just as much as men do and I don't like it when some women blame it all on men but how does that translate to not being able to point out that there are men out there who do indeed objectify women?

I mean none of these girls have a gun to their head.

Yup, which is why I'm not against porn. And I will agree that it is dumb for a woman to be in favor of prostitution yet against porn or vice versa, but not all women or all feminists are like that. As I said, many have no problem with porn.

Look at pimps. There is a street near my place of residence where pimps are all over. The demean these girls. From what I know some actually come from decent homes. Some actually go to college. But most are convinced that a gaudy flamboyant looking man is out to help them so they sell their bodies. Is this objectification? Yes but these women who are autonomous beings are also responsible for objectifying themselves. That is my point. In the lectures and seminars I have experienced too many women dodge responsibility.

Yes pimps are a problem but this is more often an issue in situations where prostitution is illegal and thus unregulated.

Just because sex is present doesn't mean it's objectification, though yes a lot of feminists make the mistake of thinking that, they are not representative of feminism as a whole since feminism is very diverse with numerous theories and groups all with their own ideas. It's not one homogenous thing and you and anyone else who is against feminism should really do some research into the different groups and theories that fall under it's umbrella before you dismiss the entire group out of hand simply because some of the women who proclaim feminism leave a bad taste in your mouth. I mean there are a lot of christians who leave a bad taste in my mouth but I don't dismiss all christians or call all christianity crap because of it. Why do that with feminism?

 

[dust1n]

Even the quickest and laziest of glances would indicate that a.) everyone is aware that there are females who objectify themselves and b.) most feminists would indicate that self-objectification is the result of pressures exerted by a patriarchal society.

 

[nnmartin]

but the feminists would be wrong there of course.....

 

[dust1n]

The point is feminist can't say women are objectified by men if there are women willing to objectify themselves. I mean none of these girls have a gun to their head.

Why? If one 50% of women 'objectify themselves', why would that suddenly discredit that women, whether they be of that 50% or not, are objectified by men?

 

[dust1n]

but the feminists would be wrong there of course.....

Of course, you would never actually know until you read it for yourself.

 

[s2a]

"Feminism"

It means that when my wife and I disagree about anything trivial, she usually wins