Feminism - why is it so despised?

Personally, I think if you truly believe that men and women should have equal rights in all areas of life, then you're a feminist. It's a very simple concept, and I feel no hesitation in applying the word to myself.

However, there seems to be a widespread misconception that feminists hate men, or want women to have greater power than men in society. As a result of this backlash, people often shy away from callling themselves a feminist, due to the word's negative connotations. "Feminism" has truly become a dirty word.

I've wondered how this came to be. Could it be that people believe feminism is unnecessary - that women have already achieved equality (oh, if only!), so by continuously campaigning for equal rights, feminists are actively seeking to belittle men? Do people well and truly believe that feminists are aggro, man-hating lesbians with hairy legs and armpits? Or is there some deeper reason - could it be that people are actually still uncomfortable with ancient beliefs about gender being challenged?

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this issue.

People don't hate feminists as a whole - pretty much every western child is raised as a feminist to some extent now, it's the extreme feminists that peopel don't like. The ones that start fights over stupid things all the time and sue everyone and claim that all men are rapists (e.g this kind). Obviously it's a very small minority of feminists, but those are the ones that always get media attention.

It's the same with a lot of things. For example, 80-90% of Americans don't actually treat politics like their religion and scream and cry and protest over every minor political act, but those people just aren't interesting to talk about, so the media focuses on the two extremes, and to the world trying to figure out what's happening from the news it seems like America is full of nothing but crazy people running around getting into the verge of civil war every time a politician sneezes.

It's probably also the reason that atheists are considered the least trustworthy group in America (according to polls). People have had bad experiences with the vocal minority who are constantly smug and laugh at/harass religious people for their beliefs, so they assume that all atheists must be like that, even though most of them just mind their own business. Ditto for Muslims and their 0.00001% terrorist minority.

Loud fringe minorities in groups get most of the attention, so people assume the whole group is like that. Unfortunately that's just the way it works.

To be quite honest, I don't consider the term "Feminist" to be someone who perseveres for equality between men and women simply because of the wording. It doesn't seem like someone who pushes for equality. I'm not saying I don't want equality or whatever, just better terminology is needed.

I, however, believe that workplace standards should be uniform for genders because in many places they are not. If men aren't able to wear make-up, women shouldn't be able to either. If women are able to have piercings so should men. With jobs like policing and firefighting, heath standards should also be uniform. Women should either be expected to meet the same requirements as men, or the standard should be lowered for both.

Women already have all of their rights. It seems like feminists are just trying for MORE power.

Alright, I'm going to speak from my own experiences with femenists in my own country. Anything I say does not necessarily apply anywhere else or for the same reasons. I will also be typing this in a rush because I'm at work


The reasons femenists are looked at the way you describe it in my country is because there is a femenist party led by people just like that. They've been saying things like "heterosexual women are gender-trators" and "men are like animals". Their leaders have also proposed man-tax and other completely ridiculous things.

While these people aren't - of course - your average femenist. So... why are they in charge of the political party the average femenist promotes? It doesn't make sense!


Also, I do have a little problem with the word femenism, becuase it implies that it's always an issue about women. Think aout it. When was the last time you heard femenists raise the issue of men having a hard time because of their sex?

As of today, men have an easier time when it comes to getting high-position well-paid jobs. And this is usually the big issue the femenists are pushing. I'm not saying it's a bad thing to push it, on the contrary actually. I'm just saying that I've never, ever heard femenists think the other way around, namely this:

If a woman has a part-time job, nobody will think twice about it. However if a man has a part-time job, some people may see him as less able, possibly a bit lazy for not managing a full-time job. And men working full-time jobs sometimes has a sever effect on their family life. Owners of big companies (men) have told people how horrible they feel for being stuck at work on their kids' birthdays, missing the important moments of their lives. This could be just as important for men as it is for woment to be able to get better jobs. Yet, femenists never talk about it, and it makes them seem selfish in my eyes.

Feminism isn't so much as despised, but many people mistakenly believe that feminism has already given women a status equal to men and is continuing to aim for even higher authority. This is not so, but due to the vocal minority and overzealous politically correct regimes, it's not hard to see why people think this.

Women have come a long way since the last century and have gained a multitude of rights, many of these rights being what we should have had automatically and had to fight tooth and nail for over the years. The right to vote, the right to go out and work, the right to own our own property, the right of bodily autonomy and more. Even today, women across the country and across the world are fighting for these rights, even in First World nations such as America, where many women struggle for healthcare regarding sterilization. The right to an abortion is routinely threatened by extreme 'Pro-Lifers', who only this year, killed one of the only late-term abortion providers (Doctor Tiller, whom I made a thread about earlier this year) in their crusades against a women's right to choose.

That is just one example, but it goes to show that women are not regarded as equal when a young man can easily obtain a vasectomy, but it's often more difficult for a young woman to find a doctor willing to sterilize her, despite it being her wish. Many people still think that every woman wants to have a child, and in some cases I've heard of, a woman cannot get sterilized until she has had at least one child(!). Still, just one example, so I'll continue.

In many Western nations, women have achieved a status of equality (or near equality) that hasn't existed before, or has not existed since ancient times before patriarchal religions took root and these belief systems took over and influenced the majority of societies across the world. Despite these persisting beliefs, eventually women gained rights, although in some countries, progression has yet to catch up. In China, many female embryos/foetuses/babies are aborted or killed after birth, because of the preference for male offspring. In Africa, many women are forced to undergo genital mutilation and suffer from the injuries caused, often caused by pieces of dirty glass or sharpened rocks. In Italy, a young girl can be raped and impregnanted, but the Catholic Church will demand that she give birth to the twins inside her and die, or else be excommunicated in disgrace, while the rapist enjoys no such punishment.

No. It's still a long road ahead before women are regarded as truly equal. With feminism, we're getting there though.

Emperor Mateus raises a lot of good points that I agree with. Legal rights aside, do women get the same treatment as men? No, they do not. Hombre de Mundo raised an example about the reactions towards men and women having part-time jobs. Emperor Mateus raised the example about abortion. The point is that men and women are treated differently even today, and even in nations that have a reputation for valuing freedom and gender equality. I, myself, have noticed a trend online: Guys online are taken extremely seriously - perhaps far too much - and every time they say something someone else disagrees with, people snap, tempers flare, and you have a flame war. On the other hand, the online world tends to be much more lenient and nicer with female users on forums...but, on the other hand, they are not necessarily taken completely seriously, and have to endure a whole lot of different crap from the guys. It's one of the reasons why I like to keep you all guessing as to what my gender is. =P

This brings me to a topic (which I may bring up for debate in the future, so please keep the debate about this example off this particular thread, please) that a friend of mine in the United States Navy and I were talking about before. The United States armed forces has a policy of keeping women out of frontline combat where the action would be heavy, and there would be a lot of bullets flying about. But consider this hypothetical situation: A female non-commissioned officer of the United States Army is captured by terrorists in Afghanistan demanding a ransom; to show they are serious, they release a video tape to the press showing the woman being raped. At the same time, a male non-commissioned officer of the United States Army is captured by terrorists many miles away in Iraq, who also demand a ransom; to show they're serious, they also release a videotape of the man being very brutally tortured and mutilated. The question, of course, is this: Who do you think is going to get more media coverage?

Personally, I don't necessarily disagree with the Department of Defense's policy of keeping women out of combat zones. In a world where most soldiers are men, I think it's actually a rather genre-savvy decision; we can also guess and fear what happens when a female soldier is captured by a male-dominant armed force with a lack of respect towards the Geneva Convention. But let's be honest here: Especially in a military force where service is voluntary and the nation doesn't have a draft, every man or woman should know the risks. Every man and woman should know that there is a chance that they may have to suffer or pay the price - some of them great and ultimate - as a sacrifice for their nation. So while I'm neither trying to downplay rape or torture (mercifully, none of them have ever happened to me), I must ask: What makes one more horrible than the other? And why is it that we have such differing reactions to them?

Of course, because he's an enlisted man and thereby forbidden to speak out of turn about policy-making about the Department of Defense (which is also why I will also decline to specify who he is), he didn't (or, really, couldn't) speak much on the issue. He did, however, make a point: He personally, as a private citizen (this part is important, so don't put the DoD on his case, please~), feels that he wouldn't have any problem with women serving in combat roles if they can displace the same weight (meaning they're physically as strong) as men.

So where am I leading this towards, and how does this still relate to feminism? Here's the thing: I believe in legal rights that are universal for both men and women, but I do not believe that - even if men and women are socially treated the same (which is not at all likely to happen anytime soon) - perception should be completely universal. There are simply too many natural obstacles to overcome that make them different. You can't pass laws on sexuality without remembering that women can give birth and men can't. You can't make policy in the armed services without forgetting that men - on average - have more strength, and most of the soldiers out there are also men. It's a natural thing.

I am all for gender equality. I abhor the glass ceiling and I hope these barriers may one day be completely shattered. But, on the same note, I do not feel that feminism means universal equality in all aspects; we should observe them - definitely - in legal rights, but we should also be considerate of the natural differences that we can't change.

Please note that I didn't address why feminists are hated; I think the people above have already explained very well why. I'm just adding this to the debate to fry your noggins. XD

(Sorry if my post seems a bit rushed; I am in a hurry to get somewhere at the moment. >_< )

Originally Posted by Ikana General

Women already have all of their rights. It seems like feminists are just trying for MORE power.

No they don't. Women still, on average, get paid less than men at the same jobs, are less likely to be hired for executive positions, and are assumed to like cooking/clothes/whatever more than men.


Legally, yes, they are equal. Socially? Still a long ways to go, and that's in the countries that have the most equality. In much of the world women are seen as property, at best.




Anyways, the reason feminists are mistrusted is simply the fact that the crazies got a lot of press and because there was a very effective anti-feminist movement in the US that managed to focus all of the attention on the crazies while drawing it away from the inequalities.

Originally Posted by John

Legally, yes, they are equal.

Pretty much. Laws such as hate-crimes applies to women, but not to men. This also goes for race equality. You can be convicted of hate crimes against homosexuals, women, minority groups etc. But if you do the exact same thing for the exact same reason againsta white heterosexual male, it's considered a less serious crimes.

Not in all countries, of course.

Originally Posted by Hombre de Mundo

Pretty much. Laws such as hate-crimes applies to women, but not to men. This also goes for race equality. You can be convicted of hate crimes against homosexuals, women, minority groups etc. But if you do the exact same thing for the exact same reason againsta white heterosexual male, it's considered a less serious crimes.

Not in all countries, of course.

That's not the case in Canada, nor the US. Hate Crime laws apply equally to any group, that's the point.

I will permit you to use the term feminism if I may use the term masculism. Otherwise there must be a better, less loaded term for the fight for equal rights.

I say the term "feminism" is loaded because it inherently proposes that females are the ones at a disadvantage in society, and as such that they need to be brought up to the same level as men, who by the use of the term feminism are assumed to be advantaged in all ways.

I contest this for many reasons. Firstly, even in olden days, it was men who were deemed to have to go out and work, while women stayed in to look after children. Call me sexist, but that sounds like a social licence not to have to go out and put yourself at risk every day for the sake of putting money on the table. I'm not saying it's a social licence to be lazy, I'm saying it's a social licence not to have to go down the coal mines and inhale toxic fumes to put food in your mouth and those of your kids.

Secondly, that a woman will almost always be provided for in divorce settlements rather generously (see every story in the media about a woman who got married to a rich guy, didn't work or contribute much to the relationship, yet still got half the assets just because they both signed the marriage contract). It's even a legal consideration in this country that if the woman enjoyed a high standard of life during the marriage, that this standard must be provided for after the break-up. Bear in mind that in this scenario she has done nothing but sign the marriage contract. On top of this, in the UK we have the law of the presumption of advancement, which means that if a husband buys something for the benefit of his wife, the constructive trust does not apply (this would otherwise mean that he retains a legal interest in the thing), meaning she retains full ownership of it, just because of the perceived duty of a husband to care for his wife. The reverse does not apply - if upon divorce the husband says that his wife bought something for him, she could still retain a legal interest.

Thirdly, women can easily get a man arrested and tried for rape and can ruin his life even if he's found not guilty. A man would find it significantly harder to claim that a woman had sexually assaulted him due to this perception in society that a man would never refuse a sexual advance, even if it actually did happen. In the case of a woman crying rape, you basically need video evidence that she's lying in order to escape the social backlash even if you escape the court trial, because unless some evidence is present, society will still be sympathetic towards her possibly made-up claims and will still call a man scum for "getting away with it". This stretches to domestic abuse as well - a man would find it terribly hard to claim that a woman had attacked him in his own home, and if he did, he would more than likely be made to feel weak and feeble in relation to women because of it. Naturally it's inherent with such intimate offences that happen behind closed doors that they are hard to prove in a court of law, but in both instances, unless there is some clear suggestive evidence to the contrary, the man of the case will be at a greater disadvantage than the woman.

Fourthly, despite my beliefs to the contrary, it is believed that women have it easier sexually speaking than men do. They may get called a slut, but they at least could have a steady stream of sexual partners if they wanted them, and in this country, this is even if they've got a face like a slapped arse. This is, granted, mainly because men are the ones who perpetuate this by being so ready and willing to provide it, but until we can get it into the heads of men that unlike women they can use other things to their advantage (try to find a guy that approaches a woman for sex because she has a sense of humour despite her being hilariously unattractive), I can safely say the field isn't level there, either.

Fifthly, cheaper car insurance. I believe there's a company here in Britain that specifically provides car insurance for women because they're apparently statistically better drivers. Whether or not the statistics say that, I'd like to see some objective justification for the individual case in question rather than the very loose "she's a woman, women are statistically better drivers, so she's entitled to cheaper car insurance".

Sixthly, the entire argument and controversy surrounding sexism itself. People are so scared of being seen as sexist, or being seen as trampling all over a woman, that women now basically could have leeway to cry "sexist!" whenever someone says anything bad about them. You would never get any company such as the one I stated above providing something cheaper for men just because men are statistically better at something, you know why? They'd get called sexist. Obviously in the majority of cases this is retarded, but in a few cases such a perception is still acted upon.

There are many examples of men being at the disadvantage or women being at the advantage, and although there may be more readily available arguments in favour of the feminist side, the point is that there are arguments for the masculists.

There are certain unfair advantages that men have that women don't. There are certain unfair advantages that women have that men don't. There are certain disadvantages one side has that the other side does not. It is unjust to use a term to refer to a fight for equal rights that only takes into account one side of the argument. Thus, until all the feminists can think of a better word, I will continue to call myself a masculist. Feel free to object, I'd like to hear a good argument as to why I shouldn't for once.

Originally Posted by Hombre de Mundo

Pretty much. Laws such as hate-crimes applies to women, but not to men. This also goes for race equality. You can be convicted of hate crimes against homosexuals, women, minority groups etc. But if you do the exact same thing for the exact same reason againsta white heterosexual male, it's considered a less serious crimes.

Not in all countries, of course.

Here in the UK the legislation says that if the crime was committed with hatred as a motive, it will be treated as a hate crime. I forget the wording but what it basically says is whether you're a white guy beating up a black guy, or a black guy beating up a white guy, if the beating up is because your victim is black or white, then it's a racially-aggravated assault, and will be dealt with more harshly than a regular assault.

Originally Posted by Astarael

Do people well and truly believe that feminists are aggro, man-hating lesbians with hairy legs and armpits?

Astreal, we've all seen your cat face pics in the scrapbook, I know you are.

Originally Posted by Avalanchemike

To be quite honest, I don't consider the term "Feminist" to be someone who perseveres for equality between men and women simply because of the wording. It doesn't seem like someone who pushes for equality. I'm not saying I don't want equality or whatever, just better terminology is needed.

I have to agree.the word "feminist" implies to me more that females should be considered superior rather than equal. Why not a work like "equalitist"?

Originally Posted by Emperor Mateus

That is just one example, but it goes to show that women are not regarded as equal when a young man can easily obtain a vasectomy, but it's often more difficult for a young woman to find a doctor willing to sterilize her, despite it being her wish. Many people still think that every woman wants to have a child, and in some cases I've heard of, a woman cannot get sterilized until she has had at least one child(!). Still, just one example, so I'll continue.

This has nothing to do with sexism. There's a reason behind it. Many young women want to have thier tubes tied because they say they never want children. However there have been lot of cases where as they grow up and mature they change thier minds. That's the reason behind it, doctors want to make sure they will be happy with the choice. As for why men can get a vasectimy so easily it's apparently because it's much easier for men to store spem than it is for women to store eggs, meaning men can change thier minds by just pulling out a frozen vial and turkey baster.

In Italy, a young girl can be raped and impregnanted, but the Catholic Church will demand that she give birth to the twins inside her and die, or else be excommunicated in disgrace, while the rapist enjoys no such punishment.

Again, tha's not sexist. The church just believes that abortion is wrong becuase they see it as taking a life. The rapist is sill going toburn in hell for his sin.
[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

I contest this for many reasons. Firstly, even in olden days, it was men who were deemed to have to go out and work, while women stayed in to look after children. Call me sexist, but that sounds like a social licence not to have to go out and put yourself at risk every day for the sake of putting money on the table. I'm not saying it's a social licence to be lazy, I'm saying it's a social licence not to have to go down the coal mines and inhale toxic fumes to put food in your mouth and those of your kids.

This is a good point. Alot of things that are seen as unfair in modern society were seen as the men doing it so women wouldn't have to in older times. Igoes back to chilvalry. There were never any women who would spent time working out, staying in shape. So the men who are naturaly more physicaly fit than women, would do the hard labour, while women would tend to the house and children. It wasn't until Joan of Arc that the idea of women being able to keep up with men was introduced, but by that time it was already engrained deep into society.

Secondly, that a woman will almost always be provided for in divorce settlements rather generously (see every story in the media about a woman who got married to a rich guy, didn't work or contribute much to the relationship, yet still got half the assets just because they both signed the marriage contract).

Paul friggin McCartney

Fifthly, cheaper car insurance. I believe there's a company here in Britain that specifically provides car insurance for women because they're apparently statistically better drivers. Whether or not the statistics say that, I'd like to see some objective justification for the individual case in question rather than the very loose "she's a woman, women are statistically better drivers, so she's entitled to cheaper car insurance".

Same thing here. My brother's insurance was something like $100 each month, while my cousin's was I think $500 a year just because she's a girl.

As it's been stated miltipl times, there is a reason people hate feminism, and it's the same reason people hate religion, athiests, minority rights, republicans, democrats, America, PETA and so many other things. There are a lot of norma people who are part of these. Very nice people who I could get along with quite well and would have no problem wiht. However the loud, ignorant, annoying ass hole are usually the ones who get on TV and accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being evil, hating them, and blaming all the world's problems on them.

People are not equal, it's a fact of life. No one is, and the mor different people are the more un equal they will be in some aspects. I forget exactly what it is, but studies have shownthat men and women are stronger in different academics on average. I believe men are stronger in math, while women are more likely to accel in language. So would it not make sense that on average men get paid more for mathimatical jobs while women get paid for for jobs in languges? This is not to say that some can be stronger than the other in opposite fields and should thusly deserve to be paid more, but I just meaon average.

Originally Posted by Mattocks

This has nothing to do with sexism. There's a reason behind it. Many young women want to have thier tubes tied because they say they never want children. However there have been lot of cases where as they grow up and mature they change thier minds. That's the reason behind it, doctors want to make sure they will be happy with the choice. As for why men can get a vasectimy so easily it's apparently because it's much easier for men to store spem than it is for women to store eggs, meaning men can change thier minds by just pulling out a frozen vial and turkey baster.

See, it may be a difficult choice, but all it takes is to make sure she actually does want it rather than to refuse to grant it.

Again, tha's not sexist. The church just believes that abortion is wrong becuase they see it as taking a life. The rapist is sill going toburn in hell for his sin.

As is the girl for being raped and excommunicated. The rapist could still be a Catholic however, so the act of excommunicating a rape victim for not wanting to have a child born of that rape is basically the church admitting that it would rather have a violent rapist among its ranks than the victim of a heinous crime who actually needs the moral support. If the rapist is still going to hell for doing something wrong, then surely this also applies to someone who has an abortion, and as such they don't need the church to excommunicate her. What you're basically arguing is "oh, God will deal with that nasty rapist, but this girl here? We're gonna deal with her ourselves." If it is so sinful to abort a foetus that it warrants excommunication, then it must also be sinful to rape, and thus a convicted rapist must also be deserving of excommunication. Excommunication is effectively the public declaration that a person has sinned and is undeserving of being a member of the Catholic church, that the church does not approve of such behaviour and will not stand for it. That this has been done to people who have or conduct abortions, yet not, as far as I have seen in the media anyway, in the event of people who commit far greater crimes in the context of society, says a lot about the church really.

This is a good point. Alot of things that are seen as unfair in modern society were seen as the men doing it so women wouldn't have to in older times. Igoes back to chilvalry. There were never any women who would spent time working out, staying in shape. So the men who are naturaly more physicaly fit than women, would do the hard labour, while women would tend to the house and children. It wasn't until Joan of Arc that the idea of women being able to keep up with men was introduced, but by that time it was already engrained deep into society.

I've never seen a woman complain about chivalry, but women being legally prohibited from doing certain things based on such views is obviously unjust - there are women who are much stronger than a lot of guys, especially given the increase in metrosexuals today.

People are not equal, it's a fact of life. No one is, and the mor different people are the more un equal they will be in some aspects. I forget exactly what it is, but studies have shownthat men and women are stronger in different academics on average. I believe men are stronger in math, while women are more likely to accel in language. So would it not make sense that on average men get paid more for mathimatical jobs while women get paid for for jobs in languges? This is not to say that some can be stronger than the other in opposite fields and should thusly deserve to be paid more, but I just meaon average.

Here you're arguing against what I was saying above - we should not see it as a matter of "man or woman", but as a matter of looking at the case based on an individual's merits. Someone applies for a job with particular qualifications, you should not be looking at them thinking "man or woman", but "can they do the job". People are not equal, but this is not because of the distinction between men or women - men are different to other men, and women are different to other women. It is because every individual person is different.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

As is the girl for being raped and excommunicated. The rapist could still be a Catholic however, so the act of excommunicating a rape victim for not wanting to have a child born of that rape is basically the church admitting that it would rather have a violent rapist among its ranks than the victim of a heinous crime who actually needs the moral support. If the rapist is still going to hell for doing something wrong, then surely this also applies to someone who has an abortion, and as such they don't need the church to excommunicate her. What you're basically arguing is "oh, God will deal with that nasty rapist, but this girl here? We're gonna deal with her ourselves." If it is so sinful to abort a foetus that it warrants excommunication, then it must also be sinful to rape, and thus a convicted rapist must also be deserving of excommunication.

I'm not supporting what they do, but I'm saying it's not a matter of sexism. They aren't prohibbiting her from having an abortion becase she's female. It's because they think abortion is murder.

I've never seen a woman complain about chivalry, but women being legally prohibited from doing certain things based on such views is obviously unjust - there are women who are much stronger than a lot of guys, especially given the increase in metrosexuals today.

I have, it's annoing.
And you're right, this doesn't apply anymore, I know a ton of girls who could throwme around like a rag doll. But like you saide, it wasn't originaly looked at as a privillage.

Here you're arguing against what I was saying above - we should not see it as a matter of "man or woman", but as a matter of looking at the case based on an individual's merits. Someone applies for a job with particular qualifications, you should not be looking at them thinking "man or woman", but "can they do the job". People are not equal, but this is not because of the distinction between men or women - men are different to other men, and women are different to other women. It is because every individual person is different.

Ya, re reading it I guess I could have used better woprding. I was more or less trying to say that there shouldn't be a general diffrence between the salaries in men and women, but it would make sense if looking at specific fields there was a difference because men and women tend to accel in different things.

The only feminists that annoy me are the ones who are opposed to porn. What the hell is that about? That's like the opposite of feminism.

Originally Posted by Ikana General

Women already have all of their rights. It seems like feminists are just trying for MORE power.

My speech professor told us about a conversation she had with her youngest daughter the other day.

She told us that she was with her daughter at the mall, where she saw her doctor and said something along the lines of "Oh look, there's my doctor, Dr. Soandso," to her daughter.
To which her daughter responded, "Where is he?"
"She's right there."
"What? Girls can't be doctors!"

There's no reason why women can't be doctors, and yet, at some point this child picked up on the concept that only men can be doctors. This isn't some innate concept individuals are born thinking. This is something we still teach our children. Whether or not this is inadvertent, it's still there, and at a young age we still see children take on gender roles far beyond what is naturally relevant.

Though what bothers me most is that I'm required to take speech for a Computer Science with mathematical emphasis major.

It's the same with a lot of things. For example, 80-90% of Americans don't actually treat politics like their religion and scream and cry and protest over every minor political act, but those people just aren't interesting to talk about, so the media focuses on the two extremes, and to the world trying to figure out what's happening from the news it seems like America is full of nothing but crazy people running around getting into the verge of civil war every time a politician sneezes.

I despise the 80-90% far more than the 10-20% who actually care about what happens to themselves and others.

Originally Posted by Hombre de Mundo

Pretty much. Laws such as hate-crimes applies to women, but not to men. This also goes for race equality. You can be convicted of hate crimes against homosexuals, women, minority groups etc. But if you do the exact same thing for the exact same reason againsta white heterosexual male, it's considered a less serious crimes.

Not in all countries, of course.

Why don't you look up the hate crime occurrence against white, hetrosexual men?

Considering there's a statistic for it, I think it's fairly safe to assume said laws exist. Hate crimes against white, hetorsexual men occur far less often than hate crimes against non-white, non-hetorsexual women or transgenders, but that doesn't mean the law isn't there.

Originally Posted by Mattocks

I'm not supporting what they do, but I'm saying it's not a matter of sexism. They aren't prohibbiting her from having an abortion becase she's female. It's because they think abortion is murder.

And rape is rape. That they blame her for her abortion, for being a victim, but not him for making her a victim, is indeed rather sexist, because they've both committed sins. They clearly see abortion, a woman exercising control over her own body, as something to condemn, yet rape, the act of a man exercising control over a woman's body against her will, as something that is acceptable among their members.

Ya, re reading it I guess I could have used better woprding. I was more or less trying to say that there shouldn't be a general diffrence between the salaries in men and women, but it would make sense if looking at specific fields there was a difference because men and women tend to accel in different things.

This is true, but making it an issue of sexism is indeed retarded, since a woman who IS good at a field generally attributed to the opposite sex should meet no barriers.

I used to also believe that excommunication is the act of condemning someone to hell. It's not. An official excommunication is what the church does to FORMALLY STATE that what the person has done is a mortal sin and will result in hell if not repented of. A rapist is also in this state of mortal sin until he repents, but the Church figures that this is obvious and does not need clarification, and so doesn't bother to make a formal motion about it. ANYONE can confess their sins, repent, and be forgiven. The Church merely STATES that murdering an unborn child is also a sin in the form of excommunication. It states it because it believes that there is misunderstanding of the gravity of the sin among the population, and so the excommunication serves to say "No, this is not okay, it's a mortal sin".

Excommunication means that a person is not allowed to receive communion until they confess their sin to a priest and repent. This is not a punishment, as the Church believes that receiving communion while in a state of unrepented mortal sin is blasphemy, and wish to prevent the person from making their own situation worse.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

And rape is rape. That they blame her for her abortion, for being a victim, but not him for making her a victim, is indeed rather sexist, because they've both committed sins. They clearly see abortion, a woman exercising control over her own body, as something to condemn, yet rape, the act of a man exercising control over a woman's body against her will, as something that is acceptable among their members.

You're making it seem like the rapist just gets off scott free. He doesn't. As Bravo said, he's still excommunicated too. But look at it this way, if a church representative had of known the rape was going to happen, they would have said he would be ex communicated as well if he goes through with it. That's exactly what they're doing for this girl. "If you go rough with this, you will be ex communicated". There's nothing sexist about it.

Originally Posted by Bravo

I used to also believe that excommunication is the act of condemning someone to hell. It's not. An official excommunication is what the church does to FORMALLY STATE that what the person has done is a mortal sin and will result in hell if not repented of. A rapist is also in this state of mortal sin until he repents, but the Church figures that this is obvious and does not need clarification, and so doesn't bother to make a formal motion about it. ANYONE can confess their sins, repent, and be forgiven. The Church merely STATES that murdering an unborn child is also a sin in the form of excommunication. It states it because it believes that there is misunderstanding of the gravity of the sin among the population, and so the excommunication serves to say "No, this is not okay, it's a mortal sin".

Excommunication means that a person is not allowed to receive communion until they confess their sin to a priest and repent. This is not a punishment, as the Church believes that receiving communion while in a state of unrepented mortal sin is blasphemy, and wish to prevent the person from making their own situation worse.

I do not see how this does not apply to rape. Excommunication means putting one out of communion, it means excluding someone from being a member of the church for their actions. What it means then, if they do not choose to excommunicate someone such as a rapist, but do excommunicate someone who aborts, is that they don't really mind having a rapist among their ranks. They are permitting a rapist to remain a part of their church.

If the leader of a country is excommunicated, from a religious perspective this basically means that leader no longer has authority. Excommunication is a lot more than a simple declaration of disapproval. It is a punishment to someone who actually wants to be a member of the church and cares about the church, so the fact that they don't do this to those who commit a variety of other serious crimes, yet do so for people who have abortions whether or not it is also considered a serious crime, or for people who dare to undermine the church's authority, is rather manifestly unjust and highly indicative of what kind of mentality operates behind the institution.

Originally Posted by Mattocks

You're making it seem like the rapist just gets off scott free. He doesn't. As Bravo said, he's still excommunicated too. But look at it this way, if a church representative had of known the rape was going to happen, they would have said he would be ex communicated as well if he goes through with it. That's exactly what they're doing for this girl. "If you go rough with this, you will be ex communicated". There's nothing sexist about it.

Here you appear to be saying that the girl has a choice to abort or not to abort, and is being punished for taking the wrong one, which would be unnecessary if excommunication wasn't a punishment to begin with. But as I stated, he's not excommunicated simply because he's still a member of the church. So if the rapist cares about being a Catholic he knows he won't be excommunicated, only that he might go to hell. He has a choice not to rape, he does so anyway. The church wouldn't need to know he was going to rape in advance and give him a specific warning, if they made it a precedent to excommunicate people who raped, then he'd already have prior warning. There is a precedent for abortion cases, we know that. The fact that there is no such precedent is proof enough that they care more about abortion, about a woman taking control of her own body, than they do about a man taking control of her body, about rape. This is manifestly sexist, and if not sexist, manifestly unjust either way.

I do think the term "feminism" is unnecessary. It seems, like most other terms that apply to groups such as gay rights and the like, to only divide further. The more people make a deal out of it, the more "unusual" it comes off as to society. "There must be something 'different' about it if it's this big of a deal."

The term "feminist" is also a terrible word choice. I don't really know of a better one, but the very term "feminist" implies female superiority, which is not the aim of the group. It's incredibly misleading.

That, and there are a ton of crazy feminists that think men are evil. But that's (sorta) besides the point.