Positive viewpoints on feminism

[NoJobRob]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

I think the problem with that is that there are groups of people with competing value systems that don't want to work together. In Canada, for example, we are having a problem with an increase in honor killings. There is clearly a conflict of value systems in this case: one that posits women as the property of men and one that thinks women are autonomous human beings with the right to life. Is there room for a constructive solution, in this regard?

The only solution to this is to recognize that women are autonomous human beings with the right to life. Anything else is just idiotic, and archaic. I know there are men out there who still think of women as property, but I honestly believe that, in North America at least (can't speak for other parts of the world), they are a dying breed. Still present, yes, but dying nonetheless. It's just a matter of time until most of them are pushing up daisies. LOL As for the honor killings, well, that's just ph*cked up, and stupid. Don't people know that this isn't the 18th century? Or 5th century B.C.? I think a lot of that mindset comes from having bad parents, personally. They are our first exposure to values...

How about pro-life vs pro-choice? Is there a constructive solution that doesn't blatantly disempower one group at the expense of the other?

Not that I know of, at least worldwide. Here in the U.S., we could theoretically outlaw it in some states and allow it in others, then let people vote with their local tax dollars. Just an idea, flawed as it may be... And just for the record I am pro-choice.

[Lioness]

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

I mean we don't need to open doors for them, if they can do it themselves.

There's something I love about keeping little traditions like this. It's not like saying - you poor weak female, I, the big strong man will open the door for you. It's more of a respect thing. Like putting women on a pedestal as a tradition. I like being on a pedestal occasionally! I don't think this equates to discrimination, any more so than men greeting each other with a fist bump or shoulder bump, when they wouldn't do the same to a woman.

Ever been to a nudist beach? I think it's a wonderful thing to be able to look at a naked lady and not consider it something shocking or out of this world. You can still later get excited about her body when you're in a more sexualised setting. It's not an either/or situation.

Yeah, I thought about nude beaches. But they're not the norm and it's your choice to go there. Suppose fitness centers started adopting unisex locker rooms and showers. Suppose the bathrooms on your job and bathrooms in public building and malls were not designated by gender. Suppose school gyms and college dorms had all-gender bathrooms with open showers. Would we get used to it? Should we?

Men don't have to be chivalrous knights who sacrifice everything for women. If we're going for equality, women should also be able to make those traditionally male sacrifices...That said I HATE war and I totally and utterly disagree with obligatory drafting. I get what you're saying if you say it's a bad thing if obligatory drafting for women means twice as many people get drafted. ...)

More than just the draft, what bothers me is the idea of women going into infantry and other combat arms. Not because women are delicate little things that must be kept out of harm's way. But because IMO, this would compromise military effectiveness. Let's be real. With some exceptions, of course, men are bigger, stronger and faster. There are plenty of things women can do as well, if not better than men; fighting against men on a physical level isn't one of them. Even if a woman can meet the same physical fitness standards required of men (currently, there is a lower standard for women) and want to be infantry etc, I think the gender politics would still be a distraction. We can't afford to lessen our strength in combat - it's life and death, and the fate of a nation at stake.

We are different creatures and not interchangeable in all situations. I think there are still a few things that should be kept women/girls only and some men/boys only.

[Albalida]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

I think the problem with that is that there are groups of people with competing value systems that don't want to work together. In Canada, for example, we are having a problem with an increase in honor killings. There is clearly a conflict of value systems in this case: one that posits women as the property of men and one that thinks women are autonomous human beings with the right to life. Is there room for a constructive solution, in this regard?

I wouldn't consider one person's desire to murder, and the murder victim's desire to live, as a mere difference of opinion. One defining trait about a human right is that everybody has them: free speech, privacy, pursuit of happiness. If the enjoyment of your rights has to end so that mine can begin, then not only do you not have any rights anymore, but neither do I-- I have privilege, disguised as a right.

If someone says Twilight is the greatest love story ever told and I disagree, then I have as much freedom as they do to say what's on my mind. Or roll my eyes and go somewhere else, write in my diary, complain to like-minded friends. And watch/read something I really like.

It doesn't hurt me for them to enjoy their Eclipse / New Moon / Midnight Sun marathon with their friends, and it's actually no skin off their nose if I don't like it. They're not setting werewolves on me to tear my throat out so I can never say another word in detriment to perfect Edward Cullen, and I'm not calling for book-burning, movie censoring, and franchise banning. If that did happen, then one or the other's rights have been infringed upon.

Take the same template and apply it to something more serious...

How about pro-life vs pro-choice? Is there a constructive solution that doesn't blatantly disempower one group at the expense of the other?

If you believe that an embryo in your body is a person who you're obliged to carry to term and support, that you want to birth alive and nurture and watch grow and fulfill their potential, then don't get an abortion.

But don't tell other people what to do with their... not even their kids, because it's not yet only their kids, it's also entangled with the other person's body, which is an extremely intimate thing to presume to dictate, and a very large factor to ignore.

I first mentioned the matter of one person enjoying murder at the cost of another person enjoying their life. However, this isn't the case with terminating pregnancies because for both to live, the host must suffer.

It's quite disingenuous to direct an entire system to force someone to withstand nine months of discomfort, hours of horribly painful contractions, genital tearing, the stress of which has a chance of them dying even with present advances in medical technology. If you would personally go through all that or even die so that your unborn child would fulfill their potential, that would be respected as your choice-- but that has to be a choice, and that means allowing other individuals not to do the same.


Shakesville: You have no rights

Rights are for all. When only some people have them, they're just privileges. And privileges can be taken away.

Think through the consequences of what equal rights for all really means, and you wind up with a system that doesn't look much like what we have now. There's lots more about it here, but this is the bit (paraphrased) that concerns us right now:

The right to control one’s own person is fundamental. Even the right not to be murdered is secondary, since killing is allowed in self-defence.

Abortion muddies the argument only because some people believe the fetus is a person with legal rights greater than those of the mother since it can require her life support. There is nothing to stop women from believing this and living accordingly because there is a right to control one’s own body. Depending on beliefs, an individual's dilemma about abortion may be very complex.

But fair social policies are simple. Either every one can live according to their beliefs, or nobody can.

[Albalida]

Originally Posted by Lioness

I don't think this equates to discrimination, any more so than men greeting each other with a fist bump or shoulder bump, when they wouldn't do the same to a woman.

I like fistbumps. I give fistbumps. I get fistbumps from friends both male and female (although one guy will insist on high fiving my fistbump, and then we make what's called a turkey.)

I also like being put on a pedestal, but for the right things-- and something I was born into that I didn't have a hand in dictating, is not the right reason to be put on a pedestal.

Suppose school gyms and college dorms had all-gender bathrooms with open showers. Would we get used to it? Should we?

Yes, and yes, unless it's literally open like a hot springs style baths and its winter. Then it might just be unhealthy.

fighting against men on a physical level isn't one of them.

What about pushing a button to drop a bomb from a plane?

I think the gender politics would still be a distraction. We can't afford to lessen our strength in combat -

We can't afford to lessen strength in combat by cutting the number of the possible enlistment by half. Gender politics is a distraction that lessens strength in combat, because gender politics still exist, because we perpetrate gender politics.

We are different creatures and not interchangeable in all situations. I think there are still a few things that should be kept women/girls only and some men/boys only.

We're interchangeable in many more ways than you presume.

[ZephyrusX]

I agree. Nicely said. My questions were more rhetorical than anything else.

Originally Posted by Albalida

I wouldn't consider one person's desire to murder, and the murder victim's desire to live, as a mere difference of opinion. One defining trait about a human right is that everybody has them: free speech, privacy, pursuit of happiness. If the enjoyment of your rights has to end so that mine can begin, then not only do you not have any rights anymore, but neither do I-- I have privilege, disguised as a right.

[Albalida]

Mostly stolen from the irrepressible Melissa McEwan, since your rhetoric is something that many others offer in all sincerity, so it certainly deserved to be addressed

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

I agree. Nicely said. My questions were more rhetorical than anything else.

[Cado]

Originally Posted by Lioness

There's something I love about keeping little traditions like this. It's not like saying - you poor weak female, I, the big strong man will open the door for you. It's more of a respect thing. Like putting women on a pedestal as a tradition. I like being on a pedestal occasionally! I don't think this equates to discrimination, any more so than men greeting each other with a fist bump or shoulder bump, when they wouldn't do the same to a woman.

And why is it good or desirable to put someone on a pedestal purely because of their genitals? If anything I think that's responsible for a good many of our problems in society. No one should be given respect they haven't in some way earned.

Yeah, I thought about nude beaches. But they're not the norm and it's your choice to go there. Suppose fitness centers started adopting unisex locker rooms and showers. Suppose the bathrooms on your job and bathrooms in public building and malls were not designated by gender. Suppose school gyms and college dorms had all-gender bathrooms with open showers. Would we get used to it? Should we?

I fail to see how it's a bad thing. Yeah, it'd be uncomfortable out of the gate given the society I grew up in, but I wouldn't be at all opposed to it nor do I think there's any valid reason to be on the basis of gender alone.

More than just the draft, what bothers me is the idea of women going into infantry and other combat arms. Not because women are delicate little things that must be kept out of harm's way. But because IMO, this would compromise military effectiveness. Let's be real. With some exceptions, of course, men are bigger, stronger and faster. There are plenty of things women can do as well, if not better than men; fighting against men on a physical level isn't one of them. Even if a woman can meet the same physical fitness standards required of men (currently, there is a lower standard for women) and want to be infantry etc, I think the gender politics would still be a distraction. We can't afford to lessen our strength in combat - it's life and death, and the fate of a nation at stake.

If a woman is just as capable of doing the job as a man then why shouldn't she be on infantry? Perhaps there are fewer women who are suited to the job than men, but with the variety of weapons we use today and the heavy reliance on firearms I don't see any major hurdle that would prevent a woman from fulfilling that role. This reeks of "don't ask, don't tell" to me-the justifications for both seem pretty similar.

We are different creatures and not interchangeable in all situations. I think there are still a few things that should be kept women/girls only and some men/boys only.

I don't see it. About the only thing women can do that men can't is give birth. I'm perfectly happy to leave that to the ladies, but as far as I can tell that's the only hard limitation nature has placed on us. Women can get just as strong as the average man with a bit of work (keep in mind that men aren't naturally strong, they have to work for their muscle too) and I can't think of anything women can do that men are totally unsuited for. We can take care of children, we can be nurses, we can do all the things which are considered "woman's work". The kind of thinking which says otherwise is entirely based in stereotypes.

[Andrew Gubb]

Cado said it for me -- which is good because I don't feel like typing much.

I don't think it matters if women are slightly less strong than men on average. Cause it's an averages thing. I am not a fighter, at least not physically speaking -- never have been, and I think many if not most women would be better recruits for the army than me. I know that women can excel in physical stuff. Otherwise the olympic games would have no women in them.

That said I disagree with women being taken in just because of gender politics. That's discrimination in their favour. If not enough women come to the army to make the army look progressive then maybe society should stop inculcating children to be a certain way from day 1, or maybe they should sort out their rape problem in the military, etc. A merely cosmetic change of a few extra % isn't really doing much for the world.

[Lioness]

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

I know that women can excel in physical stuff. Otherwise the olympic games would have no women in them.

Of course, there have always been great female athletes. But the stars in the WNBA can't compete with the stars in the NBA. None of the Olympic sports I can think of have males competing against females.

I think sports will be eventually be integrated, we're already seeing it in wrestling, and a girl recently made headlines by getting on her junior high football team.

But here's the problem. Let's say the boys and girls basketball team have been abolished in favor of one team for all. I used to be on the girls team and I want try out for the new team. Now I'm going to be competing against guys that have a natural advantage, if only because they are taller. If the players are selected by merit only, very few girls will be able to make the team. If you try to even the playing field; guys with better skills will be unfairly left off the team. I don't think that's fair to the girls or the boys.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by Lioness

Of course, there have always been great female athletes. But the stars in the WNBA can't compete with the stars in the NBA. None of the Olympic sports I can think of have males competing against females.

I think sports will be eventually be integrated, we're already seeing it in wrestling, and a girl recently made headlines by getting on her junior high football team.

But here's the problem. Let's say the boys and girls basketball team have been abolished in favor of one team for all. I used to be on the girls team and I want try out for the new team. Now I'm going to be competing against guys that have a natural advantage, if only because they are taller. If the players are selected by merit only, very few girls will be able to make the team. If you try to even the playing field; guys with better skills will be unfairly left off the team. I don't think that's fair to the girls or the boys.

This seems to have ventured pretty far off the original topic--or at least, content-wise started to focus on minutiae--but there are several answers for this "problem" and it is not nearly as black and white as you make it sound. There is the option of unisex teams as well as segregated teams for those who desire them. There is the fact that there already exists levels of teams and unisex teams would not abolish this--it is not as if those who don't make the top cut wouldn't have the opportunity to play.

Furthermore, this isn't a legislative issue. These are private recreational organizations, with the exception of public schools whose individual boards make these types of decisions. Private interests like that--when the only concern is the interests of the participants (the "boys and girls" as you put it)--do tend to self-regulate decently.

But I feel the most glaring problem with this post is what you haven't addressed: you just took a small point and blew it up into a whole argument.

[ZephyrusX]

I think feminism is about giving men and women equal opportunity in society, politics and economics. There seems to be the idea in popular society that it is about equalism - as in women and men ought to be treated exactly the same - but I don't think that really addresses the point. Then you end up with never-never land people asking irrelevant questions like, 'should men hit girls now during a dispute now? That is equalism!' (You might have to point out that this is already the case anyway ). Feminism is more about giving women the opportunity to pursue social, economic and political power so that they can make the choices that are important to them.

I think the unisex sports thing is a little irrelevant. I don't think the majority of people would actually care if professional sports teams are unisex or not. Most feminist discourses around sports involve giving women the equal financial and political support so that they can pursue atheletic careers. In Canada, for example, there was some controversy over how the women's Olympic teams were receiving far less support then the mens' teams.

In terms of work, on the other hand, I've heard plenty of people make dubious claims about how physical strength 'naturally' segregates men and women into different roles, when in reality, stereotypes associated with those roles (i.e fire workers, police officers) act to reinforce male privilege in the labour market. IF you think you only need brute strength to be a police officer, you are going to fail miserably at the academy, trust me. The type of skills you need go far beyond strength.

I also often hear people make reference to hunter-gather societies to further 'prove' the natural segregation between men and women in terms of work without realizing that this premise is only true if that society conceptualized hunting in a manner that excluded women. Some societies relied on brute strength (spear throwing lets say), which privileged men (and yet, that again depends upon how you are conceptualizing 'hunting'. Is hunting the mere act of throwing the spear or does it involve the whole process of making the spear points, preparing the meat - activities that women did). However, there are some other societites, like some Aboriginal tribes in Canada, that relied on another method that basically involved herding animals (i.e buffaloes) off of cliffs or into traps where they were shot to death with arrows. Women did participate in this form of hunting.

[ZephyrusX]

Here is an earlier post I made about physiological differences and their meaning in a society. I think it conveys the point better - physiological differences can only have meaning in an environment and cannot be spoken about as if they are abstract concepts. Talk about being off topic.

I'm not sure if the link is still working. My internet connection is acting up again.

Social constructionism doesn’t reject physiological differences between males and females. Rather it maintains that the manner in which those physiological differences manifest themselves in reality heavily depends on environmental and social factors. The easiest way of illustrating this is to use examples of hunting and gathering societies. Whether or not hunting is predominantly a male activity not only depends upon how you conceptualize ‘hunting’, but also the methods used and whether or not they are gender neutral. Some Aboriginal communities used a hunting method called the ‘pound’ through which they herded game into a natural trap where they could easily be speared or shot (in other cases, they forced game off of cliffs). Women participated in this method of hunting and others insofar as they provided the necessary materials, logistics and in some cases, the actual act of killing. On the other hand, if you narrowly conceptualize hunting and the method of hunting in terms of brute strength, yes, you are obviously going to find a gendered division of labour for physiological reasons. The point, however, is that the manner in which physiological differences manifest themselves depends upon environmental and social factors. Read the following study for more details.

http://drbeardmoose.com/sitebuilderc...dschapter6.pdf

[Mariana Trench]

I really enjoyed those posts, Zephy.

[aelle]

Originally Posted by Lioness

Suppose fitness centers started adopting unisex locker rooms and showers. Suppose the bathrooms on your job and bathrooms in public building and malls were not designated by gender.

That would be awesome! It would make life heaps easier for people who don't identify within the gender binary, people whose bodies don't fit the sex binary, families (when I was a kid we went to the swimming pool as a family, and unisex changing rooms meant that both parents could participate in the labor-intensive task of getting 4 toddlers showered and changed without trashing the place, which is much easier than one parent), people with disabilities who need the assistance of a helper or guardian who may not be of the same gender as them, and I am sure many more.

I really don't get why restrooms are segregated by gender anyway. What do you do at the sink that needs to be hidden from the other gender, honestly?

Originally Posted by Lioness

More than just the draft, what bothers me is the idea of women going into infantry and other combat arms. Not because women are delicate little things that must be kept out of harm's way. But because IMO, this would compromise military effectiveness. Let's be real. With some exceptions, of course, men are bigger, stronger and faster. There are plenty of things women can do as well, if not better than men; fighting against men on a physical level isn't one of them. Even if a woman can meet the same physical fitness standards required of men (currently, there is a lower standard for women) and want to be infantry etc, I think the gender politics would still be a distraction. We can't afford to lessen our strength in combat - it's life and death, and the fate of a nation at stake.

Er... but women already do these things today. And the global geopolitical situation hasn't exploded. Keeping women out of the military means keeping out 50% of potential talent - why would you do that?
I have a friend who just came back from serving for several years in Iraq as a helicopter pilot and instructor. She rocks. And she made it through bootcamp like everyone else. It would have been such a shame for the army to deprive themselves of her skills on an abstract consideration.

Originally Posted by Lioness

Of course, there have always been great female athletes. But the stars in the WNBA can't compete with the stars in the NBA. None of the Olympic sports I can think of have males competing against females.

Sad thing is, some can. But they are not allowed to. I have a friend who is a mountain runner and very regularly finishes her races first. Well, she is awarded the woman's trophy. And the dude who effectively finishes second gets the general trophy.

And then there is the fact that the gender binary is not perfect, nor is the sexual binary, nor are sex and gender perfectly matching categories. I don't want to live in a world where it makes sense to strip Caster Semenya's right to privacy, to openly discuss the state of her genitals without her consent and to threaten her career just because she may or may not be intersex, like 2% of the population.

[Lioness]

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

This seems to have ventured pretty far off the original topic--or at least, content-wise started to focus on minutiae

Really? What do you think is more important to discuss; I'm willing to discuss whatever. I think the feminist movement has led to some great advances and also unforseen situations that we now have to grapple with, or will in the future; as the justification for gender segregation will be challenged where it still exists. I think it's interesting and very relevant.

BTW I was talking about highschool in my scenario with the boys and girls basketball team. I don't think it's farfetched. In fact it was on the news recently that a boy was suing his school (not sure if private or public) because he wanted to play volleyball. There was only a girls volleyball team at this school. They wound up dissolving the team because, legally, they couldn't discriminate against him, but the rules for competition with other schools in the girls league prohibited boys on the team and they would have to forfeit all their games. I suppose he will sue the league next.

It's also an issue in wrestling. Boys don't want to wrestle girls. If they win, it's seen as no accomplishment by their male peers and coaches, if they lose; it's utter humiliation they got beaten a by a girl. The other issue is, some boys don't believe it's right to physically tangle with a girl for religious reasons, and I think the huge unspoken issue could be involuntary erections in those tight clinches. I know these are what you might call minutia, but I think we'll be seeing a lot more of these kind of things.

Furthermore, this isn't a legislative issue.

Well sometimes it is and sometimes it becomes one. When people file discrimination lawsuits and win, laws get changed. For example, two of the public highschools where I used to live were all-boy and all-girl. A girl went to court because she wanted to go to the boys school. She won and now there are a good percentage of girls there. The all-girls school has so far remained the same, but I'm pretty certain it's now law that they can't deny a boy from going there. I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, but I think there is something to be said for a single-sex school if you so choose. Public school kids there no longer have that option.

[Cado]

Originally Posted by Lioness

It's also an issue in wrestling. Boys don't want to wrestle girls. If they win, it's seen as no accomplishment by their male peers and coaches, if they lose; it's utter humiliation they got beaten a by a girl. The other issue is, some boys don't believe it's right to physically tangle with a girl for religious reasons, and I think the huge unspoken issue could be involuntary erections in those tight clinches. I know these are what you might call minutia, but I think we'll be seeing a lot more of these kind of things.

That already happens. At least in this scenario no one has to say, "no homo."

In all seriousness, if there is a valid reason to separate the genders-and general preference can be a valid reason in private clubs-then I'm sure we can maintain that or implement it. The ideal is to eliminate the gender divide as an assumption. Why should our public bathrooms remain separate? Why should our sports teams remain separate? If the only answer to a particular question is to cite tradition or personal moral codes or religious beliefs then it shouldn't be accounted for when determining what we do on a broad scale.

A lot of what you're saying with the wrestling teams has to do with misogyny and social mores which have been driven deep into our psyche. After a generation or two of unisex wrestling teams it's unlikely to be as big of an issue, and personally I'd consider it a victory if it were no longer humiliating for a man to lose to a woman. Gender shouldn't enter the equation when skill is what matters.

And again, neither sex is inherently stronger than the other. Men may have an easier time gaining muscle as a general rule but for a lot of women the main thing that keeps them from competing at the same level is societal programming which tells them not to, that it's not lady like and thus it's unattractive. Strip that away, let everyone stand as equals who are free to make their own decisions, and a lot of the physical disparities will disappear.

The brain will make up for the ones that don't. People tend to put too much stock in size and raw strength. That doesn't mean a bloody thing if you don't know how to use it. I've seen scrawny children lock grown men into positions they couldn't break out of. If you measure and encourage the development of many kinds of skill then suddenly things aren't so clear cut.

Well sometimes it is and sometimes it becomes one. When people file discrimination lawsuits and win, laws get changed. For example, two of the public highschools where I used to live were all-boy and all-girl. A girl went to court because she wanted to go to the boys school. She won and now there are a good percentage of girls there. The all-girls school has so far remained the same, but I'm pretty certain it's now law that they can't deny a boy from going there. I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, but I think there is something to be said for a single-sex school if you so choose. Public school kids there no longer have that option.

To me that seems fairly ridiculous as I can't imagine that one institution provided a substantially better education than the other, and as these aren't tax funded facilities it seems silly to impose this where segregation is part of the point. I don't agree with the practice but I think people should be free to do it as long as it's not taking away options from anyone else. If all we had was all boys and all girls schools there would be a problem but that's not the case.

Regardless, I don't think it's a major loss, I just think that in retrospect it was a poor use of the court's resources for something that's ultimately silly. That's without knowing the full content of the case-that could very well change my opinion. I don't really care enough to delve deeper. Either way I want to see more casual and relaxed interactions between the sexes and so I'd hope such institutions would be gone (voluntarily) within the century.

[Lioness]

Originally Posted by aelle

I really don't get why restrooms are segregated by gender anyway. What do you do at the sink that needs to be hidden from the other gender, honestly?

You're comfortable hearing what some guy is doing in the stall next to you, or for him to hear you? I think you're in the minority. And what about urinals where things are exposed? I don't think guys are comfortable with this either. I'd love to see a poll on it.

The was some event where the line for the Ladies Room was ridiculously long, so women started going into the Men's Room. The men came running out, all embarrassed. I suppose we could get used to it if we had to. But why should we? Most malls and some big stores do have a "Family Restroom" for dealing with small children and diaper changing.

Keeping women out of the military means keeping out 50% of potential talent - why would you do that?

Women can enlist or be commissioned into all but a few types of units. I think the primary force behind the move to open up infantry, armor and special forces - units that have extreme physical demands and heavy equipment is what I hear one senator advocating - increasing promotions and leadership roles for women in the military.

That should not be the reason. I think there is a valid argument that women should be allowed the chance to show they can do these jobs, but for these very dangerous positions, they should have to meet the men's standard in all qualifications.

That already happens. At least in this scenario no one has to say, "no homo."

[Albalida]

Originally Posted by Lioness

You're comfortable hearing what some guy is doing in the stall next to you, or for him to hear you? I think you're in the minority. And what about urinals where things are exposed? I don't think guys are comfortable with this either. I'd love to see a poll on it. The was some event where the line for the Ladies Room was ridiculously long, so women started going into the Men's Room. The men came running out, all embarrassed.

I suppose we could get used to it if we had to. But why should we?

I recently read the blog entry of girl who wondered how she would be able to defecate at her boyfriend's place without her boyfriend's dormitory mates knowing that it was her. Most posters told her that if her boyfriend's roommates didn't know that girls defecate, too, then it's time for them to find out and get over it.

I've also heard that exposed urinals are uncomfortable whether there are women present or not. So why, in this case, is the right to privacy extended only to women? Privacy should be extended to all individuals equally.

It would be better if everybody were comfortable, and there are different ways of getting there. To my mind, your way targets the symptom of discomfort, and fosters misogyny: cover up women's nipples even though everybody has them, because (inferring the way things should be from the way they are) it's right for women to feel ashamed and for men to be ashamed of them. Next generation, we cover up our ankles again. Generation after that, burqas.

There's another way that targets the cause of all that discomfort, and naturally plateaus at common humanity: everybody has nipples*, get over it.

*barring physical variations at birth, specific chest injuries, or mastectomies, but this is referring more to nipples as inappropriate to show if the rest of the body is female, but completely appropriate if the rest of the body is male.

Originally Posted by Cado

The ideal is to eliminate the gender divide as an assumption.

Exactly! You know what they say happens when we assume.

[Andrew Gubb]

The thread kind of did turn into a debate I'm not going to impose myself if you want to keep on talking but I'll remind people that I'm still interested in hearing positive viewpoints on feminism - specifically not as participation in debate but just as a help for me (and others like me) in opening my eyes. I appreciate all the cool responses so far and whatever new responses you might make. Thanks.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by Cado

I have done my part.

The Dress is in the same room as me as I type this--fits me pretty well too.

[Andrew Gubb]

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

The Dress is in the same room as me as I type this--fits me pretty well too.

Which dress?

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

Which dress?

Personal Development for Smart People Forums - Cado's Album: Misc - Picture

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

Is it really like that? That's just one more hit for me coming to San Francisco.

Wearing a skirt or anything else you like is not a problem in SF. In fact, you can even walk around completely naked in the Castro District!

[Andrew Gubb]

Originally Posted by Angela

Wearing a skirt or anything else you like is not a problem in SF. In fact, you can even walk around completely naked in the Castro District!

I'm coming!

(Pun a happy serendipity)

[Albalida]

Ssandra's thread linking the "Sex Is Not The Enemy" Tumblr (NSFW) is full of positivity. I have a year-old tumblr account where I thought I should trim down my 100 liked/favorited pictures and posts, just so that they would be easier for me to revisit and I know it's ones that I really, really liked. I follow Ssandra's link, and my plan goes down like an iron balloon: 275 liked/favorited posts. Harrumph.

Many of the text quotes helpfully link to their source from which they're quoted: sex-positive articles that are, naturally, strongly feminist in the way that consent is a good thing, not a meddlesome thing. (Strong language warning for that link, but no graphic images.) And challenges the idea that there is only one body type that is allowed to be sexual: conventionally hot. Nope, quite some adipositivity there, women proudly showing off their armpit hair as if daring whoever's behind the camera to say it's not beautiful, and representation of racial minorities.

That last one being intersectional feminism, which the (also swear-word loving) writer of the linked article insists is the only kind.

So, another positive thing about feminism: its principles have become the basis of equality in power struggles that appear to primarily focus on ethnicity, ableism, sexual orientation, and other social justice causes.

[Andrew Gubb]

Thanks for the links Albalida. I didn't much like the intersectional feminism one, I admire the honest passion but the content wasn't very compelling to me. (I mean I agree with it, it just wasn't compelling). I *do* love the pervosexual site though. I'm gonna read all through it.

Though it's not the pivotal point of the article, I really really love this quote from the article you linked:

Yesterday Rowdy and I had amazing sex. It was loving and passionate and messy and rough, the kind of sex that scares the neighbors and soaks the mattress, the kind of sex that left me literally high afterwards, falling asleep spooned around Rowdy and whispering "I'm flying" into his ear.

That's *so* poetic and beautiful.

[Andrew Gubb]

Just checking "sex is not the enemy" now too. I really like that.

[Andrew Gubb]

I'm absolutely in love with this article. The Pervocracy: Economics vs. apples.