It is likely disappointing news for old school bra-burners and Gloria Steinham-inspired activists.
"Has feminist become a dirty word?"demands a new Economist/YouGov Poll released Wednesday.
"Feminism is a mixed bag in the eyes of most Americans. Overall, 28 percent consider themselves to be feminists, 72 percent do not," the findings And about that insult.
"It is negative associations people carry regarding feminism that causes Americans to shy away from the label. People are twice as likely to consider calling someone a feminist to be an insult (23 percent) rather than a compliment (12 percent)," the poll says.
What with man-bashing and the erosion of the traditional masculine and feminine roles or family structure, Americans also apparently associate feminism with things other than, say, equal rights - and it is problematic.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2013/may/1/liberated-72-percent-americans-say-theyre-not-femi/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2013/may/1/liberated-72-percent-americans-say-theyre-not-femi/)
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1-ps.googleusercontent.com%2Fhk%2FBfQo-uol7YHmiDPfynHaUJ2ABp%2Fwww.youngcons.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F01%2F625x833x142.jpg.pagespeed.ic.kxsdpWN2sJz0uBe21bb0.jpg&hash=e0bc3da7e01309f40ee496c6bacd8d6031467bc4)
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4-ps.googleusercontent.com%2Fhk%2FBfQo-uol7YHmiDPfynHaUJ2ABp%2Fwww.youngcons.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F01%2F493x370x1.png.pagespeed.ic.RJeQg4TpWahaitdOUXLj.jpg&hash=6ce9fdab10c3bb6e0b9202f1de1b95f2f18a8aad)
Feminism was never really that popular. It is just that Feminism has been promoted by the Entertainment Industry, the MSM, and the Democrat party, well out of proportion to its actual acceptance.
We are seeing the same thing with homosexuality/lesbianism. Despite the fact that homosexuals make up (at most) 1% of the populace, there is hardly a T.V. show, movie, or other form of entertainment which doesn't have at least one "sympathetic" gay character.
Their presence in and contribution to society is vastly over represented.
Quote from: Darth Fife on January 11, 2015, 01:35:34 PM
Feminism was never really that popular. It is just that Feminism has been promoted by the Entertainment Industry, the MSM, and the Democrat party, well out of proportion to its actual acceptance.
Agreed. Only an 'awareness' of sexism needs an occasional boost, if no traditional family-structure has provided a blueprint for an individual's adulthood.
Feminism is like the NAACP. They lost all credibility when they went political and chose sides.
That's because the "feminist movement" tangled themselves up with the far left a long long time ago and anybody knows that liberalism/progressivism/socialism/communism always trumps feminism, always. Feminists are just a voting bloc for the left.
I've always found it rather ironic that the results of the "feminist" movement has resulted more in the masculinization of women. Like most humanist progressive agendas, the name applied is just one more of their lies.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on January 11, 2015, 05:27:20 PM
Feminism is like the NAACP. They lost all credibility when they went political and chose sides.
Both were political from their very beginning.
Quote from: zewazir on January 12, 2015, 06:45:55 PM
I've always found it rather ironic that the results of the "feminist" movement has resulted more in the masculinization of women. Like most humanist progressive agendas, the name applied is just one more of their lies.
Well, the object of the feminist movement was never to 'feminize' women. The object was always to emasculate men. If that required women who looked like drill sergeants... well, OK.
Quote from: Darth Fife on January 12, 2015, 06:57:59 PM
Both were political from their very beginning.
They didn't choose a side.
Quote from: TboneAgain on January 12, 2015, 07:09:54 PM
Well, the object of the feminist movement was never to 'feminize' women. The object was always to emasculate men. If that required women who looked like drill sergeants... well, OK.
You are describing the REAL objective of the feminist movement. The ADVERTISED objective was/is supposedly to give women "equal opportunity". In the 50s it was about women, who had been occupying traditionally male jobs during WWII, continuing their career oriented focus in place of home and child rearing. (And the condition of today's youth is testimony to the unintended consequences of that particular ideology...) In the 60s it was about "gender equality", in which women should be treated the same as men.
But when they found out the reality that there are simply things that men are better suited for than are women, both physically and emotionally, (with the exception of a few outliers), they followed the typical humanist progressive answer to equality: least common denominator. They couldn't give women dicks, (metaphorically) so they decided to take them away from men.
Quote from: zewazir on January 12, 2015, 07:33:48 PM
You are describing the REAL objective of the feminist movement. The ADVERTISED objective was/is supposedly to give women "equal opportunity". In the 50s it was about women, who had been occupying traditionally male jobs during WWII, continuing their career oriented focus in place of home and child rearing. (And the condition of today's youth is testimony to the unintended consequences of that particular ideology...) In the 60s it was about "gender equality", in which women should be treated the same as men.
But when they found out the reality that there are simply things that men are better suited for than are women, both physically and emotionally, (with the exception of a few outliers), they followed the typical humanist progressive answer to equality: least common denominator. They couldn't give women dicks, (metaphorically) so they decided to take them away from men.
Everything -- EVERYTHING -- the Left does comes down to that. It always comes down to taking from some hated (by the Left) group to supply some favored group.
Quote from: Darth Fife on January 12, 2015, 07:19:17 PM
Your evidence for that is...
When the NAACP started out did they just defend and support black Liberals? Did the feminists just want equal pay for Democraat women or all women?
Against my wishes, my mom forced me to allow my sister into my Jr. Marines club. She didn't have any problem doing 'boy' stuff, but the rest of time she and my friends constantly argued about unrelated nefaria. That's what I couldn't get my mom to understand. Feminists are in the same boat as she was. Guys like to be superficial. Girls like to deeply engage.
Quote from: kit saginaw on January 12, 2015, 08:07:45 PM
Against my wishes, my mom forced me to allow my sister into my Jr. Marines club. She didn't have any problem doing 'boy' stuff, but the rest of time she and my friends constantly argued about unrelated nefaria. That's what I couldn't get my mom to understand. Feminists are in the same boat as she was. Guys like to be superficial. Girls like to deeply engage.
As I stated, for the Left, it's all about taking from those who have and distributing to those who don't. But even more, there's a need to level the playing field when it comes to thought, to ideas, to attitudes. Feminists especially, and those on the Left generally, constantly assert that there are no actual differences between men and women. The Left seeks to steal what only the Left sees as a superior level of legitimacy from men, to redistribute it to women. We are asked to consider ridiculous assertions such as the notion that women, on average, are the physical equals of men, on average. The other assertions are all just that idiotic.
It's difficult for me to conceive of a more fundamentally stupid point of view.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on January 12, 2015, 07:52:53 PM
When the NAACP started out did they just defend and support black Liberals?
They took a political stand that was in opposition to the predominate political norm of the day.
QuoteDid the feminists just want equal pay for Democrat women or all women?
Weigand, a lecturer at Smith College, shows that modern feminism is a direct outgrowth of American Communism. There is nothing that feminists said or did in the 1960's-1980's that wasn't prefigured in the CPUSA of the 1940's and 1950's. Many second-wave feminist leaders were "red diaper babies," the children of Communists. http://www.savethemales.ca/000180.html (http://www.savethemales.ca/000180.html)
The bottom line is liberalism on its own does not sell. Therefore, all these fringe movements move in and try to pass off liberalism off under the guise of feminism, climate change, etc;. It is nothing but liberalism.
It took quite a long time (a generation) for women to "get it" ; that what was being sold as "feminism" was not what they (still) think of in support of equality! Any mass morement to promote women's issues was bound to gather the appeal of most women. So many, took the bait; Hook, line and sinker. Now, many of those have "grown up" and raised childen (boys and girls) of their own. They are still interested in women's issues (including women's rights) but they are rejecting the radical, left wing ideology of what has been "the women's rights movement; aka feminism). I think it's wide open for a new Women's Movement; one which doesn't require a pledge of alliegance to the Hag!
Quote from: The Boo Man... on January 12, 2015, 07:52:53 PM
When the NAACP started out did they just defend and support black Liberals? Did the feminists just want equal pay for Democraat women or all women?
common enemy of my enemy - caucasian Christian conservative older successful fellas. This becomes the basis for the eventual character of all of these the groups.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on January 11, 2015, 05:27:20 PM
Feminism is like the NAACP. They lost all credibility when they went political and chose sides.
Gender politics is gender politics. They ALWAYS chose a side: that of women (whether or not other women believed or cared to listen to whatever they proposed). The NAACP comparison meets that criteria.
Not that blacks are wrong to have groups promoting their agenda. It's when whites try to do the same that the left erupts. Meanwhile, U.S. census and other data shows that not later than 2050, whites will be fewer than Latinos. Does that entitle whites to have their own group? No, if you listen to liberals, who insist all Tea Party people are idiots but then voted twice for a racist.
Does a shared hatred for men excuse the feminists' desire to squelch all opinion which disagrees with their agenda?
The ethical issue in free speech is, we do not have to like or even agree with a group's right to exist and discuss among themselves whatever they damn well want to. If they do not break standing laws, then they have the absolute right to exist. If they are violent,
not so. Shut them down and do so now. It's in all our behalf to keep the bombers and terrorists out of any argument, no matter what skin you happen to wear.
/rant
Quote from: quiller on January 13, 2015, 07:38:45 AM
Gender politics is gender politics. They ALWAYS chose a side: that of women (whether or not other women believed or cared to listen to whatever they proposed). The NAACP comparison meets that criteria.
Not that blacks are wrong to have groups promoting their agenda. It's when whites try to do the same that the left erupts. Meanwhile, U.S. census and other data shows that not later than 2050, whites will be fewer than Latinos. Does that entitle whites to have their own group? No, if you listen to liberals, who insist all Tea Party people are idiots but then voted twice for a racist.
Does a shared hatred for men excuse the feminists' desire to squelch all opinion which disagrees with their agenda?
The ethical issue in free speech is, we do not have to like or even agree with a group's right to exist and discuss among themselves whatever they damn well want to. If they do not break standing laws, then they have the absolute right to exist. If they are violent, not so. Shut them down and do so now. It's in all our behalf to keep the bombers and terrorists out of any argument, no matter what skin you happen to wear.
/rant
One can hope that by 2050 pandering to groups for political advantage will become exposed as the divisive method of exploitation that it is and people will no longer buy into it to the extend they do today. I won't be around to see it, but the young heads of mush that are being subjected to it on a daily basis, may open their eyes as they come of age. The next political age may prove to be the age of individual identity as opposed to the current group identity. One can hope!
Quote from: wally on January 13, 2015, 08:10:37 AM
The next political age may prove to be the age of individual identity as opposed to the current group identity. One can hope!
Individual identity and individual privacy are opposite sides of the same coin, and we lost half that battle the day we started using Social Security Account Numbers as a means of personal identification. We lost more by the ease with which younger people today don't even carry cash, but instead rely on debit/credit cards tracking their every purchase. We surrendered privacy until none is left. And now we allow arrogant racist tyrants to further corrode our liberty by insisting on "net neutrality," another name for censoring the same Internet which will become the next tax base until government over-regulation finally tames it.
OT: I object to conservatives using "Repulican," and prefer you find another way to bash that sorry misguided assemblage of spineless lying hypocrites. "Repulican" just sounds so...liberal.
Quote from: quiller on January 13, 2015, 08:21:13 AM
Individual identity and individual privacy are opposite sides of the same coin, and we lost half that battle the day we started using Social Security Account Numbers as a means of personal identification. We lost more by the ease with which younger people today don't even carry cash, but instead rely on debit/credit cards tracking their every purchase. We surrendered privacy until none is left. And now we allow arrogant racist tyrants to further corrode our liberty by insisting on "net neutrality," another name for censoring the same Internet which will become the next tax base until government over-regulation finally tames it.
OT: I object to conservatives using "Repulican," and prefer you find another way to bash that sorry misguided assemblage of spineless lying hypocrites. "Repulican" just sounds so...liberal.
Forgive me for saying that sounds to me like "Fly! That thing will never get off the ground". Whatever the mind of man can conceive; man can achieve!" Evil Muscum see mondernity as the root of all evil; thus justifying their evil actions to return to the 13th century. I dont' know what the world will look like in the future, but I believe in this country and the basic goodness of the American people. Ronald Reagan's vision just synced with my own (and millions of other INDIVIDUALS).
No doubt the road before us is long and the mountain is high, but together we can and will arive at the mountaintop! (who said that? sounds pretty good... :wink:)
Quote from: wally on January 13, 2015, 08:10:37 AM
One can hope that by 2050 pandering to groups for political advantage will become exposed as the divisive method of exploitation that it is and people will no longer buy into it to the extend they do today. I won't be around to see it, but the young heads of mush that are being subjected to it on a daily basis, may open their eyes as they come of age. The next political age may prove to be the age of individual identity as opposed to the current group identity. One can hope!
Highly unlikely.
Too many people make too good of a living by pitting one group of people against another. Look Islam! They have been hating and killing Westerner for nearly 1000 years. Look at anti-Semitism, it has been around for at least twice that long! And despite the horrific acts of Hitler's Third Reich, which the world at the time, universally decried, in a little more than a half a century, anti-Semitism is beginning to gather strength in Europe once more.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Quote from: Darth Fife on January 13, 2015, 02:05:06 PM
Highly unlikely.
Too many people make too good of a living by pitting one group of people against another. Look Islam! They have been hating and killing Westerner for nearly 1000 years. Look at anti-Semitism, it has been around for at least twice that long! And despite the horrific acts of Hitler's Third Reich, which the world at the time, universally decried, in a little more than a half a century, anti-Semitism is beginning to gather strength in Europe once more.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
I'm more concerned about Americans in America (which is the shining city on the hill, which histoicaly has served as a beacon of hope for the rest of the world). The rest of the world will only follow our lead, if we have a positive message that others want to follow. I understand your frustration and your apparent sense of hopelessness. However, 2014 was a great victory for us and our new Congress hasn't even begun working. I think we'll have a new begining!