F53
Ladies, do you consider yourself a feminist?
September 15 2016
Comments
-
RHP User
9 years ago
love it, good for you, let's have fun here. I suppose I have become a feminist, but not by the book, I wouldn't know what the definition is, I wouldn't care, but i do know I'm now staunchly supportive of sexuality for women and find myself trying to educate ape men the ones stuck in the dinosaur age, there are plenty of them, it's sad, I feel sorry for them. We all need to respect what others do sexually and give them the space to do that, without judgement. I can't even talk about public sex on here without getting slammed, every single time, the judgement will show it's ugly face. Those people bore me, their sex life must be incredibly boring, but you see, there's a judgement from me, too bad, I get tired of being judged for being sexually free and spontaneous. Why is that wrong? Why can't I form a fast attachment, and have sex without going out on 10 dates first, or that guy being the only guy, or that guy having to be my age, it goes on and on, the judgments are rife. I would encourage more women to be like me, let yourself go, really let yourself go, enjoy the ride and the sexual pleasure, it's fuckin awesome. You only live once, remember that, and you only evolve when you push yourself outside your comfort zone I'm a modern woman who does whatever the hell she wants sexually and otherwise, it turns me on to be random and spontaneous and push the limits, take risks, laugh in the face of politically correctness or what is considered acceptable to the larger population for example having sex with guys 30 yrs younger than me, shock horror gasp, those reactions bore me, as do a lot of people to be honest. For me it's just every day normal, it's not gross or unusual, it's amazing. I think many people need to relax and loosen up, in life as well, which translates sexually, well not always, if they're 'stiff' in life, they're not usually 'stiff' anywhere else haha As a final thing, I'm well aware this is a public forum and if I feel the wrong message is being put out there for young women, or any women, I'll come in guns blazing. We've come too far to be dragged back with the dinosaurs
-
RHP User
9 years ago
no-one is a bigger whore than me, and I'm incredibly proud of that I've come a long way, and I like where I've arrived
-
RHP User
9 years ago
* What Summer said
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Being on RHP has absolutely allowed me to not only find but embrace my inner slut. Every person on here and in the world in general should be allowed to freely express their thoughts, wants and desires without being afraid of judgement. I believe everyone has a right to be treated the same as the next person whether they are male or female shouldn't make a difference. I have learnt so much about how strong women are from reading forum posts and making new friend who think and feel similarly to me. Loving the journey. xx
-
RHP User
9 years ago
But not in a burn the bra sense - I need my bra ! - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Believe in equality.... Fuck yes - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Since 1976 when I was a member of the Women's Liberation Movement Q
-
RHP User
9 years ago
a good story but feminists actually didnt burn their bras at the 1968 Miss America pageant in 1969....we did stop wearing them though 😈 Q
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Im just a girl who likes boys.. - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Joining RHP was a revelation. I could be who I wanted to be and enjoy it ....things I would never have done before I totally embraced. Ive had 3 years of being single and doing what the hell I wanted sexually. I realised I love being dominant, and met my partner who is my match in many different ways. I have no issue with people describing their sex life on here in detail, I prefer to keep mine private, but I wouldnt say that makes me boring. We all like what we all like? ( Im sure a lot of the quieter forum posters might shock us all! ) If we are happy with where we are at then thats great. Yes, I have discovered the inner slut so to speak and I have loved every minute of it
-
RHP User
9 years ago
the feminists would support paying for the same benefits on RHP as the single males/couples have to pay for? ;) Just stirring the pot...
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Quoting 'Summersolstice' Try another: Feminist: someone who supports equal rights for women. Still a firm yes. As for your other question: The Whore/Madonna theory is alive and well here, if only I had a dollar for every time I've seen or heard a man on here comment that he'd not seek a relationship with a woman he met on a sex site... If he was smart, he'd choose one from that site
-
AnnieWhichway
9 years ago
So what benefits do you speak of?
-
RHP User
9 years ago
That misandrist propaganda isn't feminism. Nor is a victim mentality. But the equality of opportunity is..... We SHOULDN'T need feminism in today's world, but like OHS it's an necessary evil* for some. * necessary evil pertains to OHS, merely drawing a comparison to it, not labelling feminism AS it. - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Quoting 'Betty7216' I am wholly and totally a feminist, and proud of it :) I hate that people shy away from owning feminism, try to water it down, or apologise for it. The fact that the term "feminist" has been twisted to mean that someone is anti men, controlling, extremist, etc. does my head in! Perfect example of female conditioning and the patriarchy working well *insert vomit emoji Yep, the Madonna/whore stuffs is alive and thriving, here and in the real world...
-
madotara69
9 years ago
She wants to have a go at it, by all means, be careful. If she has just painted her nails and spent time dressing sexy, done her lips and eyes, then I'd suggest and show appreciation, to step aside and allow me to move that dirty heavy thing for her. Mado Mado Tara xx - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Nah! Why would I if I don't have too?? Would you pay the same for haircuts and clothes ? :P
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Worse than paying for haircuts and clothing - we pay GST on a bodily function? It's estimated that the Australian Government receives $25,000,000 per annum in revenue from tax on sanitary products. Apparently tampons and pads aren't considered necessary enough to be exempt! Because obviously women choose to use this "luxury" item every 28 days. And - because of this additional and unnecessary charge there are women going without or relying on donations to avoid embarrassment and health issues. Can't get much worse than that!
-
RHP User
9 years ago
@softandcurious (and all the other ladies too) dont be mad about outdated laws to match outdated products evolve past tampons, an outdated and silly idea, the risk of disease and illness alone is just crazy check out the diva cup my wife uses it, absolutely she loves it for the first two periods used she wore a pad as well, she thought the idea was awkward and was worried it would leak but she very quickly trusted it completely and only took her those two times to get used to the idea less mess, less pain, more freedom to do stuff and complete outfit selection freedom she has not paid for a single period product in over 5 years it has never failed her
-
RHP User
9 years ago
The cost of essentials for women is ludicrous.
-
RHP User
9 years ago
I believe in equals rights for both sexes, and agree with feminist always if wanting to achieve these, but femenazis is a whole bother kettle of fish - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Quoting 'CandyDelicious' Nah! Why would I if I don't have too?? Would you pay the same for haircuts and clothes ? :P aren't women's haircuts usually more involved than most male haircuts? "2 on the side and finger length on the top" and you're done pretty quickly. I know that men generally pay much more on waxing/laser appointments - I guess thats a fee for the additional manual handling labour :p I don't think it makes sense to really look at the cost of clothes since there is just so much variation within the category - in that respect Soft's example is better since (like condoms) tampons are much of a muchness, whereas a top, blouse, shirt or anything similar is not necessarily some easily substitutable item (until we're in the future and we all wear silver jumpsuits with our star league badges). A nice womens top might cost many dollars, I've also seen the "basics" type shops selling women's tops that don't cost much (similarly men can get shirts from herringbone, lowes or in between). Quoting 'SoftandCurious'Worse than paying for haircuts and clothing - we pay GST on a bodily function? It's estimated that the Australian Government receives $25,000,000 per annum in revenue from tax on sanitary products. Apparently tampons and pads aren't considered necessary enough to be exempt! oh Soft, you had to do it didn't you?! Bring up a topic I can't help but write a massive reply to! :) Toilet paper is not GST exempt. Is toilet paper a luxury item? (even that scratchy greaseproof paper stuff is taxed) What's interesting is that lube is GST exempt ONLY if its water soluble and suitable for use with condoms, so silicon lube isn't exempt - though I wonder if that pjur mixed water/silicon version could claim to be water soluble and avoid tax (maybe time for an excursion to the supermarket, my online searches at supermarkets isn't clear on GST, but wholesale/distributors clearly show KY as GST free) (Yes, this dashing fellow reads govt tax exemption guides on a Friday night - form an orderly queue ladies ;) ) Now in the same category as femidoms and dams, it says harness devices... so is that like the pornstar version of the GST birthday cake? the "strap" is GST free, but the "on" isn't ... unless you buy it as harness+dildo package, then you get fucked on the GST? so much more fun than a boring old birthday cake ;) (and if you thought calling out about tampons had shock value!) IMO (and of most economists) just GST everything, and plow the money you pick up there into bulking out the welfare assistance - it's a uniform application of GST and low wage earners who need assistance to offset the increased cost should receive the help they need. The whole point of GST was that it's a tax you couldn't avoid, so it's arguably fairer by taxing consumption, and raising income tax free thresholds/providing specific welfare payments to lower earners. The argument that tampons are "essential" and should be untaxed makes no sense as a GST doesn't make distinction between essentials and non-essentials that get taxed and that don't. GST distinction of essential/non-essential and luxury/non-luxury is a populist idea that doesn't match with how the tax scheme is designed to work.Things just get exemptions based on policy and incentives e.g. fresh food to drive lower income earners towards fresh food options (or for lots of things, for no apparent reason at all e.g. whether a lube is water based or not). If "essential" was the threshold test - toilet paper would be exempt, but it isn't. You could argue paper isn't essential because you can use GST exempt water to wash your bits clean - but then you could argue that tampons/pads aren't essential when there are other reusable options. GST exemption on those reusable rubber cups would be an easier sell - though the counter would be that it is a one time minor cost so why make an exemption. Maybe add a "low income earner's cup rebate", and one for "paddle/oars" for the people struggling under the GST on toilet paper ;-) Condoms, lube (and apparently harnesses, phwoar ;) ) and sunscreen aren't GST exempt because they like good ol' boys to get plenty of Vitamin D outdoors and then give plenty of D indoors - it's an incentive across society to use them because of their presumably significant public health benefits, and those benefits lowering the burden on the public purse (less cost of disease, babies and cancer). Folic acid is also exempted in the same section. GST is not a "luxury tax" or a "non essentials" tax. IMO "Tax on tampons" completely misses the mark when raised as a feminist issue and there are better topics to discuss in regards to gender equality.
-
RHP User
9 years ago
TLDR - GST isn't a luxury/non-essentials tax; toilet paper is taxed with GST; I read tax law because "forums" ;)
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Just seeking clarification of the taxation of maternity pads as we speak 😝
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Quoting 'SoftandCurious' Worse than paying for haircuts and clothing - we pay GST on a bodily function? It's estimated that the Australian Government receives $25,000,000 per annum in revenue from tax on sanitary products. Apparently tampons and pads aren't considered necessary enough to be exempt! Because obviously women choose to use this "luxury" item every 28 days. And - because of this additional and unnecessary charge there are women going without or relying on donations to avoid embarrassment and health issues. Can't get much worse than that! luxury item it's a joke isn't it and an ongoing issue with male driven units of power, ooh I'm really sounding like a fired up feminist now aren't I
-
RHP User
9 years ago
how do they figure sanitary items are non-essential? Maybe all the women of the world should just not use them one day, bleed freely, everywhere, on public transport, wearing tight white pants, visit a government facility and sit on their white fabric sofa in a short skirt, bleed all over that, just bleed anywhere we like without the use of 'luxury' items to prevent that in the workplace too of course, by the time we walk in to the afternoon board meeting, our clothes are soaked with blood, our white pants are now red and staining everything we come into contact with. We scare small children because we look like a crime scene. We're also getting really cold from wearing blood soaked clothes so need to shower often, losing company time. Women of the world, it's time we took a stand. Shit I can't actually help with that, not much bleeding going on here anymore not this month anyway
-
RHP User
9 years ago
regardless of how the GST is officially added or the motive to create incentives, it's insane what women have to pay for these products. I could have bought the company by now, so they either should be tax exempt or be regulated to reduce pricing. It's a clear imbalance from something women have no control over, or haven't had, and it's just one example. We have so many associated medical issues associated with our reproductive system throughout our life, there are always things happening in our body, it's real, it's every day, it's ongoing, that's the issue I have with the lack of concern for that ongoing cost which is extreme
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Quoting 'Betty7216' Seriously?? Are you a politician? If not, you should be... Here's the reality... If men had a monthly menstrual cycle, tampons and pads would be tax free. And if you bled every month, you might find tax on tampons an adequate argument when discussing gender equality... Women pay more for almost everything - from shampoo to razors to pens FFS! To argue it away in economic terms is to completely miss the point, purposely or not. Men have a DAILY shit cycle, every day, sometimes multiple times per day, shit comes out our arsehole and it needs to be dealt with - and mostly we buy GST taxed toilet paper and then flush it down the toilet. Paying more for razors has nothing to do with government tax, if you choose to buy razors with oversized handles and huge aloe vera moisturising bars... that is your business. Why wouldn't a business charge more for a different product that people show they will pay more for? This despite the presence of cheaper alternatives which do largely the same thing. What is this "women only shampoo"? I walk down the shampoo aisle at the supermarket (or sometimes stop and look at the hair place in the mall) and they all seem equally applicable to me (except the ones which advertise themselves as maintaining rocket red hair, but that's because I'm not an emo kid with a dyed hair streak, if I was I might use that - and instagram my sadness at the price) But back to the GST. It is a taxation scheme designed by economists, and I'm using the reasons economists use for the taxation scheme. I'm not jut parroting soundbites that seem to only make sense for a different countries taxation scheme. You haven't actually presented any reason why it shouldn't be taxed, or established that it is taxed unfairly, and I'm not seeing any examples from you to show why it would be tax exempt if men used them. (If the idea is that these misogynists are just trying to screw over women - don't misogynists tend to take the view that they're the "breadwinners" and women stay at home? why wouldn't they exempt a product that they're ultimately paying for anyway?) Are people sure they're not getting the GST in Aus confused with the VAT in UK? The catchphrases used often match with that used in British articles, and we do get an awful lot of our news items cross posted through british news sites, and the Tampon Tax was a massive issue in Britain. I ask this particularly since people are using words like "non essential", and "luxury". Those terms really don't have much to do with Australian GST, however the British VAT specifically classed tampons as "non-essential" and "luxury items" (in Britain the VAT is also applied to toilet paper, so I don't think they're using "luxury" and "non-essential" in the same way we'd normally use those terms) You mentioned "pens", the most prominent reference to that was in a British "Times" article and quoted in articles related to the British taxation scheme - I think they were also for some fancy coloured pens which they decided were targeted at women, and not "people who want different coloured pens to plain old Bic biros". To be silly about it, "don't be offensive, males also like fancy coloured pens, jog on with your rigid gender stereotypes" ;) I did a little research on Woollies website for pens, and the pens were all different prices for different products - they had some "shimmer sparkle" pens, but they're in "bright fashion colours", so a substantively different product to the various black/blue/red ballpoint pens. I'd have thought to argue a taxation scheme in economic terms would be precisely the point? Or is the argument really "I don't want to pay tax, I reckon you wouldn't want to pay it either, so SEXIST!"? I think an unfair tax is an unfair tax and shouldn't apply no matter whether it costs you 'alot' (I love that creature) or alittle.But how much are we talking about anyway - a Mamamia article did the numbers and came up with a GST component of under $1 per month. (If you used a cup and replaced it every 3 years, you're down to about 14 cents per month) But regardless of cost, what is the reason that it should be tax exempt? "essential" is not a component in the reasoning, would taking of that $1 per month give women's public health a saving of over $1 per month? I've never seen anyone make that case. (would cups save more public health dollars?) I'm hoping someone can chime in with some actual facts because I think it is actually interesting to see how small changes in spending in one area impact others in greater ways. If a Libra flaps it's wings, where is the storm? (I'm only talking about the Aussie case, I haven't read very much on the British system but it does sound like quite a hodge-podge of exemptions - toilet paper and tampons taxed, but betting/gaming isn't - but this was a country that used to charge blind people more for a colour TV licence than the base Black and White TV licence cost, so I expect a bit of 'interesting' stuff in their rules n regs) (BTW, thanks I'd sometimes thought of becoming a politician, they need more science & tech literate people in their ranks - but phwoar, what an eyeful the public would catch when those pictures leaked ;) ) Soft: in Britain the VAT guidance site specifically lists maternity pads as being taxed, incontinence products (like in Australia) are exempted from tax (VAT in UK, GST here). fuck me that turned into a big post, please excuse any spelling mistakes - the S & W keys on my keyboard are playing up.
-
RHP User
9 years ago
and yes, even amounts under a dollar can mean a lot to people on a low income - but that doesn't mean the tax scheme is unfair, that's where a benefit to help out those on the low incomes might be appropriate. Exemptions are inefficient, targeted benefits are generally a better solution.(e.g. if you're on a benefit and eligible for a Health care card you get medicine at an even further subsidised rate, but we don't just set the cost for everyone to that low amount simply because those on benefits arguably can't afford it, we just help out those in trouble back up to the base level so they're ok)
-
RHP User
9 years ago
It's very funny! I agree with S - marketing products towards women and women choosing to spend more on those products is a separate issue. However in relation to the GST - I get where you're coming from S. But what I don't get is why something such as an incontinent pad is GST exempt whilst a sanitary pad isn't. They both serve the same purpose - to catch bodily fluid, avoiding embarrassment for the user with a bodily function they have no control over. And to avoid the spread of said bodily fluid for health. Why is this the case? What differentiates the two products so much that a decision was made to exempt one product and not another?
-
RHP User
9 years ago
The pink tax is on everything S. Colour something pink and charge more. Girls/biys toys. Sex toys too! How about a pink razorblade costing more than a dark coloured one. Then we earn less too. We are constantly being gypped.
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Quoting 'SoftandCurious' However in relation to the GST - I get where you're coming from S. But what I don't get is why something such as an incontinent pad is GST exempt whilst a sanitary pad isn't. They both serve the same purpose - to catch bodily fluid, avoiding embarrassment for the user with a bodily function they have no control over. And to avoid the spread of said bodily fluid for health. Why is this the case? What differentiates the two products so much that a decision was made to exempt one product and not another? condoms are GST exempt as well. Although S will be able to correct me if I'm wrong
-
RHP User
9 years ago
You are corrected S tried to state that in his second last post but typed aren't instead of are 😉 Condoms, water based lubricant, nicotine patches and sunscreen are all GST exempt. But all of those things can be considered as saving the health purse strings - babies, disease and cancer.
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Quoting 'SoftandCurious'But all of those things can be considered as saving the health purse strings - babies, disease and cancer. Dunno, I still think if men were the ones having the periods they'd find a justification to have sanitary products GST exempt (not affecting me personally at the moment, I just take the pill continuously. Haven't had a period for over a year and it's fucking awesome)
-
RHP User
9 years ago
I love your radical ideas..it would not just challenge the tax decision makers but women bleeding has challenged society at least since the Purity Laws of Judaism over two and a half centuries ago ..still a taboo subject with much shame attached. Q
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Not a woman obviously... I am an equalist. Everyone treated equally under the law regardless of gender, race, religion etc. Same rights, responsibilites and opportunities for all. Everything after that is personal choice. - Posted from rhpmobile
-
Katkat
9 years ago
First be free & live life to the max u only live once! Love, fun, forget the haters! Do what makes you happy inside. - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
9 years ago
I wasn't suggesting an alternative because of a tax I was suggesting it because it's straight up a better product Saving you ladies hundreds of thousands of dollars over your life time and simultaneously avoiding a archaic tax are just bonuses I've witnessed how life changing it is In this day and age of technology there is absolutely no reason to continue with dangerous and ineffective practices of shoving a wad of cotton up you When cleaner, safer and better designed alternatives are available Seriously ladies Check it out Divacup dot com - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Quoting 'Gabehcuod I am an equalist. A weasel word if ever there was one
-
RHP User
9 years ago
If I'm a feminist that's fine, but equalist encompasses feminist so I'm also an "ist" for anyone who is not treated fairly. I don't have a problem with the term "feminist but it has a narrow scope, which is the part I am not really enamoured with. For example, in one breath I would happily advocate for a feminist issue (the tampon GST issue for example), and in the next would advocate for men who are treated unfairly by the courts when it comes to divorce or custody disputes (which happens far too often). I don't like terms that imply you're either one or the other. It just serves to deepen existing divisions and also create new divisions. - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
9 years ago
A few points.... The diva cup is not the saviour of all women. I tried it and persevered for months because I wanted it to work, but it didn't and I know of plenty of other women who it didn't work for either. The family court issue where men lose out in custody disputes is awful, but unfortunately is caused by the same patriarchal system we all live in, that says women are the only nurturing parent and that unfairly treats men who want to stay home with their kids.
-
RHP User
9 years ago
That may all be true, but what I'm saying is that from a male's point of view the word feminism implies that it favours females, so it is inherently divisive to a degree, even if that is just the perception - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Quoting 'Gabehcuod' That may all be true, but what I'm saying is that from a male's point of view the word feminism implies that it favours females, so it is inherently divisive to a degree, even if that is just the perception Men were favoured for centuries - and still are in a number of areas - so the men that have that perception should get some perspective.
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Quoting 'SoftandCurious' It's very funny! I agree with S - marketing products towards women and women choosing to spend more on those products is a separate issue. However in relation to the GST - I get where you're coming from S. But what I don't get is why something such as an incontinent pad is GST exempt whilst a sanitary pad isn't. They both serve the same purpose - to catch bodily fluid, avoiding embarrassment for the user with a bodily function they have no control over. And to avoid the spread of said bodily fluid for health. Why is this the case? What differentiates the two products so much that a decision was made to exempt one product and not another? I wish I could answer about the incontinence pads being exempt - without knowing why they did it - I do wonder why the incontinent get a free pass but not women who need tampons/pads, babies with nappies or people who need to wipe their arse.(I'm a little disappointed the latter hasn't made it into a Pauline Hanson speech: "those crafty muslims aren't just a threat to society through terrorism, they're tax avoiders, with their lota and water washing ways... in Australia we wipe! I don't like it!" :p ) Quoting 'SoftandCurious' You are corrected S tried to state that in his second last post but typed aren't instead of are 😉 Condoms, water based lubricant, nicotine patches and sunscreen are all GST exempt. But all of those things can be considered as saving the health purse strings - babies, disease and cancer. I didn't mistype, I think you misread :-) I said "Condoms, lube (and apparently harnesses, phwoar ;) ) and sunscreen aren't GST exempt because they like good ol' boys to get plenty of Vitamin D outdoors and then give plenty of D indoors..... --snip--" i.e. they are GST exempt for a certain policy reason not because they want to go outdoors and sling dick tax free ;) The thing with the sunscreen, condoms and lube, etc is not just that they save more money by being used than the cost of exempting them, but that they have a price sensitive elastic demand (I suspect in the future that sunscreen won't be exempt, as people consider it a necessity and buy it regardless of the tax).Tampons have no such elasticity, you buy them every month because you need them - it's pretty much a cost you can't escape (even if you buy a cup, you still need to buy a new one every few years or so). If the price dropped by 10% you wouldn't buy more of them, and if the price went up you'd still by the same amount. (en masse, I know that some people might change less frequently, but lets leave outliers out of it - I'm just saying it's not like a luxury good that people would suddenly buy more or less of). Anyway, point is that specifically exempting tampons/pads from tax isn't going to change people's usage pattern, like toilet paper. Do the cost/benefit numbers on lube, condoms, sunscreen, nicotine patches add up, I don't know, I'm just saying the theory behind the application isn't sexist. The language used in the British VAT case by categorising them as "luxury" and "non-essential" is just asking for trouble - but we're not in Britain and we don't classify them that way so it makes no sense to refer to them as such - it's as nonsensical as those "no Sydney uni researchers" notices in profiles. Quoting 'I_touch_myself2' regardless of how the GST is officially added or the motive to create incentives, it's insane what women have to pay for these products. I could have bought the company by now, so they either should be tax exempt or be regulated to reduce pricing. It's a clear imbalance from something women have no control over, or haven't had, and it's just one example. I know (well, I hope) that was hyperbole - but it's $2.50 for a pack of 16 woolworths 'super' (or 20 regular) is insane? that's 0.23 in GST per pack. Do the maths. (The mamamia article put total cost at 4800 over 40 years, i.e. $436 in GST, a shade over 10 a year in tax). I don't know where that 2.50 sits on the "true cost", but when you consider that store brand is 2.50 for what Cotex does for 5, that seems like some good profit on tightly packed cotton just through branding. Again, all of this "it's unfair to pay tax on tampons because we bleed by design" yet nobody has touched the big (steaming) Elephant (dung pile) in the middle of the room. Toilet paper is taxed.
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Actually I think you may have hit upon the real issue that I have with "feminism" as it seems to present itself on Facebook comments and the like. A lot of them blame "men" in general for the treatment of women in the past. The arbitrary fact that I was born with a penis does not implicate me in things done by people who I don't know, before I was born, without my permission. The root cause of it all is religion in my view. Specifically the Abrahamic ones. - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Quoting 'Summersolstice' TL:DR nice tongue though
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Sorry - I was distracted by the unsavoury thought of everyone walking around with their bodily functions on show for all 😝 And true - toilet paper is a great example. However how would they rule on it? All toilet paper regardless of the profit margin made by manufacturers, only 1 ply because any more is considered unnecessary? What about those who use more than four squares? And although tampons can be used for other purposes their use is still limited. For example they can be used to plug a blood nose but that's pretty much the extent of their multi purpose ability. Whereas toilet paper can be used in the place of tissues for example, serviettes and a poor version of a paper towel to name a few. So we could see the purchase of tissues and paper towels take a huge dive in place of tax free tushy tissue - so many factors to consider. I myself am a three ply girl and proud to admit it! Gabe I understand the point you're trying to make but for the purposes of simplicity the term feminism works well here. And I think you'll find that the large majority of feminists are also equalist. If men or social media perceive feminism as man bashing and bra burning the only thing we can do is raise awareness and educate about the real issues. It's ignorance that's the issue around the word rather than the word itself.
-
RHP User
9 years ago
That is true, I am sure the vast majority of women who identify as feminists are perfectly reasonable. Not so much myself, but a lot of men associate "feminist" with self-proclaimed spokespeople like Clementine Ford, who is obviously a misandrist. Rightly or wrongly this is the association being made so "the movement" as such needs to address that if it wants to get the majority support of the mainstream male population. - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Quoting 'Luck_Dragon' Quoting 'Gabehcuod I am an equalist. A weasel word if ever there was one That specific word (equalist) doesn't sit quite right with me either for some reason. I've not thought on it long enough to clearly explain the reason why. I think posters to this thread so far though would at least agree the sentiment Gabehcuod has conveyed is entirely reasonable. The words 'feminist' and 'feminism' are contentious because some people perceive those terms as being 'politically loaded'. Stirry's comment (and perhaps experience) concerning 'misandrists', 'feminazis' and 'propaganda' demonstrate this perception, and I think it is widely shared. This phenomenon also is evidenced by the questions as to whether men might be considered feminists. Interestingly, many once gender specific words have been discarded in favour of gender neutral terms, yet terms such as egalitarianism and the like seem to draw criticism for being somehow distasteful or offensive. I don't get it.
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Quoting 'SoftandCurious' Sorry - I was distracted by the unsavoury thought of everyone walking around with their bodily functions on show for all 😝 And true - toilet paper is a great example. However how would they rule on it? All toilet paper regardless of the profit margin made by manufacturers, only 1 ply because any more is considered unnecessary? What about those who use more than four squares? And although tampons can be used for other purposes their use is still limited. For example they can be used to plug a blood nose but that's pretty much the extent of their multi purpose ability. Whereas toilet paper can be used in the place of tissues for example, serviettes and a poor version of a paper towel to name a few. So we could see the purchase of tissues and paper towels take a huge dive in place of tax free tushy tissue - so many factors to consider. Not sure what you mean about the ruling. "How would they rule on it?" In a hypothetical situation, they'd just say toilet paper is GST exempt, just like they don't check you're going to use condoms for sex and not as balloons, rectal drug transport, or as water carrier in outdoor survival situations :p I disagree that tax free toilet paper wouldn't become the tax dodge of tissue and paper towel users - for the simple reason that it isn't used as that already. The tax amount is negligible, and more importantly, toilet paper is already cheaper than tissues and paper towel - if the price was the determinant in people using toilet paper instead of paper towels then they would already be doing it :) The simple thing is "tax everything, give welfare where needed"
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Very valid points - you got me :p And I agree with a blanket tax rather than picking and choosing. It would save a lot of confusion. As far as being a feminist goes - loud and proud. Why? Because I believe every person should be treated and valued equally - and this includes women. As far as the Madonna/Whore expectation goes it is still alive and well sue me - and married and sleep with other men, because my body is my own. If that makes me a whore in some ignorant people's eyes then bring it. It's their issue not mine.
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Quoting 'Gabehcuod' That is true, I am sure the vast majority of women who identify as feminists are perfectly reasonable. Not so much myself, but a lot of men associate "feminist" with self-proclaimed spokespeople like Clementine Ford, who is obviously a misandrist. Rightly or wrongly this is the association being made so "the movement" as such needs to address that if it wants to get the majority support of the mainstream male population. - Posted from rhpmobile This idea that feminism needs to make itself palatable to men, and feminists need to fit into certain rules of 'reasonableness' for men to support them is such bullshit. Women have long had to fit in with men's policing and expectations of them regarding their behaviour, speech, views etc. It's interesting that as soon as women start stepping outside of those expectations, taking a bit of control, and expressing their unadulterated views, some men lose their minds over it and throw around the words like 'feminazi'. It happens everywhere, including on these forums, and every day I see how women temper their expression so they don't incur the ire of some men. Part of the core of feminism is to empower women to speak out and behave in ways that traditionally they haven't been permitted to, so having to continue pandering to men's expectations and be a 'good' feminist who speaks out only in 'acceptable' ways and who doesn't make too many waves is actually just reinforcing why we need feminism in the first place. Frankly, for me personally it doesn't matter if not all men accept feminism. It's not realistic to expect all men to accept it - no matter how nice women are about it - because it's such a challenge to traditional societal structures. No major social change happens without any conflict or push-back from the people who benefit most from the status quo, and if I get called a feminazi by a few dinosaurs because I'm not prepared to constantly pander to their feelings, I'm good with that. Also, Clementine Ford isn't a misandrist. I myself don't agree with everything she says, but she doesn't hate all men. She's just an example of a woman who doesn't police herself to fit in with men's notions of 'acceptable' feminism (can be contrasted to Emma Watson who's a perfect example of acceptable feminism). Clementine pulls no punches with her views - the content and way she expresses them - which goes against society's traditional ideas of how women should act, the opinions they should hold and how they should express those opinions.
-
RHP User
9 years ago
In case anyone missed it, yeah I'm a feminist Also, yes being on this site is part of my expression of and ownership of my sexuality. And yep, the Madonna / Whore dichotomy is alive and well on here and in society in general.
-
RHP User
9 years ago
It's not about being palatable, it's about being reasonable, making fact-based arguments, and being respectful where respect is due. When a feminist (or feminazi as some might say) makes a sweeping derogatory generalisation about men, or implies in one way or another that something men's fault, they are alienating a large number of people who are most likely on the same side. You need to ask yourself what you might feel like when a chauvinist man says something inaccurate and offensive about women. I find it breathtakingly ironic that a feminist would make an "us and them" type of statement about men without giving it a second thought, yet if someone else made a similarly discriminatory generalisation about a large group of people they don't know, they would be all over them. For example, blaming men for domestic violence rates. Saying men need to fix it. Men this, men that. It's like saying terrorism is all Muslim's fault and they need to fix it. Not only is it inaccurate, it's also overly simplistic and misses the complex underlying issues that need to be addressed in order to fix the problem. The only way any of this will be fixed is to address the root of the problem. The problem in my view starts at home with little kids. The parents are the ones whose behaviour and parenting will define whether their son grows up being respectful and fair to women, and whether their daughter will grow up being a confident and proud woman who won't take any shit. No amount of government programs or employment quotas or anything like that will fix it. Mums and dads hold the key. - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Quoting 'Summersolstice' Quoting 'ontology' Stirry's comment (and perhaps experience) concerning 'misandrists', 'feminazis' and 'propaganda' demonstrate this perception, and I think it is widely shared. Where? Please note, I paraphrased Stirry's comment on page 1 of this thread. I did not quote him. The term 'Feminazi' further demonstrates the politically loaded nature of the words typically used in the Feminism debate. The term 'feminaz'i was apparently coined by an economist named Tom Hazlett in the United States sometime about the late 80's/early 90's to describe 'extreme' and/or 'radical' feminists, and was brought to greater prominence by Rush Limbaugh (himself a very highly devisive figure). I think some of the difficulty for people arises when/where rather than equality between the genders, some feminists seek equality with men in some regards, but advantage over men in other regards. If that nexus could be broken, much of the conflict would dissipate. Am reminded of the Walker Brothers song "Deadlier than the Male". For information, one of my current bedside table/bedtime reading books is "Speeches of War and Peace" (Concise Edition) by Larry Buttrose (ISBN: 9781741108682). It includes brief biographies of the speech makers, and the timing/settings/circumstances of their speeches. There is a section titled "Battle of the Sexes" containing famous speeches made by Susan B. Anthony, Emmaline Pankhurst, Virginia Woolf, Jessie Street, Betty Friedan, Jane Fonda and Luisa Dias Diogo.
-
RHP User
9 years ago
is different to (and not to be confused with) "Female of the Species" by the English band, 'Space' (which I also quite like).
-
RHP User
9 years ago
You can spin it any way you want...there is no justification,eg blaming women for domestic violence perpetrated by men on women and children is just delusional. As recently as the seventies there were no refuges,counselling support,the police would dismiss violence against women and children as just a domestic.State sanctioned murder IMO . In the seventies I volunteered my time in a rape crisis centre ,unfunded by government.The small number of women's refuges were unfunded too.It was the beginning of a change but it is still too little. Women and children are being murdered in this country on a weekly basis. I have been a Feminist since 1976 when I joined the Women's Liberation Movement. If this makes you feel uncomfortable then good. Q
-
RHP User
9 years ago
It does not make me the least bit uncomfortable and I think you may be misunderstanding what I am saying. I'm not trying to "spin" anything. I'm just attempting to be objective and call out a few aspects of feminism that I think are counter productive from the point of view of someone who often feels like they are being made to feel like the enemy (by people merely for having a penis. I suspect you and I would probably agree on most things about this topic. I have two very strong, confident older sisters (definitely feminists) who would testify to that. - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Quoting 'Qefenta1' You can spin it any way you want...there is no justification,eg blaming women for domestic violence perpetrated by men on women and children is just delusional. As recently as the seventies there were no refuges,counselling support,the police would dismiss violence against women and children as just a domestic.State sanctioned murder IMO . In the seventies I volunteered my time in a rape crisis centre ,unfunded by government.The small number of women's refuges were unfunded too.It was the beginning of a change but it is still too little. Women and children are being murdered in this country on a weekly basis. I have been a Feminist since 1976 when I joined the Women's Liberation Movement. If this makes you feel uncomfortable then good. Q I think your comment to Gabehcuod here is way off the mark. He has said nothing to that ought rightly suggest the inference you have drawn. Rather, it appears to me he has taken great care to caution against sweeping general statements which (in effect) lay blame for the wrongs of the few (relative to total population in society) at the feet of the many. I neither condone, justify, nor make apologies for the perpetrators of domestic violence. Far from it. However, as Gabehcuod (and others including me) might suggest, I think it entirely fair for any justly thinking man to take offence to being 'tarred with the same brush' as violent abusers solely on the basis of his gender. The issue of domestic violence needs to be addressed in a manner that educates all of the population (thereby preemptively reducing the incidence or indeed its likelihood), but which punishes only the perpetrators of the crime. It is interesting to note in spite of the spotlight cast on domestic violence (particularly recently), the issue of violence by women toward men remains largely in shadow. Published studies, articles and statistics (coupled with anecdotal evidence) all point to domestic violence toward men is much more prevalent than many would be aware (or perhaps care to recognise) due to under-reporting by men. This is presumed to be due to the stigma and victim blaming that attaches to the reporting of such instances (in much the same way as it has/does for women's reporting of sexual crimes). The point is to seek true equality regardless of gender rather than to engage in 'one-upmanship' (pun not intended !!) To draw on a sporting analogy, I would encourage you to "play the ball; not the man". (pun purposely intended !!)
-
RHP User
9 years ago
I have not set out in my posts here to purposefully upset anyone. I am seeking to discuss the issues as objectively and truthfully as possible in the interest of what is fair, just, reasonable and otherwise proper. In order to achieve this aim, it is sometimes necessary to confront the negative and distasteful, as well as the positive and inspiring. In this instance I suspect your objection to my post may stem from some error in comprehension of my words, or filtering on your part. Upon reflection (if I understand correctly), English is your second language, and your heritage is German. In this case I suppose you might feel highly sensitive to a word such as 'feminazi'. Once again, I assure you offence is not my intent. I did point out Rush Limbaugh is widely reknowned as a highly divisive figure. I did not and do not endorse his views. In the time since that term first came to prominence, there has been much discussion in the public domain of the traits said to apply to people who are commonly labelled as 'feminazis'. The terms and connotations: 'misandrist' and 'propaganda' (amongst others and associated tactics) have featured prominently.
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Were I to be mischievous, I could have injected terms with meanings that differ from conventional English language usage (such as some here do with definitions appearing in UrbanDictionary). The Devil's Dictionary offers several gems: FANATIC, n. One who overestimates the importance of convictions and undervalues the comfort of an existence free from the impact of addled eggs and dead cats upon the human periphery. RADICAL, n. A miscreant who would forestall the future by discrediting the past and abolishing the present. RADICALISM, n. The conservatism of to-morrow injected into the affairs of to-day. RANSOM, n. The purchase of that which neither belongs to the seller, nor can belong to the buyer. The most unprofitable of investments. REALITY, n. The dream of a mad philosopher. That which would remain in the cupel if one should assay a phantom. The nucleus of a vacuum. REASON, v.i. To weigh probabilities in the scales of desire. REASON, n. Propensitate of prejudice. REASONABLE, adj. Accessible to the infection of our own opinions. Hospitable to persuasion, dissuasion and evasion. REBEL, n. A proponent of a new misrule who has failed to establish it. RECONCILIATION, n. A suspension of hostilities. An armed truce for the purpose of digging up the dead.purpose of digging up the dead. RECONSIDER, v. To seek a justification for a decision already made. RASCAL, n. A fool considered under another aspect. RASCALITY, n. Stupidity militant. The activity of a clouded intellect. RASH, adj. Insensible to the value of our advice. "Now lay your bet with mine, nor let These gamblers take your cash." "Nay, this child makes no bet." "Great snakes! How can you be so rash?" —Bootle P. Gish RATIONAL, adj. Devoid of all delusions save those of observation, experience and reflection.
-
RHP User
9 years ago
your first instinct when hearing about issues that negatively and disproportionately effect woman is to cry about the small number of men it also happens to, then I think you're massively missing the point, and you need to do some reflection as to why that's your knee jerk reaction....? On the issue of domestic violence, an average of one woman a week is killed as a result of intimate partner violence. That domestic violence against men you're talking about? Of that reported (Dept. of Families, Housing & Community affairs, 2006), 73.7% was perpetrated by other men. So, instead of men and women coming together to work out what we're doing wrong with the raising of our boys and trying to change the culture, we have this divisive and ultimately useless back and forth about who it happens to more and the ridiculous #notallmen nonsense.
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Quoting 'Luck_Dragon' Also, Clementine Ford isn't a misandrist. I myself don't agree with everything she says, but she doesn't hate all men. She's just an example of a woman who doesn't police herself to fit in with men's notions of 'acceptable' feminism (can be contrasted to Emma Watson who's a perfect example of acceptable feminism). Clementine pulls no punches with her views - the content and way she expresses them - which goes against society's traditional ideas of how women should act, the opinions they should hold and how they should express those opinions. I often think the "men Clem Ford doesn't hate" is limited to "men who agree with everything Clem Ford says/writes". I generally find her articles induce a mixture of jaw gritting eye rolling, and googling for the "but she did the same thing she's complaining about in article X, I'm sure" (swiftly followed by "why is it so hard to search twitter and facebook comments?!"). If you didn't know better you would think it was just some clickbait generator with "inflammatory" dialed up to 11 - someone who knows how to work the system when their meal ticket is in pissing people off and continuing arguments so you can write about it ad nauseum. I am certain that if I frequently read a male writer that generally used a similar approach as CF, I would have the same/similar thoughts about them/their work. (But then she can't be all bad... she's a fan of Carly from Bachelor, and Freaks and Geeks :p ) I find a lot of the articles on Daily Life reduce matters to a gender basis when there is a simpler or better explanation... except that wouldn't fit the narrative of the site.
-
RHP User
9 years ago
If you want to talk about violence towards men,feel free,but the overwhelming evidence is that women and children are mainly the victims of family violence Obviously not all men are perpetrators of family violence but to be offended by a woman pointing out the well documented facts speaks volumes to me of your attitudes. Say whatever you like,I am done. Q
-
RHP User
9 years ago
I'm done too - you've entirely missed the point and misrepresented everything that I have said. - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
9 years ago
You talk about sweeping generalisations and tarring people with the same brush. Yet you recall Summer is German therefore takes offence to the term "feminazi" as a result. As if this explains her response to your post regarding Stirry? And then you infer that her comprehension of the English language might stem from the fact that English is her second language? Summer's response to your post was on point - you added an inflammatory word to your version of Stirry's post and called it paraphrasing. With regards to domestic violence I am avid supporter of men's rights also. There's been inference made that grouping men together implicates them all and that just isn't true. As a feminist I'm not ignorant to the unreported rates of domestic violence towards men. However the spotlight is currently more so on women - and rightly so. And this is for two reasons. The first being that Australian Institute of Criminology show 75 per cent of victims of intimate partner homicide were female. 75%! The second being that until recently women were expected to take whatever form of abuse they received from men. Women did not have a voice. They raised children who repeated the cycle of both victim and perpetrator. It takes generations to change what is seen as acceptable behaviour.
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Quoting 'Gabehcuod' For example, blaming men for domestic violence rates. Saying men need to fix it. Men this, men that. It's like saying terrorism is all Muslim's fault and they need to fix it. Not only is it inaccurate, it's also overly simplistic and misses the complex underlying issues that need to be addressed in order to fix the problem. The only way any of this will be fixed is to address the root of the problem. The problem in my view starts at home with little kids. The parents are the ones whose behaviour and parenting will define whether their son grows up being respectful and fair to women, and whether their daughter will grow up being a confident and proud woman who won't take any shit. No amount of government programs or employment quotas or anything like that will fix it. Mums and dads hold the key. - Posted from rhpmobile You do need to make fact-based arguments, so you should start by applying that rule to yourself. Fact - men are responsible for the majority of domestic violence (in case someone tries to retaliate with the 1 in 3 figure, don't bother...that stat has been highly manipulated by MRAs). So actually, yes it is largely a problem belonging to men. Please note here that I am not saying that no men are victims of DV or that no women commit DV, yes they are and yes they do but they are in the minority in both cases. Saying that it's all down to parents is also ironically going against your own (true) assertion that DV is a complex issue. Focusing solely on parents whilst ignoring all the other wider societal factors which influence the parents and their children is only going to get us so far. However, I understand that trying to simplify the answer and find an alternative easy scapegoat is a convenient tactic for those who want to deflect attention away from the other relevant issues. Anyway I'm bowing out of this particular discussion, I've seen various iterations of it many times and I know when it's pointless to continue. Cheers The Feminazi Dragon
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Quoting 'S_OnTheLoose' I often think the "men Clem Ford doesn't hate" is limited to "men who agree with everything Clem Ford says/writes". in that case she'd be similar to those men who only like women who agree with them or who act in ways they deem to be acceptable. I doubt those men receive even a quarter of the death threats that she does though. Like I said I don't agree with everything she says, but I don't think she hates men in general. I think she definitely dislikes certain types of men, for sure.
-
RHP User
9 years ago
I like it....maybe I should change my username to that and see how many flirts and messages I get then
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Read more about throwing caution in the wind as misandry and misogyny can be masked by comments such as :- "Equal opportunity means you get treated like shit but now it's justifiable as you wanted this whole equal rights shit." And..... "I don't need men to tell me how do jack shit!!!!wtf would they know anyway?? They're always think they're better than us women!!!" The latter comment is going to be picked apart, I get that, it's not entirely structured well, but for the generic purposes of clarification I think it'll do....I'm too lazy to write a Stephen King novel about this stuff, just to inflate my lack of intelligence lol - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
9 years ago
I made it sound like I believed Summer was German when I know she is not, and know where she comes from. I never seem to be able to write a post in one session and they often sound disjointed. I kept being interrupted to change a dirty nappy, stir dinner and kiss boo boo's while picking all the washing up off the floor I just folded 😝
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Quoting 'Gabehcuod' I'm done too - you've entirely missed the point and misrepresented everything that I have said. - Posted from rhpmobile Sadly this is one of the great risks faced when attempting to objectively discuss contentious issues as fractious and emotionally charged as this one. It is disappointing to encounter an atmosphere where even the men sympathetic to equal treatment of both genders are howled down. In this case, it is abundantly clear there are inferences drawn and assertions made in response to my comments which go far beyond my clearly articulated message content. It is also quite clear that both light-hearted humour and genuine conciliation are qualities not welcome (read: outright rejected).
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Is shit irrespective of the perpetrator....it's a bad analogy to use despite it being a valid point that not all men are the same..... But.... Women seem to acknowledge that better than men acknowledging the reverse..... The reality is, tooradin Victoria....perpetrator was a man....the lady in western suburbs Melbourne who was stabbed in broad daylight....perpetrator was a man.....the little girl thrown off the top of the Westgate bridge.....yep the perp was a man..... Do men as a collective need to do something about it??? Fuck yes.... It's as little as saying to a mate "I don't like how you treated her in xyz situation....you need to apologise man!!" Holding ourselves and each other to account is one small way we can cause a change in dynamic....instead of burying our faces in our hands and saying "I don't hit women so it doesn't affect me!!" - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Stirry I think I love you! 😉
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Stirry's comment right below yours is a perfect example of how men and women can come together on this issue and I for one find his light-hearted humour and genuine conciliation very welcome. Your gentle condescension and dismissal of arguments based on the idea that perhaps we gals just don't quite understand you is however, not welcome. You see the difference between the two?
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Quoting 'Qefenta1'If you want to talk about violence towards men,feel free,but the overwhelming evidence is that women and children are mainly the victims of family violence Obviously not all men are perpetrators of family violence but to be offended by a woman pointing out the well documented facts speaks volumes to me of your attitudes. Q, I don't think there was any argument that men don't commit violence against women/children. My understanding of his argument is that saying "men do X" implies that "all men do X" even though the (I assume) intended meaning is "there are men who do X". I don't think many men would really care if not for the fact that it seems like a double standard where similarly formed sentences are complained about. Keepitsimple: I don't think there are any people who actually make that argument with any credibility, or that are making that argument here. The argument is (IMO) about the language used, and it is particularly frustrating in a time when people overly focus on the forever changing language of sentences in a bid not offend e.g. from crippled/lame/etc to handicapped to disabled to differently abled to something new in a few years. Quoting 'Luck_Dragon'Quoting 'S_OnTheLoose' I often think the "men Clem Ford doesn't hate" is limited to "men who agree with everything Clem Ford says/writes". in that case she'd be similar to those men who only like women who agree with them or who act in ways they deem to be acceptable. I doubt those men receive even a quarter of the death threats that she does though. Like I said I don't agree with everything she says, but I don't think she hates men in general. I think she definitely dislikes certain types of men, for sure.(my comment had a touch of hyperbole to it) I just really dislike the way she deals with anyone who isn't agreeing with her in the comments, I don't really see her engage with them beyond posting insults or nonsense comments about mansplaining or similar. If those comments include links to facts/past posts of hers then you just seem to end up blocked from commenting on the Daily Life fb page. (I much prefer Clem Bastow or Jenny Noyes from there who do engage with people to a larger degree - though it's interesting to see how Bastow has changed since years ago when she was on a feminist/fashion spin-off forum I admined for a while, and a few other related ones. ) I'm not referring to how she deals with trolls (or the modern idea of trolling which involves none of the windup, just being rude), it is when it comes to people making comment in a reasonable, respectful manner. I'm not saying she must answer them back, but posting belittling comments in a forum where she knows she enjoys her own degree of privilege is no different than the sort of belittling comments that she complains men make to women in an effort to shut them down/assert power over them. I find it particularly irksome because at root she is complaining about is asymmetry of power and its abuse, and she's obviously familiar with intersectionality and power differences in limited domains. If she can call others to check their privilege, she needs to also check her own. But back to the OP: yes, I'm a feminist.
-
RHP User
9 years ago
But to answer ur question Soft...I don't pay for haircuts fullstop. But if you choose to spend so much on a haircut that's entirely your choice. You could just have short hair like me :) As for clothes...also your choice. Mrs3somes dresses cost about the same as an outfit for a man to wear to the same event so I don't see the comparison. The fact she chooses to buy a new one every time she has to go out is another issue altogether lol.
-
RHP User
9 years ago
When we think we generalise and it's a necessary process for abstract thinking. Many men who come on this site think women here are promiscuous and 'experienced'. I may not agree with it but that is the case. Of course I do not think all men are masochists. Men, through no fault of theirs, get born into cultures that tell them that if a woman can do it, it's not worth doing, or if they're not superior to women in one way or another, they're not really masculine. If we haven't been raised in a family or in a community where women are treated as full human beings and men don't have to be superior anymore, we continue to think that it's not only natural but inevitable. We still do live in a society that's sexist. It's deep. It's going to take a while because for many centuries patriarchal societies have been devoted to controlling reproduction and that means controlling women. We'll only really know we have succeeded when a mediocre woman does as well as a mediocre man. What we need is incredible leap of empathy. (Ms)
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Quoting 'The_3somes' But to answer ur question Soft...I don't pay for haircuts fullstop. But if you choose to spend so much on a haircut that's entirely your choice. You could just have short hair like me :) As for clothes...also your choice. Mrs3somes dresses cost about the same as an outfit for a man to wear to the same event so I don't see the comparison. The fact she chooses to buy a new one every time she has to go out is another issue altogether lol. 3omes, there could be the argument as to whether she buys a new dress for her own inherent sense of enjoyment or to (consciously or unconsciously) meet a "never be seen in the same thing twice" expectation, and even though this is directly a female-to-female pressure (generally/stereotypically) the source of that pressure is from a competitive pressure based on appearance linked 'valuation' of the wife. Following this, although each outfit may cost the same (or less) than yours, as a result of the frequent outfit changes the total cost of clothing is higher (on a "price per usage" basis).
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Wore the same suit every day for a year with almost no comment from the viewing public.. I doubt that if his female co - host did the same it would go unremarked..men's fashion doesn't,hasn't changed much in over a hundred years..women of course have much more choice ,they are no longer limited to only a frock option.Thank's to women like Katherine Hepburn who popularised the wearing of pants. So yes women probably spend a lot more on clothes than most men..I do know men who are fashion doyens and spend as much as their wives but not many ... Is it a choice women make? Yes but there is a societal expectation IMO that we will if we have the income to afford it. If only I could afford Julie Bishop's Armani suits 😍Q
-
RHP User
9 years ago
It was Candy that made mention of clothing and hair cuts 😉
-
RHP User
9 years ago
With a head like mine gorgeous, I need every ounce of funny I can get HAHAHAHA :p - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Several people have chimed in with regards my posts. I invite them to go back and reread them properly. I have stated (and even used italics for emphasis of some words) domestic violence is a crime irrespective the gender of the perpetrator. I also suggested (with a light-humoured sporting analogy re: playing ball vs playing man) the issue of domestic violence itself needs to be addressed without the gender bias. The suggestion that the crime of domestic violence is committed predominantly by men, and that therefore only men need to be targeted for corrective and/or punitive action is preposterous. To examine this particular aspect of the issue as a matter of principle only, you might take as example one of the figures someone suggested (for just one class of domestic violence) as being 75% For the purpose of this discussion of the principle, the actual current figures are not central, but 75% is an easy, 'round' figure to work with. There was an implication in one of the arguments someone put forth that the perpetrators and victims of particular crimes warrant particular attention, while the other perpetrators and the other victims of the same crime warrant little (if any) consideration. Would advocates of that position also argue that the demographic of victims making up the bottom quartile of robbery or theft should be ignored? If 75% of armed robberies took place in commercial premises and just 25% were home invasions, would you disregard the home invasions entirely in favour of investigating the crimes against the commercial premises? Would you offer your support and sympathy in favour of the commercial proprietors whilst disregarding (or worse, outright dismissing) the victims of home invasion? Surely a principled, truly equality based approach would require the crime itself be the focus of attention without regard to the demographic of any particular perpetrator or any particular victim. This is the principled idea that all citizens are equal before the Law. If you truly believe feminism is about overcoming gender bias to achieve equality, you must surely agree an approach which itself employs and promotes gender biased tactics is seriously flawed and likely to meet strong resistance. If feminism is truly about equality, I would say I am a feminist. On the other hand, if feminism is not truly about equality, I would have to say I am an Egalitarian.
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Are you having a discussion or jumping into naval think tank to find a remedy?? Lol sorry if this makes you feel condescended, but I think you're looking at 360o27'10" of the issue that most have merely been speaking in general terms in response to whoever it was that brought it(DV) up as an analogy. Just sayin - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Oh god I love it when you talk dirty to me!!! *strips off butt naked and starts smearing his nipples with butter* Want Mayo on this masterpiece or what??? :p
-
RHP User
9 years ago
I am sick of hearing how guys CAN be victims of domestic violence too...the numbers are staggering, wake up people: Since 911 over 3000 women in Australia have been killed by their partners. 2 people have been killed by terrorism (neither is okay) source: Share the Dignity Australia.
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Quoting 'ontology'If you truly believe feminism is about overcoming gender bias to achieve equality, you must surely agree an approach which itself employs and promotes gender biased tactics is seriously flawed and likely to meet strong resistance. actually I'd disagree here - possibly. Do you mean gender biased tactics as in presenting a different core set of facts to each group? or different tactics for influencing each group? Different tactics to influence each group might be entirely appropriate as the best way to communicate with each group. Something I found interesting was how the WA govt DV helpline presents itself on it's different hotlines for men and women: "The Women’s Domestic Violence Helpline is a state wide 24 hour service. This service provides support and counselling for women experiencing family and domestic violence. ----snip---" "The Men’s Domestic Violence Helpline is a state wide 24 hour service. This service provides counselling for men who are concerned about their violent and abusive behaviours. ----snip----- Information and support is also available for men who have experienced family and domestic violence." I don't have an issue with them presenting the most common situation as the first one - or giving it the most attention. But I'd argue it is a clear failing to both men and women in the situation where the woman is the abuser. The man is provided an avenue of support, but the woman is not - who does she turn to if she wants to change? Could you argue it is supporting the notion that abuse by a female is not so bad? (where does that leave lesbian victims, on one hand providing avenues of escape but on the other hand not directly confronting the abuser with condemnation) I thought maybe they'd redeemed themselves with the women's page linking to a pamphlet "when you hurt your partner you hurt your children"... alas it links to the same one for men who hurt their partner. (While it provides avenues of inquiry for both sides in a same sex male couple, it would seem to fail same sex female couples) I don't assume any malice or deliberate intention behind that helpline, but thought it was interesting that it fails in 2 out of 4 use cases - but interestingly, even though it seems to present a negatively biased view against males, they've resulted in a bias _towards_ assisting males. (that could be seeing unintended things, but I just thought it was interesting way of looking at things) ontology - I know what you're saying, but I don't have any issue with gendered presentation of information so long as it all creates an unbiased impression of the truth - and if I was the WA call centre ops manager, I'd have most of my staff skilled in handling calls from abused women. Anyway, I thought this might interest you ontology (and I suspect most others have tuned out long ago or are imagining Stirry sashaying about the kitchen in his little orange apron, humming "Sugar High"... maybe then segueing into a little "Say No More, Mon Amour"... actually... Stirry I can see you doing the Rex Manning dance, you even had the puffy shirt for it! :) ). Happy Rex Manning Day!
-
RHP User
9 years ago
"Keepitsimple: I don't think there are any people who actually make that argument with any credibility, or that are making that argument here." Which argument? I've said a few things.. and also... wtf happened to the 'reply with quote' function?
-
RHP User
9 years ago
I gotta go look that up lol - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
9 years ago
thanks for just blowing up that nicely formatted post RHP forum... FFS *grumble*
-
RHP User
9 years ago
I've used the DV scenario as just one way of simply demonstrating the principle that I think should underpin the handling of the crime. Of course, domestic violence is just one aspect of many in the gender debate. Some posters have either expressed or demonstrated prepared to tackle issues in increments. Further to my robbery analogy: In considering root cause analysis and especially prevention, you might question whether it would be wise to only teach those who would rob commercial premises that their behaviour is wrong, and disregard education of those who would rob residential premises. Likewise you might question the wisdom of teaching only those with an interest in commercial premises how they might secure and protect themselves from robbery, and disregard education of those who might fall prey to robbery of their residential premises. Robbery is a crime irrespective the premises/location/perpetrator. Whilst some of the required education and risk mitigation may be different between groups of perpetrators and groups of victims, there is a great deal of overlap and in any event, it would likely be of benefit for each different group to gain an appreciation and understanding of things from all perspectives.
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Quoting 'Keepitsimple72' "Keepitsimple: I don't think there are any people who actually make that argument with any credibility, or that are making that argument here." Which argument? I've said a few things.. and also... wtf happened to the 'reply with quote' function? bugger, I had those posts going in a couple of windows and messed the copy and paste. and wow, I saw my post get screwed up and my manatee post should've come directly beneath, weird forum tonight Quoting 'Keepitsimple72'your first instinct when hearing about issues that negatively and disproportionately effect woman is to cry about the small number of men it also happens to, then I think you're massively missing the point, and you need to do some reflection as to why that's your knee jerk reaction. here we go... lets see how the formatting blows this one up, it would've been to this - your post that is directly above mine wasn't there when I was writing. I think I was saying that the gabe and ontology weren't arguing this at the time, they were complaining about the wording. Quoting 'Stirry' I gotta go look that up lol you need to youtube it. Prime Liv Tyler, Renee Zellweger, Anthony LaPaglia, Ethan Embry, Maxwell Caulfield, and some kid whose name is not fucking Warren :p
-
RHP User
9 years ago
well, I guess that's 'better'... I guess.
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Again, for those who somehow think they know me, I have never sexually harrassed, belittled or discriminated against a female and I have never and will never commit domestic violence, and will call it out if I see it. I actually have intervened in a domestic assault once. I was walking to the beach for a surf and this guy was assaulting a woman (his partner as it turns out) in the car park. I wrestled and held the guy back for 10-15mins until the police arrived. About 4 or 5 men heard the commotion and ran over to help. Looking back it was probably not the smartest thing for me to do as the guy was bigger than me and looked like a real piece of work and could have had a needle or a knife or anything. So excuse me if I get a little bit fucking annoyed by people like Q and others who do not know me from a bar of soap but have made completely unfounded and untrue (and quite offensive) assumptions about me. That is NOT okay, and I will accept your apology whenever you're ready. Now, maybe it's because I am a painfully pragmatic and methodical forensic engineer, but I am far more interested in finding out why things are the way they are, and then working out a way to fix it. I.e; Why do men commit violent domestic abuse statistically a lot more than women? Why do men commit suicide at much higher rates than women? Why as a society do we laugh off emotional abuse and control by a female partner, when we would (rightly) not accept it of a male? Is there a connection between these thing? (maybe boys are not taught emotional intelligence?) Why, on average, do women earn less than men? Why do women tend to steer away from STEM or construction type careers? Why is male promiscuity a funny joke and an endearing quality almost, yet a promiscuous female (or even not as the case may be) is looked down on (often with other females being the most scornful voices)? These are just some examples. I am sure there are many more. The thing that annoys me is that anyone who asks these questions is often heckled and words put into their mouths by some who are not circumspect. Asking difficult questions is merely taking a thorough scientific approach to a problem to try and fix it properly. That is the ONLY way to fix anything. Eliminating unpleasant possibilities is an essential part of problem solving, as is sometimes being presented with results you didn't expect or want. Others might go around concerning themselves with who did what and when, seeking to apportion blame and bring up the past to enact guilt on to others, but it doesn't really help solve the problem. I'm not interested in that. In forensic engineering there are 4 basic steps when presented with a failure; 1. Define the problem 2. Find out why it happened 3. Find out a way to fix it 4. Implement the fix then verify the results The problem with a lot of controversial social and political issues such as the ones discussed here is that often people want to rush from step 1 to step 3 or 4. Maybe it's because of the desire to urgently fix it (which is understandable). Maybe it's because there is a fear that steps 2 and/or 3 might uncover unwelcome truths or may not conform to popular opinion or may not be "PC" (which is also understandable, but not a valid reason). I don't know. But what I do know is that step 4 won't work unless 2 and 3 are done to the full extent in a frank and fearless objective manner, whatever it might lead to. - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Once again you have gone completely off topic.Why not start your own thread for the law and its applications instead of high jacking other threads Q
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Quoting 'Qefenta1' Once again you have gone completely off topic.Why not start your own thread for the law and its applications instead of high jacking other threads Q A (non-exhaustive) selection of points drawn from this thread and directly relevant to your claim of "highjack": 1. It has been claimed "Feminism' is about equality between the genders. 2. The issue of Domestic Violence is one of many frequently cited and highly publicized aspects to the feminism debate. 3. I had the temerity to query the imbalance (ie apparent inequality) in the treatment of that aspect to the debate. 4. Several posters express very strong and deeply held views on that aspect of the debate. 5. I have sought to objectively examine those views in context of Law. To quote AbnormallyNormal (Original Poster): "Seeing as I've unintentionally managed to stir up some decent debate with my fairly innocent posts, this time I'm doing it on purpose. ... ...Just interested in thoughts - I'm also using dogwhistle language to see what this post pulls out." Q, The OP has actually purposefully invited debate of these issues with the express desire to learn the views of others. In light of these various facts, it might be considered entirely reasonable to question your call to restrict the discussion to only those views which are in accord with your own (or indeed anyone's call that might be made to restrict the discussion to women only).
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Johnny "Spit" Spiteri Gettin' Square
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Ol, I'll leave y'all in peace. But before I do I'll just make the point Q that it was you who steered this thread off topic. I merely referred to the common language used around domestic violence as a passing analogy to demonstrate a point about feminism. You then felt the need to latch on to this and make incorrect and offensive assumptions about me, which you have chosen not to apologise for. But don't worry, I'm still a feminist! ☺ - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
9 years ago
The topic here is Ladies do you consider yourself a feminist? Family violence IMO is relevant to this question Q
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Yes - again I am a feminist. I spent my whole life feeling like I owed men something. That I wasn't as valuable. And becoming a mother has reaffirmed how I feel about feminism even more. I'm seen as a mother and a wife by most. But I'm more than that - I'm a friend, a lover, a woman - a human being with beliefs, opinions, feelings, talents, intelligence. And I contribute just as much to society as everyone else. All women should be held in equal regard when it comes to parenting, education, health care, the workforce, community and their opinions and contributions should be valued as such. We come along way - but we still have battles to fight.
Boards
-
Hot Topics
Topics: 15107 Comments: 88206
-
Girls Ask
Topics: 1417 Comments: 10252
-
Guys Ask
Topics: 2519 Comments: 11676
-
Couples' Corner
Topics: 2506 Comments: 9780
-
Swingers Lifestyle
Topics: 1004 Comments: 5191
-
Fetish & Fantasy
Topics: 1303 Comments: 5785
-
Hot Travel
Topics: 781 Comments: 1992
-
LGBT
Topics: 170 Comments: 869
Forum help
-
Something related with that
-
Going somewhere & want to hook up?
-
Hasn't that topic been posted before?
RHP's popular dating tool
-
Where the heck did that topic go?
Discover what RHP is doing offline
-
RHP member's RL secrets
reply
like
Share