why I'm a feminist

[Nonsense]

Yes both genders face inequality.

Remember that feminism emerged as a named theory when women were considered limited to kitchens and birthing rooms. Feminism intended to equalize the opportunities afforded to both genders to the extent physiologically possible. That is still the core force behind moderate feminism.

 

[eXtv]

Feminism emerged at a time where women were 2nd class citizens, but all of that inequality has all but been removed from society at this point.

We should look at why men are more twice as likely to be homeless, more than three times as likely to be murdered, and why they make up for 93% of workplace deaths.

How is modern feminism working to solve those issues? If it's not then saying that it works for equality nowadays is not something I'm buying.

 

[Rusk]

Because pound for pound women have less muscle mass than men. Something like 75% of male muscle mass at the same size.

So a bigger woman would still be weaker than the man. She has to be much bigger - like 1/3 bigger to balance out the muscle difference. So like a 200lb woman to meet a 150lb male on equal footing in terms of muscle strength.

And that's a muscular 200lb woman.

Yes, and its not only about muscle mass. Men would probably still be more faster and explosive.

 

[Nonsense]

Are you suggesting that feminism has to specifically address every possible angle of gender inequality in order for you to accept it as a theory of equality?

Each of your complaints can, in any event, be linked to an issue feminism addresses. For example, equal opportunity in employment will create more female soldiers, construction workers, firefighters...which will even out the workplace deaths.

 

[eXtv]

If your theory/ideology/political stance/whatever it's called only addresses the inequalities facing 1 of the 2 main genders then it's not truly for equality. Egalitarianism by it's very definition, does, and is. Feminism is by women, for women.

 

[panamaican]

Yes, and its not only about muscle mass. Men would probably still be more faster and explosive.

I think distribution of fast twitch muscles are about the same. But the guy is probably faster because more testosterone and other physiological training advantages.

Either way, if you get beat by a girl she'd better be damn big.

 

[Zuben**]

lol. You should look into this thing called lifting. It'll help you out.

What strange advice. I do lift, although not a lot, because I don't want a bunch of bulk from weight lifting, I want to be fast and sleek. Should Frankie Edgar lift a bunch of weights? He's 5'6 and 150 pounds. Oh, and there are a lot of women that are taller, bigger and stronger than him.

The average man is physically more capable than the average woman and there's nothing wrong with admitting that.

I do admit that. Importantly, so do most feminists. I don't know what you think your point it.

Sure, there are going to be women who are stronger than you, but that doesn't mean the majority are going to be like that.

Again, I never claimed that the majority are. Some, however, are. Some women are 6 feet and weight 185, and they are stronger than me.

We shouldn't let Rousey fight Johnson just because there are women stronger than you.

I'm not sure how I would fit into the equation of who Ronda should fight at all. She should fight opponents of roughly the same strength. If that person is a man, then so be it. If he's 125, or if he's less, or if he's more, whatever.

Sparring and training are also different from an actual fight. When I used to spar, I'd never put 100% effort into beating my opponent, man or woman.

How do you imagine this piece of common knowledge about the difference between sparring and actual fighting contradicts my argument?

 

[Zuben**]

No, i sparred with professional boxers, and some really good grapplers. I had at least 20lbs on on them, and they couldn't do shit to me. Women boxers were too slow, grapplers were too weak. They were much more skilled than me, one of the girls was my BJJ instructor.

It was like sparring with a 12 yearolds.

Imo if you get beat by a woman, than you are not really a man. Because as a man you are supposed to be faster, stronger and have better reaction.

So if a man, regardless of the level of his skill or training, who weighs 125 pounds loses in a fight to Cyborg, then he's not a man. That's your theory? I mean, you an think that, but it's pretty stupid.

 

[panamaican]

So if a man, regardless of the level of his skill or training, who weighs 125 pounds loses in a fight to Cyborg, then he's not a man. That's your theory? I mean, you an think that, but it's pretty stupid.

He's a man but he's not much of an athlete.

I know what you're saying but the physical differences between men and women are so large that a man should rarely lose to a woman anywhere near him in size. So I can understand some mocking coming his way.

 

[Zuben**]

Feminism emerged at a time where women were 2nd class citizens, but all of that inequality has all but been removed from society at this point.

We should look at why men are more twice as likely to be homeless, more than three times as likely to be murdered, and why they make up for 93% of workplace deaths.

How is modern feminism working to solve those issues? If it's not then saying that it works for equality nowadays is not something I'm buying.

It absolutely is looking at those issues, and that fact that you think it isn't suggests that you're not well read on feminism.

Your theory, however, that all the inequality that women once faced has been removed is false. That's like thinking that because the law states that black people are equal that racism doesn't exist anymore.

Median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers, by sex, race, and ethnicity, U.S., 2009:

 

[Nonsense]

If your theory/ideology/political stance/whatever it's called only addresses the inequalities facing 1 of the 2 main genders then it's not truly for equality. Egalitarianism by it's very definition, does, and is. Feminism is by women, for women.

Uh, no. It doesnnt address the inequalities facing only one gender.

Here is an example. Women were excluded from the workplace. Now they're not. Yay feminism! It's all for women!

But if women are permitted into the workplace and not restricted to cooking, cleaning and child-rearing, guess what opportunities open up for men? Yep! Cooking, cleaning and child-rearing! Yay feminism! Equality for all!

I am a lawyer and my husband is a proud stay at home dad. Three generations ago, neither one of us would have been permitted our respective positions.

Just because the ways in which feminism equalize things for men are not the ones you hold near and dear to your heart does not mean feminism doesn't relate to equality generally.

 

[Zuben**]

"On average, full-time working women earn just 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. This significant gap is more than a statistic -- it has real life consequences. When women, who make up nearly half the workforce, bring home less money each day, it means they have less for the everyday needs of their families, and over a lifetime of work, far less savings for retirement."

 

[panamaican]

Uh, no. It doesnnt address the inequalities facing only one gender.

Here is an example. Women were excluded from the workplace. Now they're not. Yay feminism! It's all for women!

But if women are permitted into the workplace and not restricted to cooking, cleaning and child-rearing, guess what opportunities open up for men? Yep! Cooking, cleaning and child-rearing! Yay feminism! Equality for all!

I am a lawyer and my husband is a proud stay at home dad. Three generations ago, neither one of us would have been permitted our respective positions.

Just because the ways in which feminism equalize things for men are not the ones you hold near and dear to your heart does not mean feminism doesn't relate to equality generally.

Probably the best way to put it.

 

[Zuben**]

If your theory/ideology/political stance/whatever it's called only addresses the inequalities facing 1 of the 2 main genders then it's not truly for equality. Egalitarianism by it's very definition, does, and is. Feminism is by women, for women.

Again, your idea about what feminism is is incorrect. For instance, feminism wants to challenge the social and cultural norms that make it so that battered men are afraid to seek help for the abuse they suffer at the hands of their female partners. Battered men are afraid to do so because of people like Rusk who would argue that they are not "real men" because they are abused by women. Feminism wants to challenge that perception of what a man is and empower men to escape the limitations placed on them by that representation of masculinity.

 

[eXtv]

It absolutely is looking at those issues, and that fact that you think it isn't suggests that you're not well read on feminism.

Your theory, however, that all the inequality that women once faced has been removed is false. That's like thinking that because the law states that black people are equal that racism doesn't exist anymore.

Median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers, by sex, race, and ethnicity, U.S., 2009:

Spoiler

Just because men earn more doesn't mean it's an inequality. There's a difference between equality of opportunity (what we have) and equality of outcome (what we don't have).

Men pick more jobs in industry and scientific fields compared to women who pick more social fields when it comes to an occupation. They just prefer different things.

Look here to see it. Women generally prefer humanities and arts, men generally prefer computing and engineering.

[YT]EwogDPh-Sow[/YT]

I am also pretty sure that men on average work more hours compared to women which will of course make them earn more money, I'll look for a source on that one though.

And I'm not denying that inequality against women exists. It does. But not in the form that it once did, like not allowing them to vote or go to school and get the jobs they wanted, etc.

Women can do all of those things today, and are happily becoming a higher percentage of University graduates compared to men.

 

[Rusk]

He's a man but he's not much of an athlete.

I know what you're saying but the physical differences between men and women are so large that a man should rarely lose to a woman anywhere near him in size. So I can understand some mocking coming his way.

So if a man, regardless of the level of his skill or training, who weighs 125 pounds loses in a fight to Cyborg, then he's not a man. That's your theory? I mean, you an think that, but it's pretty stupid.

what panamaican said...


also its not stupid, its not some universal truths here, its about mindset,

and you my friend got a bitch mindset, its not very attractive to women,

if you think Cyborg gonna beat you up, and you ok with it, ^^

 

[Red Eyed Buddha]

I think some regulations should exist so that fighters are not put at risk by fighting opponents that they are grossly mismatched with in terms of strength. That said, even the current system of weight classes doesn't mean that opponents are equally matched in terms of strength, it just means they are roughly in the same ball park.



Maybe I shouldn't be allowed to fight them.

Again, I think it's more about skill. Otherwise I do agree about the current system of weightclasses. The ability to cut obscene amounts of weight corrupts the system.
And not much can be done about height and reach advantages.

It's something the smaller fighter has to compensate for. That's where gameplans and ability come into play. Same for any competent women as any man.

 

[Zuben**]

I have to say, I am somewhat surprised and gladdened by many of the responses I see coming from intelligent people in this thread. Not that the overall tone isn't typical of what I would expect from a thread about feminism at Sherdog, but the voices of dissent are measured and intelligent. It's nice to see.

 

[Absolute Power]

What strange advice. I do lift, although not a lot, because I don't want a bunch of bulk from weight lifting, I want to be fast and sleek. Should Frankie Edgar lift a bunch of weights? He's 5'6 and 150 pounds. Oh, and there are a lot of women that are taller, bigger and stronger than him.



I do admit that. Importantly, so do most feminists. I don't know what you think your point it.



Again, I never claimed that the majority are. Some, however, are. Some women are 6 feet and weight 185, and they are stronger than me.



I'm not sure how I would fit into the equation of who Ronda should fight at all. She should fight opponents of roughly the same strength. If that person is a man, then so be it. If he's 125, or if he's less, or if he's more, whatever.




How do you imagine this piece of common knowledge about the difference between sparring and actual fighting contradicts my argument?

I'm sure Frankie is stronger than most women. Get real.

The second point, women shouldn't be fighting men because of that.

How do you measure strength in way to determine which man Rhonda should fight? Weight classes exist to keep strength and size levels close for the competitors. But a 135 pound man and a 135 pound woman aren't likely going to have the same physical capabilities. A professional male fighter who has the same strength as Rhonda would likely be much lighter than 135 pounds. We shouldn't abolish weight classes because of feminism. If you want men and women mixing they should fight with the standard weight class rules that are set.

Some women are 6 foot, 185 pounds and they are weaker than me(I'm a similar size to you btw). Your original point made does nothing for your argument and thats why I commented on it. Outliers aren't a good example to use.

The sparring comment wasn't to contradict you necessarily. Men and women should be allowed to spar but not fight. The two things are 100% different.

 

[TeTe]

I spar with a 128 lb woman that won her division in the Chicago golden gloves two years ago. She is the furthest thing from slow. I'd say she's better than majority of men about her size that I've even trained around.