As expected, some are piling up pillars of salt over this:
http://gawker.com/alabama-county-stops-issuing-marriage-licenses-all-toge-1714220263
http://gawker.com/alabama-county-stops-issuing-marriage-licenses-all-toge-1714220263
US Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Across All States
- Thread starter The Good Gentleman
- Start date
Of course it'd be Alabama that just says "**** you marriage isn't a thing anymore then". That's the equivalent of taking your ball and going home because someone changed a rule.
I'm so glad to hear this, here in Spain gay marriage is allowed since 2005, things are finally changing.
While this is excellent news, I hop GLBTQ rights don't go the way of "women have the right to vote, so feminism isn't needed anymore" or "the civil rights movement was in the sixties and everything been fine ever since."
I can almost hear it now: "Gay people can get married now, so I don't know what you're complaining about."
I can almost hear it now: "Gay people can get married now, so I don't know what you're complaining about."
Except feminism is a crock of ****, and always has been. The civil rights movement was never about equal rights for blacks - it was about equal rights for all. African Americans have been at the forefront of it because they have always taken all those hits the hardest, and it was their message that reached out the farthest. In case you've forgotten, it was after the successes of the civil rights movement that the latino population surged as well, simply because it became more viable for them to stay.
Feminism, on the other hand, is nothing more than "more power for women, because." As it stands, women in America have literally the same political leverage and clout as men. What they don't have is the required attitude towards them - they have the rights, but not the acknowledgement. Unfortunately, that's not that the feminist movement wants changed - they want political clout and rights. Something they already have. It's misguided, to say the least.
Feminism, on the other hand, is nothing more than "more power for women, because." As it stands, women in America have literally the same political leverage and clout as men. What they don't have is the required attitude towards them - they have the rights, but not the acknowledgement. Unfortunately, that's not that the feminist movement wants changed - they want political clout and rights. Something they already have. It's misguided, to say the least.
Feminism isn't just the fight for legal and political equality for women.
It's also the fight for social equality, and looking at the current state of things, we still have more than a few social problems that need to be addressed.
If that is a part of the message, it sure as hell got buried under the rest of it.
It's literally a part of the very definition of it.
Yeah, because women didn't have to fight/suffer/die to get the right to vote or anything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffragette
It's about damn time. It should have been legal from the start, tbh.
- - -
Also, about the whole feminism thing:
I hope you know that the kind of "feminism" that Tumblr and the like claim to be is actually misandry and not actual feminism.
It's unfortunate, though, because these "feminists" give actual feminists a bad name.
- - -
Also, about the whole feminism thing:
I hope you know that the kind of "feminism" that Tumblr and the like claim to be is actually misandry and not actual feminism.
It's unfortunate, though, because these "feminists" give actual feminists a bad name.
Dictionary definition:
feminism
ˈfɛmɪnɪz(ə)m/
noun
noun: feminism
the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.
synonyms: the women's movement, the feminist movement, women's liberation, female emancipation, women's rights;
post-feminism, womanism;
informalwomen's lib
Dictionary definition #1
suffragette
ˌsʌfrəˈdʒɛt/
noun
historical
noun: suffragette; plural noun: suffragettes
- a woman seeking the right to vote through organized protest.
"Suffragettes were members of women's organisation (right to vote) movements in the late 19th and early 20th century"
I think you'll find women's suffrage is an advocacy of women's rights on the ground of equality of the sexes, one in which many women suffered, lost liberty or died in the attempt to obtain political equality.
A total crock of **** though, and always has been, innit?
Yeah. They're still different definitions. Don't know why you use that as proof, since you yourself can tell that they're different. Which usually means that, uh, they're two different things. Suffrage is merely an extension - a hand - of feminism. And a noble one. But what good is a single good hand if 90% of the rest of the body is crap?
Secondly, something you pull out of a wiki amounts to nothing since wikis are obligated to stick to politically correct definitions that don't exactly abide to the times. For a relatively recent example, look up "gamergate." On paper, by definition, it sounds bona fide. Worthwhile. A positive movement. In actual practice, it's a whole lot worse than a crock of ****.
The sad truth is, today's feminists don't want equal rights. Because, again, they already have that. I mean, hell, we're probably gonna have our first American female president next year. What the HELL do they want next?
It's all dominance, and self-victimization to further an attempt in dominance. Men have similar bullshit going on, but it's "unethical" to speak this way of feminism because of the past and political correctness. I spit on political correctness and two-faced ethics.
So once again, feminism is a crock of ****. Bruv!
Secondly, something you pull out of a wiki amounts to nothing since wikis are obligated to stick to politically correct definitions that don't exactly abide to the times. For a relatively recent example, look up "gamergate." On paper, by definition, it sounds bona fide. Worthwhile. A positive movement. In actual practice, it's a whole lot worse than a crock of ****.
The sad truth is, today's feminists don't want equal rights. Because, again, they already have that. I mean, hell, we're probably gonna have our first American female president next year. What the HELL do they want next?
It's all dominance, and self-victimization to further an attempt in dominance. Men have similar bullshit going on, but it's "unethical" to speak this way of feminism because of the past and political correctness. I spit on political correctness and two-faced ethics.
So once again, feminism is a crock of ****. Bruv!
So by your own admission, feminism wasn't always a crock of ****.
Actually suffrage was feminism in action and in reality. Insofar as feminism is a concept and suffrage was an application of the concept, yes they are different. But that's just being pedantic on your part, particularly since you're citing feminism as different from suffrage but not different from the phenomenon of 'feminazism'.
Exactly what the dictionary definition said it was, and I use Wiki for expediency, I do have other definitions to hand which are much the same; and yes, I'm aware that Wiki should not be used for serious academic purposes. But this isn't a serious academic debate. Unless you'd like one on semantics?
Sounds like you're just having a good whine about the types of "feminists" you don't like, eh. With an unhealthy dose of generalization on top.
Actually suffrage was feminism in action and in reality. Insofar as feminism is a concept and suffrage was an application of the concept, yes they are different. But that's just being pedantic on your part, particularly since you're citing feminism as different from suffrage but not different from the phenomenon of 'feminazism'.
Exactly what the dictionary definition said it was, and I use Wiki for expediency, I do have other definitions to hand which are much the same; and yes, I'm aware that Wiki should not be used for serious academic purposes. But this isn't a serious academic debate. Unless you'd like one on semantics?
Sounds like you're just having a good whine about the types of "feminists" you don't like, eh. With an unhealthy dose of generalization on top.
If you think the only noble thing feminism has done was getting women the right to vote, then you don't know much at all about past, or even present, feminism.
I think the only crock of **** that's going on here, is pretty much what's going on here.
Yup - I'm stepping in, because this doesn't need to be turned into a war about feminism, the definition of it or whatever else.
This, the thread's purpose, is to discuss the legalisation of same sex marriage across all states.
Yup - I'm stepping in, because this doesn't need to be turned into a war about feminism, the definition of it or whatever else.
This, the thread's purpose, is to discuss the legalisation of same sex marriage across all states.
I wouldn't say someone being educated about what feminism actually is is a crock of ****. Because evidently he's lacking knowledge on the subject and could benefit from some.
A discussion on equal rights is probably going to spawn further discussion about equal rights in other areas. Like real life discussions.
@Ieyasu: That wasn't really what I was saying (the whole "this conversation is a crock of ****") Below is what I was getting at -
Well that's all well and good, but it doesn't really belong here in this thread. And this came across as more of a heated debate than anything else.
And that's a fair point, but if the discussion really needs to take another path straying off into other areas, there's nothing wrong with creating a thread better suited to that discussion instead of trying to run one thread with multiple vast discussions that could get confusing for some.
That's just a suggestion though. I just thought it might be nice to get back to the main point at hand -
This is a time for rejoicing, for those for it. Let us all drink and be Mary (I'll get the wig).
Well that's all well and good, but it doesn't really belong here in this thread. And this came across as more of a heated debate than anything else.
And that's a fair point, but if the discussion really needs to take another path straying off into other areas, there's nothing wrong with creating a thread better suited to that discussion instead of trying to run one thread with multiple vast discussions that could get confusing for some.
That's just a suggestion though. I just thought it might be nice to get back to the main point at hand -
This is a time for rejoicing, for those for it. Let us all drink and be Mary (I'll get the wig).
Not if you're a Republican, an evangelist, an evangelist pastor, Glenn Beck, a quiverfull, an Alabama judge, a Kansas judge, Antonin Scalia, Rush Limbaugh, Jesus, Jesus's fish, CNN's Don Lemon, or Fox News in general.