Feminists / women wants it both ways

[Gerard Velthuis]

Here is something that really strikes me.

Nowadays at TV and at the movies often you see women just as violent and aggressive as men. They are portrayed as strong and independent women that kick ass just as badly (or worse) as the men in the movie(s).
Feminists / women say this is the result of women's liberation and women SHOULD be portrayed like this and not as helpess or irrelevant by-figures (at least in action movies).

But then again in real life, all you hear from feminists (and women) is how violent men are and that all wars in the world are caused by men and that if women would rule there would be peace, and they even suggesting male taxes because of the violence caused almost exclusively by male.

It seems like feminists want it both ways, and at the moment they are getting it both ways.

I am sure there are other ways in which feminists want things both ways, but this is just one example that really bothers me I must say.

[Sir Percy]

It is very bothersome - and more. I quite agree. And in countering the feminist double standard, we must take care not to create our own. We must be scrupulous in our analysis and fairness. The truth is our best weapon, not the mendacity that feminists use.

[Prometheus]

Yeah there are plenty of double standards!

But then again in real life, all you hear from feminists (and women) is how violent men are and that all wars in the world are caused by men and that if women would rule there would be peace, and they even suggesting male taxes because of the violence caused almost exclusively by male.

 Don't you understand, you silly, ignorant cave man?  When a man is violent, that is, well...violence.  But when a woman is violent, that is....Empowerment!

And then when she is done beating you up she can go back to being a delicate flower and you can open up the door for her and don't forget to pull out the chair for her at the dinner table and hang up her coat, because after all, you must prove to her that chivalry is not dead.

[neonsamurai]

Here is something that really strikes me.

Nowadays at TV and at the movies often you see women just as violent and aggressive as men. They are portrayed as strong and independent women that kick ass just as badly (or worse) as the men in the movie(s).
Feminists / women say this is the result of women's liberation and women SHOULD be portrayed like this and not as helpess or irrelevant by-figures (at least in action movies).

But then again in real life, all you hear from feminists (and women) is how violent men are and that all wars in the world are caused by men and that if women would rule there would be peace, and they even suggesting male taxes because of the violence caused almost exclusively by male.

It seems like feminists want it both ways, and at the moment they are getting it both ways.

I am sure there are other ways in which feminists want things both ways, but this is just one example that really bothers me I must say.

Yup that's one of my bug bears. But there's another double standard attached to this as well.

Feminists harp on about how violent men are and how the majority of DV victims are women because men are so strong and aggressive. Basically toe to toe men are better at fighting, plus we're physically stronger.

But they suddenly forget about that when they start talking about women in the military. Suddenly women are just as capable as men at fighting.

They want it both ways. Victim/Heroine. Heroine/Victim.

[zarby]

Yeah, women may be just as capable as men in the military (according to feminist), but there blood should be spilled. After all, they are women.

I have heard a few reports of women being among the casualties in the present Iraq war but very few. It seems nearly all the dying is by men.

Which leads to another line of thought. Most of the people being trained in college are women now. Yet, women are electing to opt out of the work force in large numbers -- even women with high caliber college credentials. Women have substantial equality in the military (with very few positions not open to them now) yet they are used fully in war.

Putting aside issues of what is "fair" for now, this is just economically inefficient. Significant resources are being wasted.

Simple logic is that if a woman who is not going to actually use the training she receives displaces a man who would, then the net result is economic waste. Economic efficiency has never been a feminist goal.

Feminist don't deal in hard realities like making the trains run, growing the grain to feed the population, keeping the enemies out, etc.  

The feminist solution to solving proverty is to redistribue wealth -- not make additional wealth. Ultimately, the hard facts of life are felt, though. This is why feminist doctrine is a disadvantage to a country.

I am a feminist in the old fashioned sense. I am all for equality. If a woman wants to join the Airborne Rangers she should have an equal opportunity to qualify. I mean truly equal. If she qualifies, fine. She would need to swim the same distance in the same river with the same current. She would need to jump out of the same helicopters into the same terrain and at night. If there is a war, she would need to be exposed to the same risks including charging the same enemy positions -- even if near suicidal.

The same would apply to women who wish to serve in any other position. The same would be true for men. Absolute equality is just fine with me.

[zarby]

it should have read "their blood should not be shed. After all, they are women.