ZA Furries

I saw an online feminism test today and decided to give it a go. Unsurprisingly I got a high score for liberal feminism. Of course since I have a general liberal philosophy that was easy to predict.
If anyone else wants to have a go, you can find the test here: http://www.celebritytypes.com/feminism-5/test.php
Let's compare some scores!

Well,



TIL I'm a communist, apparently
Time to actually read the wikipedia article on what that is.

Also, I'd've preferred some of the questions/answers to be more nuanced, but eh.
Also also, on some of them I wasn't really sure if 'disagree'ing meant I just disagree with the statement or I beleive the opposite.
E.g. "The sky is always blue", does disagree 1 mean "it's sometimes blue" and 2 "it is never blue" or what?

After you get your result they do have blocks explaining what is meant by each grouping. The Marxist Feminist means that you agree that the economic system unfairly discriminates against women, if I remember and simplified that correctly.

I also had that issue with some questions. I went to find the one I had an issue with.
"Women are generally better people than men."
I disagreed but it wasn't entirely clear if they took disagreeing to mean that women were generally worse than men (not what I meant) or that women and men are equal (my meaning). I guess these quizzes are more for fun and/or self reflection than anything too serious.

Edit: I might as well just copy paste the Marxist Feminist explanation here.

Marxist Feminism holds that the mode of production in capitalist societies is organized in a way that favors men’s abilities over women’s. As opposed to Radical Feminists, who see patriarchy as the source of gender inequality, Marxist Feminists see capitalism as the cause. Marxist Feminists argue that the structures of capitalist economies coerce women into assuming responsibility for unpaid domestic tasks (such as homemaking and child-rearing) while leaving men free to earn money in the public sphere. Gender equality can therefore never be achieved in a capitalist economy.

While Marxist Feminism was originally about economic revolution, more recent writers have changed their focus from economic issues to cultural ones, placing more of an emphasis on the fight for social justice than the fight to topple capitalism.

Not just women, but also people of color, sexual minorities, and transgendered people have become focal points for Marxist Feminism in recent years. Intersectional Feminism is essentially a fusion of Marxist Feminist and Cultural Feminist ideas.

Goddamn women and their made-up rights make me sick.

I think most feminists are ridiculous.
But I respect their right to do what they feel they have to...

I think it's worse forcing women into CEO type jobs and forcing men out. That's basically what they're doing in our country already. Forcing incompotent people into technical jobs, and forcing compotent people out.

Eh. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

So far it seems Faan is the most feminist and Fluke is... well, Fluke.

>_>; whoops

Rakuen Growlithe wrote:So far it seems Faan is the most feminist and Fluke is... well, Fluke.

I honestly have no idea what this means but uhm yeah..

Sev, you seem to have strangely high scores for both traditionalism and liberal feminism. Don't those say the opposite thing?

Upon completing the test, I received scores very similar to those of Sev (though all branches of feminism aside from liberal were lower, and traditionalism was my highest) and was also mildly surprised. Nonetheless, it's possible that in questions that - when answered positively - would award scores to a specific branch of feminism other than liberal, a negative answer awards points to traditionalism. That could lead to high scores of both liberal feminism and traditionalism. Or at least, that's my hypothesis.

I am not a proponent of feminism, but I would consider myself a humanitarian with a respect and appreciation of the rights of and contributions from both men and women. - and I do believe one need not be a feminist to be able to do so.

Why didn't you upload your results, Galahad?

Rakuen, I'm not sure. I can tell you this: I am extremely dismissive of all of the modern "equality" movements. I believe in meritocracy over equality. I don't care how much they whine about "the patriarchy", women are going to be a liability in the infantry (and this has been empirically proven). That being said, if you can do the job, and are a decent person, I don't give a flying fuck what gender, race, and sexual orientation you are.

I agree with Sev here...
Equality is bull. If you're compotent to do a job. Then you are. People shouldn't force you into a position because of your gender/race...

Sev wrote:That being said, if you can do the job, and are a decent person, I don't give a flying fuck what gender, race, and sexual orientation you are.

That is equality. -.-

Rakuen Growlithe wrote:

Sev wrote:That being said, if you can do the job, and are a decent person, I don't give a flying fuck what gender, race, and sexual orientation you are.

That is equality. -.-

That is meritocracy.

Equality would be "a woman can do everything that a man can."

Feminists consider anything less than preferential treatment to not be "equality".

That's a misrepresentation caused by a news cycle (as well as several other factors) that seems to over-represent the "bad" in the movement itself. I could list off a whole bunch of movements that I agree with that haven't necessarily been well-represented in the media. Equality is EXACTLY all it's supposed to be. Basing things off merit is EXACTLY what it's SUPPOSED to be.

However, currently, at least in many first world countries you'd find that it's the opposite. "A woman can do everything a man can do" IS Feminism. The issue that stands is do they get paid the same? Treated the same? Etc. A lot of research shows that this isn't the case. But that doesn't make for a good news story does it.

For example (I know it has nothing to do with feminism, however this is just to show what kind of factors need to be looked at in cases like feminism), I agree with #afrikaansmustfall for my own reasons, I also agree with #blacklivesmatter I also agree with #rhodesmustfall why? Because all of them actively look at what kind of institutionalised perspectives still permeate our lives. HOWEVER, the implementation of these perspectives through violence, anger etc. from the people supporting it, I disagree with. But the cause is one that has to be addressed. The government SHOULD do what it can to ensure that students have a fair chance to make it to uni. Inasmuch as there should be a push to ensure that equality is reached in the workplace. But the issue here isn't just the universities. It's the foundation. There are issues there that desperately need to be rectified. E.g. Primary and Secondary education that ensures that everyone can be able to deal with tertiary pressures and ensuring that people in the lowest of poverty zones are given some form of relief. (another nuanced argument).

For that matter with BBBEE how do you think it feels to constantly wonder if you received a job because of your competence or because of your colour or your gender?

I don't agree with the way that many people "bandwagon" their ideals and militantly fight towards their goals. They destroy their goals in doing so and then we get people arguing whether they want equality or special treatment. Because the people defending the goals don't seem to be prepared to answer the questions with formulated arguments. Which makes the entire movement a catch 22 inasmuch as WHO is answering.

I don't trust people who use populist argumentation and think they can take a nuanced and complicated perspective and lump it around as though it's a singular factor that seems to be the issue. This goes for both sides of the argument. Those for, for ill-representing the true nature of the movement at hand and those against for squirreling the debate to the least important parts of it. And the news for trying to continue the debate along only those lines without any regard for the subtleties.

As a final point, one cannot discount the factors where people take advantage of these arguments for their own gain. This also upsets me. Our government is a very good example of what I mean.

Ivic_Wulfe wrote:For that matter with BBBEE how do you think it feels to constantly wonder if you received a job because of your competence or because of your colour or your gender?

A lot of those who benefit from it appear to feel rather smug about it... just an observation, could be overcompensation for all I know.

Leeward wrote:

Ivic_Wulfe wrote:For that matter with BBBEE how do you think it feels to constantly wonder if you received a job because of your competence or because of your colour or your gender?

A lot of those who benefit from it appear to feel rather smug about it... just an observation, could be overcompensation for all I know.

It's a fair perspective considering my final line regarding people who take advantage.

"A woman can do everything a man can do."

Including this man's job:

Medieval egalitarian values

Sev wrote:"A woman can do everything a man can do."

Including this man's job:

Why would you doubt that?

Really? No one has applied for something means that no one can do it... You really think that's a capability problem or perhaps that is something to do with the rampant sexism in the military?

Equality is relative to what you are. In my personal opinion, third-wave feminism tends to ignore biology in favour of social values. Yet some occupations - such as the military, law enforcement, sports and so on - leave little room for one to pretend this reality does not exist. Evolution has led to sexual dimorphism; that is undeniable. The trends in biometric data between males and females - height, weight, bone density, average upper body strength, average lower body strength, and so on and so forth - show the difference. There are no doubt thousands of exceptions (I am 1.95m tall, but I once met a girl taller than I am), but not enough to dismiss the rule. The bell curve, or normal curve, predicts such exceptions will occur, but at an insignificant frequency.

There have been cases, for example, of men identifying as women competing in wrestling tournaments for females. In almost all cases, they have won, as the probability due to biology favours them.

Sure, I dislike that aspect as well. You can't deny reality because it doesn't fit your politics. But, as you say, there are extremes and you're not going to find that one group of people can never do something. You will probably find that in certain occupations, some people might be overrepresented for biological reasons.

Rakuen Growlithe wrote:Sure, I dislike that aspect as well. You can't deny reality because it doesn't fit your politics. But, as you say, there are extremes and you're not going to find that one group of people can never do something. You will probably find that in certain occupations, some people might be overrepresented for biological reasons.

I do not think it is so much a matter of saying women cannot do X, because such an absolute statement is absurd and can often be disproven with a single example. I think it is more a matter of people complaining that not enough women do X, while the bell curve predicts that such a minor sample size is representative of them quite well. (And vice versa for men doing Y.) They then turn what is a result of biology or evolutionary psychology, into a game of victimization or privilege.

I've witnessed this firsthand in the engineering faculty. There is nothing - absolutely nothing - about the institution that intentionally discriminates against women enrolling into an engineering degree at the University of Pretoria. They take the same tests, the same classes, face the same criteria, the same challenges, and so on. Yet they still make up the minority.
It is the inverse in the veterinary faculty of the University of Pretoria - in your typical class, men make up about a third of class enrollment.

Evolutionary psychology predicts these differences in choices.
One then takes these natural occurrences and imputes on them fancy terms such as 'patriarchy', 'privilege', 'sexism' and so on, where no or little such prejudice has occurred.

Feminism would find greater use in developing countries where women face genuine threats - genital mutilation, "correctional" rape of lesbians, execution, being unable to vote or drive, being deprived of education and so on - because those women need our help. They are treated as less than human, which is abhorrent and wrong.

Rakuen Growlithe wrote:Really? No one has applied for something means that no one can do it... You really think that's a capability problem or perhaps that is something to do with the rampant sexism in the military?

Marine Corps Study: All-Male Combat Units Performed Better Than Mixed Units