*shrugs*

@RIFA

The issue with the quiz itself is there is no middle ground. It's either you fall into one of the feminist categories or traditionalism but traditionalism itself is a bit extreme when you look at it through modern lens so most people by default will choose feminism. There is one question regarding more lead roles for women in movies. Most Hollywood writers will probably be in support of that but when the time comes and say they are actually writing a script, their protagonist will probably be male by default, regardless of characteristics. There is a difference between supporting it in theory and actively trying to act on it.

I also scored 55% in Traditionalism. Which is you know a bit above what would be considered average traditionalism, simply because when it comes to feminism I really believe that the issue goes way back to our roots that it's really hard to change it all up over night. It's thousands of years of women and men being tunneled into certain directions because of their own natural traits which I do stand by. I believe both women and men are to provide for society in equal manner but in different ways. I'm not of the opinion that men and women can participate in all activities and offer the same results because I think there's a limit given by the nature of our build. Which is a more traditionalist approach.

So you think the reason women didn't go to school was because they were dumb or they weren't allowed to vote because policies didn't affect them or even write because they had nothing worthy so say and so on. Also, traditionalists outright reject that men and women can participate in all activities.

And then obviously I scored very low in the Radical/Cultural feminism (which unfortunately is quite the spread type of feminism these days, even according to some results above) because I simply do not condone for the punishment and judging of man as well as I do not approve of the lowkey fight for gender supremacy. I don't believe in enforcing things just because you want to be a part of the cake. I don't believe in the ideas of imposed QUOTAS being implemented in a free society. I believe in the idea of your OWN ABILITY to perform and EARN your spot over a god damn quota.

Radical feminism, and to a lesser extent cultural feminism does no such thing. Except of course if you feel that removing male supremacy is punishing men. It also does not seek to make women superior but rather a radical approach to end male dominance in the quest for equality. In an ideal world, everyone would be rewarded according to their ability but the truth is that our society is not a meritocracy. Left to their own wits, those in powerful positions will only look to help their own kind. So yes, it is sometimes necessary to enforce things and implement quotas.

Which is why (for example in the movie industry) I don't agree with splitting the way main roles are given based on whatever basic demographic percentage such as women and men being 50/50. It's a lot more than that. If we have 10 cop movies then obviously we will have at least 7 of those movies having 7 main male leads simply because that's the reality of it. The majority of the cops are males. Just like for example if there are 10 movies about nurses, 9 out of 10 should have female leads, because that's the reality. 90% of the nurses are female. So I definitely am against imposing things based on the single idea that women are just as many in this world as men. It's radical, it's not an intelligent approach at fighting for equal rights because it's not a natural thing at all, it's extremely feminist-cultural driven, and it simply defies logic.

I agree with you that roles which are gender-specific should not be changed in the name of equality. However, the problem is that when taken as a whole, women are vastly underrepresented in proportion to the general population. This is not because most of the roles can only be played by men, it's because they are written that way by default.

ChristNolan wrote:

Of course you score so high in traditionalism.. lmao.

MeLVaNoaTe wrote:The issue with the quiz itself is there is no middle ground.

There is. Score 50% in all of them and you're right in the middle. Supporting everything and nothing.

MeLVaNoaTe wrote:traditionalism itself is a bit extreme

Of course it is a bit extreme as traditionalism as it stands is a bit anti-feminism. The more middle ground if you really wanna go there is liberal feminism. That's kind of the center.

MeLVaNoaTe wrote:Most Hollywood writers will probably be in support of that but when the time comes and say they are actually writing a script, their protagonist will probably be male by default, regardless of characteristics. There is a difference between supporting it in theory and actively trying to act on it.

Prove me that's a factual thing and then we can talk about it. Until then, this is all but an assumption.

MeLVaNoaTe wrote:So you think the reason women didn't go to school was because they were dumb or they weren't allowed to vote because policies didn't affect them or even write because they had nothing worthy so say and so on. Also, traditionalists outright reject that men and women can participate in all activities.

Of course not lol. But the idea that men and women can participate in all activities in equal manner is a bit far-fetched from the actual reality. There are just certain things that a specific gender is better at.

MeLVaNoaTe wrote:Radical feminism, and to a lesser extent cultural feminism does no such thing. Except of course if you feel that removing male supremacy is punishing men. It also does not seek to make women superior but rather a radical approach to end male dominance in the quest for equality. In an ideal world, everyone would be rewarded according to their ability but the truth is that our society is not a meritocracy. Left to their own wits, those in powerful positions will only look to help their own kind. So yes, it is sometimes necessary to enforce things and implement quotas.

In theory they don't do such things. In practice they do. It's never necessary to enforce thing nor does it make any sense because it is counter-productive in the long-term. It's like saying it's necessary to enforce democracy in middle-east. As long as something is enforced then it's not going to be part of a natural process of evolution. Soooooo sooner or later bad shit will happen. Enforcing quotas can create repercussions from men in the future. Enforcing quotas also betrays the very core beliefs of a free society. Like I said. Earn your job. Earn your position. Earn your money. Earn your shit. You shouldn't be given something for free because of your sex, race, etc. That leads to destabilization.

MeLVaNoaTe wrote:I agree with you that roles which are gender-specific should not be changed in the name of equality. However, the problem is that when taken as a whole, women are vastly underrepresented in proportion to the general population. This is not because most of the roles can only be played by men, it's because they are written that way by default.

And if the writing justifies it? What's wrong with that? You need more data than just a look at the general population like I said. I doubt writers go into every piece of material. Yeah this will be a guy because I don't like women. If it fits the material then he's going to be a guy. It's that simple.

i don't know what's what but i hope my scores are ok

anyway:

Pornography should not be legal.

i wish the disagree bar stretched back to infinity

anyway2:

if you modify the url, you can post whatever results you want. some i assume will be totally contradictory

http://www.celebritytypes.com/feminism- ... 53&cult=34

Well if you were honest with your answers your scores are ok because you were true to yourself.

What you think of those scores is totally up to you in relation to the available spectrum and your understanding of it. If you like the results then good. If you don't then ask questions. And attempting to modify the url or whatever you're lying to yourself more than anything so...

And yeah @ that question.

I'm curious if someone here said that pornography should be illegal.

RIFA wrote: And attempting to modify the url or whatever you're lying to yourself more than anything so...

Just pointing out bad coding.