Take the feminist quiz

Remove all ads!

http://www.helloquizzy.com/tests/the-feminism-test

My results:

I was once a veteran member of a liberal socialist message forum, and was routinely branded as a misogynist by a number of the retarded ********s there. Even today, I find this rather ironic, as I would like to see the complete abolition of gender roles.

 

I was very worried this would be a biassed site, especially when I saw abortion on the issues, but it was pretty good. My results:

They didn't even call me evil for not wanting to legalize abortions or anything.

Oddly, though, I said that gender is a part of our identity, contrary to their summary. I guess the rest of my responses indicating that it's given too much weight outweighed that one.

 

Gender-Liberal
You scored 67% Gender-Abolitionist, 100% Sexually Liberal, and 20 % Socialist
It was interesting. However, there seemed to be an uderlying need to blame it all on politics, not individuals. It may just have been the way I was reading it though.

I liked the fact that it said that in pornography, men were treated like disembodied penises...a lot of these feminism quizzes seem to forget that it swings both ways (no pun intended!).

 

Some feminists subscribe to the view that particular political and/or class systems (ie. capitalism) perpetuate gender inequalities. The quiz is trying to determine if you are a socialist feminist. It's clear that you are not.

Yes. Feminists could gain a lot of male support for their movement if they dropped the condemnatory attitude and pointed out that eliminating gender roles would also benefit men.

 

Not sure if I agree with that assessment of my answers... I don't think gender is important in the grand scheme of things, but at the same time, complete abolition of gender doesn't seem necessary. (clarification edit- I guess that stems from me, as a man, being attracted to femininity; I am in favor of abolition of gender roles, however, I see no problem using feminine and masculine to describe tasks or traits (so long as both sexes are equally free to partake in either forum). Women are the biologically fairer sex; I'd have a hard time believing that social stigma caused the average height and metabolic processes of men and women to differ. Therefore, as I said, I see no problem admitting there are biological differences between men and women, so long as we admit they do not determine who a person is or what a person can or cannot do.)) Otherwise it's pretty accurate.

 

My results: You scored 17% Gender-Abolitionist, 0% Sexually Liberal, and 40 % Socialist



You are the housewife feminist. You aren't very philosophical or political, but rather personal and practical. Housewife feminists feel there is no need to drastically restructure society or government in order to help women. You tend to feel that individuals can make their own lives better, and restructuring society is either pointless or too extreme to achieve these goals. You are also a very moral type of person, and tend to see the plight of women through a moral lens, not wanting to oppress others in woman's attempt to relieve their oppression. You also tend to see men and women as being very different from each other, and certainly not as equals. Some housewife feminists will even see women as superior to men because they have better qualities, such as more compassion. Normally, you would probably be classified as the "Cultural" feminist, because you emphasize the differences between men and women, tend to lack political motivation, and are not concerned with sexual liberation. I have called this position the housewife feminist, however, because someone in this category could easily be confused with a '50s housewife--simple, non-political, accepting gender roles, holding traditional moral values, and having little sexual liberation. However, it is important to note that this does not mean the housewife feminist isn't concerned with the women's movement. Rather, they are concerned for women as individuals and see the radical philosophies of other feminists as impractical or misguided. You resemble a '50s housewife on the surface, but beneath the exterior beats the heart of a true feminist.

Huh. I'm a feminist. Weird. But the part about me caring for women as individuals is certainly true.

 

You scored 67% Gender-Abolitionist, 100% Sexually Liberal, and 0 % Socialist.

Gender-Liberal. What a surprise that I'm 100% sexually liberal and 0% socialist.

 

Some of the questions seemed a little odd, but still.

 

Interesting:

Darkwolf, Rightwinger - take that!

Unrelated to the topic but hilarious in its own right:

And it didn't even hurt!

 

Meh, I didn't think the quiz was well done. There were unnecessary repetions in the questions, too few answers (a true/false answer is really not the best way to approach a question). And some questions or choice of answers were clearly biased...

 

Haha, LKD, you're a housewife! Snigger.

 

Well, that was no surprise. Still, I disagree with many assumptions the author of the quiz made. For starters, a negative stance on biological determinism (even in it's mildest form) does not make one a feminist. Also, I was quite amused with the question concerning linguistics... ah, newspeak and blissful ignorance of etymology, what is not to love.

I, on the contrary, thought it was biased. Maybe it's just me and my leftist rhetoric allergy, but the questions implied that women are oppressed and need to be helped (implying that one should be helped does not sound all that equal to me, but that is another story). Since the inquiries about politics seemed to concern the, say, more civilized part of the world (in exemplum, theocracy or tribal society were not mentioned as possible social/political systems) ; 'oppression' is an overstatement, and bears heavy traces of factual manipulation.

Which gender? The biological one, or the social/cultural one? Other?

Indeed, indeed. Most feminists, instead of discrediting the double standard, focus on creating a new one. It is truly ironic to see how one - sided the so called gender studies are. Some people never get tired of whining over ius primae noctis or arranged marriages. They fail to mention the opression of men (who, in my opinion, are the discriminated gender till this very day); misandry is alive, well and - most of all - acceptable.

 

fwiw, I thought it was biased too. e.g.

Do you think women are:

a. severely oppressed?
b. only mildly oppressed?

How so, in layman's terms?

 

Harbourboy, not only am I a housewife, I'm 40% Socialist. How the hell they got that I have no idea.

Men can be mocked, belittled, patronized, and the absolute worst assumed of them before the facts are in, and it's all good, because men "deserve" it. What a load of double standard BS.

 

It's true. All us women are sweet and innocent and opressed and you men are all rubbish and stupid and nasty

 

Hahahah, indeed. Reminded me of the "Do you still beat your wife?" question.

That, more or less, covers what I would have said. It is also worth adding that this gender is in what I would call a socially/culturally awkward situation. Many people cling to stereotypes and social roles, those associated with gender being one of them. Nowadays, there is no clear answer to what a 'man' is. Is chivalry acceptable, or should be discouraged and mocked? Is it okay if he stays with the children and takes care of the hearth? Will people not talk, will they not laugh... aaaand so on, and so forth.
Being a man in the XXIth century, I gather, is an identity crisis waiting to happen. Surely, we could all accept Badinter's theory on how men are actually androgynous and can change their psychological gender at will, but this could lead to some serious split personality disorders. Not to mention the constantly - induced guilt complex. That, however, is another story - again.

And another thing I failed to mention earlier: the issue of pregnancy termination as an exclusively women's right. I cannot even begin to describe how wrong and harmful such an assumption is. Most feminists would frown upon those who share the most conservative view on the matter (id est, those who view abortion as murder), still, this belief offers more equality than the latter - nobody is privileged, nobody gets to decide. When the right to abort the pregnancy is woman's alone, what the hell happens to the man (I am talking about committed relationships). He disappears? Becomes someone less important than the woman? I call oppression.

On a side note, I believe all the talk about abortion rights is exaggerated; 'tis hardly an issue of the modern world. Certain herbs, for example, will always exist, law or no law.

 

On the whole abortion thing: I did it. I went behind my boyfriends back and had an abortion. We split up and I really hurt him.
At the time, he was working in a bar and I was attempting a business qualification. My thinking was that it was MY body and MY life. Pete thought that his job in a bar and welfare benifits would mean that we would manage but I didn't think it was fair on the kid. I had the abortion and I', not proud of it. We split up and it caused a lot of bad feelings with out mutual friends. Suprisingly, the men thought he was over-reacting...I had thought it would be the other way round.

Anyway, Pete and I met up several years ago and talked it all out. We agreed that we were both wrong. We'd both grown up at that point.
Anyway, I should have talked to him and included him in the decision even though - at the time and in hindsight - we would have been awful parents back then.

It's not all about the woman in situations like this. However, it's not all about the man either. It's about the child. Abortion is a bad subject to use in a 'feminism test'. There are so many religious, family and social issues not related to gender that are involved

 

I'm going over to LKD's house for a nice cup of tea.

At a macro level I do believe that many of the differences between men and women are the result of evolution, whilst others are caused by our patriarchial society. I don't believe all unequal outcomes are necessarily the result of unequal opportunities. When I'm dealing with women though I'm dealing with individuals and don't (or at least try not to) judge them as a generic average woman. Most women are much weaker and less aggressive than men but there's plenty of women I know I wouldn't like to pick a fight with.

What's the story with the matchmaking option at the end for us singles? Tempting and all as it is I'd be worried by it.

 

@Rune, thanks.

They're also master strategists. Never think you can outwit one.

 

Equality is a man-made sentiment. We as beings are not the same as any other; we are not comparable. Society today has blown this notion of fair and equal treatment out of proportion. The basic notion of "Habeas Corpus" has been swept up in a torrent of pernicious water and spat out as "Any entity that hath subsisting conscience shalt be treated with exact same measure and diction as any other entity of subsisting conscience." This apocryphal notion has been bred from a coddled era; humans have no innate rights. The very moment that an oppressive force stronger than you comes along, your rights are gone.

Humans are not equal. However, we have become so sequestered in the notion that we must be equal, treated the same and that we must be the best that we can - that we cannot see past our own faults to accept when we are less than someone else. Perhaps this is because of the human desire for transcendence, or, maybe framed in a more pessimistic way, the human desire to master things. People have a very keen sense of potential - that they could be, should be, would be greater than they are if [something]. It's also, incidentally, why people react so vehemently to things that suggest otherwise: people don't take kindly to impediments to their potential.

A man cannot be less than a woman. A woman cannot be less than a man. Mary can not be less than sue. John can not be less than James. If any of these statements are true, then we are not being treated equally; if our skills are less than his or hers, then we are not being treated equally. Because of our desire to be powerful; to hold power over our fleeting, short lifetime, we as people are willing to accept a lot of things in the [something] category that don't meet empirical spec. Things that there's really no evidence for and even things that there's strong evidence against: That we all need to be treated equally. That humans are all equal. That there is an afterlife. That there is a god. That we are endowed with natural rights, that simply by the virtue of being alive and being human there is a dignity to our existence that makes violating it immoral. That there are morals at all.

Before anyone gets upset, I am not saying any of these things are wrong or bad, but that we do often hold them without realizing we do so without empirical evidence. Whether or not empirical evidence should be the only standard by which people live is an entirely separate discussion. The 'everyone is equal' myth (and in a broader sense this entire hypothetical) speaks to an immediate example of this: the desire to believe there is an untapped potential in the human person that would give us the power to be the same or better than everyone else. That is the basis of where the 'everyone should be equal' myth came from, that is why it has been so successfully exploited, and that is why it persists even in the face of huge amounts of evidence that it is totally false. What we want to be true shapes our lives much more directly than what actually is.

We as a society need to turn away from the notion of 'equally' and sternly in the direction of 'fairly.' We as a nation have given ourselves the right to be treated fairly, not equally. However, what is 'fair' is a whole melting pot of conflicting ideas, which is (supposed to be) why we have a Government, and is a completely different topic. No one is equal. To ask to be treated the same as everyone else is an insult unto both yourself and everyone around you. Discrimination is a part of life and while we should work to do away with that which is unfounded with no practical basis, when discrimination is based on hard evidence it can be beneficial to society and all of it's citizens. The 250lb 6'4" man is more likely to get hired for the construction job than the 115lb 5'1" woman. The 6'4" 250lb female who has a Ph.D. in Mathematical Education specialized in Euclidian Geometry is more likely to get hired to teach the Euclidian Geometry class than the 5'1" 115lb male Doctor of Philosophy. Discrimination is mandatory in our society and it will never be completely eliminated unless we some how achieve a perfect socio-politico-utopia; and if that ever happened, life would be quite boring.