Feminism

[rebelsquirrell]

I have a pretty standard view on the subject of Feminism. Women deserve equal rights. As I always say, there ain't no difference besides whats between yer legs.

I hate when people say that, it makes me think we aren't that far from the state when most western woman are actually not more than physically different from men anymore.

Really, if there is a difference between what the genders have between there legs, maybe that also have a deep intention into it?

What do u mean by "intention into it. "

 

[Evelyn]

I believe the word he was looking for was "purpose"

As in, "There's a [purpose/reason] for it"

 

[Oberyn]

I have a pretty standard view on the subject of Feminism. Women deserve equal rights. As I always say, there ain't no difference besides whats between yer legs.

I hate when people say that, it makes me think we aren't that far from the state when most western woman are actually not more than physically different from men anymore.

Really, if there is a difference between what the genders have between there legs, maybe that also have a deep intention into it?

The conception of gender as a purely (or almost entirely) social construct is an integral part of some of feminist academia. This has caused a lot of friction with scientific disciplines relying on biology. I found this paper interesting: http://ejw.sagepub.com/content/11/1/9.full.pdf+html .

 

[Merlkir]

Errrhhhhh...you know who insists on calling it "darwinism"? Creationists. Not a good sign. Ok, reading on.

edit: on the other hand, this:

What we have are multiple and often mutually
exclusive accounts of human nature, as well as endless discussions on the
problems of ‘essentialism’ and of equality ‘versus’ difference, problems
that turn out to be pseudo-problems when considered from a biologically
informed perspective.

pseudo-problems, goodness, that fits so well.

Anyway, the rest seems to be "Let's use evolution to explain why men are controlling assholes and why PATRIARCHY!"

At least she understands how embarassing feminist denial of biology is. Meh.

 

[Oberyn]

Errrhhhhh...you know who insists on calling it "darwinism"? Creationists. Not a good sign. Ok, reading on.

In an American context maybe...I don't think creationists in Europe for example have enough political power to produce their own "studies" and "scholars". I may be wrong though.

 

[Wheem]

This has nothing to do with equality.
So I'd say you are not a feminist, but rather a female supremacist.

"Supremacist" is harsh and ladden with overtones. Might as well have called her a "feminazi". There is a division within feminism on the matter, the two sides are usually described as "equity feminists" and "gender feminists". I agree with you that Jhessail definetely falls on the "gender feminist" side on certain issues. I doubt that gender feminists even agree that there is a division at all though.

"Gender feminist" sounds like a whitewashing euphemism in this case. Imagine her arguments in a slightly different context; "The crime statistics for a certain nation/state/province/city/etc...show that black residents commit more violent crime than white residents. Therefore, if there's an interracial incident where two men have a physical assault-vs-self defense encounter which results in bodily injuries to both parties and comes down mostly to one's word against another, courts should favor the testimony of the white man over the black one. This means that we should convict the latter of a very serious felony rather than dismissing (or delaying) the case based on a lack of evidence." I have a hard time believing that anyone here would be defending such a policy with some cutesy little term, and call referring to it for what it really is - racism - "too harsh."

I could easily criticize Jhessail's debating "tactics," but up until now I don't think I'd ever seen her say anything that was so openly bigoted. People with positions like that are probably the primary reason that any disdain for feminism even exists in "the west." Those types of feminists are to their movement what the Westboro Baptist Church is to Christianity.

 

[rebelsquirrell]

This has nothing to do with equality.
So I'd say you are not a feminist, but rather a female supremacist.

"Supremacist" is harsh and ladden with overtones. Might as well have called her a "feminazi". There is a division within feminism on the matter, the two sides are usually described as "equity feminists" and "gender feminists". I agree with you that Jhessail definetely falls on the "gender feminist" side on certain issues. I doubt that gender feminists even agree that there is a division at all though.

"Gender feminist" sounds like a whitewashing euphemism in this case. Imagine her arguments in a slightly different context; "The crime statistics for a certain nation/state/province/city/etc...show that black residents commit more violent crime than white residents. Therefore, if there's an interracial incident where two men have a physical assault-vs-self defense encounter which results in bodily injuries to both parties and comes down mostly to one's word against another, courts should favor the testimony of the white man over the black one. This means that we should convict the latter of a very serious felony rather than dismissing (or delaying) the case based on a lack of evidence." I have a hard time believing that anyone here would be defending such a policy with some cutesy little term, and call referring to it for what it really is - racism - "too harsh."

I could easily criticize Jhessail's debating "tactics," but up until now I don't think I'd ever seen her say anything that was so openly bigoted. People with positions like that are probably the primary reason that any disdain for feminism even exists in "the west." Those types of feminists are to their movement what the Westboro Baptist Church is to Christianity.

Precisely why I suggest they abandon the term in favor of egalitarian.

 

[Adorno]

Eglitarian implies an effort to create equality among all people regardless social position, gender etc.
That's all fine, but the rights of women got nowhere until the struggle was specifically directed at gender.
All the fine democratic ideas of the 17-18 centuries brought women close to nothing.
"All men are born equal", "One man one vote". The "Human rights" that only applied to men (originally).

Same goes for slaves and black people, gay people etc. They needed their own specific emancipations.
Not just vague ideas of being equal to others.

 

[rebelsquirrell]

Eglitarian implies an effort to create equality among all people regardless social position, gender etc.
That's all fine, but the rights of women got nowhere until the struggle was specifically directed at gender.
All the fine democratic ideas of the 17-18 centuries brought women close to nothing.
"All men are born equal", "One man one vote". The "Human rights" that only applied to men (originally).

Same goes for slaves and black people, gay people etc. They needed their own specific emancipations.
Not just vague ideas of being equal to others.

Most of these movements were directed at demanding that they be recognized as fully functioning persons.

Slaves were not viewed as fully human, simplistic savages with no advanced mental capacity.

Women likewise were viewed almost like children.

The problem was accepting there full humanity.


We are at a state in time when we can march under a individualistic emancipation banner.

Even white male middle class Americans face social injustices.

Why not liberate both?

When we have the rallies for the rights of ladies we here "women deserve to be equal to men", implying that men are not in any manner under social subjugation/discrimination.  (Which is obviously false)


Why not take the position that from birth a person should have absolute freedom in pursuing happiness and fulfillment so long as one does not cause grievous injury to others and that which opposes this is a wrong.


Sure you will have to have a focus group dedicated to breaking barriers, but we can have that without the huge militia like factions concerned solely interested in tossing there suffering onto others. 

All were doing is giving jhessites the ability to shift harm off themselves and onto whoever they happen to find worthy of baring it. 

We should frame wrong doing as a wrong against individualism.

By this I mean that a rule imposed on anyone because of there body is a crime against individuality itself. 

A wrong to women is a wrong  individualism, a wrong to men is a wrong to individualism.  A wrong to a black person is a wrong to individualism. A wrong to a gay person is a wrong to individualism.

With this in mind we can hunt down the wrongs in all sectors of society and deal with them in a manner that does right by the individual.

We can fix the grotesque disparity in child custody that heavily favors women.

We can fix the discrimination that prevents/prevented women from serving there country.

We can fix the bias in the courts against blacks.

So on and so forth.

We need not have warring tribes of causes.

 

[Evelyn]

What most people and "activists" don't seem to understand is that sexism works both ways.

 

[kurczak]

10 pages later, I still don't understand what exactly is the argument about. Anybody cares to explain/elaborate in simple terms? Like you're talking to a 5th grader.

 

[Splintert]

When a mommy and a daddy don't get paid the same amount of money for a job, the mommies get angry and protest.

 

[kurczak]

When a mommy and a daddy don't get paid the same amount of money for a job, the mommies get angry and protest.

I donno, man, I'm pushing 40 and I still haven't wrapped my head around the feminism thing and whether I am/ought to be a feminist or not, but if it's really just that and nothing more than that, than to quote the tv show my avatar references: "ARE YOU NOT?!?"

 

[rebelsquirrell]

10 pages later, I still don't understand what exactly is the argument about. Anybody cares to explain/elaborate in simple terms? Like you're talking to a 5th grader.

This thread started in the dating thread about the name of feminism, then moved to become about whether we should trust that people who identity as feminists are likely egalitarians and then a couple people have attempted to give the thread more important direction.


I would like to see suggested methods to attain equality. At least thats were I feel the thread ought go

 

[Kevlar]

I would like to see suggested methods to attain equality. At least thats were I feel the thread ought go

隐藏

 

[rebelsquirrell]

I would like to see suggested methods to attain equality. At least thats were I feel the thread ought go

隐藏

MY GOD IT ALL MAKES SENSE!!!!!

 

[Úlfheðinn]

Same old same old. Jhess Ulf got in a mood drunk and people took her seriously posted after talking to Kampradturk, the most holy of prophets.

By the grace of IKEA, I have brought truth to your slanderous post.

 

[Suspicous Pilgrim]

It's not that much of a big deal. Females should have equal rights to men, men should have equal rights to women. Give it a few decades and things like biases against men raped by women will go away.

 

[Merlkir]

What's a "Superbowl"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yhIWDSIWpg

mmm, all the delicious double standard.

 

[Duke Daniel Milutin]

When a mommy and a daddy don't get paid the same amount of money for a job, the mommies get angry and protest.

My mother have about 30% more payment than my father and their working in the same place.