Is feminism inherently negative?

[Ben Kenobi]

Ah, my bad.

I forgot to snip off the last part of Chrono's post.

I've now edited.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Those aren't my words, Kidicious.

There's been a misattribution at one point along the line.

Does is work the other way? Obedience = liberation?

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Is it really fair to give a woman equal consideration to a man who has not left his job and has worked solidly for that period of 2 or 3 years? Most employers would say no.

That's quite the strawman. Of course employers can, will, and should choose people on the basis of experience, but a woman who's taken off time for a family is not neccessarily less qualified. What exactly is your point here? There are many cases in which qualified women are excluded from jobs because they are women, and here you are talking exclusively about those poor, discriminated against men. You need some perspective on this issue, badly.

Exactly. Feminism has lost it's way from establishing legal equality for women to depriving them of what makes them special now in the first place. Look at Imran, he doesn't even believe that there are significant differences between men and women, and that the only way for true equality to be established is for the men to be exactly like the women.

For those of you listening in, "What makes them special" is thinly disguised codespeak for "inferiority."

Firstly, feminism is only partially about establishing legal equality for women. Legal equality is useless in a society that still operates through patriarchal institutions and modes of thought. I'm sure it's rather pleasant to assume that sexism and patriarchy ends the moment a law is passed, but it's also incredibly naive. Your concept of feminism is, quite simply, false.

Which makes the rest of your argument unworthy of comment by discerning human beings. Come back when you've sorted that whole "I know nothing about feminism" bit out. Then, after that, figure out this wonderfully romantic, vague, and presumably quite sexist "what makes them special" bit so I understand what the hell you're talking about.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Kidicious
The only thing missing is the will. Any rich women who wants to be liberated only has to wish to be so.

Only to an extent. Liberation is not solely an internal endeavor; you can't be liberated in an unfree society. A woman with the "will" to be liberated and material wealth is still constrained by the structures of patriarchy; her actions are circumscribed by the society in which she lives.

[DaShi]

I just want to say "Bravo Cyclotron!" in this thread.

[Drake Tungsten]

Have we talked about how feminism turned little girls into whores yet? I'm not reading the thread to find out...

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Kidicious

How difficult was it? I'm sure some men couldn't do it either if it was that difficult.

Well, yes, that's true. My partner couldn't do it - I had to do it for him.

[aneeshm]

Seems a lot of people have not understood what I'm saying. I'll repeat it, condensed into simple points:

a) Men and women have certain inherent differences
b) However, that cannot be a basis for discrimination
c) Therefore, there should be equality of opportunity
d) However, given the nature of the differences, society should be structured in a certain manner, with at least 20% to 30% of women choosing the traditional role
e) As long as feminists stigmatise women who make such a choice, and project women who choose it as inferior, and as long as this projection is accepted by society, true freedom to the woman is not possible
f) That to solve the problem of dependence on the man, an alternate, self-supporting financial structure should be built up in parallel with the existing one, which will give women the choice of either working or choosing a more traditional role without losing here independence, and which can later replace the existing one. Such a structure will allow true freedom to the woman.


That's about it.

[DaShi]

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=Cyclotron]
Firstly, feminism is only partially about establishing legal equality for women. Legal equality is useless in a society that still operates through patriarchal institutions and modes of thought. I'm sure it's rather pleasant to assume that sexism and patriarchy ends the moment a law is passed, but it's also incredibly naive. Your concept of feminism is, quite simply, false.[/q]

Indeed! 100% agreed. Legal equality is only the beginning. After that, any movement needs to move onto social equality by changing peoples' views. To use another phrase, by gaining the "hearts and minds" of the people. Feminists are at this, 2nd, and just as important, stage of the movement.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Seems a lot of people have not understood what I'm saying. I'll repeat it, condensed into simple points:

a) Men and women have certain inherent differences

As has been asked many times before. What differences are you talking about?

b) However, that cannot be a basis for discrimination

Irrelevant until you define a).

c) Therefore, there should be equality of opportunity

Nice, but you still need to define a).

d) However, given the nature of the differences, society should be structured in a certain manner, with at least 20% to 30% of women choosing the traditional role

First, you haven't told us what you think these differences are. Second, you argue creating a society where you place 20% to 30% into a traditional, ie patriarchal (this is the standard definition here, if you have another, you again need to define it) role. Choosing is just a convenient term for subjugation. Since you clearly state how society must be structure, there can be no choice. At least for women, in your argument.

e) As long as feminists stigmatise women who make such a choice, and project women who choose it as inferior, and as long as this projection is accepted by society, true freedom to the woman is not possible

This is where you show your ignorance of feminism (well this and everything you typed about it before this). Feminism doesn't stigmatize women who choose that role, they stigmatize the role itself, because it places women in a subordinate position. You don't seem to see this because you are trying to defend this traditional role for women.

f) That to solve the problem of dependence on the man, an alternate, self-supporting financial structure should be built up in parallel with the existing one, which will give women the choice of either working or choosing a more traditional role without losing here independence, and which can later replace the existing one. Such a structure will allow true freedom to the woman.

Firstly, you have yet to define the differences that require women to have to have a traditional role. Secondly, as has been said, financial dependence does not equate to individual independence. The traditional role, itself, is defined by not having independence regardless of how much money the woman may have access to. Thirdly, you are treating women like they need a separate special stucture in which to thrive. This is extremely condescending and reveals much about your attitude toward women, regardless of what you may say to deny it. Fourthly, you're smeggin' bonkers!

[Ben Kenobi]

Does is work the other way? Obedience = liberation?

A bit off topic.

Obedience is a virtue. If you believe that liberty is merely the absence of restraints, then yes you will see them as contrary.

For me, I use the analogy of a creeping vine. The vine is given a structure in the form of the fench which allow the vine to climb and grow. Without the post, the vine will not have anything to support itself as it continues to grow, and so it will wither. The same is with obedience. Obedience to that which is right does not hinder growth, but provides the solid foundation.

That being said, we are to obey that which is good. Does this mean that whatever someone says, we are called to obey? Hardly. People make wrong decisions all the time.

In the context of husbands and wives, we see that the husband has a duty to love his wife as he loves his own flesh. A husband that harms his wife is beating himself. This is how precious the wife ought to be to her husband. If the husband orders his wife to do something contrary to her own well-being he is violating his own responsibility to love and cherish his wife as he would himself.

Obedience to the law is not contrary to liberty, it is essential for the exercise of liberty. There can be no freedom in a lawless society, and consequently, obedience is a prerequisite in order that one may enjoy liberty.

[Jon Miller]

you are putting husbands as God there

additionally, not everything is as in your ideal world..

Jon Miller

[Imran Siddiqui]

Obedience to the law is not contrary to liberty, it is essential for the exercise of liberty.

But what if the law is oppressive and designed to suppress freedom? I would imagine that the laws in a military dictatorship that is authoritarian in nature would have such laws. Basically, obedience is not always good.

The line is the question... and sometimes a husband, or society at large, doesn't realize that he has crossed said line and is "beating himself", such as in his expectations of the duties of each party of the relationship.

[Ben Kenobi]

That's quite the strawman. Of course employers can, will, and should choose people on the basis of experience, but a woman who's taken off time for a family is not neccessarily less qualified. What exactly is your point here? There are many cases in which qualified women are excluded from jobs because they are women, and here you are talking exclusively about those poor, discriminated against men. You need some perspective on this issue, badly.

I've merely said that a woman who leaves her job for 3 years to raise her children will have, all other things being equal, less experience then the man who worked for those three years. An employer is not discriminating against women if he choses an employee who has that extra experience.

I am speaking of an issue that prevents women from having children, that they are worried if they leave their job they will fall behind the men who choose to stay. That is all I am saying.

My question, is what is the best way to resolve these differences? It is not right to require the employer to take on the less experienced employee in the name of 'social justice'. Nor is it right that women feel they cannot have children and forgo doing so in order to pursue a career that they do not wish to do.

I want women to have the choice to leave her field while at the same time allowing the employers the freedom to hire those they consider most qualified.

For those of you listening in, "What makes them special" is thinly disguised codespeak for "inferiority."

Where have I said that women are inferior because they can have children? Men and women are different and complementary to one another without being inferior.

I suggest you read only what I say, not what you interpret that I have said.

Firstly, feminism is only partially about establishing legal equality for women. Legal equality is useless in a society that still operates through patriarchal institutions and modes of thought.

Legal equality enables women to accomplish their goals. If a candidate does not meet with the approval of women, they will not get elected bottom line.

I'm sure it's rather pleasant to assume that sexism and patriarchy ends the moment a law is passed, but it's also incredibly naive. Your concept of feminism is, quite simply, false.

Actually I have said just the opposite. I said to Imran just because there are opinions which are considered to be distasteful does not mean they have any less right to express them.

Which makes the rest of your argument unworthy of comment by discerning human beings. Come back when you've sorted that whole "I know nothing about feminism" bit out. Then, after that, figure out this wonderfully romantic, vague, and presumably quite sexist "what makes them special" bit so I understand what the hell you're talking about.

Wow, how condescending. Why don't you come down off your lofty plateau and try scrumming with the rest of us plebians.

There are many ways in which women are different from men and not in a way in which they are inferior. Women tend to have a wider range of emotions, they love harder they hurt more and they are more likely to swing from one to the other. If the men have less range, how is that mean they are superior to the women because they feel less?