Is feminism inherently negative?

[Cyclotron]

PS. Kidicious, Jackson Browne

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten Right.

Thread destroyed!

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by DaShi

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

The obviously biological ones aside, there are others, such as linguistic ability (on average, higher in women), few classes of analytical ability (higher in men), and mean deviation in intelligence (much higher in men).

There is also the fact that women are on average are emotionally mature earlier than men. There is also the fact that they have a more mature and wider range of emotional experience.

Originally posted by DaShi

Irrelevant until you define a).

Happy now?

Originally posted by DaShi

Nice, but you still need to define a).

Done.

Originally posted by DaShi

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.

As said before, society must be so structured by the choice of not just the men but also women constituting said society. And when I say choice, I mean choice, and I also mean that no coercive methods are to be used to achieve such a society.

And as I said before, this is a personal statistical preference, not one which can be used to decide policy.

Originally posted by DaShi

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.

You haven't understood my argument AT ALL.

I said that the feminists had implicitly accepted that the masculine ideals were superior, and that the position of the man was inherently superior - note that it is innately superior, not superior because of circumstances. That is the basis of their stigmatisation of the role women have traditionally played.

That is, it was decided that the position was subordinate using the position of man as the ideal, using the values of men as the ideal.

Originally posted by DaShi

Firstly, you have yet to define the differences that require women to have to have a traditional role.

There are no differences which require her to have any role at all, be it traditional or non-traditional. It is her choice. And I am trying to get the point across that I don't want her to be pressured into taking any one choice.

Originally posted by DaShi

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.

I don't think that's correct. I do not define the traditional role that way. If that is your definition of "traditional", then there is no point arguing, as even I would not advocate such a role. However, I do not define it like that, so that question does not arise.

Originally posted by DaShi

Thirdly, you are treating women like they need a separate special stucture in which to thrive.

No.

I'm saying that an alternate structure which does not interfere with their choice between traditional and non-traditional occupations, and allows them to choose either, needs to exist.

Originally posted by DaShi

This is extremely condescending and reveals much about your attitude toward women, regardless of what you may say to deny it.

As you have completely misunderstood what I said WRT the alternate structure, this criticism does not apply.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by aneeshm
The obviously biological ones aside, there are others, such as linguistic ability (on average, higher in women), few classes of analytical ability (higher in men), and mean deviation in intelligence (much higher in men).

There is also the fact that women are on average are emotionally mature earlier than men. There is also the fact that they have a more mature and wider range of emotional experience.

So are we ever going to see some sources for these "facts?" Because then, we can actually have a discussion, instead of just making leaps of faith off gendered assuptions.

I said that the feminists had implicitly accepted that the masculine ideals were superior, and that the position of the man was inherently superior - note that it is innately superior, not superior because of circumstances. That is the basis of their stigmatisation of the role women have traditionally played.

If you think this, you don't understand feminism. Feminists don't think the position of the man is innately superior, but rather that such superiority is socially constructed. Additionally, feminists don't agree that "masculine ideals" are superior, but rather that society has often attributed masculinity to qualities it deems superior. These qualities are not inherently masculine, and feminism attempts to separate them from that assignment.

It was not "decided that the position was subordinate using the position of man as the ideal, using the values of men as the ideal." It is the recognition that the values of men are not values innate to men or intimately connected with masculinity, but rather values that have been attributed to masculinity by cultural norms and gender notions. The man is not the "ideal." In fact, feminism is highly critical of the gender roles assigned to men, just like it is of the gender roles assigned to women - they are both limiting in their own ways. Feminists are not trying to emulate men, but rather to disentangle both genders from certain gender roles and stereotypes, and in so doing liberate some of the virtues ascribed to masculinity for all people.

I'm saying that an alternate structure which does not interfere with their choice between traditional and non-traditional occupations, and allows them to choose either, needs to exist.

But why? Why "alternate structure" at all? Can you actually demonstrate your claims about innate gender differences? If you can, can you then demonstrate how these differences would be best served by an "alternate structure?" Can you then demonstrate how an "alternate structure" would not simply be a code name for a sexist society, just like "separate but equal" was a code name for a racist society?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by aneeshm
I said that the feminists had implicitly accepted that the masculine ideals were superior, and that the position of the man was inherently superior - note that it is innately superior, not superior because of circumstances. That is the basis of their stigmatisation of the role women have traditionally played.

This probably qualifies as the most absurd thing ever said on apolyton.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Cyclotron

But why? Why "alternate structure" at all? Can you actually demonstrate your claims about innate gender differences? If you can, can you then demonstrate how these differences would be best served by an "alternate structure?" Can you then demonstrate how an "alternate structure" would not simply be a code name for a sexist society, just like "separate but equal" was a code name for a racist society?

Bringing up a reference to the infamous "Separate but equal" is not justified, simply because economic structures cannot be walled off from each other like racio-social structures and institutions can, given the nature of the human species. Interaction is inevitable. In fact, the use of the word "alternate" is to suggest that the structure will be dissimilar to current ones, not to suggest that it will be hermetically sealed off.

[Ned]

Re: Is feminism inherently negative?

Originally posted by aneeshm
This movement may, once upon a time, have been a force for the good, when women were fighting for equality, but now they have degenerated into some sort of rabidly anti-men, anti-society, anti-establishmentarian farce.

At least in the US, the movement in its hey day was lead by lesbians and ugly women who were definitely anti-man. They sold an anti-family lie to women generally in order to advance their own interests. Feminism was never solely about equal pay or rights for women, but about "emancipation" of women from men -- from having to be supported by them. Children were always of secondary concern to the feminist. It was assumed that raising children without a normal family structure was "OK" and not harmful in any way.

Feminism was the modern incarnation of the anti-family thinking of the far left that proposes that families are oppressive of women, not the bedrock of civilization. Families twart the left's interests in indoctrinating the young, molding them into good socialists. Families provide a support structure independent of the state. Thus, the left created Feminism.

[aneeshm]

As for wanting a source: here you go.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Oh, good; Ned's here. And I foolishly thought this thread had already trafficked in as much ignorant bigotry and loony right-wing fantasy as was possible.

Shame on me for underestimating the OT.

[Kidlicious]

Re: Re: Is feminism inherently negative?

Originally posted by Ned
Families provide a support structure independent of the state. Thus, the left created Feminism.

And what happens when you have an independent thought or action from the family. What if you have different political views? Then where is your support?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Oh, good; Ned's here. And I foolishly thought this thread had already trafficked in as much ignorant bigotry and loony right-wing fantasy as was possible.

Shame on me for underestimating the OT.

Rufus, anyone who is pro-family is a right wing nutjob to you.

BTW, in the last presidential election, during the democrat debates, General Clark quieted the crowd big time by saying that it was the "Democrat" party that was pro-family, not the Republican Party. You could have heard a pin drop as all the other candidates squirmed and looked very uncomfortable.

[Ned]

Re: Re: Re: Is feminism inherently negative?

Originally posted by Kidicious




And what happens when you have an independent thought or action from the family. What if you have different political views? Then where is your support?

I think, Kid, you are proving my point. The left IS anti-family.

Let me ask you whether I am "free" to use the generic "he" in a sentence in your liberal utopia? That's right; I guessed it. The answer is

NO!

There is no real freedom of thought and expression in a liberal utopia.

[Kidlicious]

Ned,

First, a family doesn't mean much where people aren't respected which is often the case.

Second, there is a right wing idea about what a family is suppose to be and you are just assuming that to be the best way with out any justification. At least the others are justifying the traditional family without claiming that they are the only ones who believe in the family. This action of your equates to saying that everything you disagree with is unamerican. What a bunch of right wing nonsense.

[Kidlicious]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Is feminism inherently negative?

Originally posted by Ned


I think, Kid, you are proving my point. The left IS anti-family.

Why did you quote what I said. This sentence doesn't seem to have anything to do with what I said. I'm not anti-family. I'm anti my own family with good reason. As far as your family goes if your mother and your wife don't like your family I think they have every right to say so and to establish some independence for it. If they do like it then thats just fine.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ned


Rufus, anyone who is pro-family is a right wing nutjob to you.


BTW, in the last presidential election, during the democrat debates, General Clark quieted the crowd big time by saying that it was the "Democrat" party that was pro-family, not the Republican Party. You could have heard a pin drop as all the other candidates squirmed and looked very uncomfortable.

Well, as a liberal married to, and raising a child with, a socialist feminist, I'd obviously disagree with your first statement. I am pro-family. So is feminism. Like aneeshm, you clearly don't get that because, like aneeshm, you've clearly confused a ridiculous caricature of feminism (no doubt lazily gleaned from Rush in your case) for the thing itself.

And I'd agree with Clark: the real forces endangering families in the US have been consistently championed by the GOP, not the Dems. It's not surprising that the Dems are both the pro-family and pro-feminist party; they go together naturally.

[Ned]

Kid, there is an assumption in your question that is anti-family. The assumption is that independent thought is not tolerated in families. That may be true in some families, but it is not true in most.

There is also the assumption that if you raise kids in a commune they can have views independent of the PC norm. They can, of course, but they will be harrashed beyond measure because liberalism is all about PC and suppressing independent thinking and expression.