Is feminism inherently negative?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Oh and Ned, being a communist and being a democrat are two very different things. I find it strange that you always tie the two together the way you do.

To the extent (some) Democrats believe in socialism, they have a lot in common with communists who also believe in socialism, but who add the element of revolutionary takeover and one party rule to their milieu. If communists are red, Democrats are pink.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
As Kuci suggested, they have to take time off to raise children (if they choose to do so). This drops their wages compared to men. Until the state pays them for every child the ammount that is lost due to time raising that child, there won't be equality... somewhat because there isn't equality of time spent.

Jon Miller

Now I've heard everything.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kidicious


You are talking about the lack of fathers not families.

With this definition, it is understandable why the left thinks they are pro-family.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
The other thing to do would be to take your income afte ryou go back to work, and have the government give the women 25% of the income they have after going back to work.

Another (easier?) possibility is just make it so that women with children don't pay income tax.

Jon Miller

Jon, I have a great idea.

The government pays everyone equally.

Work is required and allocated by the state.

Everyone is equal.

A leftist utopia?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Cyclotron



The truth hurts [referencing General Clarks' statement and the sudden silence of the democrat audience], doesn't it Ned?

Cyclotron, you seemed to have missed the point. Audiences applaud when they agree. Silence means something else entirely.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Really this pro family stuff is just crap anyway.

Excellent point! We need Hillary and Obama to say this and say it often so the average American truly understand the position of the Democrat party on Feminism vs. the Family.

[DaShi]

Well, I'll tackle a few of the responses to me. The rest Cyclotron handled very well. Ashame that aneeshm avoided them by arguing the semantics of his own words.

Originally posted by aneeshm
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.

But you still believe that there needs to be women in a traditional role in order for society to function. You just want them to choose it, which allows you to feel comfortable with your oppression because they "choose" that role. Of course, this ignores the conditions under which they may have made that "choice." Anyway, why not think about this? How about a society that has no women in those traditional roles? Where is the problem with that?

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.

I just argued with what you stated in e). If there's more to it, that's your fault. However, I do accuse you of "after the fact" arguing then. In which case, your argument has no basis, because you make it up as you go along and change your meaning as it suits your ends. It the desperate attempt of a weak position.

So I will tear it down easily. You did not say anything about implicit acceptance by feminism. You stated directly that they "stigmatise women who make such a choice [traditional role], and project women who choose it as inferior," Your direct object is women. You stated that feminists stigmatize women. That they project women as inferior. There is no talk of feminists attitude toward masculine ideals (whatever you think those are?). Since you did not say that, what you just posted above is what we commonly refer to as a lie. The rest of that poorly written sentences follows the same suit so I don't need to go any further with it.

Yet you accuse me of not understanding your position, but above you clearly agree with my response that women stigmatize the traditional role. I think you just say these things because you think they sound good in an argument. There's no logic or reasoning in that post. You've lost this argument and no twisting of words will save it or how you've exposed yourself.

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.

But you do. By merely stating a requirement of 20-30% of women in the traditional role, you apply pressure. That fact that you claim it is a personal preference means exactly that you want women to be pressured into taking that choice. There's no way around it.

That sad part is that you say this part here and probably believe that you really feel this way. Yet, everything else contradicts it. It's like a psychopathic murderer saying he doesn't kill. It's not from a different definition of the word "kill." He just refusing to accept that he is really a murderer while gleefully chopping up bodies. There's no logic, it's just insane.

So let me point it out clearly. You do believe that differences require women to have a different role than men. That is the freaking crux of your entire argument!

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.

That's the other problem. You don't define anything! Cyclotron has covered this enough.

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.

Yes.

Because that's not what you said in that post. You said "an alternate, self-supporting financial structure should be built up in parallel with the existing one,". Parallel means separate. Two things in parallel never make contact with eachother. Alternate means that it's special, as in just for women. All you did here was try to change your meaning by omitting words from the post I am talking about there.

So this is more of the same from you. Trying to salvage your argument by twisting it into something else as it's shown to be false. Sorry, aneeshm, you're just wrong here.

As for your new argument, "this is extremely condescending and reveals much about your attitude toward women, regardless of what you may say to deny it." You're still boxing women into a choice between non-traditional and traditional roles. Again, you want this to be a choice so that you can be guilt free about women who do choose the traditional role. Yet, you ignore the problems with the traditional role and don't even define what you a non-traditional role could be. The fact that you think women need to make such an abhorrent choice in insulting to them.

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

You're smeggin' bonkers!

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ned


Jon, I have a great idea.

The government pays everyone equally.

Work is required and allocated by the state.

Everyone is equal.

A leftist utopia?

Definitely!

But I don't think others agree with me.

But you know that all industrial nations, the rich stop having children. In Italy, the government already pays 10k if you have a child. It is because, unlike in the farming era, it is no longer financially advantageous to have children. Quite the opposite, it is a large financial burden. And with extended families being weak, this accentuates the problem. Also, we were talking about women's issues. One is that they get paid less than men, this is because they have to lose time due to pregnancies, so the 'cost' for children is even higher for women than men. Also, women are expected (and might have biological imperatives as well) to care more for the children than the male. This makes for an even larger lost of income.

The issue is the women making less than men, and the loss of independence that arises in our capitalist soceity from that. Also, how to solve this.

I know a lot of women physicists who take time off for children/family. Considering that to be a physicist you have to be very driven (many work 80 hours a week), this loss of time/etc hurts and causes the pool of women to be smaller (there are very few women physicists).

Jon Miller

[Kuciwalker]

Two things in parallel never make contact with eachother.

Prove it

[DaShi]

[Ned]

Originally posted by Jon Miller



But you know that all industrial nations, the rich stop having children. In Italy, the government already pays 10k if you have a child. It is because, unlike in the farming era, it is no longer financially advantageous to have children. Quite the opposite, it is a large financial burden. And with extended families being weak, this accentuates the problem. Also, we were talking about women's issues. One is that they get paid less than men, this is because they have to lose time due to pregnancies, so the 'cost' for children is even higher for women than men. Also, women are expected (and might have biological imperatives as well) to care more for the children than the male. This makes for an even larger lost of income.

...

Jon Miller

Rich is the key word here, not industrial. The Romans had the very same problem. Roman woman stopped having kids in the late Republic. Augustus did his best to restore to the Republic families values and the desire to raise children (probably because the new Empire needed a lot more Roman soldiers). In the long term, he did not succeed, the population of Italy declined dramatically and the Empire struggled to maintain troop strength.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned


To the extent (some) Democrats believe in socialism, they have a lot in common with communists who also believe in socialism, but who add the element of revolutionary takeover and one party rule to their milieu. If communists are red, Democrats are pink.

You can't just label everything you disagree with socialist. How can someone continue conversations with you when you act this silly.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned


Excellent point! We need Hillary and Obama to say this and say it often so the average American truly understand the position of the Democrat party on Feminism vs. the Family.

We need Bush to say things that you say so that America can truly understand the position of the republicans on Capitalism vs. Freedom.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Ned


Rich is the key word here, not industrial. The Romans had the very same problem. Roman woman stopped having kids in the late Republic. Augustus did his best to restore to the Republic families values and the desire to raise children (probably because the new Empire needed a lot more Roman soldiers). In the long term, he did not succeed, the population of Italy declined dramatically and the Empire struggled to maintain troop strength.

What? After 200 years of Pax Romana?

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by DaShi
Well, I'll tackle a few of the responses to me. The rest Cyclotron handled very well. Ashame that aneeshm avoided them by arguing the semantics of his own words.

That is a shame, but not entirely unexpected. It's been repeatedly demonstrated here that the opponents of feminism in this thread have no coherent arguments to make that don't spring from undefined, vague statements and useless semantics.

Not one person we've been debating with so far - not aneeshm, not Ben, not Ned - has been able to put forward a correct definition of feminism. Additionally, all of them have based their arguments against feminism off assumptions that feminism explicitly rejects, and have been unable to prove or even define these assumptions.

I have, several times, put out the clear logical steps that must be taken before anyone can start arguing "well, women are just different, so..." and yet the closest attempt I've seen to satisfy that process was aneeshm's wiki article, which itself was riddled with claims and counterclaims, and repeatedly questioned the validity of nearly every study and continually emphasized the controversy of the entire subject. This is a sorry excuse for an argument.

What is mind-boggling is that the argument continues anyway. I am beginning to question if what Dashi, Rufus, and I have posted is even being read, or just kind of glossed over because it doesn't jibe with preconceived views of gender roles and differences.

Originally posted by Ned
Cyclotron, you seemed to have missed the point. Audiences applaud when they agree. Silence means something else entirely.

No, I haven't missed any point. The truth hurts. The republicans have propagandized for so long about their "pro-family" stance that people take it as the absolute truth. The real truth is that Republicans are not "pro-family" in any sense, and Clark got silence because people were stunned by that revelation. What is he talking about? Aren't the republicans pro-family? In reality, "pro-family" is a fairly empty catchphrase that has been hijacked by Republicans and used as a euphamistic catch-call for various forms of bigotry, sexism, intolerance, and patriarchal control.

If you want to see who's really "pro-family," look at legislation that helps families. Corporate handouts aren't part of that. Banning gay marriage doesn't do that either. Banning abortion also doesn't help families. Tax cuts that pile up debt, voucher systems that eviscerate public schools - no, those aren't pro-family either. Universal health care is pro-family. Supporting a living wage is pro-family. It's not about who claims the title, but who walks the walk.

I realize this thread is not the place for such policy discussions, but I'd at least appreciate a recognition that "liberals," such as myself, do not "hate the family" or other such nonsense. I believe there are serious problems with the family structure that enforce patriarchy and demean and oppress women. I believe that the way we construct family life as part of a domestic, women-only domain as distinguished from proper, wage-earning civil society in which men work needs to be changed. I see problems and I wish to fix them; you don't have to ascribe sinister intent to everyone who disagrees with your position. Call me stupid, ignorant, or uninformed - God knows I do the same to other people - but don't say I have some ulterior motive just because we happen to be on opposite sides of the aisle. That's what makes your arguments sound so silly much of the time; you're almost incapable of admitting that your ideological opponents are as forthright and seriously desirous of a better society as you are.