Is feminism inherently negative?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned
Kid, now you are being ridiculous. I know the difference between classic liberalism (i.e., a concern for the poor) which has its origins in Christianity and socialism which speaks of the "social contract," class warfare and economic equality. The classic liberal would be pro-family. The socialist is anti-family because the socialist wants everyone to be dependent upon the state.

First you are confused. Progressivism is the christian based movement to help the poor. Classical liberalism has nothing to do with it.

Second we don't want people to be dependent on the state. We want them to be independent and free. Personally I don't care about the family the way that you do. I care about individuals like women and workers. But then I'm not anti-family either. As I've already said if you want to have a family go for it. No problem. If I don't want to have a family and I don't think that others should have to either that doesn't make me anti-family.

BTW, I do have a family. I have a son who I raise by myself. You are just being really absurd to say that I am anti-family. You're just trying to demonize me.

I hate to be so blunt, but when people disagree with you you really tend to try to demonized them, by calling them things that they aren't and claiming that they stand for things that they don't stand for. Are you ever going to change, or will you be the same Neddy forever?

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Are you reading what you're writing? Unless we have drastically different definitions of 'different' (uhoh), that paragraph makes no sense.

Alright, I'll try harder to spell it out for you.

There exist certain differences between males and females.

The most easily observed ones are physical differences.

"Females are different" has been used by several people throughout this thread to justify a variety of positions. "Females are different, therefore X"

The problem is that nobody seems willing to define how females are different. Sure, there are physical differences, but the argument so far has primarily been about alleged emotional and mental differences.

For these differences to be applicable to a discussion on feminism, or any discussion at all, they need to be demonstrated as true. Otherwise, they may just be "common knowledge" stereotypes, like the "common knowledge" that people with darker skin are lazier or stupider.

Once it has been demonstrated that these differences are present, it must then be demonstrated that they derive not from society and environmental factors, but from nature. This is the second pitfall people seem to be running into. When it is observed that females have some different mental or emotional trait, people seem to immediately accept that this is due to how females "naturally are" rather than how society conditions them to be. Feminism posits that much of these percieved differences are, in fact, culturally based, resulting from socially enforced gender roles and expectations of femininity/masculinity.

Finally, once the difference has been demonstrated to be natural, it must be demonstrated to be relevant. What if we accept that men, "naturally," have higher IQ variation than women do "naturally?" What proceeds from that? Apparently, given the responses in this thread so far, the answer seems to be "we restrict their human rights" or "we assign them to roles that we believe reflect their natural qualities" or "we place them in separate but equal economic/social structures." But the connection has to be made first. Why does the average IQ variation for a woman neccessarily lead to any of these things? Why does it matter at all?

But nobody takes these steps. I assume it's because they aren't capable of doing it. They would prefer to make an observation, which may or may not be true, and then assume that observation to be "natural," which may or may not be true, and finally to use that natural observation to make certain claims about what women "should" do, or how society "should" treat and accomodate women.

Thus, nearly every argument made against feminism so far in this thread has been a non-starter, yours included. You tell me a fact - women "have boobs" and "can have kids." That's true. It's also plainly natural - that is, not a product of culture. But you have yet to demonstrate its relevance. What conclusions do you draw from this fact? How should society be structured given this fact? How does this impact "proper" gender roles?

So that's what I'm asking you - significant to what? In what way is the fact that women bear children signficant? Yes, it means that the species propagates. Good for you! But unless you really missed the boat, you know this thread isn't about species propagation, but feminism, so you'll have to think a little harder than that. How is this fact significant for gender roles, for feminism, for cultural norms?

[Odin]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


No matter what you do the mom is going to have to take some time off. And it's quite possible that during early years it's better for children to be raised by the mother.

I don't disagree with that, but that doesn't mean Mom has to be a housewife till the kid is 18.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Odin
Marxist Statists like Kidicious

STFU you idiot

[MJW]

Originally posted by Kidicious


STFU you idiot

{Insert Ming warning here}

[Odin]

Originally posted by Cyclotron

Finally, once the difference has been demonstrated to be natural, it must be demonstrated to be relevant. What if we accept that men, "naturally," have higher IQ variation than women do "naturally?" What proceeds from that? Apparently, given the responses in this thread so far, the answer seems to be "we restrict their human rights" or "we assign them to roles that we believe reflect their natural qualities" or "we place them in separate but equal economic/social structures." But the connection has to be made first. Why does the average IQ variation for a woman neccessarily lead to any of these things? Why does it matter at all?

This is the kicker. One shouldn't use what is natural to determine what is morally right. I do think there are inborn average mental differences between men and women, but that doesn't mean it is morally right to use those differences to discriminate between individual men and women.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Kidicious


STFU you idiot

No.

[Kidlicious]

Then stop being an idiot. I've told you a dozen times already that I'm not a statist. I've told you another dozen times that I'm not a blank slater.

To top it off you always go on about that stupid market socialism and when anyone ever asks you how it works you never explain.

[MJW]

I don't think your differences in your ideas about how the state should be run really don't matter for now. You are so left that you will always vote for some usless third party or the democarts.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MJW
I don't think your differences in your ideas about how the state should be run really don't matter for now. You are so left that you will always vote for some usless third party or the democarts.

What matters is someone continually saying things that are wrong even after you continually correct them.

[MJW]

Originally posted by Kidicious


What matters is someone continually saying things that are wrong even after you continually correct them.

Okay. I understand.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Kidicious
What matters is someone continually saying things that are wrong even after you continually correct them.

This is pretty much the story of this thread

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
This is pretty much the story of this thread

It doesn't bother me when right wingers do it for some reason.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
Alright, I'll try harder to spell it out for you.

There exist certain differences between males and females.

And you claimed the opposite. Or rather, you said:

"females are different" is alleged without ever being defined. When it is defined, it's offered without proof

While it's obvious that your point is something along the lines of "women shouldn't be treated differently" and/or "women don't have different value," that's not what you say. And if you're writing paragraphs that make no sense whatsoever unless I put words in your mouth, I'll just call you on the nonsense rather than address what you mean to be your argument.

[Elok]

Cyclo, reverse things a bit. If we can't prove that gender differences are a product of natural tendencies, fine, but can you prove that they aren't? If not, this turns into another clockwork game of "burden of proof tennis," as seen in all theology threads.

Personally, I think most of the radical feminist tripe about society causing everything is a crock of crap. It's very difficult to prove either way; this is just gut feeling combined with the severe scarcity of matriarchies throughout recorded history. It seems a bit funny to claim that this Patriarchal Oppression voodoo was discovered at the dawn of human civilization and propagated throughout history with no successful challenge to it the whole time. How did the idea succeed so incredibly if the playing field was even? It's easier to believe that men have always been in charge because we're naturally more aggressive and driven to compete (plus women were formerly incapacitated for years at a stretch by pregnancy and nursing), than due to some subconsciously-executed philological conspiracy.

Note that I said RADICAL feminist; wanting the right to work at the same jobs as a man for the same wages, to have the same voting rights, etc. does not necessarily also mean believing a lot of malarky about oppressive patriarchal dominance patterns and "herstory." Which of course is what Aneeshm is trying to argue against in his attack on feminism altogether, and you've helped that strawman succeed by framing the argument that way. Luckily his argument as a whole still failed, due to the fact that he's Aneeshm...