Is feminism inherently negative?

[Kuciwalker]

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.

You missed the entire exchange regarding reproduction and the importance thereof, apparently. I haven't been part of whatever aneeshm's saying...

[Kidlicious]

I don't think gender differences are relevant. Men and women are similar enough.

[Kuciwalker]

Even if all mental differences are social, they could be so for good [evolutionary] reasons.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Odin


I don't think it is a good thing if kids grow up up in a house hold where Mom and Dad hate each other, or where one parent is abusive.

I think I agreed with this elsewhere. But the "hate" each other has to be more than the typical spat mosts husbands and wifes have from time to time. There has to be mediation and counselling first, because that often works.

However, when there is real abuse, divorce is necessary.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Odin
The Christian ethos IS socialist, you fool.

A Christian ethos is socialist, you fool. There are many.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Odin


The Christian ethos IS socialist, you fool. And you are confusing Marxist Statists like Kidicious with all Socialists. There are Market Socialists, like myself, who desired a market economy based on co-ops. You also have the Christian Socialists, like Dr. MLK.

I beg to differ and strongly differ on your first point. There is nothing in Christianity that calls for economic equality on the basis that resources are finite and for one to have more another has to have less. (That kind of thinking may be partly true when wealth was based almost entirely on land and land was finite.) Christianity's concern for the poor began with Christ's teachings and was extended by the early Christians who viewed all men to be created equal by God. (A line parsed from the Declaration, but the root of all liberalism.) Thus Christian liberalism seeks equal rights for the poor before the law and economic assistance in the form of charity or government assistence. Socialism may share concern for the poor and in this it may be Christian, but the converse clearly is not true.

[MJW]

Hmmm... I think Chirtianity was very left wing for its time. It really did not define when to stop though. So you can be a left-wing or a right-wing Christian and be totally consistent. The right-wingers of today would be considered ultra-left by when Christianity started.

[Ned]

Kuci, tell me any Christian faction that equates wealth with sin without more. Socialism declares wealth unjust on the "pie" theory, i.e., if you have more, I necessarily have less. This is nonsense in a modern market economy.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MJW
Hmmm... I think Chirtianity was very left wing for its time. It really did not define when to stop though. So you can be a left-wing or a right-wing Christian and be totally consistent. The right-wingers of today would be considered ultra-left by when Christianity started.

Yes indeed Christianity was very left wing in an age when fascism was supreme.

Today, though, one can be a good Christian and not be a socialist and be a good socialist without being Christian. The two philosophies are not congruent, though the share some values.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by 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.

First, this really doesn't make sense. Second, what gender differences are you talking about? This is what Cyclotron is getting at. Everyone's quick to say that their are differences, but when they are asked define those differences, they shuffle their feat and spout stereotypes.

Personally, I think most of the radical feminist tripe about society causing everything is a crock of crap.

That's why no one is talking about radical feminism. Well, except aneeshm, who is but says he isn't. (well, and now you) What the rest of us have been trying to do is point that out to him. From what you wrote next, you obviously didn't get that.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
You missed the entire exchange regarding reproduction and the importance thereof, apparently. I haven't been part of whatever aneeshm's saying...

That's too bad, since it's aneeshm's thread.

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Even if all mental differences are social, they could be so for good [evolutionary] reasons.

When was the last time we worried about good evolutionary reasons? We use health care to ensure that less fit individuals live and pass on their genes, for instance. It turns out that society today is really not so much concerned with evolving as quality of life, i.e. human rights.

Originally posted by 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.

Like it or not, the burden of proof isn't on me. It falls on the people who state that, because "women are different," such-and such gender role or such-and-such policy is right. I've made no such claims. The degree to which society and gender roles have changed in the timeline of the women's liberation movement would seem to suggest that, in fact, some of these gender roles are socially constructed.

What about racial politics? The Bell Curve attempted to prove that certain races just had lower IQs than others. They were roundly criticized for it, but the point remains that our understanding of comparative intelligence and emotional responses is limited at best, and the results of such surveys are very controversial. And yet we, as a culture, have largely placed the burden of proof on the people who are against racial equality - you say whites are smarter or "more creative?" Prove it! An enlightened society defaults to equality, because inequality is perceived to be immoral. Thus, inequality should only be maintained within the culture when there are substantial reasons to think it present, natural, and necessary.

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.

The playing field isn't even. Most intelligent feminists realize that the superior average physical strength of men, combined with women's immobility in pregnancy, enabled this to happen. Fortunately, we now live in a society in which dominance by the physically strong over the physically weak is (supposed to be) frowned upon. The president is no longer the guy who can crack the most skulls.

Even if we accept that men are "naturally more aggressive and driven to compete," which may well be true, this doesn't by itself justify anything. Why is it that we should have different policies or established gender roles because of natural averages? Certainly individual women are sometimes more aggressive and more driven to compete than individual men.

Only lunatics are arguing for a "conspiracy." But most sensible people, I should think, realize that things have changed a great deal since "the dawn of patriarchy" and deserve examination, rather than unwavering acceptance and thorough naturalization.

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...

What does "radical feminist" even mean? It's as if you're comparing feminists now with feminists from 1920. The world "herstory" is retarded, but I don't hear it anywhere except out of the mouths of people mocking feminism. Sounds like a strawman to me! As far as the existence of patriarchal dominance, that isn't the domain of "radical feminists," but mainstream ones (unless your definition of "radical feminists" is "contemporary feminists").

It's very interesting that the examples you give of things "normal" feminists believe are all about rights. Right to work, right to vote. But the movement for racial equality in America didn't end because black people got the right to be free, the right to work, and the right to vote, did it? It had to then challenge "separate but equal" statues, Jim Crow laws, and more subtle discrimination, and now wrestles with the prickly issues of racism, affirmitive action, hate crimes, and so on. The fact is that equality for black people has not come from rights alone, and by the same token it would be foolish to assume that equality for women will be won by the same narrow, legalistic means.

There is a lot of work left to be done, and this work is typically discredited by catchphrases like "radical feminist" and "feminazi." Of course, as is typical of catchphrases, these tend to be poorly defined smear terms. It would be like calling a black person who said "the right to vote is not enough, let's talk about institutionalized racism" a "radical negroist" or a "afronazi" or some other belittling, crypto-racist term. Why does this sh*t fly for women when it's clearly beyond the pale for black people?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned
Kuci, tell me any Christian faction that equates wealth with sin without more. Socialism declares wealth unjust on the "pie" theory, i.e., if you have more, I necessarily have less. This is nonsense in a modern market economy.

The Bible says its hard for rich people to get into heaven.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
That's too bad, since it's aneeshm's thread.

What kind of argument is this?

When was the last time we worried about good evolutionary reasons? We use health care to ensure that less fit individuals live and pass on their genes, for instance. It turns out that society today is really not so much concerned with evolving as quality of life, i.e. human rights.

Those evolutionary reasons might be that different roles do improve quality of life.

Like it or not, the burden of proof isn't on me.

Actually it is. If you make a positive statement like "women and men are cognitively the same," that's a pretty big assertion. It's also scientifically unfounded and unintuitive. And the burden of proof shifts even more to you when you say "all cognitive/behavioral differences between men and woman are of social origin, not biological."

It falls on the people who state that, because "women are different," such-and such gender role or such-and-such policy is right. I've made no such claims. The degree to which society and gender roles have changed in the timeline of the women's liberation movement would seem to suggest that, in fact, some of these gender roles are socially constructed.

Of course some are. But it is an extraordinary claim to say there is no biological cognitive difference between men and women.

blah blah bell curve

A priori we are far more likely to find biological differences between men and women (in the brain) than between different races. Races differentiated, IIRC, several thousand years ago; gender appeared hundreds of millions of years ago, and many species exhibit extraordinary sexual dimorphism.

The playing field isn't even. Most intelligent feminists realize that the superior average physical strength of men, combined with women's immobility in pregnancy, enabled this to happen. Fortunately, we now live in a society in which dominance by the physically strong over the physically weak is (supposed to be) frowned upon. The president is no longer the guy who can crack the most skulls.

And most intelligent biologists would consider, then, that maybe different intellects developed given the different roles of men and women. It would not be advantageous for men and women to share exactly the same behavioral impulses.

Even if we accept that men are "naturally more aggressive and driven to compete," which may well be true, this doesn't by itself justify anything. Why is it that we should have different policies or established gender roles because of natural averages? Certainly individual women are sometimes more aggressive and more driven to compete than individual men.

Because current policies often involve affirmative action, when it may be that the imbalance is the natural result of biological differences.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ned
Kuci, tell me any Christian faction that equates wealth with sin without more. Socialism declares wealth unjust on the "pie" theory, i.e., if you have more, I necessarily have less. This is nonsense in a modern market economy.

Some Progressive Christians do.

[MJW]

Racism was proven to be wrong. This is not the same for sexism.