Is feminism inherently negative?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by MJW
Racism was proven to be wrong. This is not the same for sexism.

You can't prove racism wrong; it's not a theory.

Your basic point is correct, though.

[Kuciwalker]

I would personally be astounded if there were not biological differences between male and female brains that led to different behaviors.

[MJW]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


You can't prove racism wrong; it's not a theory.
Your basic point is correct, though.

One theory might go "Whites are smarter than blacks because the white brain is better."

[Kidlicious]

There's not a lot of difference between men and women. Men can generally raise children and clean house and women can generally do any kind of work that men can do.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MJW
Racism was proven to be wrong. This is not the same for sexism.

Racism isn't just arguing that one race is better than the other in some way. It's oppressing and discriminating against a different race.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
What does "radical feminist" even mean?

Well they are opposed to the system in general and tend to be more revolutionary. I'd like to know what Kuci thinks is a liberal feminist though.

[MJW]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Racism isn't just arguing that one race is better than the other in some way. It's oppressing and discriminating against a different race.

Racism
n.
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006

I should have been more clear.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
What kind of argument is this?

A flippant one. Can't I play your game too?

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

More "mights." Care to support this?

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."

Then I suppose it's a good thing I never said any of those things! Honestly, you are the worst strawman-builder I've ever seen. Yeah, I totally said that men and women are cognitively the same, and that all differences are between men and women are of social origin, not biological... except wait, I didn't. Get your goddamn words out of my mouth. Hey, want to hear something I did say?

This dogma of "difference," however, is also a presupposition that feminism challenges. While nobody can deny that there are such differences (notably, physical ones), the fact that differences exist has given anti-feminists and people who are simply uncomfortable with the movement license to ascribe to gender whatever they feel like, and say it's natural and innate.

But whatever, right? Misquote me all you want!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MJW



Racism
n.
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006

I should have been more clear.

I don't think that many people would say it is sexist to say that men can generally run faster then women for example. Some radicals might. The sexist comment would be to say that since men run faster women must be dependent on them and be stuck as set gender roles.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Those evolutionary reasons might be that different roles do improve quality of life.

For men maybe.

[Kuciwalker]

That's a snappy retort, but doesn't actually speak to my argument.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Those evolutionary reasons might be that different roles do improve quality of life.

Yeah, the real problem here is that evolution has nothing to do with quality of life, and to claim otherwise is preposterous. "Evolutionary reasons" are concerned with the propagation of the species, and that only. Evolution prioritizes reproduction, not happiness or quality of life. It's profoundly nonsensical to propose that evolutionary prerogatives to reproduce have anything to do with quality of life issues.

[MJW]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I don't think that many people would say it is sexist to say that men can generally run faster then women for example. Some radicals might. The sexist comment would be to say that since men run faster women must be dependent on them and be stuck as set gender roles.

Then that part of sexism is true, (if you define gender roles to be inate biologoy).

It has been proven that white and black people have the same brains. So racism (using the first meaning) is false. This is not the same for sexism.

[Kuciwalker]

More "mights." Care to support this?

Presumably the social roles improve the reproductive potential of the tribe. They could easily do this by allowing it to function better as a unit to support its members.

But whatever, right? Misquote me all you want!

You might want to reread the comment you were originally replying to.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
That's a snappy retort, but doesn't actually speak to my argument.

That's because your argument was based on you lying about what I said! At least aneeshm and Ben had the common decency to ignore me when they had nothing to say, but you've got to just post a pack of lies in quotation marks and go run your mouth off about how wrong "I" was.

You're a liar and have no place in a serious discussion. Snappy retorts are all you deserve.