Is feminism inherently negative?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
Yeah, the real problem here is that evolution has nothing to do with quality of life, and to claim otherwise is preposterous.

You are incorrect.

[Kidlicious]

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

We are talking about roles in society are we not? What do biological gender roles have to do with anything? As a society we can decide to do away with roles. That has nothing to do with biology.

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.

Duh. What is the point?

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
You are incorrect.

In what way am I incorrect? Natural selection prioritizes those who are able to pass on their genetic material, and the more genetic material the better. What does any of it have to do with quality of life?

[Kidlicious]

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

Does that mean you disagree? Honestly I'm not following your argument that closely, because I don't see where it's relevant. I didn't mean to be snappy. I'm just trying to figure out what you are getting at.

[Kuciwalker]

You asserted that there was no relation between quality of life and evolution. Quite the opposite; improved quality of life (e.g. improved nutrition, freedom from predators) often improves reproductive success. Moreover, evolution has a tendency to force organisms to conflate quality of life and reproductive success.

xpost

[MJW]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Originally posted by Cyclotron
Yeah, the real problem here is that evolution has nothing to do with quality of life, and to claim otherwise is preposterous.

You are incorrect.

Evolution itself has nothing to do with the quality of life; because today it would take forever to do anything new. But its effects are. To be fair Kuciwalker's post implied the latter.

[Kidlicious]

Kuci, quality of life is very much a social thing. I don't think evolution has much to do with it.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Does that mean you disagree? Honestly I'm not following your argument that closely, because I don't see where it's relevant. I didn't mean to be snappy. I'm just trying to figure out what you are getting at.

You were implying that evolution only benefitted men. I think it's clear that evolution has no particular reason to benefit men and not women.

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

Can there be a 'correct' definition of feminism that does not coincide precisely with yours?

You made a good point before in saying that the sole goal of feminism cannot be solely legal equality. I actually made an analogy awhile back showing how disability groups provide substantive benefits by encouraging those with disabilities and removing barriers between them and employment. There are many positive activities in which feminists such as Susan B Anthony have advocated and pursued.

Where I differ with you and Imran is that I do not believe that the goal of 'winning hearts and minds' means that we must suppress so called sexist jokes. It is much more important that you are able to get good jobs and keep them then it is to stifle those to whom you are opposed.

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..."

I made a point that is slowly winding through that women have a wider emotional range then women. The point has not been contested, but has been confirmed. The only counter argument that has been presented is the one that such differences are merely the product of society and that should we raise girls and boys the same way we should expect no difference between them.

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.

I suggest you deal with a few of my arguments unlike Imran who seems to have more fun in making up his own argument when we don't play ball.

What arguments do you have to counter my point that the emotional range of women is an innate characteristic that will be found in all kinds of societies?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Kuci, quality of life is very much a social thing. I don't think evolution has much to do with it.

1) Biology constructs society and society evolves.

2) Quality of life may be dominated by social effects, but in many cases you'll notice we measure success with reproductive success. Less so before, but people place value on producing successful offspring.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


You were implying that evolution only benefitted men. I think it's clear that evolution has no particular reason to benefit men and not women.

\

I was commenting that the roles benefited men, not women, not evolution. I still don't understand what you are getting at. We are talking about individuals here not the species.

[Kuciwalker]

I'd say the roles benefitted both, moreso previously than now. Tribes without that social order would have probably been wiped out because they were less successful.

[MJW]

Originally posted by Kidicious

We are talking about roles in society are we not? What do biological gender roles have to do with anything? As a society we can decide to do away with roles. That has nothing to do with biology.


Duh. What is the point?

Okay. My first point works if we use my correct meaning than. Your point works if we use your correct meaning.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
You asserted that there was no relation between quality of life and evolution. Quite the opposite; improved quality of life (e.g. improved nutrition, freedom from predators) often improves reproductive success. Moreover, evolution has a tendency to force organisms to conflate quality of life and reproductive success.

We're obviously talking about quality of life in different ways. I was under the assumption we were talking about feminism here, and in an industrial society to boot, in which getting food on the table is generally not an issue except for the most destitute.

Different roles could improve quality of life insofar as "quality of life" refers to biological neccessity, such as gathering food or warding off predators. This is totally irrelevant to the thread, however. Quality of life in countries concerned about feminism - specifically, the United States - isn't about procuring neccessary calories, but about happiness, well being, freedom, and so on - all things which evolution has nothing to do with.

You said that "Even if all mental differences are social, they could be so for good [evolutionary] reasons." But we don't live in a society that accepts good evolutionary reasons anymore, so "good evolutionary reasons" are irrelevant.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
1) Biology constructs society and society evolves.

I really disagree with this very much. We construct society. Society evolves due to forces such as demographics, geography, economics and political ideas. I don't see that biology plays any part.

2) Quality of life may be dominated by social effects, but in many cases you'll notice we measure success with reproductive success. Less so before, but people place value on producing successful offspring.

No they don't. This is very wrong. Society does not measure success by the success you have raising your children. Society values how much money you make most of all. The two are contrary.