Is feminism inherently negative?

[Kuciwalker]

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.

Do you understand what "e.g." means? A hint: I was not providing an exhaustive list.

And no, I'm using "quality of life" in the generally accepted way.

[Ben Kenobi]

Firstly, that's not the only thing that's been put forward in this discussion; "females are different" is alleged without ever being defined.

I laid out one specific way in which women are different. The point was made right afterwards that the difference is due to society. This confirms the assumption that women do in fact have greater emotional range then men only disputing whether such a difference is innate.

Nobody is arguing that females and males are exactly the same.

Thank you cyclotron. That's an important point here. If you accept the fact that men and women are different from one another how is this different from my statement that men and women are different, yet complementary and equal to one another?

So, I ask, significant to what? Sure, it's significant. But "signficant" doesn't do anything by itself. How is it significant? How does it impact gender roles? What implications does it have for society? Some people in this thread seem to skip all these steps and say "well, females are different, therefore feminism is silly."

If in fact men and women are significantly different, then by that conclusion we can ask why should one size fit all? We could easily go from there and say that we ought to raise girls and boys differently because they are different from one another. To raise them the same way will neglect aspects of one or the other.

I actually don't believe feminism is silly. I believe that feminism when it's goal becomes to suppress speech deemed hurtful has become silly and a shell of it's former self. Maybe to you legal equality means little, but there are millions of women who cannot say that they possess the same status. Why is it more important to knock a comedian telling dumb blonde jokes then it is that women in Iraq obtain the right to vote?

[Kuciwalker]

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.

Or economic success. If the more traditional roles are simply a more efficient organization of society*, then we would be better off in them.

* I am not asserting this.

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.

You are incorrect.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=Ben Kenobi]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. [/q]

And what if the sexist jokes and thoughts are coming from the boss? Can you really be sure if you were passed over for promotion because of your work or because the boss thinks men are better for that sort of thing than women.

In the end getting good jobs and keeping them is as much a part of social equality as it is of legal equality. Mostly because we live in a capitalist society were people can hire folks for whatever reason. As long as they aren't too blatant in their discrimination they can prevent a group of people from getting the "good jobs" in their workforce.

unlike Imran who seems to have more fun in making up his own argument when we don't play ball.

Please. You made an argument that wider emotional range is a plus for women when you should know (if you didn't already) that that sort of argument has been used throughout history to push women down (ie, used a minus, not a plus).

You had to know that long standing argument when you made that point. If you didn't, you must have had your head in the sand.

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?

Simple... we look at the "emotional range" of men in societies around the world. The emotional range of men in Western Europe is far greater, generally speaking, than those in the US. To the point were they are subject to the same taunts as boys in the US who show a wider emotional range - ie, we call them gay and mock them.

The acceptable "emotional range" of men varies by the society. Though none (at least none of any size) are progressive enough to accept an equal range than that of women.

Maybe to you legal equality means little, but there are millions of women who cannot say that they possess the same status. Why is it more important to knock a comedian telling dumb blonde jokes then it is that women in Iraq obtain the right to vote?

Because he lives and votes in the West. Cyclo is right about strawmen here, in that NO ONE has said legal equality means little. Everyone who has argued on our side as said legal equality is only PART of the solution.

It'd be great if women in the Mid-East had the right to vote (and women in Iraq do have the right to vote, Ben). But it is more than a little bit removed from our power. We have far more impact on the West than in the Mid-East at this point in the game. It'd be great to have women in every country have the right to vote, speech, etc... but how exactly do we do that short of invading every one and putting in a new government or sanctioning them until they comply?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
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.

Here's a good example, which you mentioned earlier in the thread: men are physically stronger, which is probably a contributing factor in making primitive societies patriarchal.

Would you say the social organization of bees doesn't ultimately arise from biology? Why, then, doesn't human society?

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.

Society's measure of success is complicated and in part depends on how successful your children are. This also varies from culture to culture; many Asian cultures place a far stronger emphasis on it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Would you say the social organization of bees doesn't ultimately arise from biology? Why, then, doesn't human society?

Human beings have the ability to reason. Therefore it has moved far away from the social organization of our more animalistic social organization.

After all, bees haven't really changed their social organization from the beginning, where humanity and gone through many, many, many societal changes.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Can there be a 'correct' definition of feminism that does not coincide precisely with yours?

Maybe, but it's not the one you've been using.

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.

Yes, I think most feminists would agree that it's more important to have good jobs than suppress sexist humor. But in that way, you don't actually differ from me; I'm of the opinion that people should make jokes about whatever they want to. Men and women will probably always make fun of each other. The problem lies in assumptions that are often the basis for such humor; is somebody really joking, or do they mean that? What in our society causes this to be funny? I know feminists who get very indignant about rape jokes, and it's because there is a societal norm at work here in which rape is made light and trivial. To some extent - and in this I may differ from some feminists - I think that everything should be fair game for humor. But it's also true that humor can be very revealing about the sexist and otherwise biased assumptions we have about other people. Joking about prison rape reveals our societal scorn for men who allow themselves to be "unmanned" in such a way.

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.

The point has indeed not been confirmed. You haven't even begun to confirm it, you've just told us it's true. The burden of proof is on you to prove it, because otherwise we should default to equality - individual people are different and unless there is clear evidence that a natural difference exists, we shouldn't even consider acting on it.

You also mistake my point and those of feminists by saying "we should expect no difference between them." Few will argue that there is no difference; the problem is that you're using the concept of difference to justify every theory about men and women that you think is "natural." Demonstrate that this is true (which you haven't) and that it is natural, not societally taught (which you also haven't), and then explain why that's at all relevant to how we should construct society.

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?

Why do I need to come up with arguments against a point that you've just thrown out there without any proof or support?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Here's a good example, which you mentioned earlier in the thread: men are physically stronger, which is probably a contributing factor in making primitive societies patriarchal.

I don't think that society is patriarchal because men are stronger. Women are suitable for manual labor. Men had the opportunity to oppress women though probably because women were so busy having children. I think that men have less tendency to be fair also. In short, I think society was patriarchal because men were sexist.

Would you say the social organization of bees doesn't ultimately arise from biology? Why, then, doesn't human society?

Bees have no capacity to oppress one another or set each other into societal roles. Nature controls the bees, but in human society we control each other through institutions like marriage.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Society's measure of success is complicated and in part depends on how successful your children are. This also varies from culture to culture; many Asian cultures place a far stronger emphasis on it.

Not much Kuci.

[aneeshm]

Seems everyone has COMPLETELY ignored the source I posted which stated the intelligence differences between men and women (WRT mean deviation), and about the differing abilities in men and women. It appears people ignore anything that does not fit in with their pre-conceived notions.

But no matter.

There's another interesting dilemma to consider - what if nature itself is biased against the career woman? What if nature herself penalises the working woman for working? What will the feminists do to fight that?

Today, a woman has a choice - she can either choose to equal men in the working world, OR she can fulfil her biological reproductive function. She cannot do both, at least not as well as if she had chosen to do any one.

The fact that a woman is forced to make such a choice is wrong. We must aspire to a society where a woman does not HAVE to make such a choice, where she can be independent but still stay at home if she so wishes. Thus the alternate structure I proposed. Seems that point was totally lost on most here.

[Ben Kenobi]

And what if the sexist jokes and thoughts are coming from the boss? Can you really be sure if you were passed over for promotion because of your work or because the boss thinks men are better for that sort of thing than women.

Sexist thoughts?

You might want to rephrase that. I have no way to tell what another person is thinking. I can say what I believe, but sexist thoughts are unknowable.

In the end getting good jobs and keeping them is as much a part of social equality as it is of legal equality. Mostly because we live in a capitalist society were people can hire folks for whatever reason. As long as they aren't too blatant in their discrimination they can prevent a group of people from getting the "good jobs" in their workforce.

Without legal equality it becomes impossible to say that women are equal to men. You must first have legal equality before you can get good jobs and hold them.

I have been on the short end of it, however I listen to folks like Bill Cosby. Social equality is not achieved through force of law but through other methods. Someone who is deaf has the responsibility to show that he is capable of holding down a position and making the most of the opportunity. This is why Bill Cosby gets on black people to show that they are worthy. Another is Marlee Matlin. She shows what deaf people are capable of doing just in the work that she does, which in turn gets other people to look at deaf folks differently.

Please. You made an argument that wider emotional range is a plus for women when you should know (if you didn't already) that that sort of argument has been used throughout history to push women down (ie, used a minus, not a plus).

It is a plus and a minus, just as it is a plus and a minus for men to have less range. It all depends on what you are looking at.

You had to know that long standing argument when you made that point. If you didn't, you must have had your head in the sand.

This is what they call bait Imran. I like to make points that provoke knee jerk responses. You bought it hook line and sinker.

Simple... we look at the "emotional range" of men in societies around the world. The emotional range of men in Western Europe is far greater, generally speaking, than those in the US. To the point were they are subject to the same taunts as boys in the US who show a wider emotional range - ie, we call them gay and mock them.

Why would boys in the US have less range then boys in Europe?

The acceptable "emotional range" of men varies by the society. Though none (at least none of any size) are progressive enough to accept an equal range than that of women.

So that raises the question. Are men capable of such a range. If we say that such a range is 'acceptable, does that mean that men and women are in fact going to exhibit the same range?

Because he lives and votes in the West. Cyclo is right about strawmen here, in that NO ONE has said legal equality means little. Everyone who has argued on our side as said legal equality is only PART of the solution.

My point is that the second goal is a waste of time compared to the first and curtails civil liberties. Why bother when there are much better goals to achieve.

It'd be great if women in the Mid-East had the right to vote (and women in Iraq do have the right to vote, Ben). But it is more than a little bit removed from our power. We have far more impact on the West than in the Mid-East at this point in the game. It'd be great to have women in every country have the right to vote, speech, etc... but how exactly do we do that short of invading every one and putting in a new government or sanctioning them until they comply?

It's an old argument that the West because our ideals are superior that we have an obligation to spread them around the world.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I laid out one specific way in which women are different. The point was made right afterwards that the difference is due to society. This confirms the assumption that women do in fact have greater emotional range then men only disputing whether such a difference is innate.

No, it confirms that there is a perception that women have greater emotional range than men. This could be true, or to use an example I already used, it could be like the perception of colonial racists that dark-skinned people are lazy and dim. You have yet to confirm that this is in fact true, and not just a stereotype.

Thank you cyclotron. That's an important point here. If you accept the fact that men and women are different from one another how is this different from my statement that men and women are different, yet complementary and equal to one another?

It's a point I've never wavered from. I think it would be patently silly to say that men and women are identical. There are situations in which boys have been raised to think they're girls, and everyone in society has been likewise told that they are female, but the child just felt "odd" and was never able to adjust into society properly. I don't remember the name of the kid, but this did actually happen - the boy was born with no reproductive organs to speak of, and the parents were told to just try and raise him like a girl. It's a fascinating study.

The assumption that men and women are "complimentary and equal" to each other does not logically follow from the fact that differences exist. I'm not even sure what you mean by "complimentary and equal," and I'm inclined to assume the worst because that same language has been used to justify women's "complimentary" role as a homemaker while the man is the only one allowed to work. "Complimentary and equal" sounds a lot like "separate but equal" to me - in other words, not equal at all.

If in fact men and women are significantly different, then by that conclusion we can ask why should one size fit all? We could easily go from there and say that we ought to raise girls and boys differently because they are different from one another. To raise them the same way will neglect aspects of one or the other.

Here you go again. How are men and women different? You just jump from "there exist some differences" to general statements about difference and what we should do about that. This whole argument of yours is irrelevant unless you get specific. In what ways are men and women different, socially, cognitively, and otherwise?

The other issue is that individuals are different too. So why not treat everyone as an individual? Why do we care about "averages" and "predispositions" at all?

I actually don't believe feminism is silly. I believe that feminism when it's goal becomes to suppress speech deemed hurtful has become silly and a shell of it's former self. Maybe to you legal equality means little, but there are millions of women who cannot say that they possess the same status. Why is it more important to knock a comedian telling dumb blonde jokes then it is that women in Iraq obtain the right to vote?

I can't argue with you about this because I am a die-hard free speech advocate. We have nothing to argue about here. But anything is hurtful when it suppresses speech, and feminism shouldn't be singled out in that regard. Legal equality doesn't mean little to me; you've misinterpreted me. In fact it means a great deal, but it's not complete without other changes to society and attitudes.

I won't get into Iraq because that touches on a whole section of feminist critique called "colonial feminism" that's far more controversial that what we're on about now, but suffice it to say that indeed, legal equality should be a priority above sexist jokes. Legal priority, however, is not the sole aim of feminism, nor should it be. Legal equality alone cannot guarantee actual equality.

[aneeshm]

Anyway - here are the sources for differences in genders:

Sex and Intelligence

It's a long list.

[Ben Kenobi]

The point has indeed not been confirmed. You haven't even begun to confirm it, you've just told us it's true. The burden of proof is on you to prove it, because otherwise we should default to equality - individual people are different and unless there is clear evidence that a natural difference exists, we shouldn't even consider acting on it.

As I said earlier, two sisters who grow up in the same family have different ranges of emotions. Ergo there must be some component which is innate.

As you have stated, if men and women are different, and that difference is innate, then we should expect them to take different roles in society. Say we take Mill's principle that society should be structured to make the most of everyone's talents, then we are hurting men and women by raising them the same way and we ought to raise them so that they are able to use their talents best.

There are certainly other principles, I am eschewing 'proof' based on empirical measures because as Aneeshm has shown such proof is ineffective. Until people are willing to accept evidence contrary to their own presuppositions, it is simply hot air and wasted breath.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Seems everyone has COMPLETELY ignored the source I posted which stated the intelligence differences between men and women (WRT mean deviation), and about the differing abilities in men and women. It appears people ignore anything that does not fit in with their pre-conceived notions.

Oh, that's rich. If you'll recall, I did address it - the article itself claimed that nearly everything in it was contested, controversial, and generally disagreed on, and yet you want to offer it up as proof. Next time, read your own sources.

There's another interesting dilemma to consider - what if nature itself is biased against the career woman? What if nature herself penalises the working woman for working? What will the feminists do to fight that?

What if pink unicorns fly the world through space on their backs? What if the Mets win the series? What if, what if? Sorry, aneeshm, there's no reason for anyone to take your questions seriously until you demonstrate, at the very least, why they might be true - or better yet, why they are true.

I'm not even going to touch the fact that "nature" is not a thinking thing and doesn't penalize or have biases against anyone.

The fact that a woman is forced to make such a choice is wrong. We must aspire to a society where a woman does not HAVE to make such a choice, where she can be independent but still stay at home if she so wishes. Thus the alternate structure I proposed. Seems that point was totally lost on most here.

Your alternate structure addressed wealth, which is not the point. The point is, why is it women alone that have to make this choice? Certainly, women have to be the ones who physically bear the child, but why can't men take up duties in the house? Why is it only a choice the women have to make? The society I aspire to is not one where the women has a choice to work or stay home, but one in which both sexes have that choice, and aren't ridiculed by society for making that choice.

Again, it's not solely about wealth, but rather about societal equality. An "alternate structure" that doesn't address that is useless.