Is feminism inherently negative?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
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.

Siblings can be very different depending on the choices we make. We aren't all robots Ben.

Jon Miller

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

Indeed. It's a fascinating article. I have the evidence in the study if you are interested in reading it. Very rare that I'm not the person who has to bring it up.

The assumption that men and women are "complimentary and equal" to each other does not logically follow from the fact that differences exist.

Well there are two other arguments, once we acknowledge that men and women are different from one another.

1. Men are superior to women and are not complementary

2. Women are superior to men and are not complementary

3. Men and women are equal and complementary.

Complementary is a geometrical term. It means they fit together even though they are not the same. This is the point that Kuci hinted is rather not family friendly.

Now my question to you, is given your own belief that men and women are different and equal, that leaves only number 3 as the possible solution to the problem of how they can be different and yet equal. Of course if you are willing to discard the principle of equality, 1 and 2 are available to you.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
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.

Thus we see society arising out of biology.

I think that men have less tendency to be fair also. In short, I think society was patriarchal because men were sexist.

How delightfully circular.

Bees have no capacity to oppress one another or set each other into societal roles.

Of course they do. A bee that misbehaves probably doesn't get food, or is killed, or whatever.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
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.

The jokes can be a window into the mind. Especially how they are told. One doesn't need to be a mind reader to know, say, a boss who says "******" a lot when referring to black people is a racist .

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.

We kind of already have legal equality in the West, Ben... I'm not sure how you may have missed it.

Social equality is not achieved through force of law

No one here has promoted censorship, so I'm not sure why you are blaming us for it.

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.

That's part of it... the other part is making people see that discrimination is NOT ok. That it is not right to hurl racial epithets towards blacks. That they are deeply hurtful to those people and create a horrible working environment for those people. That is achieved by displaying displeasure for said comments.

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

Ah, yes, claim troll when the argument is blown up

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

Cause it isn't something innate and something social conditioned.

Some societies are more tolerant of men showing emotions and therefore those men have more emotional range than societies that close off emotions to men. In most of the US, men crying just isn't something that is not supposed to be done unless the man's father dies or something. Other societies don't necessarily place such limits on their menfolk.

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?

IMO men ARE capable of such an 'emotional range' as women are. Though usually we classify them to be gay men .

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.

By that argument, why bother with domestic economic concerns when there are countries with horrible economies all over the world that need help? Shouldn't we spend our taxes helping them instead of fixing our own economy?

How about working towards both? Problem is that the first goal is a biiiiiit more difficult to achieve. Unless you are willing to invade every country which denies civil rights to women or place sanctions on each and every one of them. And secondly, people usually want to make their own piece of the world as good as possible over somewhere on the other side of the map.

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

White Man's Burden?

Btw, how is that Iraq War going?

[Kuciwalker]

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

That is a silly distinction. Bees also have the ability to reason, just much less of one.

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

I dispute the first assertion's truth and relevance.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
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.

Yes, to individual personalities. Obviously different people have different personalities from one another. So?

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.

No, that's not what I said. Again, you're making "difference" into a catch-all. What is different? Surely we can't assign gender roles when we don't even know what the difference is, but just that there is "a difference." Secondly, how do you know which differences are innate and which ones are based in society? "Difference" is not just one big monolithic thing. There are differences and other differences.

Finally, it does not stand to reason that innate differences mean we should expect them to take different roles in society. Why should we? People are individuals and should be treated like such. So what if women have a greater emotional range than men? Specific women will have a lesser emotional range than specific men. So why stress genders at all? Why should there be gender roles in the first place?

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.

I haven't read it, but I would assume Mill's principle is about individuals in society, seeing as he's a utilitarian. Why are you introducing broad categories of people into the theory? Why not raise individuals so they can use their talents best? Again, why stress genders at all?

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.

But I'm not making the presuppositions, you are. I've drawn no broad conclusions about human nature from unsupported observations of "gender" like you have. You're eschewing proof because you can't prove it, and yet you insist on using it as a basis for further arguments about gender roles. How am I the one not "accepting evidence contrary to [my] presuppositions"? I've already said that men and women probably do have some innate differences. What more do you want from me?

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Now my question to you, is given your own belief that men and women are different and equal, that leaves only number 3 as the possible solution to the problem of how they can be different and yet equal. Of course if you are willing to discard the principle of equality, 1 and 2 are available to you.

Wait, what? Why can't I just discard the idea of "complimentary" as spurious and just say they're equal?

[Ben Kenobi]

Siblings can be very different depending on the choices we make. We aren't all robots Ben.

Siblings! = Sisters.

If the Siblings were the same that would disprove my point.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Kidicious

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.

Sort of, but not really. It's not so much about being busy having children as it is about being sure your children are yours. There's an interesting argument, made by historian Gerda Lerner in her The Origins of Patriarchy, that patriarchy developed as an offshoot of property rights: unless men were able to control women, they could never be sure of their own paternity (as everyone involved in the Anna Nicole Smith case knows). The original primary function of patriarchy, then, was to regulate women's sexuality for the benefit of men.

[Kuciwalker]

IMO a better justification of equal rights is: women and men are equal enough biologically that discriminating against women significantly limits the talent and labor pool.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Sort of, but not really. It's not so much about being busy having children as it is about being sure your children are yours. There's an interesting argument, made by historian Gerda Lerner in her The Origins of Patriarchy, that patriarchy developed as an offshoot of property rights: unless men were able to control women, they could never be sure of their own paternity (as everyone involved in the Anna Nicole Smith case knows). The original primary function of patriarchy, then, was to regulate women's sexuality for the benefit of men.

For the benefit of the stronger men.

[aneeshm]

Just a question: how long has this "patriarchy" existed? That is, at what stage of man's history did men start to "dominate"?

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes, to individual personalities. Obviously different people have different personalities from one another. So?

That's my point. Assuming that they have the same upbringing they have different personalities. Ergo the differences are innate, and even we were to raise everyone in the same way there would be individual differences in personality.

Which means that raising girls and boys the same way can't be counted on to produce the same personality.

No, that's not what I said. Again, you're making "difference" into a catch-all. What is different? Surely we can't assign gender roles when we don't even know what the difference is, but just that there is "a difference."

As Kuci has said it shouldn't even need to be explained how men and women are different. It's prima facie. His point about women being able to have children as is mine that they have wider emotional range are general observations that have been confirmed by many different people. I'd like you to move off this point.

Secondly, how do you know which differences are innate and which ones are based in society? "Difference" is not just one big monolithic thing. There are differences and other differences.

The difference I cited appears to be innate because it is common across all manner of cultures.

Finally, it does not stand to reason that innate differences mean we should expect them to take different roles in society.

If one person is more submissive then another, all other things being equal, would we expect them to take the leadership role, or to follow the person who is more aggressive?

If in fact men and women are different, and that they have different ranges of emotions, it stands to reason that they would chose different roles for themselves, all other things being equal.

Specific women will have a lesser emotional range than specific men. So why stress genders at all? Why should there be gender roles in the first place?

Because of the again, innate differences between men and women on average asserting themselves. There are always individual exceptions but the general case still holds.

I haven't read it, but I would assume Mill's principle is about individuals in society, seeing as he's a utilitarian. Why are you introducing broad categories of people into the theory? Why not raise individuals so they can use their talents best? Again, why stress genders at all?

Because there are significant differences between men and women as you have already admitted. It all hinges on that one point. You yourself have admitted so it's just a matter of deciding, what is the difference, and how that explains the behaviour that we do see. We don't see 50 percent of the nurses being men, nor do we see 50 percent of garbage collectors being women.

I've already said that men and women probably do have some innate differences. What more do you want from me?

You are asking me for proof os a certain kind.

[Ben Kenobi]

Wait, what? Why can't I just discard the idea of "complimentary" as spurious and just say they're equal?

How can two things that are different still end up equal?

That's why they must be complimentary if they are both different and yet still equal.

Think of the yin and yang, they are different, yet occupy the same area. That's what I mean by complementary. They are equal in value yet different in form.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


That's my point. Assuming that they have the same upbringing they have different personalities.

Ben, this assumption is absurd. No two people can have the exact same upbringing in the way that you mean it; it would require them to have exactly identical experiences of the family and the world. Even in your sisters example, birth order alone would be enough to account for personality differences between them. Suggesting that differences between same-sex siblings point to something innate indicates a profound misunderstanding of both biology, psychology, and sociology.