Is feminism inherently negative?

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, this assumption is absurd. No two people can have the exact same upbringing in teh 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 points to a profound misunderstanding of both biology, psychology, and sociology.

Thanks Rufus I was waiting for this point.

What you are saying here is that it is impossible to raise boys and girls in exactly the same way to eliminate their differences.

Even presupposing that the gender roles were in fact malleable by society, we would never be able to accomplish the goal of equality of form, because their individual experiences would differ.

[Ben Kenobi]

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 .

Or just a fan of 50 cent as one of those wiggaz.

We aren't thought police for a reason. People are permitted to think bad things still.

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

Not the point, I'm talking about elsewhere. Legal equality is a prerequisite to further steps, it's the first hurdle that must be cleared.

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.

But it is not achieved through 'anti-discrimination' laws. That's my point. You can't make someone love you but you can ban them form lynching you. Protecting hateful and hurtful speech allows it to be confronted and shunned.

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

I made the point and you pushed it that one step further. Your question was whether I was aware that the argument has been used in that context.

My answer is very aware.

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

So boys in europe have greater 'emotional range' because they are labelled gay?

Would it then be possible for them to be more emotional then women, or for the average man to exhibit the same characteristics?

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.

True, but my question is whether removing those constraints necessarily makes the men just as emotional as the women.

I would argue that we have taken the opposite approach in the west. The women are not supposed to cry at all. I've always been puzzled by this attitude.

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

But on the whole?

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?

Give me one compelling domestic goal for feminism in the US.

White Man's Burden?

Btw, how is that Iraq War going?

Quite well.

You might want to talk to a supporter of the war sometime. It would be an eyeopener.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Even presupposing that the gender roles were in fact malleable by society, we would never be able to accomplish the goal of equality of form, because their individual experiences would differ.

Ben, you aren't that stupid.

Jon Miller

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
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.

Actually, Kuci was making a purely biological point, thus "lol boobs." It's not prima facie. General observations can be stereotypes, just like "black people are stupid." How many white Europeans in colonial days do you think you could find that would disagree with that statement? You're assuming that because something is "common knowledge," it is true. Well Ben, people have been saying women were inferior to men for thousands of years in many different societies, but now we've got some radicals who dare to say that isn't so. It's not prima facie and I won't move off the point because it's key, and you're being sloppy.

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

Appears to be. But then again, feminists might say that so too is patriarchy common across all manner of cultures; certainly the idea that men are superior to women isn't restricted to one region or time. You've proved nothing.

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?

Yes, but in the passage of mine you quoted I'm talking about genders. It does not stand to reason that innate differences mean we should expect different genders to take different roles in society.

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.

You haven't answered the question. Even people who think that all these differences exist and are natural often agree that they are relatively minor. Why genders at all, given that averages in ability and intelligence are just that, averages? Why not just treat people like individuals? There aren't "individual exceptions," Ben - every individual is an exception. There is no archetypal male or female which we can base such assumptions on, only different individuals.

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.

Again, you haven't answered the question. We can assume there are differences if you like - but why not just let individuals be individuals? Why gender at all? "Significant differences" - which you still have neither defined nor proved - exist between individuals too.

We don't see 50 percent of the nurses being men, but couldn't that be because male nurses are ridiculed in our society? Couldn't it be that, because women have been brought up to express emotions and be caring individuals while men have been taught to repress emotions and not to express caring, women thus gravitate to nursing through cultural education?

You are asking me for proof os a certain kind.

Is there something wrong with that?

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

I am different than my roommate, yet I accept him as an equal human being. I'm a better writer than he is, but I can't interpret literature like he can. He can run faster than I can, but I have better hand-eye coordination. I don't know if these differences lie in how we are raised or how we were born, but I treat him like an individual and don't categorize him in such a way as to deny his essential humanity, nor would I ask him to step into some societal role because of what I perceived to be his innate characteristics.

"Complementary" implies that two things are made for each other. It also implies that there are two "things" to start with, and that these things are unitary. I reject that men and women were "made for each other," we simply are. More importantly, I reject that genders are unitary. Your yin-yang is black and white; my symbol is a circle filled with gray dots, some grayer than others and some less so. I see no reason to discriminate whether their grayness comes from innate characteristics or acculturation. They are simply dots, and there are no "sides" that can be complimentary.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Thanks Rufus I was waiting for this point.

What you are saying here is that it is impossible to raise boys and girls in exactly the same way to eliminate their differences.

Even presupposing that the gender roles were in fact malleable by society, we would never be able to accomplish the goal of equality of form, because their individual experiences would differ.

Right, but nobody's arguing for equality of form. The argument is for equality of opportunity, and against the notion of prescribed social roles, especially when based on supposedly "innate" differences that are not, in fact, innate.

[Cyclotron]

What Rufus said.

If you'll excuse me, gentlemen, I have a senior thesis to write and I can't keep this up anymore, and thus I'm bowing out. Have fun.

[Kuciwalker]

Ben: I'm not supporting your argument. My argument is very limited: that we need to be careful to preserve the social imperative for women (especially successful/intelligent women) to reproduce lest we face a population implosion. I'm also arguing that we cannot assume that men and women are mentally equal in all respects. (Nor should we assume that if men and women are not equal, one is "greater than" the other.)

[aneeshm]

Will someone please tell me the story of the genesis of the "patriarchy"? When did it start? When did men become the "dominants" in human society?

[Elok]

It started with the origin of Hindu civilization.

This thread has been Benified and Nedified, and Cyclo's dropped out...should I respond to his last response, or just let this thread die with dignity?

[MJW]

Originally posted by Elok
It started with the origin of Hindu civilization.

This thread has been Benified and Nedified, and Cyclo's dropped out...should I respond to his last response, or just let this thread die with dignity?

This thread has dignity. 90%+ is just BS.

[Cyclotron]

this thread is inherently negative

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
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.

True, but why did men develope the institution of property rights for themselves, but women did not do the same for themselves.

[MJW]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
this thread is inherently negative

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Thus we see society arising out of biology.

Great! Men acted like animals. Are you proposing that it's a good thing that we have always acted like animals and that we always should. That anyone who proposes acting differently is destroying society? That's ridiculous. Having a civilization means that we no longer act like animals.

You are aware that one of the most common pro-slavery argument was to preserve the natural order don't you?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
My argument is very limited: that we need to be careful to preserve the social imperative for women (especially successful/intelligent women) to reproduce lest we face a population implosion.

Pro-slavery advocates said that freeing slaves would cause economic collapse because of the loss of property for the slave holders.