Is feminism inherently negative?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Ned -

Socialism is not based on a social contract, quite the opposite actually : it stipulates that the term has been coined by the bourgeoisie.

In Nediverse Ned doesn't agree with it so it is socialism. And since it is socialist it is fascist.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by 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?

Perhaps people would answer your questions, if you gave them the same courtesy. You've got so many unfinished arguments here, no one wants to join in another. Plus, they all think your a nutter, and the novelty is wearing off.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Ned
Kuci, tell me any Christian faction that equates wealth with sin without more. Socialism declares wealth unjust on the "pie" theory, i.e., if you have more, I necessarily have less. This is nonsense in a modern market economy.

Liberation Theology, a form of Catholic Christian Socialism

[Odin]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


A Christian ethos is socialist, you fool. There are many.

The essence of Jesus's message was socialistic. Unfortunately too many Christian sects (The protestant types derived from the Calvinists especially) seem to adhere more strictly to Paul then they do to Jesus.

[Odin]

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

IMO a patriarchal society is the result of a pre-industrial society being forced to become more militaristic. This generally happened in much of the Old World in the late neolithic as some societies became semi-nomadic pastorialists and others got into wars for space and resources as the population increased.

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

Again, we go back to the point. Saying that women in general have a wider emotional range is neither positive or negative unless you import assumptions saying that having a wider emotional range is bad. The same is not true of the perception 'black people are stupid.'

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.

You are asking for differences and I provided one. You asked for proof, and yet it seems that the other folks here who agree with you have found it an acceptable prima facie statement that women in general have a wider emotional range then me.

I could try to prove so empirically, but then if that were my goal it would be much simply to go the direction that kuci has.

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.

The trouble is that the statement that patriarchy exists independent of society is contradictory. You can't have a patriarchy without a society whereas the statement that men and women have different emotional ranges can be independent of society.

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.

The point of my argument is that all other things being equal we should in fact expect to see people taking different roles depending on their personalities.

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.

It's just one difference among many. I don't think it is a minor difference either. I think it significantly affects the perception of men and women and is why they differ from one another in how they see things.

Why genders at all, given that averages in ability and intelligence are just that, averages? Why not just treat people like individuals?

It's like this. If we see differences that exist across a class of people that work most of the time then it does make sense. As you have said men and women are different from each other. Not individual men or individual women, but men and women as a class. We use models to help us understand the world. If these models stand up to scrutiny then they make sense.

Men and women are significantly different from one another both biologically and psychologically, if these differences can be established, then it makes sense to group them with each other rather then just as 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.

Well if you want to get into statistics, there is such thing as a deviation from the norm. Everyone has individual differences, but if you plot one group on a line, and plot another group on the line, and find that there is a significant distance between the two clusters, the first assumption to make is why does this gap exist? If the thing that all the dots tend to have in common is that they are men or women, then the conclusion would be that this represents a significant difference between men and 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.

I have defined them, but as I have argued, these differences exist between men and women and disappear between individuals.

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?

I would argue that no matter what you do you will always see women outnumber men in nursing. The men are not interested in the occupation while many women see the field as attractive to their own desires. I believe women are naturally more inclined to the occupation, and the findings are confirmed by the differences, over 95 percent of nurses are women.

The burden is on you to come up with a plausible explanation why given the climate today that 95 of all nurses are women, and why this has always been so.

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.

So you believe that saying someone is a man and a woman deprives them of their essential humanity?

"Complementary" implies that two things are made for each other.

That they fit together yes. I would argue this is very much the case with men and women. I shouldn't need to draw a picture for you.

It also implies that there are two "things" to start with, and that these things are unitary.

Well that's another problem.

How can you say that you believe men and women to be different from one another if you do not believe there is such thing as a 'man' and a 'woman'? In saying two things are different you assume that the two things exist.

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.

The whole symbol is an expression of the duality as well as the complementarity, in that both sides share certain aspects while at the same time fitting together with one another.

Why are men and women built the way they are if they are not made for one another? That's my question for you. Why are they different in this particular way and not in other ways?

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

How is it contrary to equality of opportunity, if men and women are given the opportunity to be whatever they want to be and still choose to do different things?

I agree with you that women ought to be allowed to do whatever they want, but at the same time that we should encourage them to take advantage of their natural talents. If a woman is called to be an engineer, then so be it. If a man is called to be a nurse, then so be it.

But there is nothing wrong if 95 percent of those who have a talent for nursing are women. Equality of opportunity is different from equality of outcome. We can do our best to give everyone the same opportunities, some make the most of them some do not.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=Ben Kenobi]But there is nothing wrong if 95 percent of those who have a talent for nursing are women.[/q]

Problem being that there is a CLEAR social belittling of male nurses. They are seen as less manly and/or not bright enough to be full fledged doctors.

As reference, I ask you to look at how the main character in "Meet the Parents" is looked at by his future in-laws once they find out he is a male nurse. I realize it is only a movie, but I don't think that the response would be different in a vast majority of American households (at least).

It is hard to claim 'equality of opportunity' and that as a result women have chosen the nursing field in such vast numbers comparative to men, if men are so discouraged by society from taking such a role.

Basically, there really isn't equality of opportunity today. It exists mostly under the law, but not under societal norms and mores.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by 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.)

This argument I can see... and it is far more persuasive to me than that saying that men and women are inherently different in their mental abilities/talents.

I would say that Jon Miller is on the right track for dealing with it... monetary considerations for childbirth such as bigger tax breaks or whatnot. In capitalism, a woman's time becomes much, much more valuable as she gains more education. Time spent in pregnancy or raising said child costs more, generally, for an educated woman than one without education.

[Ben Kenobi]

Well that's great Imran.

The trouble with that argument is that before women were not permitted to do certain jobs. They were barred from law school and from medicine.

How is the plight of the male nurse in any way comparable to what these women had to do in order to be doctors and nurses when they had the gate shut on them.

There is a societal stigma on garbagemen, on plumbers on morticians and undertakers and yet some people take these jobs and find them fulfilling.

Some take the social pressure in stride. Social pressure does not constitute denying equality of opportunity. Locking women out of medical school does. Just because you are allowed to take a profession does not mean that you are going to find the road smooth sailing.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


There is a societal stigma on garbagemen, on plumbers on morticians and undertakers and yet some people take these jobs and find them fulfilling.

What's your problem with garbagemen? Streets too clean for ya?

And plumbers? When was the last time you saved a princess from some sort of dragon turtle hybrid?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
[q=Ben Kenobi]But there is nothing wrong if 95 percent of those who have a talent for nursing are women.[/q]

Problem being that there is a CLEAR social belittling of male nurses. They are seen as less manly and/or not bright enough to be full fledged doctors.

I'll go you one further: there is evidence that when a profession goes from being predominantly male to predominantly female, both the wages and the social prestige of the profession drops; by contrast, a profession that goes from being predominently female to predominantly male sees its wages and status rise.

Examples of fields that have gone male -> female include teaching and secretarial work. An example of a field that has gone female -> male is data processing.

[Ben Kenobi]

Mama don't let your babies grow up to be cowboys
Don't let 'em pick guitars and drive them old trucks
Make 'em be doctors and lawyers and such
Mama don't let your babies grow up to be cowboys
They'll never stay home and they're always alone
Even with someone they love
Cowboys ain't easy to love and they're harder to hold
And they'd rather give you a song then diamonds or gold
Lonestar belt buckles and old faded Levi's each night begins a new day
And if you don't understand him and he don't die young
He'll probly just ride away
Mama don't let your babies grow up to be cowboys
Don't let 'em pick guitars and drive them old trucks
Make 'em be doctors and lawyers and such
Mama don't let your babies grow up to be cowboys
They'll never stay home and they're always alone
Even with someone they love
Cowboys like smokey old pool rooms and clear mountian moringin's
Little warm puppies and children and girls of the night
And them that don't know him won't like him
And them that do sometimes won't know how to take him
He ain't wrong he's just different
but his pride won't let him do things to make you think he's right
Mama don't let your babies grow up to be cowboys
Don't let 'em pick guitars and drive them old trucks
Make 'em be doctors and lawyers and such
Mama don't let your babies grow up to be cowboys
They'll never stay home and they're always alone
Even with someone they love
Mama don't let your babies grow up to be cowboys
Don't let 'em pick guitars and drive them old trucks
Make 'em be doctors and lawyers and such

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Well that's great Imran.

The trouble with that argument is that before women were not permitted to do certain jobs. They were barred from law school and from medicine.

How is the plight of the male nurse in any way comparable to what these women had to do in order to be doctors and nurses when they had the gate shut on them.

There is a societal stigma on garbagemen, on plumbers on morticians and undertakers and yet some people take these jobs and find them fulfilling.

Some take the social pressure in stride. Social pressure does not constitute denying equality of opportunity. Locking women out of medical school does. Just because you are allowed to take a profession does not mean that you are going to find the road smooth sailing.

You can't possibly believe that nursing was a 100% male dominated profession (at least in Western society) before women were allowed in, can you?

Nursing has been open to women for far longer than being a doctor or lawyer. It is due to the perception that women were more caring than men and thus better suited to be nurses. Women have long been picked for the role because of that perception that it better suited their gender.

In the United States, for example, men were forbidden from being military nurses until after the Korean War. If you read about nursing in the American Civil War as well, all of them were women.

The social stigma of a man becoming a nurse was around back then as well as now. That job was considered to be for women (hell, having men forbidden from being nurses indicates that). And male nurses are still attempting to break through the stereotype that nursing is for women.

And social pressure CAN and DOES deny equality of opportunity. Societal pressure was used in the South during the early 1900s to deny equality of opportunity to blacks. People in that society just didn't think blacks could do things as good as whites. Baseball is a good example. Jackie Robinson showed that blacks could succeed in the majors, but the line that prevented him from joining until 1947 wasn't a LEGAL line, but a SOCIAL one... and how long did it take before a general manager was willing to stand up to the social pressure and put a black man in the major leagues?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
I'll go you one further: there is evidence that when a profession goes from being predominantly male to predominantly female, both the wages and the social prestige of the profession drops; by contrast, a profession that goes from being predominently female to predominantly male sees its wages and status rise.

Examples of fields that have gone male -> female include teaching and secretarial work. An example of a field that has gone female -> male is data processing.

That's pretty good evidence that men are just better workers than women.