Is feminism inherently negative?

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

I'll bite. First, feminism, now that it's a movement, has fragmented into multiple different sects. You do have the hate-all-men womyn, but you also have the "empowered" sluts of the Pussycat Dolls at the other end of the spectrum. To say that feminism as a whole is negative is like saying the "equal-rights movement", "tolerance movement", or "religion" is negative.

As I said, its mistake was in becoming a movement in the first place. Struggles end when the goal is achieved. The independence struggle ended when India achieved independence. The struggle to unify the Indian continent will end when the continent is unified. But a movement never ends, it seeks to nourish itself with whatever it can find. And sometimes, it turns parasitical.

Originally posted by Q Cubed

Of course, in the vein of all those who are somewhat closed-minded extremists, you're conflating one extremist viewpoint that's opposed to yours, and using it to smear all over the other different mindsets present in that movement.

I'm not addressing myself to the extreme at all (the "society would be better without men, let's try to get rid of them" variety). I'm addressing what is not the mainstream.

Originally posted by Q Cubed

Even worse, you're taking those that abuse the movement as an indictment of all those who actually believe in it and want it to deliver successfully on all of its noble intentions. Shame on you. If that's your style of argumentation, then you're no better than the political extremists for and against the current troubles in Iraq, or the left and right in the culture battles across the American heartland--shallow, cynical, and utterly shameless.

I lost you at the "abuse" bit.

Originally posted by Q Cubed

Still, women are woefully underrepresented in the higher echelons;

I know enough to realise that they probably never will be. Remember that mean deviation in men is supposed to be far higher in men than women.

Also, women are woefully under-represented in the lower echelons - hardly and manual labourers or factory workers are women. But I don't see anyone protesting to have that imbalance rectified.

Is it unreasonable of an employer to expect the same level of physical ability and strength from a woman as he does from a man, when both are being paid the same?

Originally posted by Q Cubed

pay is not fully equalized;

Again, it never will be. When a woman takes time off for whatever reason, it will lead to her being paid less. Even if that reason is childbirth. Employers are not obligated to care for women (or, for that matter, for men). What is desirable is that societal values shift such that employers will, of their own accord, give some special treatment to women who choose to bear children. And these feminists do not want they, they want to curtail the freedom of the employer so that they have an advantage.

Originally posted by Q Cubed

and females often have to perform an ongoing calculus on whether to emphasize traditional "femininity" and the attached impression of weakness

Why do you equate traditional "femininity" with weakness?

Originally posted by Q Cubed

--and thus, on unequal footing--or to shed it at become more "feminist" and be perceived as man-hating, anti-life, anti-society, anti-nuclear family unit

Because they are?

I would also say that such decision are a part of life. Men are not exempt from this rule, either.

Originally posted by Q Cubed

by the yuksters who distrust change and continue to enjoy the fruits of the "patriarchial system"--in other words, those that refuse to adapt to new conditions.

There are more girls than men at my college in my branch - and I'm a comp. sci. guy. I am also quite content with the situation. In fact, the only time I even think about it is in discussions like the one we're having now.

How precisely is this an "enjoyment of the patriarchal system"?

Originally posted by Q Cubed

(Refusing to adapt marks you as an utter failure, and destined for extinction. Doesn't matter what you refuse to adapt to, all that matters is that you do and then succeed.)

What does this have to do with the topic at all? It is the feminists who are refusing to adopt to the fact that men and women are fundamentally different, and that nothing will change that.

Originally posted by Q Cubed

Oh, and this--boys don't generally have to worry about walking down darkened streets at night, afraid of some unlawful intrusion into their person by a protuberance that could end up implanting a parasite that grows inside of them. When that fear goes away, maybe true equality will be more in sight.

Rape is a crime that is statistically inherent to human nature. Nothing will change that. What we can do is to make punishments for rape harsh - such as removing the testicles, plus twenty or thirty years of jail time.

Originally posted by Q Cubed

I realize this might be a troll, but it's early and I can't help myself.

It isn't a troll.

[aneeshm]

Re: Re: Is feminism inherently negative?

Originally posted by molly bloom


Then you must feel right at home, breezing in from 'studying' Aryan Revisionism 101.

I'm a layman, and don't claim to possess the absolute truth.

Women's studies people, on the other hand, do.

[molly bloom]

Re: Re: Re: Is feminism inherently negative?

Originally posted by aneeshm


I'm a layman, and don't claim to possess the absolute truth.

Women's studies people, on the other hand, do.

Of course they do. All of them, everywhere.

What we can do is to make punishments for rape harsh - such as removing the testicles, plus twenty or thirty years of jail time.

You'll find that once sexual maturity has been reached, the sexual urge doesn't go away even if the testes are removed.

In any case, rape of women isn't simply about sex, or sexual gratification, as rape as a war crime indicates.

[aneeshm]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Is feminism inherently negative?

Originally posted by molly bloom

You'll find that once sexual maturity has been reached, the sexual urge doesn't go away even if the testes are removed.

In any case, rape of women isn't simply about sex, or sexual gratification, as rape as a war crime indicates.

As you said, rape isn't about sexual gratification, it's psychological.

Well, so is this punishment.

[Japher]

feminist are sexy... at least the hot ones are

[molly bloom]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is feminism inherently negative?

Originally posted by aneeshm


As you said, rape isn't about sexual gratification, it's psychological.

Well, so is this punishment.

No, the 'punishment' is simply stupid and vengeful.

You'd be better off creating a hijra if you truly wanted to make a psychological impact. Losing the penis would be more damaging than loss of testes.

Rape is a crime that is statistically inherent to human nature.

What on earth is that meant to mean ?

Oh dear.

[Kuciwalker]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Is feminism inherently negative?

Originally posted by molly bloom
In any case, rape of women isn't simply about sex, or sexual gratification, as rape as a war crime indicates.

Rape as a war crime is all about sex (and specifically procreation). It makes perfect evolutionary sense.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
If nothing else the responses in the Sean Connery thread should show everyone there is still a need for feminism.

Hmmm, I read most responses as being sarcastic parody. Or, at least I would hope people realise that my posts were.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by aneeshm
As I said, its mistake was in becoming a movement in the first place. Struggles end when the goal is achieved. The independence struggle ended when India achieved independence. The struggle to unify the Indian continent will end when the continent is unified. But a movement never ends, it seeks to nourish itself with whatever it can find. And sometimes, it turns parasitical.

Like Hinduism and the caste system. Hinduism should be abolished.

I'm not addressing myself to the extreme at all (the "society would be better without men, let's try to get rid of them" variety). I'm addressing what is not the mainstream.

No, you are not. You are attacking all of feminism based on the actions of a few radicals. You do the same with Islam and any other group or race you don't like.

I know enough to realise that they probably never will be. Remember that mean deviation in men is supposed to be far higher in men than women.

That's because so many baby girls are tossed into the river. In India, the preference for boys is greater than in China. Even if the girls survive to reach childhood, they are faced with an extremely biased society that sees them as objects for the men to barter over. Then there is the dismal rate of education for women in India. Muslim countries are beginning to make more progress.

Also, women are woefully under-represented in the lower echelons - hardly and manual labourers or factory workers are women. But I don't see anyone protesting to have that imbalance rectified.

That's because there are fewer women.

Is it unreasonable of an employer to expect the same level of physical ability and strength from a woman as he does from a man, when both are being paid the same?

Yes. To pay them less because of percieved inherent physical deficiencies, reduces their status as individuals in societies and makes them more dependent on those graced with the superior qualities (sound familiar).

Again, it never will be. When a woman takes time off for whatever reason, it will lead to her being paid less. Even if that reason is childbirth. Employers are not obligated to care for women (or, for that matter, for men). What is desirable is that societal values shift such that employers will, of their own accord, give some special treatment to women who choose to bear children. And these feminists do not want they, they want to curtail the freedom of the employer so that they have an advantage.

How is taking paid-time off for having a child an advantage?

Because they are?

While you will claim to be joking. Your blithe responses to this seem to indicate that you actually do believe this.

There are more girls than men at my college in my branch - and I'm a comp. sci. guy. I am also quite content with the situation. In fact, the only time I even think about it is in discussions like the one we're having now.

Actually, I don't believe you. If it's true, your branch is an oddity in India.

What does this have to do with the topic at all? It is the feminists who are refusing to adopt to the fact that men and women are fundamentally different, and that nothing will change that.

Please elaborate on these differences that require women to have a lower social status than men.

[Pekka]

Inherently? I don't think so. Feminism today takes ltos of ugly faces though, but in general and the very idea of it, there's nothing wrong in it. Race, gender etc should play no part in the treatment of people and the opportunities they get.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by DaShi

Like Hinduism and the caste system. Hinduism should be abolished.

No. The caste system should be abolished. And - funnily enough - it has been!

Originally posted by DaShi

No, you are not. You are attacking all of feminism based on the actions of a few radicals. You do the same with Islam and any other group or race you don't like.

As I said, I'm not criticising the "Kill all men!" types, I'm criticising the mainstream.

And anyway, criticising races is stupid, and I don't do it.

Originally posted by DaShi

That's because so many baby girls are tossed into the river. In India, the preference for boys is greater than in China.

Your trolls are getting worse.

But guess what - the state with the lowest ratio of girls to boys is Punjab - which is not a Hindu-majority state.

Originally posted by DaShi

Even if the girls survive to reach childhood, they are faced with an extremely biased society that sees them as objects for the men to barter over.

I don't know which society you're talking about. I sure as hell haven't seen this society in my life till now.

Originally posted by DaShi

Then there is the dismal rate of education for women in India. Muslim countries are beginning to make more progress.

Consider the fact that the men are also dismally educated, and the picture becomes clearer.

Originally posted by DaShi

That's because there are fewer women.

I don't know what this is supposed to mean.

Originally posted by DaShi

Yes. To pay them less because of percieved inherent physical deficiencies, reduces their status as individuals in societies and makes them more dependent on those graced with the superior qualities (sound familiar).

Seems you didn't understand the question.

Assume that a job requires you to lift weights of A, B, and C.

The average man can lift all three. The average woman can't lift C.

Can this average woman, who cannot lift C, demand that

a) She get the job, and that
b) She be paid the same as a man who can lift C?

Originally posted by DaShi

How is taking paid-time off for having a child an advantage?

The advantage consists of forcing people to pay then while they're off having a child.

Originally posted by DaShi

While you will claim to be joking. Your blithe responses to this seem to indicate that you actually do believe this.

Bravo! We have a psychoanalyst among us!

Originally posted by DaShi

Actually, I don't believe you. If it's true, your branch is an oddity in India.

It isn't.

In the batch of mechanical engineering, there is only one girl in the entire set of 70. In our batch of Comp. Sci., there are more girls than men. This is, IIRC, true of also some other branches perceived as "soft", or which involve white-collar work.

The government of Maharashtra mandates a quota of 30% for girls in institutions of higher learning.

I know a LOT of girls from my school batch who have gone for the hard sciences, or for commerce, or for law. VERY few have gone for the "Liberal Arts" type courses. They're quite well represented, in fact.

Originally posted by DaShi

Please elaborate on these differences that require women to have a lower social status than men.

No differences necessitate women having a lower status. Why put words in my mouth?

[Patroklos]

That's because there are fewer women.

Which explains their lack of numbers in the higher echelons as well.

Examine your trolls better

[Sandman]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Consider the fact that the men are also dismally educated, and the picture becomes clearer.

The difference is about 20%. 70% of men, 50% of women. Once again, we return to the extraordinary failure of India to educate its people.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Sandman


The difference is about 20%. 70% of men, 50% of women. Once again, we return to the extraordinary failure of India to educate its people.

That difference is because of the primarily rural nature of Indian society, which excabarates last-mile problems.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by aneeshm


No. The caste system should be abolished. And - funnily enough - it has been!

As I said, I'm not criticising the "Kill all men!" types, I'm criticising the mainstream.

So you're ok with the "Kill all men!" types, but have a problem with the mainstream?

And anyway, criticising races is stupid, and I don't do it.

No, just what they do.

Your trolls are getting worse.

Nonsense, that was a very good troll.

But guess what - the state with the lowest ratio of girls to boys is Punjab - which is not a Hindu-majority state.

While it's not a Hindu-majority state, there are still Hindus present. And it is in India.

I don't know which society you're talking about. I sure as hell haven't seen this society in my life till now.

Good, you are beginning to open your eyes. That's all that is really needed here.

Consider the fact that the men are also dismally educated, and the picture becomes clearer.

India has one of the worlds worst ratios of educated men to women. Just because you have stupid men, doesn't mean there is no problem with women's education.

Seems you didn't understand the question.

Assume that a job requires you to lift weights of A, B, and C.

The average man can lift all three. The average woman can't lift C.

Can this average woman, who cannot lift C, demand that

a) She get the job, and that
b) She be paid the same as a man who can lift C?

What moron would hire someone who couldn't lift C, if that was the primary job requirement? If a woman can lift C, fine she gets the job and should be paid as much as the man. You seem to be arguing that women should be paid less based on percieved inferiority.

The advantage consists of forcing people to pay then while they're off having a child.

Again, how is that an advantage? Do you think having a child is a vacation?

No differences necessitate women having a lower status. Why put words in my mouth?

Then what is the problem? You say that there are differences and women should be treated differently because of them. You believe that feminists say that they are no differences. Is this your only complaint against feminism?