Is feminism inherently negative?

[Arrian]

Originally posted by aneeshm


No, I don't. I believe that they belong wherever they want to be, and can cope. Nice strawman, though.

My point is that it is best for society if a certain critical mass, a critical percentage, of women and men retain their traditional roles.

Individual cases are individual cases, and in my interactions with women, I treat them as such - as a person. I don't judge them based on what path they choose. We each have to find our own way.

Actually, if that was a strawman, it was of your own creation.

You're the one who put forth the example and asked that "if I believe that, am I an enemy of feminism?" Kuci responded, correctly, "yes."

You're sexist as well as bigotted. Fabulous.

-Arrian

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Such a society is more stable, more resilient, can withstand internal AND external threats better than others, and can take change at its own pace. In the long run, the stability provided by the family structure is more than worth the cost.

Right. That's why the West, which has led the race to embrace non-traditional family structures and roles, is so much worse off and so much less stable than everywhere else in the world.

Out of curiosity, does your belief in traditional society extend to a defense of arranged marriages?

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly

Right. That's why the West, which has led the race to embrace non-traditional family structures and roles, is so much worse off and so much less stable than everywhere else in the world.

The West is not "stable" in a social sense.

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly

Out of curiosity, does your belief in traditional society extend to a defense of arranged marriages?

As long as both partners consent, yes.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by aneeshm


So staying at home is now intrinsically inferior to having a career?

Why the prejudice, Pekka?

Because you have to make money in the family to get respect from men. Fact.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by aneeshm


So feminism is supposed to act as the new thought-police?

If I'm a person who believes that women should be treated equally, and given equal opportunities, but that the best society is one having a traditional nuclear (or joint) family unit consisting of the man as the breadwinner, the woman as the housewife, with grandparents living in the same house, I'm now suddenly the ideological enemy of the feminists? I'm the one they're fighting against? Even though I believe in the equality of men and women?

If so, something is seriously wrong here.

You don't believe in the equality of women at all. You want them to stay in the same place they are.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Arrian


Actually, if that was a strawman, it was of your own creation.

You're the one who put forth the example and asked that "if I believe that, am I an enemy of feminism?" Kuci responded, correctly, "yes."

You're sexist as well as bigotted. Fabulous.

-Arrian

How, pray, am I a sexist? I believe that if a firl wants to pursue a career, then she should be allowed to do so, the same way you would with a son.

I, however, also believe that there should not be a stigma associated with a woman who chooses a more traditional role. It is you who are the sexist, who holds that all women who stay at home are intrinsically inferior to those with a career. Drop your holier than thou attitude, it is you who needs to change and get over your prejudiced attitude.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by aneeshm

I, however, also believe that there should not be a stigma associated with a woman who chooses a more traditional role.

Most feminists would agree with you; if you don't understand that, you don't understand feminism -- as many people have already pointed out.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Kidicious


You don't believe in the equality of women at all. You want them to stay in the same place they are.

I want them to go wherever they choose to go. If they choose to stay in the same place, fine by me. If they choose to go somewhere else, pursue a career, again fine by me. The important thing is that I believe that it should be their choice, free from the prejudices of people like you, who think that career women are intrinsically superior.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Because you have to make money in the family to get respect from men. Fact.

So you believe that prejudice (in favour of a career) should be validated, and taken as a basis for policy? That it should not be fought? That we should not try to bring back the dignity housewives had, a dignity which, ironically enough, the feminists themselves have done the most to destroy?

Basically, you're taking the prejudice of people in favour of a career as a given, and are taking it to be actually good, instead of fighting it.

Bravo! And you call me a sexist.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by aneeshm
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.

What a load of crap. Women generally don't take more days off then men. Even women in their 40s and 50s get paid less. There's no basis to your theory.

And why shouldn't we take care of women? Hell they take care of us. Women work a hell of a lot more than men do especially when you consider all the housework, and child raising they do. Men are lazy slobs comparably.

Think it through before you speak bud.

[molly bloom]

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

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


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

Firstly you're making the inaccurate assumption that all or most rape leads to conception.

Secondly, you're ignoring the effects of rape as punishment and shame inducer.

Thirdly, you're ignoring the physical pain inflicted during forced intercourse.

But thanks for playing.

[Pekka]

What the hell, me pressuring women to have a career choice? No. I have NO preference. You said you prefer them staying home. So you have a preference, I don't. So check your prejudice claims.

Let women have a say... as in do we need to let them have a say? Women have a say as much as men do.

I'm all for pro-options. If a woman wants to stay home, that's great. If a woman wants to have a career, great. This does not concern me. It is like what does Bill do, what does Joe do, what does Jill do. It's all individuals to me. I'm nto going to enforce a role on anyone based on their gender. The only difference is, if they have a vagina, I'm going into it. Period. With permission of course.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So feminism is all about fighting against what other people believe?

I wonder how they will know they have acheived their goals? When everyone no longer tells a joke or says anything that is deemed to be sexist?

So you don't think a goal of feminism today is trying to change the culture and society so that sexist remarks and beliefs are seen as an abominable thing in almost all quarters?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by aneeshm


So you believe that prejudice (in favour of a career) should be validated, and taken as a basis for policy? That it should not be fought? That we should not try to bring back the dignity housewives had, a dignity which, ironically enough, the feminists themselves have done the most to destroy?

Basically, you're taking the prejudice of people in favour of a career as a given, and are taking it to be actually good, instead of fighting it.

Bravo! And you call me a sexist.

Let's be truthfull. Housewives never had any dignity. And most of all they don't have any power.

[Q Classic]

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

And yet, the discrimination of the underclass persists...

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.

Ah, but religions, or rather, belief systems that are tied to that which you are not, you do--for instance, Islam, or Feminism.

If I'm a person who believes that women should be treated equally, and given equal opportunities, but that the best society is one having a traditional nuclear (or joint) family unit consisting of the man as the breadwinner, the woman as the housewife, with grandparents living in the same house, I'm now suddenly the ideological enemy of the feminists? I'm the one they're fighting against? Even though I believe in the equality of men and women?

How can you believe in equality, when you believe in a set of specific "traditional" gender roles?

Such a society is more stable, more resilient, can withstand internal AND external threats better than others, and can take change at its own pace. In the long run, the stability provided by the family structure is more than worth the cost.

You're right--even better, such societies are far more efficient at reducing opportunities, keeping social mobility to a minimum and locking entire populations in a social stasis...

Refusing to adapt to change, no matter how fast it is, is a sign of weakness and deficiency.

That sort of "stability" and "resiliency" led to the subcontinent losing the technology race and becoming dominated by a bunch of preening caucasians with funny accents.