Is feminism inherently negative?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by aneeshm


Not really. Point is, there is NO credible feminist movement in India. None. At all.

Amd suprise! Women are not treated much like equals either.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Men and corporations have to be forced to do things or they won't. That's apparent.

So now you come to the crux of the matter - the willingness to use force to violate the fundamental human rights to property and free association in order to push your ideology down people's throats.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Amd suprise! Women are not treated much like equals either.

Intel surprise! They are in my social and economic circles!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by aneeshm
I prefer a critical mass of women to stay home in an extended nuclear family or joint family structure. This is a statistical preference. Individuals have to be dealt with on an individual basis.

Why a critical mass of "women"? Why not just one of the two spouses?

This is why we call you a sexist.

[Arrian]

He probably really doesn't think he is, too...

-Arrian

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Why a critical mass of "women"? Why not just one of the two spouses?

Because women are intrinsically better at roles requiring human interaction, and as care-givers?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by aneeshm


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

Either you're confusing stable with static, or your just talking nonsense. Either proposition seems plausible.

As long as both partners consent, yes.

I've met a fair number of Indian men who felt they could resist family pressure to enter into an arranged marriage, but far fewer women who felt they could do so. Both the men and women I've chatted with about this have, independent of each other, given the same explanation: in an Indian family, more latitude is given to boys, more obedience is demanded from girls. Sounds like arranged marriage, and maybe even the Indian family itself, might be one of those traditional institutions that systematically undermines the freedoms and even the human rights of women.

Of course, women could always defy their families. What's the worst that could happen? Oh, right: honor killings. Thousands per year in India, according to the UN, and the number seems to be rising. Especially delightful are the brides who are killed by families for having insufficient dowries (5,000 in 2002, according to UNICEF).

Any clue yet as to what those feminists are on about, Sherlock?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by aneeshm


So now you come to the crux of the matter - the willingness to use force to violate the fundamental human rights to property and free association in order to push your ideology down people's throats.

The fact is that you enjoy a postion of power. That IS FORCE bud. Power is FORCE. Get off your high horse.

[Arrian]

Rufus

Given a situation like that, it's not surprising if the movement (such as it is) is a tad "extremist" to aneeshm.

-Arrian

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by aneeshm


I believe that they belong wherever they want to be, and can cope.

That's REAL generous of you. Given the nature and history of male-dominated societies for the past two millennia, can we assume that you agree that men aren't coping, and might want to take a rest ?

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.

Why is it best, and for whom ?

Written like a good male chauvinist.

Thank goodness that the untraditionally-minded had the sense to enact the Hindu Widows' Remarriage Act in 1856, and the edict against suttee in 1829, the Child Marriage Restraint Act of 1929, the Hindu Women's Right To Property Act of 1937 and so on, and so on...

Essentially you're acting as though whole classes and groups of women were and are not discriminated against, not on the basis of what they as individuals may have done or not done, but on the assumption that as women they all behave in certain predictable ways- by virtue of having a womb, or ovaries or breasts, presumably.

[aneeshm]

Oh, and a clarification - "critical mass" can be a small figure, even 20%-30% of the total.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Because women are intrinsically better at roles requiring human interaction, and as care-givers?

Ah, the old keeping women in their place by complimenting their inherant "care giving" roles. Any other classic sexist arguments you wish to state for the record?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by aneeshm


Intel surprise! They are in my social and economic circles!

This means they are equal to you? See you have very strange idea of equality. Try to imagine yourself as a women with out all the crap you learned from your society. Are you truly treated equally?

[Arrian]

Yep. "But they're GOOD at the role I want them to play!"

-Arrian

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Ah, the old keeping women in their place by complimenting their inherant "care giving" roles. Any other classic sexist arguments you wish to state for the record?

So now a compliment which recognises inherent differences somehow becomes negative? How you people can twist things is amazing.