Is feminism inherently negative?

[Ben Kenobi]

Imran:

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?

Why must a woman work if she is to be considered equal to a man?

I agree with aneeshm, women in general tend to be better at raising children and in caregiving. I don't see what's so controversial about stating so.

Does it mean that all women should be forced to stay at home? No. Does that mean only men should work? No. Just because women in general are better at a task in no way forces an individual woman to deny her own talents.

That being said, do you believe that men and women are identical in every way?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
No I don't.

Then quite frankly, you are an idiot (and I mean that quite fully and not simply as an insult). Every equal rights group (racial, religious, gender) works for that goal.

I believe feminism should encourage women to be strong, and to work if they wish to do so or be mothers if they wish to do so. Women should have the opportunity to pursue a career, but at the same time should not feel forced in choosing a career over a family in order to be considered equal.

Which it already does. Giving women the right to choose what they want to be, not have society or the culture force them into homemaker roles.

A woman should not have to give up what makes her a woman in order to acheive equality in society, she should be encouraged to develop her femininity.

Which is what feminism is all about.

If feminism is reduced to being thought police in outlawing beliefs that are contrary to the established order, then they have lost their way. I know that feminism used to be a positive force, but they are no longer when the first thing that comes to mind is that feminists ought to outlaw speech to which they disagree.

Because changing culture and society = outlawing beliefs

You know, black rights groups that wanted to change the culture so that saying "******" was seen as a horrible thing were just engaging in thought police activities and 'outlawing beliefs'

Yeah... riiight.

If a man said he was going to start a male rights group and said that people should no longer be able to make fun of men because the comments are hurtful, he would be laughed at. Yet no one seems to question why we don't treat the so-called feminists the same way.

It may be because men kind of control the world; therefore, a guy crying because someone said something bad about men will be laughed at. Making fun of men isn't exactly going to contribute to keep men down, mostly because they are already on the top.

[Ben Kenobi]

If women really are "naturally" better at nuturing, etc., then in a truely open society that respects everyone's choices, women will freely chose to be housewives, and you'll be a happy camper.

Ok, this comment is directed at arrian, kidicious and Imran.

Do you sincerely believe that a woman who chooses of her own free will to care and look after her children rather then working outside the home is the equal of a woman who chooses to work and make top dollar?

I agree women should not be discouraged from staying at home and looking after their children, just as they should not be discouraged from choosing their career to come first. I do believe that many women will be very happy if they choose to stay home with their children.

However, I would also argue that western society does not believe what they are saying. They believe that women should not stay at home, that they have an obligation to work, and that if they do not do so, they are not equal to their husbands.

[Ben Kenobi]

Then quite frankly, you are an idiot (and I mean that quite fully and not simply as an insult).

Just because you disagree with me does not make me an idiot. If that is the strongest rebuttal you can make, then I suggest you find a better one.

Every equal rights group (racial, religious, gender) works for that goal.

What about disabled people? Imran, you forget that I know what it's like to be considered less then equal then everyone else.

Frankly, I would rather laugh with someone who makes fun of my hearing because it is an opportunity to increase their understanding. I cannot ban derogatory jokes, any more then I can demand someone to love me. All I can do is treat others with the respect that I would like to receive.

Disability groups work towards providing better access for disabled people to the simple things which everyone takes for granted. You can pick up a phone and call someone and speak with them whenever you want. I cannot. This is a barrier between me and everyone else, which is something that disability groups try to find ways to work around.

Which it already does. Giving women the right to choose what they want to be, not have society or the culture force them into homemaker roles.

No they don't. Society puts barriers in front of women who wish to stay at home and care for their children. They are forcing women to work when they would otherwise prefer to be at home.

Because changing culture and society = outlawing beliefs

That's what you said, Imran. Again, just because some speech is considered 'bad' does not mean it ought to be outlawed.

You know, black rights groups that wanted to change the culture so that saying "******" was seen as a horrible thing were just engaging in thought police activities and 'outlawing beliefs'

They would ban all uses of the word from society. They expunge books like Huckleberry Finn so that they are clean and sanitised. In return, we lose the truth of times as they used to be.

Any organisation seeking the betterment of those who are less fortunate would do better to show people why they ought to care, not ban speech.

It may be because men kind of control the world; therefore, a guy crying because someone said something bad about men will be laughed at. Making fun of men isn't exactly going to contribute to keep men down, mostly because they are already on the top.

If we sincerely believe that men and women ought to respect one another then we should be just as harsh on those who attack men as we are to those who attack women.

That is assuming we believe in equality.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Why must a woman work if she is to be considered equal to a man?

A woman must have a completely equal opportunity to work in order to be equal. Saying, "have at it women", while the society and culture expects women to stay at home and take care of the children is NOT equal opportunity.

I agree with aneeshm, women in general tend to be better at raising children and in caregiving. I don't see what's so controversial about stating so.

Aneeshm has admitted that a man working at home would be laughed at (especially in India). In our society, a househusband is considered less of a man and doing "womens' work".

Are women better at raising children and caregiving because our society and culture have decided it thus? They have made the decision that the husband is the breadwinner and the woman the caretaker and that is the way we are raised since infancy?

These type of beliefs also lead to reverse sexism, where in the court system, custody is usually won by the woman, even if the man can show he can take better care of the kids. Why? Because the system thinks that women are inherently better at childrearing.

The fun part is that I hear many men complain about how the deck is stacked against them in custody during divorce (and it is), but they have no qualms about believing that women are naturally better caregivers.

That being said, do you believe that men and women are identical in every way?

I am of the opinion that men and women are virtually identical except in terms of reproduction and certain hormones (testosterone/estrogen levels as one), which have little to no bearing on "care giving" characteristics (or whatever other balderdash you want to claim inherent female characteristics).

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
A woman must have a completely equal opportunity to work in order to be equal. Saying, "have at it women", while the society and culture expects women to stay at home and take care of the children is NOT equal opportunity.

Oh come on. We won't have equality until everyone thinks just like you?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
However, I would also argue that western society does not believe what they are saying. They believe that women should not stay at home, that they have an obligation to work, and that if they do not do so, they are not equal to their husbands.

Bull****. Western society is still very much of the idea that the woman should stay at home and only have an obligation to work if there is no other way. Those people fighting for equality in that cultural norm still have a bit of an uphill battle fighting against this view.

[Kuciwalker]

btw, eliminating all social pressure to have children could be a really bad idea if the biological impulse doesn't make up for it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Just because you disagree with me does not make me an idiot. If that is the strongest rebuttal you can make, then I suggest you find a better one.

No, but being an idiot makes you an idiot. Equality groups aren't just about being treated equally before the law, but being treated equally in society. Being equal before the law is only half of the picture... the other is being accepted by the society.

Simply passing the Civil Rights Act didn't end black civil rights. There were (and still is) racist people who would attempt to place obstacles in the way of black people. The goal of groups like the NAACP today is to change society so that blacks are treated equally in society as well as in the law. For the most part they are succeeding.

What about disabled people? Imran, you forget that I know what it's like to be considered less then equal then everyone else.

That's nice, unfortunately not everyone is content with being unequal in society and the culture, even though the law says you are equal.

Frankly, I would rather laugh with someone who makes fun of my hearing because it is an opportunity to increase their understanding. I cannot ban derogatory jokes, any more then I can demand someone to love me. All I can do is treat others with the respect that I would like to receive.

So you wouldn't want to change society so that people realize from an early age that making fun of hearing impaired people is wrong?

No they don't. Society puts barriers in front of women who wish to stay at home and care for their children. They are forcing women to work when they would otherwise prefer to be at home.

Bull****. There are no barriers in front of women who wish to stay at home. None. On the other hand, women in the work force face problems, especially because in many relationships they have to pull double duty and are expected by their spouses to do the "woman work". Times are changing, and more men realize that they should help out in doing the cooking, cleaning, etc, but it ain't all peaches and cream yet.

That's what you said, Imran. Again, just because some speech is considered 'bad' does not mean it ought to be outlawed.

And when someone says speech should be outlawed, then you can come back. Remember, reading is fundamental.

It is highly unfortunate that someone thinks that changing what society believes is now akin to censorship. In that case, why try to change societal beliefs at all? Hell, if someone wants to call blacks "******", well, we shouldn't tell them that's wrong and why its wrong... that'd be censorship!!

If we sincerely believe that men and women ought to respect one another then we should be just as harsh on those who attack men as we are to those who attack women.

That is assuming we believe in equality.

And society, as of yet, doesn't. When it does, then someone who decries attacks on men will be listened to rather than laughed at. The pendulum is so far on the male side, that most MEN will laugh at the guy who is crying over attacks on men.

And to be fair, for any "Men are pigs" jokes/statement, there are more than similar numbers "Women can't drive" jokes/statements, etc., which are rarely condemned.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Oh come on. We won't have equality until everyone thinks just like you?

When thinking like me means that men and women should be equal in the eyes of society (and not just in the courtroom), then yeah.

btw, eliminating all social pressure to have children could be a really bad idea if the biological impulse doesn't make up for it.

That's what the biological impulse is for . Let the desire to reproduce replenish the land, but don't have society assigning gender roles after the fact. Have both father and mother share equally in raising the child. With both expected to work and give care for the children in equal measure.

[Kuciwalker]

That's what the biological impulse is for . Let the desire to reproduce replenish the land, but don't have society assigning gender roles after the fact.

Why do you assume the pure biological impulse is sufficient?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

That's what the biological impulse is for . Let the desire to reproduce replenish the land, but don't have society assigning gender roles after the fact.

Why do you assume the pure biological impulse is sufficient?

Perhaps it's just on faith .

I think the urge to reproduce is something that is unstoppable in all species. Note, though, that though it may be unstoppable, it is definitely capable of being slowed, and has been. Social and cultural norms have changed and in Western countries that rate of reproduction has dropped greatly. Perhaps if there is a crisis of re-population those norms will change again, but this time taking what has been learned and using it better (who knows, maybe more babies will be encouraged, but they actually will be raised by "a village").

I make no bones about the fact that I am making an underlying assumption here, but I think we should be willing to gamble on it.

[Kuciwalker]

I think the urge to reproduce is something that is unstoppable in all species.

See Japan.

[Drake Tungsten]

Or Europe. Real world examples seem to show that biological impulse alone is not sufficient to keep birthrates at or above the replacement level.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Both still reproduce in great numbers . Benefits of fully replenishing the stocks of people which already exist is another argument (greatly complicated by welfare programs).