Is feminism inherently negative?

[CrONoS]

qft

Originally posted by aneeshm


I think he's trying to say that the admiration a woman receives is proportional to how close she comes to realising the masculine ideals, instead of the feminine ones.

That is, are women respected as women, or are they respected as you would respect a man, for the same reasons?

[Arrian]

I think he's trying to say that the admiration a woman receives is proportional to how close she comes to realising the masculine ideals, instead of the feminine ones.

And who, exactly, creates these supposed "feminine ideals?"

Suffice it to say I'm rather suspicious that "feminine ideals" were created long ago by a bunch of men.

Personally, I try to respect people as people, and don't really spend much time trying to put them in gender-based boxes.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

And you still haven't addressed my point about the self-supporting alternate financial structure for women, have you?

I did. I found it ludricrous, and essentially laughed at it.

Independence through total dependence on the man! Yay!

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Drogue

As do women who work, who choose to be dependent on an employer. Women who raise children are working, they're working for their family though, as opposed to for an employer.

To illustrate this, take the example of a family with a family business. Say a shop of some kind. The man runs the business and does all of that side, whereas the woman runs the household. Or vice versa. Both are jobs that need to be done, and both are working for the family. Were the woman to work, a carer may need to be employed, again illustrating that childcare is valuable employment.

The husband is also dependent on the wife, if he works and she looks after children, as both are jobs that need to be done, and without both, it does not work. Or vice versa, obviously, as the man may decide to look after children and the woman work.

The husband isn't dependent on his wife for his well being. He can just leave anytime. He will bring his money with him. Now granted that with forced child support and welfare women are more independent, but the fact is that when you choose to be the homemaker and raise the children you have to ASK for money. Sure you have some negotiating power because the husband won't want to stay with you and the kids maybe, but you still have to ASK for money, where the breadwinner just spends pretty much whatever he/she wants.

That's what I mean by dependent.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I think that as a commie (is Kid still a commie?), he wouldn't disagree that women working in the world are dependant on their employer and thus not equal to them.

Of course I'm still a commie. You haven't been reading my posts have you.

And yes a women is also dependent on her employer in the workplace just as men are.

[CrONoS]

Originally posted by Arrian


And who, exactly, creates these supposed "feminine ideals?"

Suffice it to say I'm rather suspicious that "feminine ideals" were created long ago by a bunch of men.

Personally, I try to respect people as people, and don't really spend much time trying to put them in gender-based boxes.

-Arrian

valid point, there is no pure male and female person.
Like I said before, we are mainly a mix of female and male. And I suppose that a woman is mainly more womanly than manly.

Someone stated( I think it's Imraam) that they are no difference between women and men, except testosterone and estrogen. Which can be true... Since I didn't study psychology\human brain or gender difference. But my reading of Jung, Freud and my day to day experience are leading me to believe that they are a difference... which can be big between a woman and a man.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Just one more thing, which I found interesting and quite comic.


As engineering students, we are expected, in the first year, to be acquainted with basic workshop technology. As I've already mentioned somewhere, there are more girls than men in our batch.

Now, today we had "basic threading" practice (the automated stuff comes for students of mechanical engineering, not for first-years), where we were expected to manually create the threads on a pipe. It required you to lubricate one end of the pipe, and push (hard) on the tool used to create the threads, and then manually (and forcefully) move the thing clockwise using the lever arms provided so that it cut grooves into the metal.

People were arranged in alphabetical order and paired into twos.

When it was a pair of two guys, there was no problem - they could do it easily. When it was a man and a woman, it was a given that the guy would do the work (proving that chivalry is not yet dead ), and the woman would watch. Most women didn't even try it unless the man asked her to - and no man would be caught dead trying to do that.

The problem arose when it was two women. They just didn't have the strength required to do the job!

Now there are a number of conclusions which could be drawn from this, by different people:

a) That women are not suited to engineering or work requiring more than a certain amount of strength
b) That the entire engineering course is sexist and that all things which require physical strength, such as work in the workshop, should be removed
c) That women, on average, lack strength, and should thus not be assigned tasks requiring it, or should have some male assisting them in such jobs

It was comic because after finishing the job, at about the time I was leaving, there was this duo of two women trying to get the tool to take and failing miserably. Both of them were quite frail and it was quite obvious that neither was up to the task.




What do the feminists say should be done in such a situation?

How difficult was it? I'm sure some men couldn't do it either if it was that difficult.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

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?

Yes, And I believe the same thing for stay-at-home dads as well.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by cronos_qc
In my point of view, the liberation of women is a myth, legally it worked, but more profoundly it partially perverted men and women; and the family. Which is the roots of society...

I think you don't really know what it was like to be a women in the past.

[Jon Miller]

The State should pay women for kids. Make the pay dependent on how well the kid is being brought up (determined by lack of issues with the law and attendance at school and other such things).

Jon Miller

[Odin]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

economic necessity puts barriers in front of parents who wish to stay at home and care for their children.

Corrected For Truth.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I believe that women who choose not to work choose to be dependents, and dependents are not equal.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
The State should pay women for kids. Make the pay dependent on how well the kid is being brought up (determined by lack of issues with the law and attendance at school and other such things).

Jon Miller

We shouldn't be encouraging people to have kids when there is an overpopulation problem on this planet.

[Jon Miller]

Actually, there is no overpopulation on this planet. Even China and India aren't experiencing over population, they are experiencing a lack of infrastructure.

Additionally, in many areas we are facing underpopulation. Especially in countries with more than adequent infrastructure.

Nations are partly there to think long term, because no one else does (corporations and people). It also needs more citizens, people who will pay off later for what must be expended today. Children hae a huge payoff time, years and years and years. I think 30 or more often in the first world now. This is the reason why people ahve fewer and fewer kids.. really the only reason why we keep having kids is because of biological urges and tradition. And unfortunately, children are more the burden of women than men.

But for our society to flouresh, we needs kids. And acutally, we need more kids (but I know you disagree with this, Odin). So since it isn't worthwhile to have kids, but people do because of biological reasons... we should quit punishing those who bare the brunt of this... which is the women. And to do so, we should pay them for responding to their biological urges. Besides the fact that it is required for our nation to flouresh.

Jon Miller

[Elok]

Fascinating, Aneeshm. So you have men, on the one hand, with their ability to make money regularly through work, and to "equalize," you have women inheriting cash from their mothers, and their mothers' mothers, and so on and so forth.

W...T...F??? I don't know how things are in India, but over here in America money has to be regularly spent for food, clothing, medicine, gasoline, et cetera. The inheritance cannot accumulate meaningfully when it's being spent to survive all the while. Unless the husband is paying all living expenses...in which case the wife is a de facto dependent, since she has only a limited supply of "wwealth," unless it's invested in some sort of foolproof wonder-stock that always goes up. The man gets more cash every two Fridays, the woman gets new cash once per generation? This is just a transgenerational pyramid scheme, and it doesn't even work.

In conclusion, are you aware that it's possible for a woman to have more than one daughter?

EDIT: I removed the word "exclusive," since after a closer reading, it seems you're not excluding women from work, just trying to make it unnecessary for them to worry their pretty little heads about it. In other words, you want a privileged, idle parasite class, as opposed to an underprivileged, dependent parasite class. Hooray!