Is feminism inherently negative?

[Jon Miller]

Not in India... in India they probably won't have any.

JM

[CrONoS]

Originally posted by Odin


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

?

Not here in North America!

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Tacc
When faced with a choice between some Indian "university" and an American university, I will always go with America.

So will most Indians.

As to the workshop issue, it looks as if they are simply used to having men do all that kind of work for them. I'm not surprised that the same prejudices that occur in general society translate directly to the classroom. Even if they get into the class through some sort of affirmative action program, that doesn't mean that they get taught or get the same attention as men. It's really a shame what is happening in that country and that people like aneeshm are trying to whitewash it. I suspect the problem is far greater than anything we've seen here.

[Cyclotron]

Well, that moment of clarity ended quickly, didn't it?

Originally posted by aneeshm
Quite interesting.

The West sees a problem - inequality of women resulting from financial dependence on the man - and tries to solve it by making the woman into a man, or equivalent. This approach accepts the implicit assumption that the man is, in fact, superior.

The only thing that's "quite interesting" here is your normalization of "work" as "male." The inequality does not come from financial dependence - as Drogue said, employees are dependent too. It comes rather from the barriers placed before women who want to be in the workplace. Encouraging women to work is not asking them to "be a man," it's a recognition that all people have value in the marketplace and that women should be made aware of their choices in that regard.

Also, you would sound much more credible if you would address people or groups directly instead of "the West." If I talked about some opinion or cultural norm endemic to "the East" I would be laughed out of college.

Your point starts off incoherently because you conflate the workplace with the man's world, and assume that any women entering the workplace is thus trying to "be a man." That basic assuption, however - that "it's a man's world" in the workplace - is one of the basic foundations of patriarchy. Clearly you've gone nowhere.

It's not about wealth. Considerations of equal earnings are largely secondary because they are not the primary cause. There is a reason women earn significantly less, on average, than a man; giving women access to additional sources of money does not change that. A rich wife, even a financially independent rich wife, is not by definition liberated.

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

What do you think they would say? Obviously people won't want to do work that they physically can't accomplish. I look around my college, however, and I see women playing rugby or lacrosse that could easily manipulate heavy machinery as well as I could. Meanwhile, you're in some wonderful fantasy land of chivalry in which tittering girls don't deign to do work and "chivalrous" men do it for them. And you wonder why they can't handle it? How well would you perform heavily demanding physical activities, being raised in an environment in which you were constantly taught to defer to males and allow them to do the heavy lifting for you? Your example answers your question, and quite obviously too.

The only thing "comic" here is your total misunderstanding of feminism and all other terms relevant to the issue. You put forward arguments against feminism that are firmly grounded in the patriarchal logic that feminism opposes and then think you're in a good position to critique and offer "advice," which consists mostly of irrelevancies. If that's not enough, you're incapable of engaging anyone on a basic level, instead extrapolating a few posters' opinions into the overarching mindset of "the West" without even a hint of irony. This, aneeshmn, is the height of comedy. It would be funnier if it weren't so mind-bogglingly depressing.

On to cronos:

1: There is an hypocrisy about the women career way of life; I heard many women who are complaining that they are not able to have a family life; who would like to take 2-3 complete years to stay at home to raise their children, but they are not able, because they don't have enough money or if they're going to quit their job, they would never be able to compete against men when they will want to return to a job.

There's no hypocrisy there. Women resent the fact that they are often forced to choose between family and career life. Men, because of the societal construction of men as "outside" family life and fully involved in civic life, typically don't have to make this choice. In an equal society this would simply be a choice both parents would have to make together; raising a child requires sacrifices, how should we go about making them? It's a far more just way to approach it than to assume that the woman has obligations within the home that are inescapable and immutable so long as she desires children.

2: At the same time, legally(superficially) women have more right than before. But do they are respected as women? is their femininity respected and valued?

The better question is, are they respected as human beings? Until they are, concerns over "femininity" remain secondary. Many cultures have valued femininity, but valued it as subordinate, unequal, docile, and so on.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Men, because of the societal construction of men as "outside" family life and fully involved in civic life, typically don't have to make this choice.

Exactly. Too many men think they don't have to do make dinner, do the cleaning, etc. That's "women work" to them and therefore not worthy of their attention.

[Ben Kenobi]

1: There is an hypocrisy about the women career way of life; I heard many women who are complaining that they are not able to have a family life; who would like to take 2-3 complete years to stay at home to raise their children, but they are not able, because they don't have enough money or if they're going to quit their job, they would never be able to compete against men when they will want to return to a job.

This is the major point. It's a sticky wicket, and one of the reasons why many women end up choosing occupations that either negate the advantage of seniority, that do not penalise them for taking time away, (teaching, etc) or jobs that they can do when they want how they want.

Is it really fair to give a woman equal consideration to a man who has not left his job and has worked solidly for that period of 2 or 3 years? Most employers would say no.

2: At the same time, legally(superficially) women have more right than before. But do they are respected as women? is their femininity respected and valued?

I don't believe they are. They are penalised for choosing to be mothers over working, as has been said earlier 'economic necessity' forces them to work. Now, how can you say that it is a free choice if they really do not have the choice? If we truly valued women who choose to stay at home and take care of their children, we would make it easier for them to do so.

3: Finally, is the sexual "liberation" wasn't a liberation of male sexuality? Now we can **** any girl, we have many tools to be sure that in would not end in reproduction. We don't have any responsibility, we do not face any reaction to our action(if we forget to take the condom, the girl have now the right to abort... We can also use persuasion to be sure that she will abort. I don't know ANY girl who were happy to abort, and many of them would have like to keep the baby; but their boyfriends, family, friends were not helping them)

Exactly. Feminism has lost it's way from establishing legal equality for women to depriving them of what makes them special now in the first place. Look at Imran, he doesn't even believe that there are significant differences between men and women, and that the only way for true equality to be established is for the men to be exactly like the women.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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...

The "traditional" family deserved to be perverted. Equality of the female sex trumps the traditional barefoot and pregnant woman atomic family.

Society can exist without such discrimination.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Quite interesting.

The West sees a problem - inequality of women resulting from financial dependence on the man - and tries to solve it by making the woman into a man, or equivalent. This approach accepts the implicit assumption that the man is, in fact, superior.

This is quite possibly the stupidest thing you've said in this thread, and that's saying something.

First off, the West didn't see a problem; women saw a problem, and had to fight like hell to try to rectify it. It tok American women 70 years of struggle just to get the vote (if you date the origins of the movement from the Seneca Falls Convention of 1848). Imagining that the movement toward gender equality has been the result of some top-down social planning, rather than a grassroots movement among women themselves, shows yet again that you haven't a clue about Western societies.

Second: making a woman into a man? And the civil rights movement made black Americans white? Even you can't be this dim. The fight has been for women to have the same opportunities as men, and to be allowed to make the same choices. The rhetoric that a woman is only a true woman if she marries and has children is the rhetoric of oppression, designed to circumscribe a woman's place in society and leave the public sphere -- politics, business, etc. -- "naturally" dominated by men. Thus does patriarchy reproduce itself.

You really don't understand anything about gender, power, and history. Nothing at all.

[Odin]

Originally posted by 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

I see you totally left out any mention of enviromental concerns. ;rolleyes:

[Odin]

Originally posted by cronos_qc


?

Not here in North America!

Sez teh Canuck.

[Kuciwalker]

JM: it's cheaper to just keep them uneducated

[Kidlicious]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Ben Kenobi 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...

To you liberation = obedience?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
To you liberation = obedience?

He is a Catholic, after all

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
A rich wife, even a financially independent rich wife, is not by definition liberated.

The only thing missing is the will. Any rich women who wants to be liberated only has to wish to be so.

[Ben Kenobi]

To you liberation = obedience?

Those aren't my words, Kidicious.

There's been a misattribution at one point along the line.