Is feminism inherently negative?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Women tend to have a wider range of emotions, they love harder they hurt more and they are more likely to swing from one to the other. If the men have less range, how is that mean they are superior to the women because they feel less?

Putting aside for a moment how false I consider the above statement to be, it has been argued that men, by being less emotional are able to be objective and rational and therefore should be in positions of power. The argument being that women, by being "overly emotional" cannot judge things rationally and therefore should not be trusted in those sensitive roles.

[Ben Kenobi]

But what if the law is oppressive and designed to suppress freedom? I would imagine that the laws in a military dictatorship that is authoritarian in nature would have such laws. Basically, obedience is not always good.

As Dr. King says, an individual has a duty to defy an immoral law, but not to break moral laws in doing so.

I agree that there are certain circumstances where the law compels that which is wrong, but we are still bound to all the others which are right in exercising our defiance to an unjust law.

The line is the question... and sometimes a husband, or society at large, doesn't realize that he has crossed said line and is "beating himself", such as in his expectations of the duties of each party of the relationship.

Yes this is very true. And sometimes it is all too true that they do realise that a line is crossed, and they enjoy the power of such a position.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
As Dr. King says, an individual has a duty to defy an immoral law, but not to break moral laws in doing so.

I agree that there are certain circumstances where the law compels that which is wrong, but we are still bound to all the others which are right in exercising our defiance to an unjust law.

But here we reach a problem, right? A certain amount of obedience leads to freedom, but how much? Who decides what is unjust and what is just? Therefore does every individual have a different level of 'obedience' that is ok? Should we thus not err on the side of caution and just have the bare minimum obedience for a functioning society so as not to trample on the beliefs of justness for others?

Yes this is very true. And sometimes it is all too true that they do realise that a line is crossed, and they enjoy the power of such a position.

Indeed.. though I think your opposing side would agree, and feel that is the situation today .

[Kuciwalker]

That's quite the strawman. Of course employers can, will, and should choose people on the basis of experience, but a woman who's taken off time for a family is not neccessarily less qualified.

All else being equal, yes she is.

[Ben Kenobi]

Putting aside for a moment how false I consider the above statement to be, it has been argued that men, by being less emotional are able to be objective and rational and therefore should be in positions of power. The argument being that women, by being "overly emotional" cannot judge things rationally and therefore should not be trusted in those sensitive roles.

Notice I did not say 'overly emotional'. I said that the men have less of a range of emotions. Nor did I say that women 'cannot be rational.' That is hardly the case.

Nowhere did I give the preposition that 'those who have a wider range of emotions make worse leaders.' You've jumped a step Imran. Let's back up a step.

Why don't you believe that women have a wider emotional range then men? What is false about my statement?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Notice I did not say 'overly emotional'. I said that the men have less of a range of emotions.

And the range of emotions is cited as the reason women are ineffective... because a great range necessarily encompasses more extremes.

Nor did I say that women 'cannot be rational.' That is hardly the case.

Nowhere did I give the preposition that 'those who have a wider range of emotions make worse leaders.' You've jumped a step Imran. Let's back up a step.

Seriously, dude... you need to read a bit closer. "It has been argued" does NOT mean that I think you said it. Once again... does NOT MEAN.

That is the traditional argument against having women in positions of power.

Why don't you believe that women have a wider emotional range then men? What is false about my statement?

I simply don't consider it true. Men are socially conditions to hide their emotions because it is not "manly" to wear your heart on your sleeve. Boys are told by their fathers to stop crying and be a man.

Men who do continue to buck the trend and show wide range of emotions are characterized by others as probably being gay. Well, in many quarters even today, it is shameful to be gay, and the stereotype of gay men is an someone who is "sensitive" and "emotional" (which is why they make such great friends to women, as the stereotype goes... it's probably more the case a number of gay men are "great friends" with women because some of them don't feel shackled to the social stigma of being manly and hiding your emotions down deep).

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

That's quite the strawman. Of course employers can, will, and should choose people on the basis of experience, but a woman who's taken off time for a family is not neccessarily less qualified.

All else being equal, yes she is.

That is why the state should pay owmen for having children.

Jon Miller

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Women tend to have a wider range of emotions, they love harder they hurt more and they are more likely to swing from one to the other. If the men have less range, how is that mean they are superior to the women because they feel less?

Putting aside for a moment how false I consider the above statement to be, it has been argued that men, by being less emotional are able to be objective and rational and therefore should be in positions of power. The argument being that women, by being "overly emotional" cannot judge things rationally and therefore should not be trusted in those sensitive roles.

That's a stupid argument. None of us ever said that. Women can be as rational as men.

Again, a simple recognition of the fact that women, in general, tend to have a more mature emotional range is in no way a reason to discriminate.
















Why are you so hell-bent on demonising your opponents as some sort of oppressors? Can't you actually ever address the points we're trying to raise, instead of attacking and trying to label us as "Teh Patriarchists!!!!11!"

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


That is why the state should pay owmen for having children.

Jon Miller

That constitutes an unfair advantage, and it amounts basically to taxing men in order to subsidise the careers of women.

This issue is precisely the sort of thing which an alternate financial structure can address non-coercively.

[Jon Miller]

How so? Women already hae to pay for children. Men should as well.

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Why are you so hell-bent on demonising your opponents as some sort of oppressors? Can't you actually ever address the points we're trying to raise, instead of attacking and trying to label us as "Teh Patriarchists!!!!11!"

You are though.

Jon Miller

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
How so? Women already hae to pay for children. Men should as well.

Jon Miller

As I said, in the system I'm proposing (which is based on an older system which worked quite well for its time), the man does pay for the children, but the woman is still not dependent on the man.

[Jon Miller]

It is making the women be dependent on a particular man. If you were someone else, I would wonder why you were too dense to see that.

Jon Miller

[Ben Kenobi]

And the range of emotions is cited as the reason women are ineffective... because a great range necessarily encompasses more extremes.

Yes it does. However, why are you arguing against an argument that no one has brought forth?

Shouldn't you be arguing against the points I am making?

Seriously, dude... you need to read a bit closer. "It has been argued" does NOT mean that I think you said it. Once again... does NOT MEAN.

So why bring it up?

Does it strengthen your position to argue against yourself?

That is the traditional argument against having women in positions of power.

True, but again, what makes you think that I believe women are incapable of positions of power? Try to think outside of the box Imran.

I simply don't consider it true. Men are socially conditions to hide their emotions because it is not "manly" to wear your heart on your sleeve. Boys are told by their fathers to stop crying and be a man.

Ok, so your point is that social conditioning is the only reason why women have more of an emotional range then men. According to you, if we raise boys exactly the same way as girls that we should see this difference fade?

Have I understood you properly?

Men who do continue to buck the trend and show wide range of emotions are characterized by others as probably being gay. Well, in many quarters even today, it is shameful to be gay, and the stereotype of gay men is an someone who is "sensitive" and "emotional" (which is why they make such great friends to women, as the stereotype goes... it's probably more the case a number of gay men are "great friends" with women because some of them don't feel shackled to the social stigma of being manly and hiding your emotions down deep).

I'm not contesting any of your points here.

My question follows the first assertion. Is it necessarily true that the difference between men and women with regards to their emotions are entirely due to their upbringing?

If so, why then are women who are sisters, some are more emotional then others?

[Nubclear]

Either women are capable of more emotion than men, or everyone is exactly the same emotionally. There are clearly no alternatives.