Is feminism inherently negative?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I use two hands to type.

Jon Miller

Presumably that would make it even harder for your right hand to slip and hit the 'E' key.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by BeBro
Didn't read the thread, just found this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6545115.stm

I always knew it, but this confirmed it beyond all doubt (not that I had any to begin with) - the Congress is retarded, and apparently, sexist to boot.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Presumably that would make it even harder for your right hand to slip and hit the 'E' key.

Look at where the two keys are situated. I just sent the wrong hand the message to press down the middle finger.

Jon Miller

[Ramo]

Unicef came out with a study of the gender wage disparity. The amazing thing is that it's near-constant around the world:

[Jon Miller]

As Kuci suggested, they have to take time off to raise children (if they choose to do so). This drops their wages compared to men. Until the state pays them for every child the ammount that is lost due to time raising that child, there won't be equality... somewhat because there isn't equality of time spent.

Jon Miller

[Ben Kenobi]

First of all, individual differences count for something, which is why two sisters might have a different range of emotional responses. We can note that acceptable emotional responses are socially constructed without being determinist about it.

No we can't at least not say that the sole reason for the difference is from upbringing. There are innate differences between men and women and between women themselves. Even if we were to raise boys and girls the same way we would see a variation which raises the question.

If there are innate differences between boys and girls, are we doing them any good when we ignore these differences? Wouldn't that be like pushing a box upstream. You can do so but only with great effort. The question I have is why do we want to make this effort rather then allow the box to flow with the stream?

Second, you need to expand what you mean by "raising" to go beyond the family. A boy and girl raised the same way in a North American family are still going to be exposed to vastly different understandings of gender in the larger culture. Put simply, a boy taught at home that it's okay for boys to cry when upset is going to learn a different lesson at school the first time he cries -- and gets labelled a *** and beaten up for his emotional display.

I put the two of them together as upbringing.

I'm open to the suggestion that the social development of different emotional registers for the different genders once served a useful purpose -- but I reject the notion that it still does, and I reject the notion that the society it served was better than our own.

Well I don't think it has anything to do with society. My point is that the differences are innate, and that there is a reason why parents have raised their children in this way for so long. Innovations generally come with lack of understanding as to why things were done in the past.

Further, as other have said, it seems quite obvious that the emotional differences inculcated into men and women have been used to systematically disadvantage women, especially in the public sphere;

There is some truth in them. Just because there are differences doesn't mean we are doing people good in denying that they exist.

that's why male bosses can be tough as nails and retain the admiration of their subordinates, while a tough female boss gets labelled "b!tch" almost immediately.

I've seen the same folks who claim to be enlightened supporters of feminism do exactly the same thing. I've had women and men bosses, and frankly it doesn't make a difference to me whether one is one or the other. But they do tend to have different management styles and I have to learn to work with both.

[Kuciwalker]

Ramo: I can't read that chart at all, apart from the title.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
As Kuci suggested, they have to take time off to raise children (if they choose to do so). This drops their wages compared to men. Until the state pays them for every child the ammount that is lost due to time raising that child, there won't be equality... somewhat because there isn't equality of time spent.

Jon Miller

And the state would have to pay significantly more to those with higher education.

[Ramo]

Jon, wages typically refer to the income normalized by the hours worked (i.e. "minimum wage"). Since women, I'm absolutely certain, make far less than 70% of the income of men in most developing states.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


And the state would have to pay significantly more to those with higher education.

Yeah, it would be based upon what they were making before they had the child.

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

You take your income before you get pregnant, multiply by .2, and then get that as a government support for the rest of your life?

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

The other thing to do would be to take your income afte ryou go back to work, and have the government give the women 25% of the income they have after going back to work.

Another (easier?) possibility is just make it so that women with children don't pay income tax.

Jon Miller

[Kuciwalker]

They could also base social security payouts [partially] on the income of your children. That would be a more accurate reward for the contribution to society.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Bringing up a reference to the infamous "Separate but equal" is not justified, simply because economic structures cannot be walled off from each other like racio-social structures and institutions can, given the nature of the human species. Interaction is inevitable. In fact, the use of the word "alternate" is to suggest that the structure will be dissimilar to current ones, not to suggest that it will be hermetically sealed off.

Of course it's justified. You presume that women and men are different in key areas, and that they therefore should be subject to separate systems. You have no justification for this point of view except that they are "different." When I ask you "how," you give me a single wiki article, which itself states that the results are highly controversial and that ascertaining average intelligence is difficult. If we go so far as to accept that as true, you still need to demonstrate why this is, as well as demonstrate why an "alternative system" would be uniquely suited to dealing with this - once, of course, you also demonstrated why a "solution" was necessary at all. You've skipped all the important steps of argumentation and just gone ahead and given us your conclusion, which seems in almost every way comparable to the US's racist policies. You obviously have no argument, because I can only presume that if you did, you would post it.

Originally posted by Kidicious
This probably qualifies as the most absurd thing ever said on apolyton.

This thread is a hideous wreck of ignorance. It's not surprising to me in the least. You know, the only way this could get any worse is if...

Originally posted by Ned

Thread Destroyed!

Originally posted by Ned
BTW, in the last presidential election, during the democrat debates, General Clark quieted the crowd big time by saying that it was the "Democrat" party that was pro-family, not the Republican Party. You could have heard a pin drop as all the other candidates squirmed and looked very uncomfortable.

The truth hurts, doesn't it Ned?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
While I think I would agree that Dems are more profamily currently, saying that divorce is profamily is plainly rediculous.

Jon Miller

I think we are saying that it isn't anti-family. So if it has to be one or the other it is profamily.

Really this pro family stuff is just crap anyway.