Is feminism inherently negative?

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
There's actually a serious point behind that, Cyclotron. The fact that only females can have kids is a rather significant.

Firstly, that's not the only thing that's been put forward in this discussion; "females are different" is alleged without ever being defined. When it is defined, it's offered without proof. When it is (hypothetically) proven, it's not proven that it stems from nature as opposed to acculturation. When that is proven, it's not demonstrated that the solution for this "problem" is what has been suggested so far.

Nobody is arguing that females and males are exactly the same. What I am saying is that using "females are different" as a general, undefined, unsupported statement allows anti-feminists to ascribe anything they want to that gender difference and thus claim it is natural.

So, I ask, significant to what? Sure, it's significant. But "signficant" doesn't do anything by itself. How is it significant? How does it impact gender roles? What implications does it have for society? Some people in this thread seem to skip all these steps and say "well, females are different, therefore feminism is silly."

[MJW]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I find it amusing that it took you a couple tries to get it. I'm kinda unsurprised about MJW, though.

I'm such a loser...

[Odin]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Is feminism inherently negative?

Originally posted by Ned


The left IS anti-family.

The Left /= small group of ivory tower pseudo-intellectuals. There is a differences between Feminists and the "All men are potential rapists" Feminazis.

[MJW]

Originally posted by Cyclotron


Firstly, that's not the only thing that's been put forward in this discussion; "females are different" is alleged without ever being defined. When it is defined, it's offered without proof. When it is (hypothetically) proven, it's not proven that it stems from nature as opposed to acculturation. When that is proven, it's not demonstrated that the solution for this "problem" is what has been suggested so far.

Nobody is arguing that females and males are exactly the same. What I am saying is that using "females are different" as a general, undefined, unsupported statement allows anti-feminists to ascribe anything they want to that gender difference and thus claim it is natural.

So, I ask, significant to what? Sure, it's significant. But "signficant" doesn't do anything by itself. How is it significant? How does it impact gender roles? What implications does it have for society? Some people in this thread seems to skip all these steps and say "well, females are different, therefore feminism is silly."

Originally posted by MJW
If a 'debate' goes on long enough one side will somehow end up stuck passively defending a point. If that point is unclear like in the 'youth house' thread than it can go on forever. If it is clear like in this thread (the point will likely be if there is ANY advantange in women being 'less' important than men) than the defending side will slowly go away because they cannot win. No one likes fighting for a draw. They also cannot change the topic. Thus, the best idea for winning debates is to make the other side stuck defending. The smaller side (the right wing here) almost always ends up defending the point. This is because the majotry ends up lauching most of the attacks because they have more posters. So the debate is more liklely to end up stuck on a point their attacking.

Kuci is pulling out preemptively to stop you from 'winning'. He also has a life and knows he cannot beat you. Mainly due to the vast amount of agruements and the fact there is no way to pin anyone down. The only way to lose is to fall into a QED but you are too smart for that.

anseehm is saying feminism is wrong in India. Kuciwalker is saying feminism is wrong in america. The points are different. I think moderate feminism movement is better than the status quo in India and the other ideas like anseehms are totally nonviable (so who cares if they are right or not?). So for better or for wrose feminism is the best idea for India. I don't know if its for america.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by MJW




Kuci is pulling out preemptively to stop you from 'winning'. He also has a life and knows he cannot beat you. Mainly due to the vast amount of agruements and the fact there is no way to pin anyone down. The only way to lose is to fall into a QED but you are too smart for that.

anseehm is saying feminism is wrong in India. Kuciwalker is saying feminism is wrong in america. The points are different. I think moderate feminism movement is better than the status quo in India and the other ideas like anseehms are totally nonviable (so who cares if they are right or not?). So for better or for wrose feminism is the best idea for India. I don't know if its for america.

Originally posted by MJW


I'm such a loser...

Yes. Yes you are.

[MJW]

Originally posted by Tacc




Yes. Yes you are.

And why does my post prove that?...

[Odin]

Originally posted by Ned


Rufus, why don't you give us a list of all the pro-family laws the Dems have passed and/or support and explain why they are pro-family.

Start with divorce, for example.

The problem with the "Family Values" idiots like you is that you guys universalize a particular cultural feature of post-Industrial Revolution Western society (the nuclear family) into an Platonic notion of "The Ideal Family." If anything could be called the most "typical" family it is NOT the nuclear family (Mom, Dad, and kids), but the multi-generational extended family structure found in most pre-industrial societies. The "Family Values" nonsense is nothing but right-wing Baby Boomers idealizing their 50's and early 60's childhoods and universalizing these idealizations.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
Firstly, that's not the only thing that's been put forward in this discussion; "females are different" is alleged without ever being defined. When it is defined, it's offered without proof. When it is (hypothetically) proven, it's not proven that it stems from nature as opposed to acculturation. When that is proven, it's not demonstrated that the solution for this "problem" is what has been suggested so far.

Are you reading what you're writing? Unless we have drastically different definitions of 'different' (uhoh), that paragraph makes no sense.

So, I ask, significant to what?

All of human society, which would otherwise cease to exist?

[MJW]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Are you reading what you're writing? Unless we have drastically different definitions of 'different' (uhoh), that paragraph makes no sense.

So, I ask, significant to what?

All of human society, which would otherwise cease to exist?

hmmm... Can we just pass laws forcing empolyess to give time off to dads who have children to? That would balance it. Dads can rear children to. The barrier is made by laws giving 'free' leave to women but not to men.

EDIT: Kuciwalker I think that my idea would deal with the issue to. Having to have babies while being made vauable to empolyers is bad for women and keeps them down.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Ned
Kid, you are simply amazing in your thinking. Families are not about woman's unfair dependence on men. Families are about children. They encourage children to be born and raised by their parents. Women need support and protection in order to stay at home, have and raise her children properly. But to do this without the father or to the exclusion of the father is harmful to the kids who need and want both parents.

Why does it have to be the mom that stays home? Why can't the guy be a stay-at-home dad if his spouse can make more income then he does? Quit irrationally sticking to pre-industrial cultural constructs that served a purpose way back when but no longer make any sense in an industrialized society.

[Jon Miller]

Women lose some time to pregnancy.

Jon Miller

[Odin]

Originally posted by Ned


Making divorce freely available is when there are children. Divorce for good cause has always been in the law and should remain.

I don't think it is a good thing if kids grow up up in a house hold where Mom and Dad hate each other, or where one parent is abusive.

[MJW]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Women lose some time to pregnancy.

Jon Miller

But without laws that force empolyers to give women time to women to rear children without the same to men makes it much wrose.

It would be a drop in the bucket if it were not for those laws.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Odin
Why does it have to be the mom that stays home? Why can't the guy be a stay-at-home dad if his spouse can make more income then he does? Quit irrationally sticking to pre-industrial cultural constructs that served a purpose way back when but no longer make any sense in an industrialized society.

No matter what you do the mom is going to have to take some time off. And it's quite possible that during early years it's better for children to be raised by the mother.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Ned


Kid, now you are being ridiculous. I know the difference between classic liberalism (i.e., a concern for the poor) which has its origins in Christianity and socialism which speaks of the "social contract," class warfare and economic equality. The classic liberal would be pro-family. The socialist is anti-family because the socialist wants everyone to be dependent upon the state.

The Christian ethos IS socialist, you fool. And you are confusing Marxist Statists like Kidicious with all Socialists. There are Market Socialists, like myself, who desired a market economy based on co-ops. You also have the Christian Socialists, like Dr. MLK.