PETA just grossed me out!!

[Kidlicious]

dp

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yeaaah, I'm betting it isn't called "feminism". Probably something like Power Dyanamics

This isn't craps.

Some feminist scholars have posited that the hierarchies in businesses and government and all organizations need to be replaced with a decentralized ultra-democracy. Some argue that having any central leader in any organization is derived from the andocentric family structure (and therefore needs reform and replacement), and thus such scholars see the essence of feminism as beyond the surface issues of sex and gender.

Emphasis added. Thanks for making my point.

I'm sorry you require that all feminist scholars have developed theories that aren't directly related to male/female relationshipes, but the rest of us are using common sense. The fact that some of them have proves that feminism isn't just about those particular relationships.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Mrs Snuggles
But that's beside the point. I wasn't trying to invalidate your view. You, however, are trying to invalidate other peoples' views. You are claiming that there is but one monolithic feminist movement, tied to one monolithic type of feminist thought. You say there is but one reductionist definition of what feminism concerns itself about, and any competing definitions are in error. Because you believe you are correct, other viewpoints, clearly not in sync with your own, are invalid.

Hardly feminist thought.

Not true. You and Imram have the narrower definition. I have the more inclusive.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Elok
I already know that Kid is wrong, because I'm a Decent Human Being, defined as a white male living in the eastern shore region of Maryland. Others may show aspects of Decent Humanity, by being white or male or living somewhere in MD. But the essence of it is in being exactly like me. Anyone who claims otherwise cannot be trusted, because that person is not a Decent Human Being. Because I said so. QED.

There's actually a lot of science involved.

[Elok]

I didn't know the meaning of a movement was subject to scientific verification. Did they put the word "feminism" under an electron microscope and measure its flow of manifestons in response to various platforms shouted at it, or use some other procedure?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Elok
I didn't know the meaning of a movement was subject to scientific verification. Did they put the word "feminism" under an electron microscope and measure its flow of manifestons in response to various platforms shouted at it, or use some other procedure?

No, no. There have been scientific resarch done on the differences between men and women. For example, one study found that as corporate leaders, men care more about market share than profit compared to women (Asher comes to mind here).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I'm sorry you require that all feminist scholars have developed theories that aren't directly related to male/female relationshipes, but the rest of us are using common sense. The fact that some of them have proves that feminism isn't just about those particular relationships.

The moving goalposts is incredible here. I wasn't the one who claimed certain feminists weren't. You happen to be the one who requires "all" feminist scholars to believe a certain way. And, of course, "some" does not equal all. Some Democrats believe that John McCain would be a better choice than Barack Obama (ie, Joe Libermann and Zell Miller), but that doesn't the Democrats are for John McCain.

Common sense is the last thing you are using.

edit, I've gathered up some quotes of you saying to be feminist you HAVE to be for animal rights:

Post #91:

How much of a feminist could you be if you aren't against animal cruelty?

Post #97

If you don't oppose cruelty to animals how can you expect anyone to oppose unfair treatment to you? The same mentality that causes animals to suffer causes all oppressed people to suffer. It's the exact thing that feminists oppose.

Not some feminists, just feminists.

Post #100

That's not feminist type thinking

In responding that someone believes humans are more important than animals.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I wasn't the one who claimed certain feminists weren't. You happen to be the one who requires "all" feminist scholars to believe a certain way.

Well if you want to talk about feminist scholars, not just self-proclaimed feminists, you would be hard pressed to find a feminist scholar that doesn't have a worldview involving relationships affected by power structures. I don't know maybe some of Sarah Palin's professors had some wierd views.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Well if you want to talk about feminist scholars, not just self-proclaimed feminists, you would be hard pressed to find a feminist scholars that doesn't have a worldview involving relationships affected by power structures. I don't know maybe some of Sarah Palin's professors had some wierd views.

A feminist scholar that has a worldview involving relationships affected by power structures is, as you should know, worlds away from saying feminism is about relationships affected by power structures in ALL spheres of life and not just sex.

If the later was true, the NOW website would have a part of it dedicated to animal rights, don't you think?

And seriously "a worldview involving relationships affected by power structures"? You realized you've described Post-modernists and socialists with that statement as well, right?

[Kidlicious]

No where did I say that feminists much be animal rights activists. You've been stating that, and I've just ignored it up to this point. I said that I personally wouldn't think you were much of a feminists if you didn't oppose animal cruelty. Similarly I don't think you are much of a feminist if you don't support a women's right to choose.

Also, a worldview is a worldview. It means you see the world through a particular lense. Therefore feminists (scholars if you like) see the world as affected by power relationships.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Kidicious
No, no. There have been scientific resarch done on the differences between men and women. For example, one study found that as corporate leaders, men care more about market share than profit compared to women (Asher comes to mind here).

I don't contest that there are differences between the sexes (though I do not agree with your clumsy stereotyping of them). What I contest is your authority to declare what feminism is by fiat or something. What you're basically telling us is that, with nothing to back it up but your opinion and some vague unsupported speculation by an unspecified number of supposed feminists, feminism IS [x]. Never mind what Steinem, Dworkin or anybody else thinks or thought about it. And that's manifest BS.

Why? Because ideology is not fact. What an ideology or belief means can and will vary depending on the opinion of the individual adherent. Ideologies have no meaning apart from the common-consent meaning ascribed to them. When you say feminism is so and so, you're not like Copernicus claiming the Earth revolves around the sun. You're more like a fundy claiming that, because I do not believe in the Rapture, I am not a Christian. Nonsense.

If you personally think of "feminism" as meaning something about thinking like a sensitive enlightened person, fine, but you're going to need more than flat assertion to convince anyone else of your personal definition. Not many famous feminists, or indeed anyone apart from you that I've heard of, uses the word to mean that.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
No where did I say that feminists much be animal rights activists.

I said that I personally wouldn't think you were much of a feminists if you didn't oppose animal cruelty. Similarly I don't think you are much of a feminist if you don't support a women's right to choose.

That's basically saying the same thing.

Btw, women's right to choose actually... affects women!!!

It means you see the world through a particular lense. Therefore feminists (scholars if you like) see the world as affected by power relationships.

As do Postmodernists. Socialists. Plenty of groups.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Elok
If you personally think of "feminism" as meaning something about thinking like a sensitive enlightened person, fine, but you're going to need more than flat assertion to convince anyone else of your personal definition. Not many famous feminists, or indeed anyone apart from you that I've heard of, uses the word to mean that.

That's because it's commonly known and not contested in academics. All feminists scholars believe that women are more nurturing for example. Do you know of any theories or studies that attempt to show that that isn't true?

[Elok]

You're not just saying that such a notion exists, you claim that it is the essential meaning of all feminism, or something very nearly to that effect. You seem to be splitting hairs BK-style to say it without saying it.

See, I imagine that the vast majority of feminist scholars would agree that women have vaginas. But that does not mean feminism is defined as "the belief that women have vaginas." There's a substantial difference which you're very blithely ignoring.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
That's basically saying the same thing.

No they aren't. Steinem is against animal cruelty, but she isn't an activist.

Btw, women's right to choose actually... affects women!!!

Duh. I'm not saying that feminists aren't concerned with issues that affect women.

As do Postmodernists. Socialists. Plenty of groups.

No, no. It's not the same thing. Feminism is about human psychology. Socialism doesn't concern itself with personal relationships and human psychology nearly to the extent that feminism does. Scientific socialism is basically and off shoot from economics and mainstream philosophy. Before Marx socialist thinkers never discussed relationships like feminists do.

As far as postmodernists are concerned, you'll have to be more specific.

Feminism, as a way of thinking, started in the 60's.