PETA just grossed me out!!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by 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.

I'm sure that I'm not, and I don't know how you got that impression. If you are following the discussion between Imran and myself, you should get the idea that I think feminism is about power relationships and how they affect society.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
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?

What about Judith Butler, who led the fight against the idea of essentialism? And the person who has great influence in the feminist scholarly community?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I'm sure that I'm not, and I don't know how you got that impression. If you are following the discussion between Imran and myself, you should get the idea that I think feminism is about power relationships and how they affect society.

Since both of us got that impression, it's probably your fault.

[Q Classic]

Well, I got that impression as well. *shrugs*

On the other hand, I don't know how many other people got the impression Kid got of the rest of our viewpoints.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


What about Judith Butler, who led the fight against the idea of essentialism? And the person who has great influence in the feminist scholarly community?

Are you assuming that I'm claiming that the fact that women tend to be more nurturing is due to a natural predisposition? I don't know if that's true, or if women are more nurturing because they are raised to be that way. Maybe it's a little of both.

[Kidlicious]

Ok, I'll respond to this again to try to clear it up.

Originally posted by 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.

Feminists believe that women are more sensitive than men. They also believe that men should be more sensitive than they are. What they really believe in at the core is that women should share power with men.

[Elok]

The only thing that all feminists might be said to have in common is the last of those statements, that women should share power with men. Or rather that women should not be treated worse than men (some feminists are also anarchists, and so do not believe in anyone having power).

My GF is a self-described feminist and I don't think she wants me to "be more sensitive," whatever that means. She's not terribly sensitive herself, since she's probably an aspie like me, albeit undiagnosed. But like all or nearly all feminists, she wants the right to equal pay for equal work, the same rights and social status as a man, etc.

[Kidlicious]

Sarah Palin is a self-described feminist. I thought we were talking about serious feminists here.

[Kidlicious]

Also, "the right" to equal pay for women is not a feminist proposal. That's pretty ridiculous dude.

Does you GF even have any ideas about why women are in fact often paid less than men for the same work?

[Q Classic]

Feminists believe that women are more sensitive than men.

Not necessarily. In some strains of feminism, this doesn't figure at all.

They also believe that men should be more sensitive than they are.

Not necessarily. In some strains of feminism this also doesn't figure.

Of course, both lines above run quite counter to the arguments some feminist intellectuals...

What they really believe in at the core is that women should share power with men.

As Elok said... this is the only point here you have correct that applies to all feminists.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Also, "the right" to equal pay for women is not a feminist proposal. That's pretty ridiculous dude.

Strange, NOW seems to be for equal pay for equal work. They even have a whole page on it. Yeah, they clearly don't consider it part of their mission at all.

Unless you want to argue that NOW isn't really feminist... since their site doesn't really mention animal rights at all. And heck, while they have concern for women in other countries, too, they primarily focus just on American women. Can't have that sort of thinking, can we?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Mrs Snuggles


Strange, NOW seems to be for equal pay for equal work. They even have a whole page on it. Yeah, they clearly don't consider it part of their mission at all.

Unless you want to argue that NOW isn't really feminist... since their site doesn't really mention animal rights at all. And heck, while they have concern for women in other countries, too, they primarily focus just on American women. Can't have that sort of thinking, can we?

I don't think you realize that women already have the right to equal pay. Did you just not pick up on the "right" part of Elok's statement?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Mrs Snuggles

Not necessarily. In some strains of feminism, this doesn't figure at all.


Not necessarily. In some strains of feminism this also doesn't figure.

Of course, both lines above run quite counter to the arguments some feminist intellectuals...

This is worthless without some examples.

[Vesayen]

Breastmilk is not kosher(except for babies). I like my ben and jerries. Damn PETA trying to ruin my ice cream...... its a world wide conspiracy I tells ya!

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I don't think you realize that women already have the right to equal pay. Did you just not pick up on the "right" part of Elok's statement?

Semantics are the last refuge of the scoundrel, it's been said.

But, if you want to refer to the Equal Pay Act of 1963, it was meant to help equalize pay between men and women--and was pushed for by feminist organizations as a natural outgrowth of the civil rights movement. This "right" was thus enshrined in law, whereas previously it was treated as one that didn't exist.

That said, many of its goals are as of yet unmet--so, like the some of the articles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which has not yet been enshrined into law in many locales), those are "rights" which are not enforced.

If certain rights are not granted, enforced, or handled in spirit with the law, then can you say those rights actually exist in the context of that discussion?