PETA just grossed me out!!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Mrs Snuggles

And now I see you've entirely missed my point.

I was never arguing that feminism couldn't have vibrant disagreements between different strains of thought; nor did I ever say that I placed equal validity amongst them all.

Stop being obtuse. I said that you are being absurd to say that someone is a feminist just because they say they are one. If that were true Dick Cheney could be a feminist simply by stating that he was one. Therefore you are arguing semantics and blaming me for doing the exact thing while being obtuse about my points.

'Powerful' or 'Power', in this case, is also constructed differently; while often described as force, in this case, one's own belief in a certain truth above others means contains in it a certain power.

You were the one who suggested, however inadvertently, and took to an extreme the notion of feminism equating to equality, and thus all points were then equally valid.

And you must have thought that I meant that they were all equally correct? Or is that just you being obtuse?

You're the one unable to admit that feminism is not monolithic; it's understandable, because if you admitted that, you'd also have to admit that you were incorrect in saying that to be a feminist one must also be an animal right's activist, among other things. You'd have to admit that you were wrong, and you can't do that.

This is just hacking. I never said you must be an animal right's activist. In fact, I've already corrected you on that point. This is pitifull. You just keep repeating your ****e.

Incidentally, I'll say that I don't actually consider myself a feminist, but rather an egalitarian. I myself don't think men can be feminists, but they can be feminist sympathizers--why? Because women's and men's experiences differ so much from each other that the best a man can do is sympathize, but not empathize, with women's issues. Which is why I'm an egalitarian, regardless of what my posting name is.

As I've already told you, I consider myself a feminist because I see the world like a feminist, affected by disfunctional relationships and unequal power. Now stop arguing semantics and address my argument as it is presented.... please.

Do I think some people who claim to be feminists as being incorrect in their beliefs and conclusions? Most definitely. I don't think all viewpoints are valid, because I do place certain ones based on certain 'powers' (intellect, reasoning, expertise) higher. Among those 'feminists' whom I consider wrong: you, Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, and a whole slew of right-wingers who enjoy the spoils of the feminist movement, only to turn around and destroy it as quickly as they can.

WTF?! How does one destroy the feminist movement by supporting it? What on earth are you talking about. I believe in power sharing, Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter obviously do not. I assume you do not either, so please stop blaming me for what you are doing.

Now, to answer the notion that I equate the right to equal pay and equal pay; I do. I think that one should have equal pay for equal work; I'm cognizant of why this is often not the case, and the arguments for why that is. The reason why I equate them is because for me, they are inseperable; to have equal pay, one has to have the right; just as in to have free speech, one has to have that right. I myself do not think that the right to equal pay has in actuality, in practice, been truly granted.

SEMANTICS!

I've already stated that right to equal pay simply means that a women could get equal pay. It doesn't mean she does get it. Equal pay means equal pay. It's a central feminist belief.

Do I think women are discriminated against? Of course. Who isn't? Personally, I don't think the issue will ever disappear, since the root of it is the way humans in general classify things; things that are different are more readily judged, rightly or wrongly, with both internalized values and behaviors.

The issue is that women do not recieve equal pay. Men are discriminated against, but as a group they still get paid more.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Kidicious
NOW believes that men discriminate against women. Do you believe that men discriminate against women? Elok, was implying that his self-proclaimed GF doesn't believe that men discriminate against women. I'd simply like him to clear that up.

WhereTF did you get that idea? All I said was that she did not want me to be more "sensitive," since like me she hardly knows the meaning of the word. How did you get from there to "men do not discriminate against women"?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Mrs Snuggles

Not putting as much value on the findings in explaining and utilizing it in her feminist goals makes her a science 'denier'?

She didn't diminish the value. She said that it's a bad study for being sexist, and therefore invalid. She urges people to ingore it.

Well, seeing as without large amounts of oestrogen and progesterone, and correspondingly lower amounts of testosterone makes women women...

And that recent studies have shown that women behave differently in terms of mate selection, among other things, dependent on their hormonal level...

Yeah, has nothing to do with women's sensitivity at all.

Answer my question? What does that mean to you, women or more or less sensitive? If neither then stop mentioning irrelevances.

Of course, here's a scientific article that debunks a myth propagated by the study you linked.

That doesn't debunk anything. The study that I linked claims that men think about sex more than women, not that they want it more. It's just that they aren't capable of thinking about relationships as much as sex. Women can think about relationships, but at the same time desire sex.

As far as the parts you bolded: 'communication' is a social construct. While I'm not debating that women have a different brain layout from men, and are more capable of verbalizing some of their thoughts, that does not mean that they are better communicators than men, but different in the means that they choose to express it.

Are you a psychologist? I don't think so. This is bull. Social construct my ass. Women are better with relationships because they are more sensitive adn better communicators. That's pretty straight forward, and it's a widely held belief among psychologists.

Part of what you highlights is precisely that men feel better trying to resolve problems when talking; the argument is that their minds are suited more towards analytic processes, which may explain why, in general, men are more adept at abstract visualization than women.


Classy. Again, I didn't say I agreed with her. I gave her as a counterexample against your initial claim. That was all you asked for; some of the others are not 'science deniers'.

I don't know what you are talking about with the others. Some of them are not modern feminists so I would guess that they have different beleifs than modern feminists.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Stop being obtuse. I said that you are being absurd to say that someone is a feminist just because they say they are one. If that were true Dick Cheney could be a feminist simply by stating that he was one. Therefore you are arguing semantics and blaming me for doing the exact thing while being obtuse about my points.

Isn't that what you're doing? You're claiming to be a feminist. Why should I extend the courtsey of agreeing with you there, and not other feminists, even when I disagree with your, and their conclusions? You're the one rejecting people because they don't follow your monolithic viewpoint, considering them non-feminist.

But even then, I myself have stated that I don't see the actions of some self-avowed feminists as being feminist--see my criticisms before re: fame-seeking behavior.

And you must have thought that I meant that they were all equally correct? Or is that just you being obtuse?

That is how you had phrased that statement.

This is just hacking. I never said you must be an animal right's activist. In fact, I've already corrected you on that point. This is pitifull. You just keep repeating your ****e.

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.

Post #100:

That's not feminist type thinking

(in response to Imran saying correctly that I believe in humans before animals.)
Post #105:

Because feminism is about equality. You are judging humans to be superior to other animals.

The only time you separate those two is to say that Feminism and Animal Rights are different movements, yet you go on to say that it's "feminist type thinking"--which is part of the debate we were having.

As I've already told you, I consider myself a feminist because I see the world like a feminist, affected by disfunctional relationships and unequal power. Now stop arguing semantics and address my argument as it is presented.... please.

And I've pointed out your argument is flawed. There is no one type of 'feminist thinking'. In response, you suggested there really only was one kind of feminism, that of your own devising; you suggest that biological differences have a causative effect on how people think; if you truly did believe that, you would realize that you, being male, are incapable of having 'feminist thought' because your brain structure is not, well... female.

WTF?! How does one destroy the feminist movement by supporting it? What on earth are you talking about. I believe in power sharing, Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter obviously do not. I assume you do not either, so please stop blaming me for what you are doing.

I didn't say they supported it. I said they enjoyed the spoils of it. Very big, but somewhat nuanced difference, so it's no surprise you missed it. As far as assuming that I disbelieve in power sharing, here's yet another incorrect assumption that you've made.

****, if I had a dime for all of the ones you've made in this thread alone, I could pay off my student loans and contribute to Paulson's bailout plan.

I've already stated that right to equal pay simply means that a women could get equal pay. It doesn't mean she does get it. Equal pay means equal pay. It's a central feminist belief.

Which I support. As I've stated. If you look at what I said, I don't think the right has actually successfully been given.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Elok


WhereTF did you get that idea? All I said was that she did not want me to be more "sensitive," since like me she hardly knows the meaning of the word. How did you get from there to "men do not discriminate against women"?

Does she believe in equal pay or not? The way you worded it, I assumed she does not.

[Elok]

So "she wants the right to equal pay for equal work" implies to you that she does not, in fact, want equal pay for equal work?

Well, I'm bamboozled. Just how did you get that meaning out of that clause?

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Answer my question? What does that mean to you, women or more or less sensitive? If neither then stop mentioning irrelevances.

Until you define what you mean by "sensitive", I can't answer that question.

That doesn't debunk anything. The study that I linked claims that men think about sex more than women, not that they want it more. It's just that they aren't capable of thinking about relationships as much as sex. Women can think about relationships, but at the same time desire sex.

Nonetheless, it was an irrelevancy I threw in for ****s and giggles.

Are you a psychologist? I don't think so. This is bull. Social construct my ass. Women are better with relationships because they are more sensitive adn better communicators. That's pretty straight forward, and it's a widely held belief among psychologists.

It's not that the communicate better, it's that they communicate differently. The 'better' part is a value judgement; values are, by and large, social constructs.

[Kidlicious]

Typical apolyton argument style here. All you do is constantly claim that I'm arguing something that I'm not.

Originally posted by Mrs Snuggles

Isn't that what you're doing? You're claiming to be a feminist. Why should I extend the courtsey of agreeing with you there, and not other feminists, even when I disagree with your, and their conclusions? You're the one rejecting people because they don't follow your monolithic viewpoint, considering them non-feminist.

I am a feminist because I clearly have the same beliefs as feminists. They are very consistant. Other people do not have such beliefs and therefore are not feminists dispite labeling themselves as such.

That is how you had phrased that statement.

Amazing how you again missed where I said that being against animal cruelty is not the same as being an activists. Many feminists do not believe in animal cruelty, but they don't believe animals are equal either. Seriously, I will not repeat this again.

And I've pointed out your argument is flawed. There is no one type of 'feminist thinking'. In response, you suggested there really only was one kind of feminism, that of your own devising; you suggest that biological differences have a causative effect on how people think; if you truly did believe that, you would realize that you, being male, are incapable of having 'feminist thought' because your brain structure is not, well... female.

There is "feminist thinking." How else would you identify yourself as either a feminist or not? If you don't think like a feminist, don't go around calling yourself one.

I didn't say they supported it. I said they enjoyed the spoils of it. Very big, but somewhat nuanced difference, so it's no surprise you missed it. As far as assuming that I disbelieve in power sharing, here's yet another incorrect assumption that you've made.

Do you know what power sharing means? Why aren't you a feminist then? I mean its fair to assume that you don't believe in power sharing when you go around saying yoiu aren't a feminist.

Which I support. As I've stated. If you look at what I said, I don't think the right has actually successfully been given.

WTF?! Again, why do you say you are not a feminist?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Elok
So "she wants the right to equal pay for equal work" implies to you that she does not, in fact, want equal pay for equal work?

Well, I'm bamboozled. Just how did you get that meaning out of that clause?

So she believes that men discriminate against women but she doesn't want them to be more sensitive?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Mrs Snuggles
Until you define what you mean by "sensitive", I can't answer that question.

You need someone to tell you what being "sensitive" in regards to relationships is? It means that you consider other people's view points and treat them as equals. It means that you don't take advantage of them or exploit them. I could continue, but do you get it yet?

It's not that the communicate better, it's that they communicate differently. The 'better' part is a value judgement; values are, by and large, social constructs.

As far as relationships go it is better. What do you consider a good way to communicate with people you have relationships with?

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Typical apolyton argument style here. All you do is constantly claim that I'm arguing something that I'm not.

Two are playing at that game, at least. You still haven't retracted statements suggesting I believe certain things I don't.

Amazing how you again missed where I said that being against animal cruelty is not the same as being an activists. Many feminists do not believe in animal cruelty, but they don't believe animals are equal either. Seriously, I will not repeat this again.

I will retract that argument the instant you recant saying that I think PETA's in favor of enslaving women.

I am a feminist because I clearly have the same beliefs as feminists. They are very consistant. Other people do not have such beliefs and therefore are not feminists dispite labeling themselves as such.

Which is fine to say.

There is "feminist thinking." How else would you identify yourself as either a feminist or not? If you don't think like a feminist, don't go around calling yourself one.

I don't go around calling myself a feminist. And I don't buy the notion there is a particular way of thinking that is connotes with your term "feminist thinking".

Do you know what power sharing means? Why aren't you a feminist then? I mean its fair to assume that you don't believe in power sharing when you go around saying yoiu aren't a feminist.

I never said I wasn't a feminist sympathizer. I did say I was in favor of power sharing.

WTF?! Again, why do you say you are not a feminist?

I said it before, and I'll say it again:

Incidentally, I'll say that I don't actually consider myself a feminist, but rather an egalitarian. I myself don't think men can be feminists, but they can be feminist sympathizers--why? Because women's and men's experiences differ so much from each other that the best a man can do is sympathize, but not empathize, with women's issues. Which is why I'm an egalitarian, regardless of what my posting name is.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Kidicious
You need someone to tell you what being "sensitive" in regards to relationships is? It means that you consider other people's view points and treat them as equals. It means that you don't take advantage of them or exploit them. I could continue, but do you get it yet?

So you're using it in the context of relationships, with a very general definition. And you're ascribing that behavioral pattern to women.

Which, mind you, goes against many anti-essentialist schools of feminist thought.

As far as relationships go it is better. What do you consider a good way to communicate with people you have relationships with?

Why does my experience matter in this case? People have different methods of communication that are culturally learned. Asian societies and Western societies, for instance--or even WASPs and Southern rural families. I don't see what's so difficult to understand there, why I think it's hard to say that one form is better than the other, particularly when lots of different variables must be considered.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Kidicious
So she believes that men discriminate against women but she doesn't want them to be more sensitive?

Yes, essentially. Well, I've never asked her if she wants me to be more "sensitive," but as we've been dating for about two years now and she never brought it up, I assume not.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm not exactly sure how being sensitive is going to magically end discrimination. A lot of women don't want wussy men. Not sure that making them wuss out is going to make them stop discriminating.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I'm not exactly sure how being sensitive is going to magically end discrimination. A lot of women don't want wussy men. Not sure that making them wuss out is going to make them stop discriminating.

Sensitive ins't necessarily wussy. Strong and sensitive is desirable. That's what some women tell me anyway.