PETA just grossed me out!!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Mrs Snuggles

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?

The point is that feminists believe in equal pay, not the right to equal pay. But if you think I'm arguing about semantics let's just move on.

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.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Kidicious


This is worthless without some examples.

Then, it would help if you defined precisely what you meant by 'sensitive'. There are biological differences which women are more sensitive to, but that's a medical matter (e.g., cold, decibel levels...), not necessarily used in feminist theories.

If they're more 'sensitive' in the sense of the Jewel song, and it's a feminine thing, then it's something that such thinkers as Simone de Bouvoir, Kate Millet in Sexual Politics, or Susan Okin in Justice, Gender, and the Family have argued against.

Deborah Cameron argues against such 'essentialist' type thinking in "Feminism and Language Theory". Others don't care whether or not women are sensitive, but rather how it plays out in daily life and how it affects women's rights--such as Singapore's AWARE.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Kidicious
The point is that feminists believe in equal pay, not the right to equal pay. But if you think I'm arguing about semantics let's just move on.

The simple fact that you're arguing whether a right to equal pay is necessarily different from equal pay does suggest to me that you are arguing semantics.

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.

I don't see how my viewpoint matters in this case? NOW thinks men discriminate against women. Elok's GF does not. Where's the problem? Should Elok's GF, being a self-proclaimed feminist, hew to a single orthodoxy of thought, agreeing blindly to anything NOW or any other organization purporting to speak for women says?

Your inability to understand that there are many strains of feminism, not all of which have the same approaches on the questions of women's issues, or even the same notions of why they arise, is the problem here.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Mrs Snuggles

Then, it would help if you defined precisely what you meant by 'sensitive'. There are biological differences which women are more sensitive to, but that's a medical matter (e.g., cold, decibel levels...), not necessarily used in feminist theories.

If they're more 'sensitive' in the sense of the Jewel song, and it's a feminine thing, then it's something that such thinkers as Simone de Bouvoir, Kate Millet in Sexual Politics, or Susan Okin in Justice, Gender, and the Family have argued against.

Deborah Cameron argues against such 'essentialist' type thinking in "Feminism and Language Theory". Others don't care whether or not women are sensitive, but rather how it plays out in daily life and how it affects women's rights--such as Singapore's AWARE.

I don't know what you are talking about with most of those examples, but I'll give you the Deborah Cameron example. Unfortunately she claims that the research she argues against is sexist, not science. That's just absurd. It's a fact that men's brains are biologically different from women's. Also, the very idea that men are just as good at communicating as women is totally absurd.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Mrs Snuggles
The simple fact that you're arguing whether a right to equal pay is necessarily different from equal pay does suggest to me that you are arguing semantics.

That's not my problem.

I don't see how my viewpoint matters in this case? NOW thinks men discriminate against women. Elok's GF does not. Where's the problem? Should Elok's GF, being a self-proclaimed feminist, hew to a single orthodoxy of thought, agreeing blindly to anything NOW or any other organization purporting to speak for women says?

Now you're being ridiculous. If you don't believe that men discriminate against women you are clearly not a feminist. You just call yourself one, probably because you're an idiot.

Your inability to understand that there are many strains of feminism, not all of which have the same approaches on the questions of women's issues, or even the same notions of why they arise, is the problem here.

Well Sarah Palin calls herself a feminist. So I guess it's fair what you are saying. I don't know how relevant it is though.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I don't know what you are talking about with most of those examples, but I'll give you the Deborah Cameron example. Unfortunately she claims that the research she argues against is sexist, not science. That's just absurd. It's a fact that men's brains are biologically different from women's. Also, the very idea that men are just as good at communicating as women is totally absurd.

If I argued like you, I'd be saying that type of thinking is not feminist, because plenty of feminists believe a lot of the perceived differences between men and women are societal and culturally determined and there is no inherent "better at".

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


If I argued like you, I'd be saying that type of thinking is not feminist, because plenty of feminists believe a lot of the perceived differences between men and women are societal and culturally determined and there is no inherent "better at".

A lot of them are, but it's a biological fact that men's brains are different than women's (generally speaking). Women are better at communicating and relating to people (more sensitive). This person you all refer to is a total hack.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So you are saying that women should be at home raising the kids?

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I don't know what you are talking about with most of those examples, but I'll give you the Deborah Cameron example. Unfortunately she claims that the research she argues against is sexist, not science.

I'm not saying I agree with her conclusions. I am, however, providing her as a concrete counterexample to your suggestion that all feminists inherently believe that "women are more sensitive" and that "men should be more sensitive".

After all, that is what you asked for, isn't it, when I said that your claim was in error? You didn't ask whether I supported those notions, whether I believed them to be correct, or whether I disagreed with the science.

You simply wanted me to show examples of why your initial statement was incorrect.

Unless you're wanting to change the argument again, since your point is becoming untenable.

It's a fact that men's brains are biologically different from women's.

Yes. It's also a fact that women have certain hormones in higher concentrations.

Also, the very idea that men are just as good at communicating as women is totally absurd.

And here, on top of your blithe assumption that I think PETA supports enslavement of women, on top of the notion that I'm not a feminist because I don't support animal rights, on top of the suggestion that feminism requires people to think a certain way, you've decided to take a scientific study and completely overstate its conclusions.

The studies in question do indeed say that women tend to have more interlinks to the language centers of their brain; that the brain scans suggest that during communication, more of their brain is used than in men's; that the pathways to thought are showing up to have quite a few distinctions.

That does not, however, mean that the notion that men can communicate as well as women is absurd. What it does mean is that the methods used by the different sexes are... different.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Kidicious
That's not my problem.

Re: semantics.

It is. Because the vast majority of this thread is you doing precisely that.

Now you're being ridiculous. If you don't believe that men discriminate against women you are clearly not a feminist. You just call yourself one, probably because you're an idiot.

So you're assuming that because I didn't provide my belief in a simple yes-or-no form, that I don't think men discriminate against women. And because of that assumption, not only am I a DL, but also an idiot.

Classy, Kid, classy.

The context of the original reply was that it seemed to me that you wanted my viewpoint so you could contrast it with Elok's GF. I didn't understand why you'd want to do that, seeing as her viewpoint and my viewpoint have absolutely no bearing on each other. It's not like she'd change her mind because some random person on some internet forum said so; conversely, it's not likely my relatively complex opinions on identity politics would change on the basis of some stranger's beliefs.

So when you asked, I demurred. Why? Because when I looked at context, it didn't look like it had any ****ing relevance.

Besides, you should be able to tell what I think given the tone of my previous posts--but it's clear that nuance and subtlety escapes you, proving in your explicit case, women to communicate better than you. (Imran and Elok, on the other hand, seem to understand what I'm saying just fine.)

Well Sarah Palin calls herself a feminist. So I guess it's fair what you are saying. I don't know how relevant it is though.

It's relevant because you want to define feminism as one monolithic viewpoint that has only one definition, only one interpretation, and that anyone who goes against it is in error and has an invalid point of view.

The only reason why I harp on that is because you yourself suggested that feminism isn't about people's opinions being valid, or some such; yet you continually try to invalidate others' opinions, while claiming the mantle of being a feminist.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Kidicious


A lot of them are, but it's a biological fact that men's brains are different than women's (generally speaking). Women are better at communicating and relating to people (more sensitive). This person you all refer to is a total hack.

It's not we all. It's me, not Imran, not Elok.

And again, I didn't say I agreed with her. She is, however, a feminist thinker; as is Judith Butler, treated as one of the brightest intellectuals in modern feminist philosophy, who does think that many aspects of what you're saying are needlessly essentialist and therefore not useful when trying to discuss feminism.

You did, after all, ask for examples when you said that feminism entailed believing that women were more sensitive, and we said you were wrong.

And of course, by saying she's a total hack, you're saying that she doesn't have a valid point. How did you put it?

Oh, right: "That's not feminist thinking."

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Mrs Snuggles

I'm not saying I agree with her conclusions. I am, however, providing her as a concrete counterexample to your suggestion that all feminists inherently believe that "women are more sensitive" and that "men should be more sensitive".

After all, that is what you asked for, isn't it, when I said that your claim was in error? You didn't ask whether I supported those notions, whether I believed them to be correct, or whether I disagreed with the science.

You simply wanted me to show examples of why your initial statement was incorrect.

Unless you're wanting to change the argument again, since your point is becoming untenable.

And you presented a science denier as an example. Don't exactly meeting my expectations, but then I wasn't clear, so I guess I'm at fault for that.

Yes. It's also a fact that women have certain hormones in higher concentrations.

Do you have a point? We're talking about sensitivity. What do women's hormones have to do with it? Are you saying it makes them less sensitive?

And here, on top of your blithe assumption that I think PETA supports enslavement of women, on top of the notion that I'm not a feminist because I don't support animal rights, on top of the suggestion that feminism requires people to think a certain way, you've decided to take a scientific study and completely overstate its conclusions.

The studies in question do indeed say that women tend to have more interlinks to the language centers of their brain; that the brain scans suggest that during communication, more of their brain is used than in men's; that the pathways to thought are showing up to have quite a few distinctions.

That does not, however, mean that the notion that men can communicate as well as women is absurd. What it does mean is that the methods used by the different sexes are... different.

Click for source

Sick of trying to figure out why the man in your life is so different to you and your girlfriends? Well, wonder no more. Research into brain function between males and females provides more and more evidence for why males think and act so differently to females.

Although the male brain is roughly 9% larger than the female variety, they both contain the same number of cells, it's just that in the female brain they are more tightly packed.

Bu there's more. Women have over 10% more neurons located in the part of the brain that is responsible for language. That is why girls generally display earlier language skills than boys, and women largely have a greater vocabulary and better communication skills than males. It's not just through practice, it's how our brains are organized.

A part of the brain known as the hippocampus is also larger in females than males which explains why women are usually better at expressing emotions and recalling intricate details than are men. It also explains why women benefit so much from talking about their problems and having a cry - our brains are wired in such a way that we can access our emotions, talk about them and express them, all of which helps us to cope better.

Men, in general, do not have this brain make-up and therefore do not find it easy to indulge in talking as a means of problem solving, particularly about highly emotional issues. Throw in the taboo of men not appearing "weak" and a situation is created whereby men do find it hard at times to open up.

It won't be surprising to hear that men have over twice as much brain space devoted to sex and reproductive instincts as do females. Men experience more sexual thoughts on a daily basis than women. Because men have sperm rather than eggs, and thus are biologically capable of having many more children than are women, it makes sense that their brains reflect this biological difference.

When it comes to divorce, women's brains also work differently to males. After menopause, divorces in the US are predominantly instigated by women. Due to a lowering of hormones that are responsible for nurturing and putting other's needs first, women's brains change in functioning after their childbearing years. This means that women, for the first time in their adult lives, no longer have a biological need to put their children, husband and extended family first. This results in a reassessment of their lives to date, including that of their marriage. If the latter doesn't shape up the way women would like it, the change in brain function makes it easier for women to pursue their own interests rather than placing them secondary to others.

Your person is a ****.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Mrs Snuggles
The only reason why I harp on that is because you yourself suggested that feminism isn't about people's opinions being valid, or some such; yet you continually try to invalidate others' opinions, while claiming the mantle of being a feminist.

If people disagree with feminists you might wonder why they call themselves one. Sure you can have disagreements but you're being extremely ridiculous that true feminists can have beliefs such as men don't discriminate against women and women should only have "right" to equal pay. You're being absurd. So you are the one arguing semantics.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Kidicious
If people disagree with feminists you might wonder why they call themselves one. Sure you can have disagreements but you're being extremely ridiculous that true feminists can have beliefs such as men don't discriminate against women and women should only have "right" to equal pay. You're being absurd. So you are the one arguing semantics.

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.

I've not made judgements on many of them in this thread, but that was because the crux of the argument was that you suggested that:

[Feminism] is a way of thinking. As in thinking like a women, ... that is thinking that he is the only one with a valid point of view because he's more powerfull (sic).

'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.

I've never made that claim, merely pointed out every step of the way that you yourself, claiming to be a feminist, do not, will not, and seemingly cannot hold to your own definition, something which you do later admit.

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.

The inability to admit that you're wrong?

Stereotypically, not a feminine, nor a (by your definition) feminist, trait.

===

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.

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.

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.

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.

Now, let me ask: what do the last few paragraphs, after the equal signs, have to do with the discussion at hand?

Absolutely nothing. They're not germaine. I'm only humoring you by answering your questions because you seem incapable of arguing the actual points presented before without demanding my beliefs.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Kidicious
And you presented a science denier as an example. Don't exactly meeting my expectations, but then I wasn't clear, so I guess I'm at fault for that.

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

Do you have a point? We're talking about sensitivity. What do women's hormones have to do with it? Are you saying it makes them less sensitive?

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.

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

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.

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.

Your person is a ****.

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'.