Feminism

[Aygamez]

I do not like feminism too much 97% of the people don't in my country. The feminist party gained 3% pretty impressive though.

 

[Logic]

No, you're missing the point. I am not referring to the desirability of the right to vote as regards its various effects, and instead am looking at the right itself.

Also just to note, even if the women were being protected under the law and excepted from voting (plus conscription) it would still be considered an unequal status.

I'm not quite sure what you are after. I'm not saying that it's better or worse to have the voting right. I atleast don't use mine because to me it's all a joke. The people might change but the agenda stays the same.

 

In most Eastern countries, women aren't educated. In most places, women who are raped are victimised rather than sympathised with "you were asking for it", "you were wearing X and Y". In most places, women are paid less than men for the same work. In most places, women aren't welcomed in male-dominated workforces even when they have the same or better qualifications and ability. In most places, women are sexualised by men but if they sexualise themselves they're hated on and called sluts. You get the idea, it goes on.

Just think about how little empirical evidence you are drawing on in making these statements. Maybe just maybe you are a convertee of a massive propaganda campaign?

I mean the economics thing alone -- do you realise if there was an equally skilled and productive but otherwise half price workforce -- on the order of 3.5 billion people -- that companies would flock *en mass* to have everything produced by women and therefore increase their profit margins. Just think logically about what you say before you say it.

Luckily most Anti-Feminist people are that, anti-feminist, not anti-feminism. Mostly because the majority of the feminism they've come in to contact with is the extremist sort, the bad sort that is contradictory of the feminist purpose.

This is needless multiplication of entities, the same fallacy you fall into below. Capital F Feminism and small f feminism are in fact the same movement. Feminism is such an ill defined term that anyone seeking to use it is going to take with it all its baggage -- it is approximately as bad as the term socialism. If people are interested in equality before the law then they should just call themselves something appropriate to that goal. I mean if I were in favour of drug addicts having a fair trial I wouldn't start a movement called 'addicitism'. The very act of naming the movement after a specific group and continuing to call it in those terms is at odds with the purpose.

@Sythe - gender is a social construct. That's a literal fact.

Biological sex and gender are two different things. You can be biologically male and your gender can be female at the same time -

No they are not different things. You can't just make new entities for the purpose of propaganda. A dictionary is not evidence in the hard sciences.

Consider for example the term bipedal. We would say that it is a biological fact that humans are bipedal. But humans could choose to walk on their hands and knees and in fact some might prefer to do this. Does that mean bipedalism is a social construct? No it just means humans have volition and can choose to do something not obviously in accordance with their biological signals and evolutionary legacy.

Gender IS sex, which is a predetermined evolutionary biological fact. Just because people can decide or be traumatized into atypical behaviour does not mean that there is no biological basis for typical behaviour. Indeed the only reason the human race has even survived to this point in time is precisely because sex is gender and both are biological. If people had no imperative to make a nest and reproduce and care for young we would have died out millions of years ago.

it's a scientifically backed mental-health condition called gender dysphoria, and it is a thing. Just wanted to clear that up.

I wouldn't consider mental health conditions scientific in the least. Unless there has been rigorous application of the scientific method, it is not science. DSM etc. is closer to a body of law than of medicine. I'm sure that you are aware that doctors fear prosecution and so toe the orthodox line of 'the brain is a bag of chemicals' blah blah blah. A debate for another time. Suffices to say, that just because some quack wrote it down in a quasi-lawbook doesn't make it scientific. An obvious marker of the lack of scientific rigor is the explosion of new conditions. Are you aware for example that the whole of classical physics can be completely expounded in 11 rigorously tested scientific formula?

 

No they are not different things. You can't just make new entities for the purpose of propaganda. A dictionary is not evidence in the hard sciences.

They are different; look in to it. One's gender can be different from their biological sex; biological sex is no more than hormones, chromosomes, genitalia etc - gender is a social thing; gender roles, characteristics and so on.

This is needless multiplication of entities, the same fallacy you fall into below. Capital F Feminism and small f feminism are in fact the same movement. Feminism is such an ill defined term that anyone seeking to use it is going to take with it all its baggage -- it is approximately as bad as the term socialism. If people are interested in equality before the law then they should just call themselves something appropriate to that goal. I mean if I were in favour of drug addicts having a fair trial I wouldn't start a movement called 'addicitism'. The very act of naming the movement after a specific group and continuing to call it in those terms is at odds with the purpose.

Yes, I agree with that. As I said; it would be more beneficial to focus on just equality in general; race, religious, gender, sexuality and so on. But, alas, it's easier to band people together and get them to contribute when they alone benefit - humans for the most part are selfish like that.

I would not, however, choose not to support an anti-racism movement because it could come under a bigger umbrella. I don't know of many (besides the femi-nazi ideals) things a feminist group wants to achieve that hinders men in any way; therefore it isn't as counter-productive as the name might suggest.

Just think about how little empirical evidence you are drawing on in making these statements. Maybe just maybe you are a convertee of a massive propaganda campaign?

I mean the economics thing alone -- do you realise if there was an equally skilled and productive but otherwise half price workforce -- on the order of 3.5 billion people -- that companies would flock *en mass* to have everything produced by women and therefore increase their profit margins. Just think logically about what you say before you say it

I'm aware they are just statements, and my real life experiences of watching such discrimination or hearing about it from colleagues and friends (for example; I do know a woman who was denied a job in a trade industry because she was a woman; and was told this) is inductive reasoning to say the least; but shouldn't that be enough for a basic, social movement? If I see one woman discriminated against because of her gender - then I see a need for feminism in that area/in her situation.

It can't be denied that in countries, like Afghanistan for example, where women aren't allowed the entry to school like men are, are wedded at 13 and then live their lives having babies for countless years with men who force the sex upon them; that feminism is maybe needed.

 

They are different; look in to it. One's gender can be different from their biological sex; biological sex is no more than hormones, chromosomes, genitalia etc - gender is a social thing; gender roles, characteristics and so on.

As I said before just defining them to be different doesn't create a new factual entity.

Occam's razor says that we should not needlessly multiply entities. When studying biology we already have a well understood concept of sex. When we notice a deviation from this well understood behaviour which does not lead to an evolutionary advantage we do not create a new concept for it and mark it out as special. It is just abnormal behaviour not a special class of behaviour for special consideration.

Consider for example a mutation of a bird which would ordinarily sit on its eggs which causes it to not sit on its eggs. As a result the eggs die and are unviable. We do not make a new concept called 'choosesit' which is a 'social version' of the biological concept of sitting and then say that the birds have a different 'choosesit' than their biology dictates. No this is ridiculous. We just say the birds are engaged in abnormal, non viable behaviour to their own individual detriment and therefore will not pass on their genetics.

Likewise humans are not tabula rasa. We are animals first and foremost and the ability to behave against our nature does not disprove our nature.

As a second example consider nutrition. Human nutrition is an absolute biological fact. We need certain inputs to maintain homeostasis. However an individual may choose not to eat the correct foods -- does that make nutrition subjective? No. Does that mean that nutrition is a social construct? No. Some people might be born with an aversion to eating food. Does that means nutrition is a social construct. NO. If it is a chosen behaviour it is self destructive and against biological signals. If it is an unchosen behaviour then it is an nonviable mutation. That's all that needs be said about it. It doesn't justify a special concept with special consideration.

This obsession with finding any variation to anything and creating a new psuedo-scientific entity for it is the absolute bane of modern science.

It can't be denied that in countries, like Afghanistan for example, where women aren't allowed the entry to school like men are, are wedded at 13 and then live their lives having babies for countless years with men who force the sex upon them; that feminism is maybe needed.

And yet when you look into it, it isn't men who enforce these social rules, but the older women enforcing it on the younger women. Consider the tendency of western women to torture their feet by wearing ridiculous high heels. I have literally never met a man who gave one shit about heels. Yet almost all women in the western world have worn these knee destroying and impractical devices for some extended length of time. Does that somehow mean that it's the fault of men? No.

Even if you found a place where there really was slave ownership of women (like for example North Korea) this doesn't produce a general rule. There are numerous other coercive problems in these countries of which the treatment of women is but one. What about the treatment of children? What about the treatment of the elderly? What about the treatment of adolescent males? What about the military soldiers occupying the country? What about the massive production and distribution of opium? (Afghanistan) The routine bombings? Torture and state sponsored murder. Why pick that women "don't have access to education" out of all of the issues in these countries? Unless of course you are cherry-picking to further an agenda.

 

[zorro_]

I'm not quite sure what you are after. I'm not saying that it's better or worse to have the voting right. I atleast don't use mine because to me it's all a joke. The people might change but the agenda stays the same.

I am saying (as I said in my initial post) that pre the suffragist movement, women lacked a right available to men (because women could not vote). This right is also not sex-tailored, and could not be argued to suit men more than women. That is the only point.

 

[zorro_]

As I said before just defining them to be different doesn't create a new factual entity.

Occam's razor says that we should not needlessly multiply entities. When studying biology we already have a well understood concept of sex. When we notice a deviation from this well understood behaviour which does not lead to an evolutionary advantage we do not create a new concept for it and mark it out as special. It is just abnormal behaviour not a special class of behaviour for special consideration.

Consider for example a mutation of a bird which would ordinarily sit on its eggs which causes it to not sit on its eggs. As a result the eggs die and are unviable. We do not make a new concept called 'choosesit' which is a 'social version' of the biological concept of sitting and then say that the birds have a different 'choosesit' than their biology dictates. No this is ridiculous. We just say the birds are engaged in abnormal, non viable behaviour to their own individual detriment and therefore will not pass on their genetics.

Likewise humans are not tabula rasa. We are animals first and foremost and the ability to behave against our nature does not disprove our nature.

As a second example consider nutrition. Human nutrition is an absolute biological fact. We need certain inputs to maintain homeostasis. However an individual may choose not to eat the correct foods -- does that make nutrition subjective? No. Does that mean that nutrition is a social construct? No. Some people might be born with an aversion to eating food. Does that means nutrition is a social construct. NO. If it is a chosen behaviour it is self destructive and against biological signals. If it is an unchosen behaviour then it is an nonviable mutation. That's all that needs be said about it. It doesn't justify a special concept with special consideration.

This obsession with finding any variation to anything and creating a new psuedo-scientific entity for it is the absolute bane of modern science.

I disagree with your analysis of gender. I think that your logic makes sense but fails to deal with the real issue. Gender is a social construct in a way that corresponds to how social constructs have to be understood -- it is not even related to sex at all. Instead, we have biological sex and we have the way in which humans perceive themselves. Of course, the latter makes no transformative impact on sex (indeed, it is probably detrimental to the roles of biological sex, as you pointed out) as its essence lies only in the realm of subjective social constructs. It is a recognition of oneself in a similar fashion to law's claim of recognizing persons as possessing legal status (this is a social construct as well). What I mean by this is that just as the way that, for instance, the law viewing a human being is not at all related to the person's biology (i.e. citizenship is not the same category as biology) so is gender's view of a person distinct (although, obviously, gender is an introspective reflection, as separated from the extraspective scope of the law). To articulate my point more clearly: gender does not refer to biology and is a different category of understanding available to human beings. It is not contrary or in accordance with biology because biology is irrelevant to its identity. I think if you deny this point, you must also deny the existence of law (or any social concept mind you) because it derives an understanding of a human being that does not source from -- or rather, does not make claims about -- biology. The reason gender is confused as something of the biological category testifies only to how it ostensibly seems to resemble biology (but this is a deception).

 

To articulate my point more clearly: gender does not refer to biology and is a different category of understanding available to human beings. It is not contrary or in accordance with biology because biology is irrelevant to its identity. I think if you deny this point, you must also deny the existence of law (or any social concept mind you) because it derives an understanding of a human being that does not source from -- or rather, does not make claims about -- biology. The reason gender is confused as something of the biological category testifies only to how it ostensibly seems to resemble biology (but this is a deception).

You are making an assertion, not an argument. You are assuming the initial point. There is nothing to respond to.

Further trying to define gender as a man-made idea and subjective floating abstraction just allows you to insert arbitrary garbage into the debate. The whole 'bickering over the definition of gender' argument is precisely because you want to then go equivocate the term with sex.

If you just called it what you mean, i.e. 'my feelings and subjective identity' then there would be nothing to argue about. 'My feelings and subjective identity are a social construct' -- ok good for you kid!

 

[zorro_]

You are making an assertion, not an argument. You are assuming the initial point. There is nothing to respond to.

Further trying to define gender as a man-made idea and subjective floating abstraction just allows you to insert arbitrary garbage into the debate. The whole 'bickering over the definition of gender' argument is precisely because you want to then go equivocate the term with sex.

If you just called it what you mean, i.e. 'my feelings and subjective identity' then there would be nothing to argue about. 'My feelings and subjective identity are a social construct' -- ok good for you kid!

Perhaps I misunderstood the flow of the discussion. I agree that it is inappropriate to assert gender in the place of sex. I just wanted to establish gender as a category of a certain kind of introspection. It should follow that the discussion will end; there is nothing more to gender than what you described in your last paragraph.

 

[Xier0]

Because you state the law is benefiting women when this is so untrue it's unbelievable. Let's take the UK as an example, as it's where I reside. Women are oppressed in our society because in so many differing areas and sectors, they still find themselves deeply behind men in terms of rights and privelages. Some examples include:

In the UK as an example, 78% of people who seek help following forced marriages are women and girls,

Almost 1/3 girls have experienced unwanted sexual touching in schools (YouGov Ltd (2010) End Violence Against Women Poll Results. Available at http://www.endviolenceagainstwomen.org.uk/preventing-violence-against-women),

36% of people still even today believe a women is partially responsible for sexual abuse done to her (Home Office (2009) Violence against women opinion polling. Available at http://www.huiselijkgeweld.nl/doc/english/violence-against-women-poll_2009.pdf),

Only 77% of young men agree that having sex with someone who said no is rape when it should be 100%. Having sex with someone who doesnt consent is rape. Rape is rape.

Women still get paid between 10-35% less than men (EHRC (2011) Gender pay gaps , p3. )

It is estimated that each year a mother is absent from her workplace due to being pregnant, her wages will decrease by 5% (‘Motherhood ‘devastates’ women’s pay, research finds’, The Guardian. Available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/jul/10/mothers-wages-fawcett-society),

Men make up only 17% board directors of FTSE 100 companies,

Approximately 70% of people in national minimum wage jobs are women,

Only 1/4 MP's are women,

Only 24% of news articles on globals news channels are female orientated, or centered around females not men,

Up to 30,000 women in the UK alone are sacked each year simply for being pregnant (Equal Opportunities Commission (2005) Greater Expectations: Final Report of EOC investigation into discrimination against new and expectant mothers in the workplace).

All these stats relate to the UK, but I can guarentee you you will find mirroring issues in the US, if not a worse situation. I believe the pay gap in the US is way worse than in Britain.

You are just spouting numbers under the assumption that they are supposed to offend in some sort of way. What does a 24% of news articles on global news channels being centered around women add to your argument? I could tell you 2% of sports channels are centered around women, that doesn't have anything to do with women being oppressed in some way, it has to do with markets and viewership.

 

[Xier0]

Anti-Feminist men often reply with "so does that mean a man can hit a woman then?" That's a silencing tactic. So that women think the only way they'll change this patriarchy we live in, is by being beaten. Some Anti-Feminist men reply with paragraphs about male victims - if men really cared about male victims they'd campaign for them not only as a reply to a feminist.

Your response to the Anti-Feminist reply is evasive - it doesn't actually answer the issue of whether or not a man can hit a woman. If it's a silencing tactic, why is it so effective at silencing?

 

[SuF]

Anti-Feminist men often reply with "so does that mean a man can hit a woman then?" That's a silencing tactic.

That is not what is said. When there is a video, or news report, or story about women beating men anti-feminists ask what would the reaction be if the genders were reversed. We know what would happen because people do social experiments with this situation all the time. When men are attacking women everyone rushes to aid the women and they attack the man. When a women is attacking a man, people ignore it and laugh. This is not a "silencing tactic". It is exposing the fact that feminism is slowly destroying our society by making men subservient to women. Men can get hurt and die. It doesn't matter as long as no women are getting hurt or dying. That is what feminism is. That is what feminism wants. That's why I hate it and that's why it needs to end. It's a sexist, anti-male, hate group that actively oppresses men while victimizing and infantilizing women so that those in power can control them.

 

And yet when you look into it, it isn't men who enforce these social rules, but the older women enforcing it on the younger women. Consider the tendency of western women to torture their feet by wearing ridiculous high heels. I have literally never met a man who gave one shit about heels. Yet almost all women in the western world have worn these knee destroying and impractical devices for some extended length of time. Does that somehow mean that it's the fault of men? No.

Just because it's women who make the "rules", doesn't mean feminism isn't needed? Feminism, as I said, isn't anti-men, feminists don't say that men are solely the problem. Women can be anti-feminism too..

Even if you found a place where there really was slave ownership of women (like for example North Korea) this doesn't produce a general rule. There are numerous other coercive problems in these countries of which the treatment of women is but one. What about the treatment of children? What about the treatment of the elderly? What about the treatment of adolescent males? What about the military soldiers occupying the country? What about the massive production and distribution of opium? (Afghanistan) The routine bombings? Torture and state sponsored murder. Why pick that women "don't have access to education" out of all of the issues in these countries? Unless of course you are cherry-picking to further an agenda.

I explained that in my post before. Charities and social movements are often specific rather than general umbrellas - I would not, however, be un-supportive of one cause on it's own just because it could be generalised under equality for all.

at is not what is said. When there is a video, or news report, or story about women beating men anti-feminists ask what would the reaction be if the genders were reversed. We know what would happen because people do social experiments with this situation all the time. When men are attacking women everyone rushes to aid the women and they attack the man. When a women is attacking a man, people ignore it and laugh. This is not a "silencing tactic". It is exposing the fact that feminism is slowly destroying our society by making men subservient to women. Men can get hurt and die. It doesn't matter as long as no women are getting hurt or dying. That is what feminism is. That is what feminism wants. That's why I hate it and that's why it needs to end. It's a sexist, anti-male, hate group that actively oppresses men while victimizing and infantilizing women so that those in power can control them.

I often see people replying, without knowing about the subject, "oh, so it's okay if I hit a woman then?" No. No it's not, because it's not ok to hit anyone for no reason. They phrase it as such to shut women & any feminist up, reply with violent remarks.

You're generalising all feminists from your experience with the anti-men femi-nazi's that are louder than the others. Feminism is the desire for men to be EQUAL to women, not subservient to. Most feminists I know are also on the same level with men's rights, men's forced gender roles, characteristics and so on.

 

[SuF]

I often see people replying, without knowing about the subject, "oh, so it's okay if I hit a woman then?" No. No it's not, because it's not ok to hit anyone for no reason. They phrase it as such to shut women & any feminist up, reply with violent remarks.

You're generalising all feminists from your experience with the anti-men femi-nazi's that are louder than the others. Feminism is the desire for men to be EQUAL to women, not subservient to. Most feminists I know are also on the same level with men's rights, men's forced gender roles, characteristics and so on.

Then call yourself a egalitarian. Words are not defined by people. They are defined by usage. Feminism is used more extensively by those who hate men and thus its more proper to say that it means the kind of people that hate men.

 

Source? A loud minority does not speak for a not-so-loud majority.

I am a feminist. And obviously I am not anti-men.. I wouldn't want myself to become unequal.

 

[SuF]

Source? A loud minority does not speak for a not-so-loud majority.

I am a feminist. And obviously I am not anti-men.. I wouldn't want myself to become unequal.

Take a philosophy of language class. Your perception of the word 'feminism' is different than my perception of the word 'feminism'. It is a symbol for a much more complex idea. Labels are shortcuts but if people's ideas of the labels are different, meaning gets lost in transmission. Feminism is losing the labelling fight much like liberals lost the labelling fight during the Reagan era.

 

It's marred by extremist movement, and shouldn't be.

 

[SuF]

It's marred by extremist movement, and shouldn't be.

As is Islam but I given them more benefit of the doubt since it is not based on fake science.

 

What fake science are you referring to..?

 

[DinaH]

Can I just clarify, feminism in no way equates to a hatred of men; It is the pursuit of equality between male and female, not a disadvantage either way.