Most women today will say we live in a seixt society where men are treated differently then women. They are right in some cases, in others the truth is exagerated. Women say they should have equal rights.
They say they are as smart as men, they should be doctors and the President, so be it.
They say they are as strong as men, they should be in the military and be in law enforcement, so be it
They say they are as capable as men, they should be payed the same salary, so be it.
Those are all opinionated statements.
Women say they should be treated equally as men. So be it.
So if women are so devoted and passionate about womens rights and how oppressed they are in this society why do they make such a fuss about rights yet when it comes to men and women fighting? women get the immunity card and cant be touched by men. They want equal rights in all areas yet they view men fighting or hitting women as un ethical and barbaric. Why is this? This seems to defeat Women’s arguements over equality. They want the same pay, same jobs, same rights yet they feel they should be able to threaten, assualt, and say what they please to a man and not be on the recieving end of a mans anger. Why is this? I dont understand why men fighting women is un ethical. Obviously if a man blatantly hits a man OR a women for no reason then obviously that would be considered “un just” or “un ethical” but why must a man restrain himself in the event of a women harassing, attacking, or demeaning him and not be allowed to hit a women. Women say they are as strong as men and should be allowed to be firefighters , police officers, and soldiers yet they cant get a punch in the face? So why does society view hitting a women un ethical, in reality they are getting what they want…equal rights.
That sure seems to be a whole lot of overgeneralizing, professor.
Suppose there are some feminists who also view men-beating-women as unethical. Men-beating-women is usually against the law. So is women-beating-men, along with other types of physical violations.
Feminists, I think, can’t really be persuasively attacked for their views over rights that are already equal. It should, however, be pointed out to them, granted they would even listen, that many people think they get an unfair deal in society and if everybody actually got their own way, there would be no society. Unfortunately, nature doesn’t hand out rights, just different circumstances that greatly challenge intelligence in different ways.
Overgeneralization perhaps.
Stereotypes can be fully based on a persons surroundings and in that sense can be a rational view from that person. I have seen and heard to many times of a women hitting or assaulting her husband, wether it be out of spite, drunkness, or jealousy, and the husband would retaliate and only the man would be charged. I agree there are some feminists who will never be changed into rational thinkers, but I can be almost 100% positive if you asked any women if they thought a man hitting a women in self defense was wrong chances are all/most of them would say yes it is.
P.S. Just thought I would throw in some real life experience. My sister was drunk one night and hit her boyfriend repeatedly. Her boyfriend got hit around 4-5 times and decided enough was enough and pushed my sister to the ground. My sister called the cops and low and behold her boyfriend was arrested for assault/battery and my sister was charged with disturbing the peace(they were in public). My sister still feels her boyfriend is the only one at fault.
The cultural inequities between men and women are a current fact. That there are examples where the inequities are at the expense of men is certainly a fact as well. What becomes a matter of judgement is whether the inequities are predominantly at the expense of one gender or the other. I think a feminist (a real feminist, not a female who uses the label to encourage an inequitible situation with a female, namely her, being dominant) would assert that they are. I wouldn’t be prepared to say that they were incorrect, would you?
I think that part of the problem comes from assuming that feminism is just “bossy women who want to get their own way”. Everybody want to get their own way. That’s why we need to have morality, ethics, and laws.
It is simply false that women claim to be as strong as men. The actual argument is that there is/was an invalid belief that all women couldn’t do certain things that men could do.
Reformed Nihilist wrote:
I think that part of the problem comes from assuming that feminism is just “bossy women who want to get their own way”. Everybody want to get their own way. That’s why we need to have morality, ethics, and laws.
But there is civil rights. I would think that makes feminism superfluous, a niche for those who couldn’t find anything else better to do. Or is this just dead wrong thinking?
Perhaps I wasn’t really sure what you were saying. I agree with you that it’s probably inaccurate to assume that feminists are too bossy and have goals. That aside, however, I assumed that you were implying that feminism is justified because we need morality, ethics, and laws. With that assumption, I’m suggesting that perhaps it’s not justified given the area of civil rights, which presumably would be a lot less biased field than feminism.
As I understand it, the civil rights movement is mostly concerned with legal equity. As is obvious from the example provided about myownenemy’s sister, legality is applied by people who live within a cultural context (assualt legally occured). As I understand it (I’m no expert) feminism is aimed at dealing with the cultural attitudes, not the legislation.
Reformed Nihilist, as I understand it, feminist scholars or non-profits like to inform public policy, which is dealing with legislation. But I, too, am no expert.
I guess my only basic argument, even if feminism is aimed at dealing only with cultural attitudes, is that their premises are dubious from the get-go. But I’m not really fighting against them, either, in their arena, so I acknowledge that whether or not I’m right is really inconsequential.
alice debree, anything goes behind closed doors. What’s it called, a domination and submission lifestyle? I guess you just need to find other people who share those values.
tracevapor wrote:
Reformed Nihilist, as I understand it, feminist scholars or non-profits like to inform public policy, which is dealing with legislation. But I, too, am no expert.
If it is, then I would just say it is a particular part of civil rights. A sub-category.
I guess my only basic argument, even if feminism is aimed at dealing only with cultural attitudes, is that their premises are dubious from the get-go. But I’m not really fighting against them, either, in their arena, so I acknowledge that whether or not I’m right is really inconsequential.
I see no reason to think their premises are dubious. Which premises, and why dubious?
I’m aware of a D/s society existing. Feminism in the way it has been expressed thus far doesn’t really ring true in many ways, if women expect chivalry from men in dating and situations of compromised safety, and then total equality of a societal level. I’m not sure what effect each has on the other, but it would seem that trade-off is warranted.
Sure there are trade-offs. The current wisdom (right or wrong) is that humans are better off when treated as individuals within a more culturally inclusionary category of ‘person’, rather than the exlusionary cultural categories of ‘woman’, ‘man’, ‘black’, ‘white’, ‘serf’ or ‘citizen’. Obviously, the gender categories exist, but the effectiveness of these categorization in dealing with non-sexual social situations (like the workplace, but there are many more) are questionable. Feminism embraces the current position that cultural inclusion is desirable, and specifically addresses the cultural inclusion that was historically limited by traditional gender roles.
I recall an argument made (by a feminist if i recall correctly) that a few loud feminists that stand out make the rest look bad. This kind of argument could be applied on women in general (in respect to feminism).
I imagine two basic premises they may have, among others. I don’t really follow feminism, except maybe in Wikipedia, so I’m merely going by what seems plausible. If you want to contend their plausibility with actual citations, then go for it ? you win.
(1) There are some jobs that deny all females, and some of these jobs, in appeal to natural rights, should allow some females.
(2) There are some jobs that accept females but not in balance with men, and some of these jobs, in appeal to natural rights, should be in quantitative balance and have a minimum quota of females.
I reject both premises, because (3) I deny the existence of natural rights. I would allow (1), in appeal to the simple virtue of kindness, although in some cases it’s probably wasteful in economic terms. However, I would argue against (2) and bring up and argue for (3), but with the additional implicit reason that minimum quotas that deny merit just screw the economy. The solution is to assist females in other ways that would give more of them qualifications in the fields where feminists perceive their unnecessary void.
Reformed Nihilist wrote:
Obviously, the gender categories exist, but the effectiveness of these categorization in dealing with non-sexual social situations (like the workplace, but there are many more) are questionable.
I agree. Thus, perhaps we’re only in negligible conflict, if any.
keda wrote:
I recall an argument made (by a feminist if i recall correctly) that a few loud feminists that stand out make the rest look bad. This kind of argument could be applied on women in general (in respect to feminism).
If you are saying what I think you are, I agree. The feminist movement is not particularly well represented by the majority of women who call themselves feminists. The term has become the self-titled legitimazation of pushy people who happen to women. It is important that we don’t confuse the view of everybody who labels themselves a feminist with the moevment. The same could be said of philosophers. Feminists aren’t ‘bossy women’ any more that philosophers are ‘people who waste their time on pointless questions’, even though most people who fit those descriptions will label themselves that way..
I think we are only in negligable conflict. At one time, I would have immediately disagreed with affirmative action. I have heard some compelling arguments though, and now I am uncertain. I wouldn’t support it, but I might not vehemently fight against it, depending on the situation.
In regards to your commentary on kindness, I think that this is a more compelling reason to act than you may realise. Kindness makes societies work better (yes, even economically).
soul magazine-anthems
professor said,
March 3, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Most women today will say we live in a seixt society where men are treated differently then women. They are right in some cases, in others the truth is exagerated. Women say they should have equal rights.
They say they are as smart as men, they should be doctors and the President, so be it.
They say they are as strong as men, they should be in the military and be in law enforcement, so be it
They say they are as capable as men, they should be payed the same salary, so be it.
Those are all opinionated statements.
Women say they should be treated equally as men. So be it.
So if women are so devoted and passionate about womens rights and how oppressed they are in this society why do they make such a fuss about rights yet when it comes to men and women fighting? women get the immunity card and cant be touched by men. They want equal rights in all areas yet they view men fighting or hitting women as un ethical and barbaric. Why is this? This seems to defeat Women’s arguements over equality. They want the same pay, same jobs, same rights yet they feel they should be able to threaten, assualt, and say what they please to a man and not be on the recieving end of a mans anger. Why is this? I dont understand why men fighting women is un ethical. Obviously if a man blatantly hits a man OR a women for no reason then obviously that would be considered “un just” or “un ethical” but why must a man restrain himself in the event of a women harassing, attacking, or demeaning him and not be allowed to hit a women. Women say they are as strong as men and should be allowed to be firefighters , police officers, and soldiers yet they cant get a punch in the face? So why does society view hitting a women un ethical, in reality they are getting what they want…equal rights.
the boss said,
March 3, 2007 at 1:12 pm
That sure seems to be a whole lot of overgeneralizing, professor.
Suppose there are some feminists who also view men-beating-women as unethical. Men-beating-women is usually against the law. So is women-beating-men, along with other types of physical violations.
Feminists, I think, can’t really be persuasively attacked for their views over rights that are already equal. It should, however, be pointed out to them, granted they would even listen, that many people think they get an unfair deal in society and if everybody actually got their own way, there would be no society. Unfortunately, nature doesn’t hand out rights, just different circumstances that greatly challenge intelligence in different ways.
professor said,
March 3, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Overgeneralization perhaps.
Stereotypes can be fully based on a persons surroundings and in that sense can be a rational view from that person. I have seen and heard to many times of a women hitting or assaulting her husband, wether it be out of spite, drunkness, or jealousy, and the husband would retaliate and only the man would be charged. I agree there are some feminists who will never be changed into rational thinkers, but I can be almost 100% positive if you asked any women if they thought a man hitting a women in self defense was wrong chances are all/most of them would say yes it is.
P.S. Just thought I would throw in some real life experience. My sister was drunk one night and hit her boyfriend repeatedly. Her boyfriend got hit around 4-5 times and decided enough was enough and pushed my sister to the ground. My sister called the cops and low and behold her boyfriend was arrested for assault/battery and my sister was charged with disturbing the peace(they were in public). My sister still feels her boyfriend is the only one at fault.
reformed nihilist said,
March 3, 2007 at 1:14 pm
The cultural inequities between men and women are a current fact. That there are examples where the inequities are at the expense of men is certainly a fact as well. What becomes a matter of judgement is whether the inequities are predominantly at the expense of one gender or the other. I think a feminist (a real feminist, not a female who uses the label to encourage an inequitible situation with a female, namely her, being dominant) would assert that they are. I wouldn’t be prepared to say that they were incorrect, would you?
I think that part of the problem comes from assuming that feminism is just “bossy women who want to get their own way”. Everybody want to get their own way. That’s why we need to have morality, ethics, and laws.
sensabile said,
March 3, 2007 at 1:15 pm
It is simply false that women claim to be as strong as men. The actual argument is that there is/was an invalid belief that all women couldn’t do certain things that men could do.
professor said,
March 3, 2007 at 1:16 pm
To me that seems to be a tautological statement.
jem said,
March 3, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Reformed Nihilist wrote:
I think that part of the problem comes from assuming that feminism is just “bossy women who want to get their own way”. Everybody want to get their own way. That’s why we need to have morality, ethics, and laws.
But there is civil rights. I would think that makes feminism superfluous, a niche for those who couldn’t find anything else better to do. Or is this just dead wrong thinking?
reformed nihilist said,
March 3, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Care to explicate? I’m not really sure what you’re saying.
jem said,
March 3, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Perhaps I wasn’t really sure what you were saying. I agree with you that it’s probably inaccurate to assume that feminists are too bossy and have goals. That aside, however, I assumed that you were implying that feminism is justified because we need morality, ethics, and laws. With that assumption, I’m suggesting that perhaps it’s not justified given the area of civil rights, which presumably would be a lot less biased field than feminism.
reformed nihilist said,
March 3, 2007 at 1:18 pm
As I understand it, the civil rights movement is mostly concerned with legal equity. As is obvious from the example provided about myownenemy’s sister, legality is applied by people who live within a cultural context (assualt legally occured). As I understand it (I’m no expert) feminism is aimed at dealing with the cultural attitudes, not the legislation.
alice debree said,
March 3, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Not all women are all that concerned with women’s rights. I spend most of my time wishing a life of servitude were once again en vogue.
C’est la vie.
jem said,
March 3, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Reformed Nihilist, as I understand it, feminist scholars or non-profits like to inform public policy, which is dealing with legislation. But I, too, am no expert.
I guess my only basic argument, even if feminism is aimed at dealing only with cultural attitudes, is that their premises are dubious from the get-go. But I’m not really fighting against them, either, in their arena, so I acknowledge that whether or not I’m right is really inconsequential.
jem said,
March 3, 2007 at 1:20 pm
alice debree, anything goes behind closed doors. What’s it called, a domination and submission lifestyle? I guess you just need to find other people who share those values.
reformed nihilist said,
March 3, 2007 at 1:21 pm
tracevapor wrote:
Reformed Nihilist, as I understand it, feminist scholars or non-profits like to inform public policy, which is dealing with legislation. But I, too, am no expert.
If it is, then I would just say it is a particular part of civil rights. A sub-category.
I guess my only basic argument, even if feminism is aimed at dealing only with cultural attitudes, is that their premises are dubious from the get-go. But I’m not really fighting against them, either, in their arena, so I acknowledge that whether or not I’m right is really inconsequential.
I see no reason to think their premises are dubious. Which premises, and why dubious?
alice debree said,
March 3, 2007 at 1:22 pm
I’ll plug back into the discussion.
I’m aware of a D/s society existing. Feminism in the way it has been expressed thus far doesn’t really ring true in many ways, if women expect chivalry from men in dating and situations of compromised safety, and then total equality of a societal level. I’m not sure what effect each has on the other, but it would seem that trade-off is warranted.
What do ya’ll think?
reformed nihilist said,
March 3, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Sure there are trade-offs. The current wisdom (right or wrong) is that humans are better off when treated as individuals within a more culturally inclusionary category of ‘person’, rather than the exlusionary cultural categories of ‘woman’, ‘man’, ‘black’, ‘white’, ‘serf’ or ‘citizen’. Obviously, the gender categories exist, but the effectiveness of these categorization in dealing with non-sexual social situations (like the workplace, but there are many more) are questionable. Feminism embraces the current position that cultural inclusion is desirable, and specifically addresses the cultural inclusion that was historically limited by traditional gender roles.
keda said,
March 3, 2007 at 1:23 pm
I recall an argument made (by a feminist if i recall correctly) that a few loud feminists that stand out make the rest look bad. This kind of argument could be applied on women in general (in respect to feminism).
jem said,
March 3, 2007 at 1:23 pm
I imagine two basic premises they may have, among others. I don’t really follow feminism, except maybe in Wikipedia, so I’m merely going by what seems plausible. If you want to contend their plausibility with actual citations, then go for it ? you win.
(1) There are some jobs that deny all females, and some of these jobs, in appeal to natural rights, should allow some females.
(2) There are some jobs that accept females but not in balance with men, and some of these jobs, in appeal to natural rights, should be in quantitative balance and have a minimum quota of females.
I reject both premises, because (3) I deny the existence of natural rights. I would allow (1), in appeal to the simple virtue of kindness, although in some cases it’s probably wasteful in economic terms. However, I would argue against (2) and bring up and argue for (3), but with the additional implicit reason that minimum quotas that deny merit just screw the economy. The solution is to assist females in other ways that would give more of them qualifications in the fields where feminists perceive their unnecessary void.
Reformed Nihilist wrote:
Obviously, the gender categories exist, but the effectiveness of these categorization in dealing with non-sexual social situations (like the workplace, but there are many more) are questionable.
I agree. Thus, perhaps we’re only in negligible conflict, if any.
reformed nihilist said,
March 3, 2007 at 1:24 pm
keda wrote:
I recall an argument made (by a feminist if i recall correctly) that a few loud feminists that stand out make the rest look bad. This kind of argument could be applied on women in general (in respect to feminism).
If you are saying what I think you are, I agree. The feminist movement is not particularly well represented by the majority of women who call themselves feminists. The term has become the self-titled legitimazation of pushy people who happen to women. It is important that we don’t confuse the view of everybody who labels themselves a feminist with the moevment. The same could be said of philosophers. Feminists aren’t ‘bossy women’ any more that philosophers are ‘people who waste their time on pointless questions’, even though most people who fit those descriptions will label themselves that way..
reformed nihilist said,
March 3, 2007 at 1:24 pm
I think we are only in negligable conflict. At one time, I would have immediately disagreed with affirmative action. I have heard some compelling arguments though, and now I am uncertain. I wouldn’t support it, but I might not vehemently fight against it, depending on the situation.
In regards to your commentary on kindness, I think that this is a more compelling reason to act than you may realise. Kindness makes societies work better (yes, even economically).