Page 2 of 12 [ 183 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 12  Next

TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

22 Apr 2012, 12:57 pm

snapcap wrote:
After women won the right to vote, men that had dashing looks became more electable.

EDIT: :P


I think the most entertaining study I've seen was one in which the results showed that if you were an attractive man and had your picture attached to your job application you were more likely to get an interview, whereas if you were an attractive women you were less likely to get the interview.

The reason? A large majority of "Human Resources" workers tasked with hiring are women who disqualify what they deem as attractive women.



sage_gerard
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 20 Apr 2012
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 149

22 Apr 2012, 12:59 pm

Quote:
All ideologies are filled to the brim with bs that cover up the basic principles of the ideology and every ideology is perverted by each subject. Every ideology becomes personally interpreted through various psychological biases a person has, then reflects what the person believed in the first place.

The more self-righteous and convinced the proponent of an ideology is, the more that person should be ignored.


I see an is-ought gap here. I agree most of the argument, but I'm not sure about the prevailing attitude. Mill's influence on my perception of free speech tempts me to lend an ear to radicals in the spirit of curiosity, since being convinced of an ideology is actually a necessary step in establishing integrity if the ideology has not been disproven. This is not to say that uncertain ideologies are correct, just that they could stand exploration.

I ignore or resist radicals who attempt to use force or claw for disproportionate representation in the eyes of the law. Until then, I do not view them as threats even when I listen to them.


_________________
"Sex, streams, friends accessing private members... Either I am just discovering unintentional innuendo or Stroustrup is a pervert."


snapcap
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,328

22 Apr 2012, 1:05 pm

TM wrote:
snapcap wrote:
After women won the right to vote, men that had dashing looks became more electable.

EDIT: :P


I think the most entertaining study I've seen was one in which the results showed that if you were an attractive man and had your picture attached to your job application you were more likely to get an interview, whereas if you were an attractive women you were less likely to get the interview.

The reason? A large majority of "Human Resources" workers tasked with hiring are women who disqualify what they deem as attractive women.


My elderly neighbor, who is a grandma, was talking to me about the who will be the prospective Republican candidate. I told her I liked Ron Paul, and she said, "He might have had a chance is he was younger and more attactive. The women aren't going to vote for him because he isn't."

:lol:


_________________
*some atheist walks outside and picks up stick*

some atheist to stick: "You're like me!"


sage_gerard
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 20 Apr 2012
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 149

22 Apr 2012, 1:06 pm

Quote:
My elderly neighbor, who is a grandma, was talking to me about the who will be the prospective Republican candidate. I told her I liked Ron Paul, and she said, "He might have had a chance is he was younger and more attactive. The women aren't going to vote for him because he isn't."


A friend of the family voted for Dubya because he "had a cute butt". :wink:

I stared at the wall that night.


_________________
"Sex, streams, friends accessing private members... Either I am just discovering unintentional innuendo or Stroustrup is a pervert."


snapcap
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,328

22 Apr 2012, 1:07 pm

sage_gerard wrote:
Quote:
My elderly neighbor, who is a grandma, was talking to me about the who will be the prospective Republican candidate. I told her I liked Ron Paul, and she said, "He might have had a chance is he was younger and more attactive. The women aren't going to vote for him because he isn't."


A friend of the family voted for Dubya because he has a cute butt. :wink:


My grandmother voted for him because he was kind of attractive, but even more than that, he seemed like the only candidate that she felt comfortable inviting into her house to sit down and chat over coffee.


_________________
*some atheist walks outside and picks up stick*

some atheist to stick: "You're like me!"


TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

22 Apr 2012, 1:10 pm

sage_gerard wrote:
Quote:
All ideologies are filled to the brim with bs that cover up the basic principles of the ideology and every ideology is perverted by each subject. Every ideology becomes personally interpreted through various psychological biases a person has, then reflects what the person believed in the first place.

The more self-righteous and convinced the proponent of an ideology is, the more that person should be ignored.


I see an is-ought gap here. I agree most of the argument, but I'm not sure about the prevailing attitude. Mill's influence on my perception of free speech tempts me to lend an ear to radicals in the spirit of curiosity, since being convinced of an ideology is actually a necessary step in establishing integrity if the ideology has not been disproven. This is not to say that uncertain ideologies are correct, just that they could stand exploration.

I ignore or resist radicals who attempt to use force or claw for disproportionate representation in the eyes of the law. Until then, I do not view them as threats even when I listen to them.


An ideology cannot be proved or disproved. For instance, one would think that the effects of communism on Eastern Europe, Russia, North Korea and so on would convince people that the basic premises of the ideology are flawed. However, proponents of the ideology do not consider the countries mentioned to be examples of communism.

Another example, is in the other feminism threads where arguments and examples of misandry within the feminist movement, writings and ideology were written off as "non-feminist" despite clearly being linked with the ideology. In the same sense, The New Testament is dependent on the Old Testament to establish its foundation, however modern Christians are quick to reject much of what is written therein.



sage_gerard
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 20 Apr 2012
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 149

22 Apr 2012, 1:13 pm

Quote:
An ideology cannot be proved or disproved


I agree. I never said otherwise. :wink:


_________________
"Sex, streams, friends accessing private members... Either I am just discovering unintentional innuendo or Stroustrup is a pervert."


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

22 Apr 2012, 1:26 pm

Terlingua wrote:
So I take it then that feminists do not promote equality issues that are not self serving. No protesting of unfair paternity laws in the name of equality. No call to increase healthcare research and funding of ailments that do not concern women, No attempts to correct the myth that only men are abusive. Their causes only benefit equality on accident on the rare occasion that it does.

I think that I'll stick to humanitarian causes that are honest and really are working for the betterment of everyone.
Translation: I can't address your questions or criticisms, so I'll declare victory and leave, while pretending that I am actually open-minded enough to seek new information about something which I do not understand but disagree with anyway.'



DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,683
Location: Northern California

22 Apr 2012, 1:39 pm

How has feminism helped men? It has made the stay at home dad possible. I know several families that for various reasons chose role reversal and both parties in the couple LOVE their lives. Dads who take on the primary care-giving instead of working full time bring a whole different skill set into the schools and parenting community, and have been an effective bridge for getting ALL dads further involved in their kid's lives, which is a change that has benefited everyone. Fathers do bring something different to kids, school fundraising, etc than moms do, and it's pretty cool to see them so involved. But that first seed started with the simple idea that maybe stepping outside of a traditional role is OK.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


sage_gerard
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 20 Apr 2012
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 149

22 Apr 2012, 1:48 pm

DW_a_mom wrote:
How has feminism helped men? It has made the stay at home dad possible. I know several families that for various reasons chose role reversal and both parties in the couple LOVE their lives. Dads who take on the primary care-giving instead of working full time bring a whole different skill set into the schools and parenting community, and have been an effective bridge for getting ALL dads further involved in their kid's lives, which is a change that has benefited everyone. Fathers do bring something different to kids, school fundraising, etc than moms do, and it's pretty cool to see them so involved. But that first seed started with the simple idea that maybe stepping outside of a traditional role is OK.


I like your optimism!

There is a trade-off here, though. My history professor stressed that feminism also helped lead to the end of the nuclear family. The stay-at-home dad became possible, but the the big concern was if enough men would accept that lifestyle. Those that did would be the ones that claimed feminism helped them. Even so, many men and women worried about the idea of a spouse breaking their commitments the minute a shorter skirt or bigger bulge enters the room.

I won't say that is entirely feminism's fault, since this is the kind of cost libertarianism often brings to the table. The more control you have over your own life, the easier it is to drop responsibilities and feel no obligation to help others.


_________________
"Sex, streams, friends accessing private members... Either I am just discovering unintentional innuendo or Stroustrup is a pervert."


Terlingua
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2012
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 71

22 Apr 2012, 2:28 pm

LKL wrote:
Terlingua wrote:
So I take it then that feminists do not promote equality issues that are not self serving. No protesting of unfair paternity laws in the name of equality. No call to increase healthcare research and funding of ailments that do not concern women, No attempts to correct the myth that only men are abusive. Their causes only benefit equality on accident on the rare occasion that it does.

I think that I'll stick to humanitarian causes that are honest and really are working for the betterment of everyone.
Translation: I can't address your questions or criticisms, so I'll declare victory and leave, while pretending that I am actually open-minded enough to seek new information about something which I do not understand but disagree with anyway.'


I asked for specific, not incidental, vague, and ofttimes questionable ways in which feminism demonstrated that it was about equality. That was not given. I am not at fault for that. If you wish to insult me because feminism fails to live up to its claims, so be it. That does not change the point that they are saying one thing but acting in ways opposite to their claims. Or are you of the mindset that slavery helped slaves by giving them a better life? It is the exact same principle.



sage_gerard
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 20 Apr 2012
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 149

22 Apr 2012, 2:49 pm

Terlingua wrote:
I asked for specific, not incidental, vague, and ofttimes questionable ways in which feminism demonstrated that it was about equality. That was not given. I am not at fault for that. If you wish to insult me because feminism fails to live up to its claims, so be it. That does not change the point that they are saying one thing but acting in ways opposite to their claims. Or are you of the mindset that slavery helped slaves by giving them a better life? It is the exact same principle.


How about the second paragraph of Elizabeth Stanton's formal declaration that started the whole thing?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Sentiments

Quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of those who suffer from it to refuse allegiance to it, and to insist upon the institution of a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.


St. Augustine once said "Never judge a philosophy by its abuse", and it is so easy to do that with feminism (and any other big movement, now that I think about it). You will find vague examples more than concrete examples because feminism has many branches, each that depend on a different attitude towards the sexes. Some just want equality (And I am tempted to call them egalitarian instead of feminist). Others want to put throw every penis in the world to the dogs. We often hear about the latter, but that's mass media for you. What I am trying to say is that when you have so many ideologies crammed under one umbrella, you will find inconsistencies because the branches can disagree, and messages get warped when they are passed along.

I understand your desire to hold hypocrites accountable. Nothing wrong with that, but blaming feminism for having radicals is like blaming science for having phrenologists.

I do believe in supporting men as well as women. However, try to distance yourself from the generalizations you are making. LKL called you out for not being too fluent in the subject, and I agree with her accusation that you have already decided what to get out of this discussion.


_________________
"Sex, streams, friends accessing private members... Either I am just discovering unintentional innuendo or Stroustrup is a pervert."


Terlingua
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2012
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 71

22 Apr 2012, 3:18 pm

sage_gerard wrote:
Terlingua wrote:
I asked for specific, not incidental, vague, and ofttimes questionable ways in which feminism demonstrated that it was about equality. That was not given. I am not at fault for that. If you wish to insult me because feminism fails to live up to its claims, so be it. That does not change the point that they are saying one thing but acting in ways opposite to their claims. Or are you of the mindset that slavery helped slaves by giving them a better life? It is the exact same principle.


How about the second paragraph of Elizabeth Stanton's formal declaration that started the whole thing?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Sentiments

Quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of those who suffer from it to refuse allegiance to it, and to insist upon the institution of a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.


St. Augustine once said "Never judge a philosophy by its abuse", and it is so easy to do that with feminism (and any other big movement, now that I think about it). You will find vague examples more than concrete examples because feminism has many branches, each that depend on a different attitude towards the sexes. Some just want equality (And I am tempted to call them egalitarian instead of feminist). Others want to put throw every penis in the world to the dogs. We often hear about the latter, but that's mass media for you. What I am trying to say is that when you have so many ideologies crammed under one umbrella, you will find inconsistencies because the branches can disagree, and messages get warped when they are passed along.

I understand your desire to hold hypocrites accountable. Nothing wrong with that, but blaming feminism for having radicals is like blaming science for having phrenologists.

I do believe in supporting men as well as women. However, try to distance yourself from the generalizations you are making. LKL called you out for not being too fluent in the subject, and I agree with her accusation that you have already decided what to get out of this discussion.


Thank you sage_gerard. As I have mentioned elsewhere,Upon my own initiative I have looked on the National Organization for Women website. As they are the largest representation of feminists in North America, they make a good sample for selection. Nowhere on their site was to be found anything like which I asked. As their size should indicate at least some level of striving for equality, I found the evidence for it there disturbing. I have asked here repeatedly for anyone with any knowledge of feminist groups practicing egalitarianism to point me toward them. To date nobody has done so. I do not feel that this is a generalization, and if my fluency on the subject is lacking, then it stands to reason that so is the fluency of those insulter's who criticize but yet seem unable to point me in the right direction.

What I did find on the N.O.W. website were cries to pull the Violence Against Women Act out of congressional limbo. What I did not find were cries from the allegedly non radical feminists to rename the act so that it did not imply that only women were being abused. If the non radical feminists are willing to continue to perpetuate such a wicked myth,, how am I or anyone to believe that they are honestly working toward equality at all. In fact, how can I differentiate between them and the radicals? Must I choose a lesser evil, or are there feminist groups out there that really are promoting equality? If so, please, please, point me in their direction. I keep hearing the argument that feminists want equality, buy nobody can seem to point me to a single feminist group that is practicing what they preach.

Again, Mars Attacks "We come in peace" Zap! Blam!



sage_gerard
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 20 Apr 2012
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 149

22 Apr 2012, 3:29 pm

Egalitarian, liberal feminism might be what you are looking for. Try here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-liberal/ You also might like Christina Hoff Sommers.

But, again, if you are just talking about equality and nothing else, you need to go to egalitarianism and drop sex from the discussion until it becomes relevant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism

Quote:
In fact, how can I differentiate between them and the radicals?


Bring up a male issue, such as alimony, suicide rates or disposability. If they trivialize the issue and attack you for having brought it up, then maybe you're talking to a radical. Non-radicals would assert their position to the extent that they want representation without trying to rule the world. They would understand you have problems too, and would try to get what they want without making you pick up the tab.

It is healthy to find women and men who understand that sexism is rampant, but it is not one-way. Those are probably the people you want to find.

If I could advise you on one more thing: Don't lash out at radicals. It doesn't work.


_________________
"Sex, streams, friends accessing private members... Either I am just discovering unintentional innuendo or Stroustrup is a pervert."


Terlingua
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2012
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 71

22 Apr 2012, 3:36 pm

sage_gerard wrote:
Egalitarian, liberal feminism might be what you are looking for. Try here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-liberal/ You also might like Christina Hoff Sommers.

But, again, if you are just talking about equality and nothing else, you need to go to egalitarianism and drop sex from the discussion until it becomes relevant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism

Quote:
In fact, how can I differentiate between them and the radicals?


Bring up a male issue, such as alimony, suicide rates or disposability. If they trivialize the issue and attack you for having brought it up, then maybe you're talking to a radical. Non-radicals would assert their position to the extent that they want representation without trying to rule the world. They would understand you have problems too, and would try to get what they want without making you pick up the tab.

It is healthy to find women and men who understand that sexism is rampant, but it is not one-way. Those are probably the people you want to find.

If I could advise you on one more thing: Don't lash out at radicals. It doesn't work.


Thank you very much for the link! I'm still reading through it while searching the internet for groups that incorporate those principles. I am sad to see that N.O.W. does not.

I take it then that the radical feminists are the ones that are active on here? They seem to do plenty of lashing out themselves if so.



sage_gerard
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 20 Apr 2012
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 149

22 Apr 2012, 3:41 pm

There you go with the generalizations again. :wink:

Based on what I've seen so far, I do not think there are many radicals here. The fact that you are allowed to challenge some aspects of feminism without a moderator stomping out the thread is a sign that your freedom to speak is valued here. I'd be cautious of sites that flat out prohibit certain kinds of discussion that the owners do not like.


_________________
"Sex, streams, friends accessing private members... Either I am just discovering unintentional innuendo or Stroustrup is a pervert."