Does anyone else agree with feminism?

Post Reply New Topic

I have learned so much today

You know, feminists go on and on about how men have universally dominated and oppressed women all over the world for thousands of years...and then in the same breath, they say women are strong, independent creatures!

Does anyone here agree with Obama saying that women should be allowed to join a private men's golf club?

Obama thinks Augusta golf club should allow women: White House

So were black people for a great time.

That's the first day of human psychology course 101. You forgot about teh menz, though, and you mean to say "what they feel governs their thought process", since rational thought appears post hoc following instinctual response to certain concepts, and this instinctual response is highly-variable and malleable.

How much of this is because they're brought up to think in different ways?

Subjective. I can define a "good" man as whatever male kills the most kittens, if kitten killing is my highest imperative, and that'd be no less right than the gobbdlegook about women needing "protection".

I love how you've cutely managed here to:
divide the male sex into "good" and "bad"
define them ALL as inherently heterosexual and objectifying in that heterosexuality
AND defined lust as a "bad" aim

It's all so very...Victorian.

You deliberately define Men as X, women as it's opposite, delve into little girl moralizing about "good" vs "bad" men, and then declare sex roles are biological in origin?

'Nother face to the palm.

Obviously. But engaging in "should" is getting into inherently ethics-based territory.
"Should" women be barred from anything? "No" is my subjective opinion.

Feminists oppose patriarchy-
pretty misandrist of you to equivocate systems of power which favor men and not women with THE MALE SEX, proper.
Why do you think men are inherently oppressive, exactly?
Really, I would like to see some reasoning.

I agree, though, that it's silly to call women "strong, independent creatures"-
Women as a class aren't ANYTHING, because a group numbering in the billions doesn't have anything inherent about it.
The very word is subject to interpretation.

Also silly to say oppression of women is "universal"- there are a number of societies which have been more or less egalitarian.

Last edited by ValentineWiggin on 05 Apr 2012, 6:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Alex.

Oh. Were you joking were the original bit about men and women interacting without culture?
Sorry- non-literal humor usually goes right over my head.

I haven't read this thread, so it's not obvious for me.

Maybe we should have single sex bathrooms too. I wonder when the brick and mortar stores are going to warm up the public to this idea to cut down the cost of having two bathrooms.

The definition of "culturalization" according to dictionary.com is "to expose or subject to the influence of culture." It doesn't involve observing changes in behavior after the incident. Commercials, TV-Shows etc, all appeal to our base biology. Hence why Sex sells.

Female genitial mutilation serves the purpose of preventing cuckoldry, which is something that is extremely destructive in a low resource situation. For a male who thinks he's passing on his genes (which is the sole purpose of his existence) to be in fact ensuring the survival of another man's child is a costly process which has no reward for the cuckold on a biological level. In this context, it makes sense to prevent women from having sex with males other than the one that will be the father of her children. We see this in a few species of Apes where a new male will murder the previous male's children in order to ensure that only his own remain alive and thus get a higher survival chance.

Infanticide exists in a wide variety of species, usually in connection with the the choice being "Mother" or "Child" lives. For instance, it makes perfect sense for a mother to smother her child in order to save herself provided that she is able to have more children from a selfish gene perspective. It's a risk analysis of sorts, "What are the odds of this child surviving without its mother?" Zero, "What are the odds of the mother surviving without the child and can then produce a new child?" Greater than zero. Perfect logic.

In the case of female infanticide, it makes sense if seen within a paradigm with limited resources where a male child will bring greater benefits then a female child. In essence, if the value represented by the female child, plus the cost already incurred by having the female child is smaller than the value represented by having another child, with the risk that it too could be female, then it makes perfect sense to kill off the female child and have a do-over.

I don't ignore entire fields on study based on what they say, I ignore them based on their merit. Sociology is the scientific equivalent of eugenics, it's not objective, bases itself on non-objective methods that can easily be manipulated and serves as a field for people who cannot hack it in real science like mathematics, physics, biology, chemistry and so on. In other fields of science, people can be proven wrong, in sociology its always a matter of debate because nothing can be objectively proven as true. Sociology is the kind of science where one can state that "In the 100 societies that were part of this study, 95 were male dominated, however this has nothing to do with biology, this is all due to culture." and not be laughed out of the room.

I have experienced and observed this actually, although I'd say to be more cultural driven rather than purely biological, however biology may play some part though, I mean, I have read that some emotional and the like attribuited to women by gender roles might have something to do with motherhood in nature, so perhaps.


The military in some countries seem to give the idea that women can't do all the training that men do, or that they aren't capable of few things, I slightly remember reading something like this, I think it was from the english army. Something along the lines of "we may be equal but not that equal in strenght" and this is militarilic speaking, not civil daily life.

A question comes to mind though, do women weight less than men?

Logic? well, on WP, at least, it seemed to me that the logical arguments have been outnumbered by males, but there are logical arguments by some women as well. In general, logic seem to be outnumbered by males than females, by observation, don't ask me about studies but it makes sense to see the tendency because of culture and gender roles.


Yes, but the fact that women can be as strong as males in general terms and are not forbidden to do so, is a good thing, and I'd say that is part of the point from your opponent's side. I mean, if women have the potential than its fair to be able to use that potential just as men are able to use their potential, and it would be unfair otherweise, but that is not to say that if you choose this lifestyle, it undermines equality, as it gets absurd. But your opponents seem to believe so.


The issue is that that power is something you are giving to your partner, willingly, not that he is entitled to it just because he is male. Now I suppose you may believe that, but that is your thing and, frankly, I don't see much of a problem if that is the case, rather I started to envy your husband but I don't actually believe that.


Gender roles have a biological base, that is true, however they haven't been that accurate in the past, as its well noted the capability of women, that is not to say that there is no biological basis for gender roles.

The issue I think whatever it is, is more of a lifestyle, because you choose to live that way, or that it is part of your beliefs, in this case, christian oriented. From my standpoint I don't see there is a right or a wrong way, as long as there isn't any abuse and that all is consensual. Your opposition seem to believe you are being oppressed which is kinda laughable.

In any case, I see this debate to be absurd. There isn't evidence of abuse or "oppression" but the absurdity is that oppresion falls into "being in the eye of the beholder" category as with other things. lol What else is new?

Last edited by blunnet on 05 Apr 2012, 7:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Is she anything like noted feminist Andrea Dworkin?

Here are a few of her quotes:

"Marriage is an institution developed from rape as a practice."

"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies."

"Every woman's son is her potential betrayer, and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman."

"Romance is rape embellished with meaningful looks."



Or, is she anything like Ti-Grace Atkinson (not a typo)?

"The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist."



Or Catharine Mackinnon?

"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman."

"All heterosexual intercourse is rape, because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent."



Or Hillary Clinton?

"Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, fathers, and sons in combat."
(So, the men losing their lives are not considered victims?)



Or Harriet Harman? British Labour Party politician Harriet Harman said on the floor of the House of Commons, when standing in for the Prime Minister:

"There are not enough airports in the country for all the men who would want to leave if I were Prime Minister."
(Imagine the reaction if she were to substitute any other group besides men in that sentence. Or if a man had said the same thing about women. Equality, huh?)

Last edited by Ragtime on 05 Apr 2012, 7:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ValentineWiggin a fellow feminist is the only one making since and so Is Vigilans but that doens't shock me at all they usally do.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3s19jjEeHE[/youtube]

you are misquoting them they where talking about the views of diffrent cultures good try though you almost made sense.