Does anyone else agree with feminism?

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, and it took multiple millenia of them being dragged, kicking and screaming, by secular forces into some semblance of decency,
which continues to elude a great number of them even today.

It doesn't elude me I know the history of my faith and the barabaric wars they started all to well if you follow any religion at least know your history.

This, this, this.

If you come to England, I'll show you round these parts. I'll even source for you the necessary burqa. If you don't want it, I can always use it to scare my niece with or on Halloween.

I believe I just stated that she was right gosh I bet that shocks you

Feminists in general are critical of Islam, but I think radical feminists and other second wave types who emphasise patriarchy are more likely to be openly critical. To us, Islam is part of the same old universal misogyny that we've been analysing and challenging for decades. The more postmodern types are the ones who are going to be prissy about 'generalising'. This is part of what drew me to radical feminism, although I have many problems with other parts of that ideology.

Of course it makes since for them to the only hope for the people living in a muslim country is for democracy to come and bring about good change for them all.

+1

This isn't going to happen. In fact, things are going backwards in Muslim countries. Haven't you seen the news?

No religion is perfect but the issues the world faces to day is the economy not really social issues unless you want to talk about religious terrorism.

I watch the news but I don't by into everything the news says I'm not a sheep that believes the news and think's their accurate all the time.

Look at what's happening in Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamists, for instance. The Islamists have pretty much taken that over, meaning that there will be no democracy there. I think the remaining Christians in the country are trying to get out, as there's been a shocking increase in the number of murders of Christians there (it's been bad there for many, many years though with the rape, murder and terrorisation of the Christian community there).

As opposed to a bunch of women telling men that our natural instincts and behaviors are wrong? At least my book is about both genders and I'm so glad that you dismiss it outright without probably having read it. Your entire movement is based on books about men that have been written by women.

More like a "bunch of" skeptics, evolutionary biologists among them, telling such theorists that baldly proclaiming this-or-that human tendency to be "natural instinct and behavior", devoid of anything short of overwhelming evidence,
hasn't exactly worked out too well historically.



Yes, because:
reading books is necessary to favor gender equality and fight gender-based oppression
books on feminist issues are all about men (everything is, after all!)
and only women write them

I've never understood the feminist hostility towards evolutionary psychology. Maybe some folks want to believe that people are so magically "complex" that human behavior can only be understood through intuition....When there is mounting evidence against this. But feminism is one of many different ideologies in the constellation of the western left; which is religiously devoted to the blank slate theory of human cognition. Human nature is something that they actively deny because they cling to their ideals about changing human behavior for the better.

Probably because there isn't one.
There's a hostility in the scientific community, which feminist people tend to champion, against bald assertions about this or that behavior being inborn in human beings, when it is based more on assumption (in this case androcentric) and cherry-picked metastudies.

I'm nothing if not an empiricist, and that doesn't conflict in the slightest with feminism.

Feminism is actually a global movement, though I will agree it's an inherently leftist concept. It's certainly not limited to the west, though.

More like they get tired, as do most evolutionary biologists, of the unending pseudo-scientific pop-culture pontification about what is and is not inherent "human behavior".

Last edited by ValentineWiggin on 01 Apr 2012, 11:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

Evolution is predicated upon the fact that certain traits are beneficial because they result in an increase in chances for that creature to procreate. Other traits are negative, thus resulting in less chances to procreate. As a result, traits that result in the latter are mercilessly weeded from existence. It is then a natural conclusion that we are the result of 100.000 - 200.000 years of natural selection and the traits that are within us are the most successful ones.

In the terms of our minds, given that gender roles most likely having existed since our species appeared on this earth is it not natural to conclude that they have adapted as well? It would make no sense that every part of us has adapted to change or been eradicated while our brains have been static. I mean if you take a dog and selectively breed the tamest specimen, you get a stream of tamer and tamer dogs. Wouldn't it make sense that since the role of women since the inception of our species has been to take care of children, the women who were the best at it had the most children go on to procreate themselves, thus in the end their genes end up dominating?



A: Look through this list and tell me the male to female ratio. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_feminists funnily enough, the feminist movement is one of the movements that has the most problematic female to male ratio.

B: LKL dismissed my post because it was a book written by a man that isn't a feminist centric book, me then pointing out that she's being a bit absurd is relevant. I have yet to read a feminist book that isn't "ooh the evils of the patriarchy" and you yourself can barely write a post without going off about the evil patriarchy. Your "feminist" movement is obsessed with what men are doing rather than what women are doing.