Does anyone else agree with feminism?

Post Reply New Topic

Funny how evo-psych works so well when applied to real life. I would agree that evo-psych makes people seem very mechanical, and that's the beauty of it.


Many social sciences rely heavily on statistics rather than actually studying the human brain. I have to say that I really do notice much of left arguing with statistics rather than actual logic or scientific facts.

For the 9968733421873517th time, men ≠ patriarchy.

Yes puddingmouse, that is correct. Nonetheless, I really scorn 2nd wave feminism because it promotes a collectivist mentality and implicitly opposes women's freedom of choice. In fact, it is the 2nd wave so-called "radical feminists" that have ultimately given feminism a bad name.

Nope.
No.
No.
Nuh-uh.
Evolution is predicated upon the fact that certain traits are beneficial because they result in an increase in chances for SOME creatures to attract a mate, procreate, successfully sustain gestation, hatch or give birth to fertile offspring, and raise said offspring to reproductive age. Other creatures aid societally in other ways which have nothing to do with this reproducing themselves, especially in social species.

The fuck-as-much-as-possible pop-culture interpretation of evolution has gotten out of hand.

This makes perfect sense if there was no such thing as from birth culturalization into human-invented norms and ideologies.
But alas, humans do not live in a vacuum. X trait being observable is hardly synonymous with "X trait is the result of naturalistic evolutionary pressures". LOL suppressed.

Yes! Ergo the point.

~facepalm~ Are you wholly ignorant about the evolutionary roles of men in fatherhood, or non-reproductive roles of women? Really?


What list? Compiled by who? For what purpose? Not seeing it.

She dismissed it because it was androcentric psedoscience being presented as definitive on the supposed "inherent"/evolution-produced gender roles we can observe today.

If "absurd" means rejecting the notion that pop-culture novels written by men are allowed to define what is and is not "natural"
(the implication, of course, being that what is "natural" is ethically-justifiable) then I can agree.

It's no "bother" to me to support sexual equality, nor does it interfere with one's ability to be productive,
though your "crazy feminists should go get lives" (as well as the assertion that all that is important must have ECONOMIC VALUE) underlying message is duly-noted.

Last edited by ValentineWiggin on 01 Apr 2012, 11:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

@AspieRogue

Feminism has always had a bad name.

I have no problem with a collectivist mentality. I'd argue that 'freedom of choice' is an illusion under a capitalist system, but that's another deabte.

Your objections to second wave feminism are a tiny bit more advanced than the usual, 'they are fat, hairy lesbians', so I'll give you points for that.

You are totally misquoting me, VW.

Gah. So I was.
How did that happen?
Apologies, and fixed.

Last edited by ValentineWiggin on 01 Apr 2012, 11:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

+1

Also...who the hell confuses a millions-strong global combat against the effects and causes of sexual and gendered oppression with the writings of first-world feminist activists and academics??? (Regardless of how poorly he butchers the sociological theories they reference?)

What, exactly, are feminists to talk about when discussing feminism if not the fact that global power is almost wholly concentrated in male hands, and favors males, IE, the patriarchy?

Should opponents of racism not discuss the systems which keep it in place?
Should animal rights activists not reference the ethics which other non-human animals?
Should leftists not indict status-quo beliefs and ideologies?

How much argument from definition do we need to go over before we can proceed?

Last edited by ValentineWiggin on 01 Apr 2012, 11:30 am, edited 2 times in total.

I come from a family where women are the majority I have a lot of respect for women in my family for the sexist issues some of them face I am a male feminist and other males of WP have attacked me more it but I don't care

Don't be silly- women are free to choose:
NOT TO have sex
and
TO become strippers/prostitutes/porn stars, etc.


(Wow, even that's an internal inconsistency.)

some times I wish I was a female.

I also find absurd the implication that a theory's rightness or wrongness is somehow dependent on having a good or bad name. The Suffragettes had a bad name, but they were still correct about women being able to vote.

Hindsight is 20/20.

Although even in America, we have Presidential candidates who oppose birth control, a hundred years after Margaret Sanger was arrested for selling it- that's a suffragette- era issue.

Sometimes I'm truly awe-struck.

I am for women having birth control when the religious right play a role in politics it's the catholics that have the most to gain they are the radical memmbers of the religious community.

Strip clubs exploit men, not women. Men go to these clubs and shower these dancers with thousands of dollars in tips just to be teased when they almost never get to actually sleep with the dancers. And I actually know people who've stripped for a living and contrary to the stereotype, they did NOT have "daddy ishoos" and did NOT sleep with clients who tried to bribe them for sexual favors with money and/or drugs. Even so, nothing wrong with strippers. Don't like it? Don't do it(or patronize strip clubs).

Explain how strip clubs expolite men? This I got to hear