Philosophy Forums
Forums Links Articles Gallery
Style:
Language:


The Meaning of Feminism
What's it to you?

printPrint


The Meaning of Feminism
Snafu
People Person
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 04, 2005
Location: Wednesday
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 22
0 of 1 people found this post helpful
Posted 10/28/07 - 05:02 PM:

Subject: The Meaning of Feminism
quote post
#1
Sitting with a bunch of fellow feminists, the question of what feminism inevitably came up. And it seems that each person has their own definition. I believe it is simply supporting the betterment of women worldwide. To some that is too inclusive. One feminist I know believes that to be a "true" feminist is a nearly impossible task. She believes that a "true" feminist lives her (or theoretically, his) life in the perfect feminist manner (I found her argument to be less than consistent). Another feminist believed that feminism was more than gender relations, but about ending oppression on a larger scale.
It occurred to me that perhaps my definition of feminism is too inclusive. I feel there are things in this world that are supposedly benefiting women that do not actually help the feminist cause (Cosmo magazine, for instance). And, on the other side of the scale, there's Helene Cixous, whose most feminist moment (within the constraints of her own theory) was when she refused to call herself a feminist. So, I guess there a lot of questions surrounding this issue and fluttering around in my head. Is feminism as I define it too inclusive? Are there merits to other possible definitions of feminism? What is your own interpretation of the word "feminism"? And, finally, what would a perfect feminist do/be like?

_____________________
"Née pour venger mon sexe et maîtriser le vôtre."
--La Marquise de Merteuil
Paul
Tenured Poster
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Mar 10, 2002
Location: California
Total Topics: 451
Total Posts: 11513
Posted 10/28/07 - 09:23 PM:
quote post
#2
Dictionary.com defines feminism in a way that seems to make most people (at least of those without a religious influence) feminists in theory: "the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men." Though the meaning of equality and rights can be controversial, I suppose.

My very minimal (largely accidental) observations lead me to categorize self-described feminists into several types:
A) Those who simply favor equality in a theoretical, nonchalant way, not necessarily trying to change the world or giving a lot of thought to it.
B) Those who are opposing specific injustices or lack of equal opportunity on a political basis, who concentrate on the ones that hinder women.
C) Those who are trying to change their culture's gender training, who concentrate on the way females are socialized and believe it to be more wrong/damaging than the socialization of males (or perhaps they just believe they're better suited to address the female side of the issue, hard to tell as an observer).
D) Those who believe that women are inherently better at various things than men. When I was growing up my sister loved to give me the genetic argument of males lacking half a chromosome, being prone to disease and earlier death, more brute-like in size, hairier and in every way a midpoint on the evolutionary ladder between apes and women. Ironically men will often engage in this sort of feminism/sexism, though it's hard to tell how many of them are serious about the beliefs.

B and C can be combined for some people of course.

Now, are we looking to observe self-described feminists or to precribe what one has to be in order to avoid being kicked out of feminism? That latter seems much more problematic.

Snafu wrote:
And, finally, what would a perfect feminist do/be like?


What would the perfect pizza taste like? What would a perfect person do? I don't think the question makes much sense, except that the answer may show the unique ideals/biases of the person who was asked.

Edited by Paul on 10/28/07 - 09:38 PM

_____________________
"If a statement is made, it is to be confronted with the totality of existing statements. If it agrees with them, it is joined to them; if it does not agree, it is called 'untrue' and rejected; or the existing complex of statements of science is modified so that the new statement can be incorporated."
- Otto Neurath
Exigency
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2007
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 77
Posted 10/29/07 - 12:26 PM:
quote post
#3
Focusing upon political philosophy: I find Susan Moller Okin quite convincing, especially when she notes that there are certain things that only women can do which require a significant amount of energy, time, and labour; namely, creating more people. This is essential to the human race, which, even aside from the fact that women in Western societies get paid less on average than men, really needs to be reflected in and properly respected by any political ideology or party mannifesto. When dictionary.com says "advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men", that doesn't mean a libertarian doctrine of rugged individualism is acceptable. We can't just all have a right to property, and a right to be free from harm (for example). Women must have specific rights that men don't, the rights to, for example, paid maternity leave, to truely be in a just society which respects the unique talents of the gender. Feminism (in political philosophy) is quite varied some areas of which appeals to me more than others; I do, however, believe that feminism's influence upon anti-foundationalism has a lot of merit, which is hard for any political philosopher to refute.
Paul
Tenured Poster
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Mar 10, 2002
Location: California
Total Topics: 451
Total Posts: 11513
Posted 11/01/07 - 02:52 AM:
quote post
#4
I really can't see why paternity leave shouldn't be allowed. Are you saying men are inherently worse parents? It's supposed to be a "natural talent" of women alone? Likewise, the whole idea of yours that only women can create children ignores the fact that humans don't reproduce asexually, it takes two. That women are the carriers for nine months does not make children their exclusive domain.

Of course, the societal feeling that children are for women has a lot of problematic consequences -- like a longtime prejudice of courts in favor of giving children to the mother in divorce proceedings, rather than taking the time to determine who's actually the more qualified parent. As a society we've only recently started to overcome that. Then there's education, where men are considered inappropriate through elementary school. And the general prejudice where men who work with children are considered weird and unmanly at best or suspicious possible molesters at worst.

I'm willing to entertain the possibility that women have statistical tendencies to be better at things for reasons that are biological rather than just due to the social training of the genders (not that I'm necessarily convinced). That does not, however, imply that women need special rights beyond men. Rights should be a baseline allowing people of whatever gender to persue their personal natural talents, even if those talents are the traditional or statistical domain of the other gender.

Edited by Paul on 11/01/07 - 03:00 AM

_____________________
"If a statement is made, it is to be confronted with the totality of existing statements. If it agrees with them, it is joined to them; if it does not agree, it is called 'untrue' and rejected; or the existing complex of statements of science is modified so that the new statement can be incorporated."
- Otto Neurath
Exigency
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2007
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 77
Posted 11/01/07 - 07:16 AM:
quote post
#5
No, I'm not saying, (nor is Okin), that paternity (or paternity leave once a child is born) shouldn't be allowed, or that it is inferior to maternal care or parental care, but that in the act of reproduction, when it comes down to it, the bloke can leave after 5 minutes and return after 9 months to engage in paternal care of the child once it is born. However, for 9 months, it is only women who, ultimately, have complete responsibility for the child. While a male partner may be able to care for the female, the fetus in development, however, really is her exclusive domain. While in pregnancy, the female's capacity to produce is diminished, which needs to be reflected in society. Simply giving men and women the same rights, eg. the right to property and the right to persue material ends does not reflect this fundamental point.

Ultimately, the two genders have different 'personal natural talents', which needs to be reflected in society. To give the two genders the same rights does not respect these fundamental differences. Carrying a child isn't a 'statistical tendancy' due to biological reasons, where women tend to do better than men, it's an absolute empirical fact that women can enter into a state of pregnancy and men can not. Moreover, the historical tendancy (which counts for a lot- she argues is essential to much previous political philosophy) has been for the female to care for the child, which, can and should be resolved. An example may be, like you said, paternal leave, but, unfortunately, political philosophy has tended to assume parental care (usually maternal care) but without ever fully respecting it in law or politics; I think it is this that is what feminism is about now.
Snafu
People Person
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 04, 2005
Location: Wednesday
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 22
Posted 11/01/07 - 04:30 PM:
quote post
#6
Paul wrote:
Rights should be a baseline allowing people of whatever gender to persue their personal natural talents, even if those talents are the traditional or statistical domain of the other gender.


It's a lovely ideal, and this would be great if gender behavior was entirely socialized. Sadly, it's not the case, and science is finding biological differences (albeit subtle ones) between the two sexes. Rights need to be given out according to their need, because there are things between the sexes that cannot and (aside from evolution doing anything about it) will not be changed. I believe Catharine MacKinnon was one of the first feminist scholars to really come out and speak on this issue (although what she had to say about it was far more complicated). Also (and maybe more importantly) we need to consider not only biological differences, but differences that are permanently embedded in a society's culture. Women aren't allowed on front lines in American wars not because they're incompetent (my Navy sister would certainly attest to that fact) but because American men are socialized to protect women, male soldiers will often sacrifice their lives to save a female comrade. Until this attitude changes, it's just not sensible to put women out on the front lines and risk having an entire platoon martyr themselves for one woman. I would love to see the day where women are given the same responsibilities in the military as men, but it's not going to happen until we change the underlying attitudes about gender in our society.

What seems to inevitably come up in this discussion, however, is the talk surrounding motherhood. We all know it's the women who get pregnant and the men who get to slack off. However, pregnancy is hardly comparable to anything deserving actual sick leave (like cholera or rabies). I know a basketball coach who delivered a baby and went to supervise her team's game two hours later. Another story I've heard is a woman who planned a C-section on a Friday after work and was back in work on Monday. Pregnant women are outrageously capable, and I think most feminists would just love to see an end to society's coddling of them. A study of the !Kung San (the hunter-gatherer tribe shown in The Gods Must be Crazy) revealed that pregnant and nursing mothers were able to work as hard as (if not harder than) women with grown children or no children at all. If women were so delicate for nine months at a time, I doubt the human race would have survived very long.

We absolutely need to give special consideration to gender differences when making laws, but I doubt it would involve maternity leave as Exigency has suggested. Since both sexes make children, I think we need Parental Leave, which seems to get more at the heart of the matter (giving parents time with their children). Giving women the special privilege of time with the children only furthers the notion that raising children is a woman's responsibility.

_____________________
"Née pour venger mon sexe et maîtriser le vôtre."
--La Marquise de Merteuil
Paul
Tenured Poster
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Mar 10, 2002
Location: California
Total Topics: 451
Total Posts: 11513
Posted 11/02/07 - 09:55 AM:
quote post
#7
Snafu wrote:
Sadly, it's not the case, and science is finding biological differences (albeit subtle ones) between the two sexes.


Such as? Most of what people think of as differences -- like the supposedly different types of intelligence aptitudes -- has been shown either wrong or highly suspect by science. More importantly, such things are statistical averages and not rules.

we need to consider not only biological differences, but differences that are permanently embedded in a society's culture. Women aren't allowed on front lines in American wars not because they're incompetent (my Navy sister would certainly attest to that fact) but because American men are socialized to protect women, male soldiers will often sacrifice their lives to save a female comrade.

That's a particularly awful example since it's wrong in almost every conceivable way. Countries like Israel (despite being religiously-based and conservative in many ways) find no trouble putting women on the front lines. America's current wars don't have front lines of course (when there are front lines, they're actually safer since it means conventional war at which we always win easily). Women are involved in the combat and frequently killed. The exclusion from the front lines is nothing more than lip serice to appease people like you. My poor googling skills show 33 killed and 240 women injured in Iraq as of early 2005, so presumably several times more by now, despite composing only 14% of the army according to other googling, and presumably a smaller percentage of combat forces. [Edit: a source says 64 killed as of 2006.]

Your rather offensive stereotype of american men as chivalrybots from the 17th century simply doesn't hold true in the real world. I cannot imagine a guy in a war situation who has trained with both men and women as equals being so much more likely to protect the woman (if he has bias it'll be toward saving his friends). Self-sacrifice for the sake of other men in time of war does happen, and is generally applauded and rewarded with posthumous decorations rather than frowned on, so calling it a problem is silly. The idea that women are utterly irresistable to the point of guys happily piling on the gernade 20 deep is absurd and reeks of sexism. I've read Coulter-type conservatives argue that women would be "distracting" because men can't help but fall in love with them and romance hinders combat... that's absurd enough, but you've taken it to a new extreme which even the conservative lunatic fringe won't touch.

Until this attitude changes, it's just not sensible to put women out on the front lines and risk having an entire platoon martyr themselves for one woman.

Men are not automotauns who worship women. Men have brains, believe it or not. The overwhealming majority of men do not try to be paternal protectors of co-workers on a gender basis -- if they did then women would have to be kicked out of the business world too in order to keep men undistracted -- you may as well just stick the women in burquas to protect men from their influence. If someone comes at you with a knife on the street, I'm running away, not taking the knife for you -- and so are 99% of other men.

Fortunately here in the 21st century most people realize that, so even the regressive bastion of intolerance that is the american millitary leadership (the soldiers aren't the problem) has moved onward to a great extent -- though it still believes gay men in the ranks will pile on gernades 20 deep out of love for men apparently -- and has observed a complete lack of any problems with the thousands of women serving on dangerous duty in Iraq and Afghanistan as we speak. We're not talking about managing to hope with the stream of protective men here, we're talking about absolutely zero issues to my knowledge. If you can cite an article where men and women fighting togeather has hindered the combat operation, please do. Just one surely isn't much to ask when you're insisting it's a huge widespread problem which calls for making separate gender-specific rules. You're just rehashing a new version of the argument made last century that racial integration would destroy the millitary since it's impossible for different races to get along.

You could just as easly be arguing that women as negotiators or CEOs or just as co-workers would be disastrous because men would be unable to pull off the sometimes harsh confrontations of the business world against a woman. Back in reality, men compete with women every day and don't cede them any chivalrous advantage. Welcome to the 21st century... or the 20th for that matter.

Edited by Paul on 11/02/07 - 03:30 PM

_____________________
"If a statement is made, it is to be confronted with the totality of existing statements. If it agrees with them, it is joined to them; if it does not agree, it is called 'untrue' and rejected; or the existing complex of statements of science is modified so that the new statement can be incorporated."
- Otto Neurath
Paul
Tenured Poster
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Mar 10, 2002
Location: California
Total Topics: 451
Total Posts: 11513
Posted 11/02/07 - 10:33 AM:
quote post
#8
Exigency wrote:
While in pregnancy, the female's capacity to produce is diminished,


There seem to be an awful lot of productive pregnant women, but I'll take your word for it. Of course when someone has a temporary medical condition preventing productivity -- and men do get those also -- they need to be given time off. The fact that it happens to be a condition unique to females should not be considered especially important, though, considering it doesn't affect all females. Feel free to pass a law referencing pregnancy specifically and give a time frame for it, too, since it's a common condition.

Giving women 9 months off as you seem to be saying, of course, will understandably greatly reduce the desire of employers to hire them. Imagine a 1 year contract position, and she gets pregnant after a month... basically the entire employment contract down the drain. That's just economics, and I'm not sure women who don't get pregnant should suffer for their potential employer's fear that they will. Nor can a small business with 2 employees simply bite the bullet and suffer paying one to stay home. You need a government compensation plan I suppose, to make sure that rules for pregnant women don't hurt unpregnant women.

At any rate, pregnancy is the one and only example you've given. It hardly justifies the vast world full of separate rules which you're implying. And who knows, it may not be too many years until men can be pregnant. There's no point in making rules that specify they can only apply to one gender, even if they usually do. And these differences are of course just extensions of common sense rules like "make reasonable accomidations for all medical conditions" which are not gender-specific.

Edited by Paul on 11/02/07 - 10:44 AM

_____________________
"If a statement is made, it is to be confronted with the totality of existing statements. If it agrees with them, it is joined to them; if it does not agree, it is called 'untrue' and rejected; or the existing complex of statements of science is modified so that the new statement can be incorporated."
- Otto Neurath
Snafu
People Person
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 04, 2005
Location: Wednesday
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 22
Posted 11/02/07 - 07:13 PM:
quote post
#9
I think I've managed to come off completely wrong to you. Hopefully I can change that. Let me clarify:

Paul wrote:
Such as? Most of what people think of as differences -- like the supposedly different types of intelligence aptitudes -- has been shown either wrong or highly suspect by science. More importantly, such things are statistical averages and not rules.


There are differences that are being proven through science. As I stated, they are extremely subtle. Science has found that women have more neural connectors between the left and right sides of their brains, enabling them to be better multi-taskers (however, with Gen Y this multi-tasking gap between the sexes is quickly closing). Deborah Tannen--a highly-regarded social scientist and feminist--has also found that women communicate for different purposes than men, and in different ways (although it's unclear whether this is socially or biologically-influenced behavior). It's not anti-feminist nowadays to admit that there are biological differences between men and women. I know a lot of feminists today resist these kinds of findings, but it seems as though they share a little too much with religious fundamentalists refusing to believe that dinosaurs existed because it's more convenient for them to say otherwise. I don't believe there's much good in fighting what science has shown. I do believe in approaching it with a grain of salt, however.

To that end, I've seen nothing in scientific research thus far to suggest that there is anything significant to these differences--they are (as I said) rather subtle. Their importance is mostly in allowing us to understand each sex, not legislate or oppress them. I can't think of a single thing that's been shown to be a biological difference between sexes as of yet to merit some kind of special right. However, if something came up, I think it would be fair to give special consideration to it legally (the same way American law grants special consideration for parents who kill in defense of their children's lives--a "privilege" (if you will) that is not granted to other people who kill in defense of others). Again, I don't see anything yet that would be worthy of this kind of consideration, but I would rather not rule it out since this field of science is still rather new.


Your rather offensive stereotype of american men as chivalrybots from the 17th century simply doesn't hold true in the real world. I cannot imagine a guy in a war situation who has trained with both men and women as equals being so much more likely to protect the woman (if he has bias it'll be toward saving his friends). Self-sacrifice for the sake of other men in time of war does happen, and is generally applauded and rewarded with posthumous decorations rather than frowned on, so calling it a problem is silly. The idea that women are utterly irresistable to the point of guys happily piling on the gernade 20 deep is absurd and reeks of sexism. I've read Coulter-type conservatives argue that women would be "distracting" because men can't help but fall in love with them and romance hinders combat... that's absurd enough, but you've taken it to a new extreme which even the conservative lunatic fringe won't touch.


Whoa. You've got me all wrong here.
Believe you me, I was livid when New York State decided it's public schools needed to restrict the dress code (surprisingly directed almost entirely at girls' fashion) in order to "prevent violence and classroom distraction." This includes short skirts and spaghetti-strap tank tops, because apparently a bra strap has caused gang wars and is the sole reason for why boys aren't paying attention in Calculus. Allow me to channel my high-school self: Puh-leeze.

What I'm getting at with the military example is an example of how the government treats one sex differently from the other because of how the two interact. It's not a fair law, and I'm strongly opposed to the idea that women are kept from front lines and that they are not drafted. I believe it still stands today that women don't fight on front lines--although, as you say, there hardly are any nowadays. I know the reason for it was as I said: they believed that an entire platoon would die just so a female comrade lived. I know women are on front lines in dozens of other countries--Israel being one of them, although I know there are more. And I'm sure most men in the military do not behave as such anymore (although you'd be surprised at the protective nature men have in the military towards women. They might as well be in feudal England.). I don't think men are a bunch of dumb neanderthals who cannot resist the wiles of a woman. And even if they were, I wouldn't punish the women for it. You have to remember, I'm not the one who implemented this rule of "no women on the front lines." I'm merely stating the reason why someone did it. There's a difference between explaining a reason and defending one. I was just using it as an example of how we've treated the sexes differently because of socialized behavior. I imagine at one time, it was a serious concern for the military. (The 1950's attitude toward interaction between the two sexes seems especially suspect.) However, as far as social change is concerned, the military is often the last bastion of conservativism. I doubt it's really all that serious of a problem now. But, then again, you'd be surprised at the kinds of men who join the military: my sister is getting cock-blocked by her fellow sailors because they don't want anybody breaking her heart. (Seriously, they are physically protecting her--they surround her during meal time and push away any guy who tries to talk to her. One might imagine a few of these guys would possibly take a grenade for her.)

I respect that you, and the vast majority of men I know, are not a chivalrous chauvinist. I also respect that I tend to ramble on aimlessly and forget to make my overarching point, which could possibly lead to people misunderstanding me as the complete opposite of who I am. So, here it is, in short:

Women and men have biological differences, although science has yet to prove anything that would merit giving special consideration to either sex. However, baseline equality runs the risk of hurting more than helping in the event that a difference between the sexes is, in fact biological, and merits giving special legal consideration. Also, it needs to be remembered that while most differences between the sexes are socialized, it does not change the fact that they exist (albeit on a temporary and superficial scale). Therefore, we need to give special consideration for these socialized differences, since they are almost as difficult to change as biological ones. I cannot think of an example outside of the outdated military example, but I imagine there are still a few in existence. Maybe there are none anymore, or at least any that would merit special consideration given to either sex. If so, woohoo! If not, well, that's why I'm suggesting we apply a bit of caution before we say the law should be blind to sex. Overly progressive laws can be just as oppressive as overly conservative ones.

_____________________
"Née pour venger mon sexe et maîtriser le vôtre."
--La Marquise de Merteuil
TMB
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 14, 2007
Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 240
Posted 11/11/07 - 05:40 AM:
quote post
#10
Snafu, you say,

Sitting with a bunch of fellow feminists, the question of what feminism inevitably came up. And it seems that each person has their own definition. I believe it is simply supporting the betterment of women worldwide. To some that is too inclusive. One feminist I know believes that to be a "true" feminist is a nearly impossible task. She believes that a "true" feminist lives her (or theoretically, his) life in the perfect feminist manner (I found her argument to be less than consistent). Another feminist believed that feminism was more than gender relations, but about ending oppression on a larger scale.
It occurred to me that perhaps my definition of feminism is too inclusive. I feel there are things in this world that are supposedly benefiting women that do not actually help the feminist cause (Cosmo magazine, for instance). And, on the other side of the scale, there's Helene Cixous, whose most feminist moment (within the constraints of her own theory) was when she refused to call herself a feminist. So, I guess there a lot of questions surrounding this issue and fluttering around in my head. Is feminism as I define it too inclusive? Are there merits to other possible definitions of feminism? What is your own interpretation of the word "feminism"? And, finally, what would a perfect feminist do/be like?


What is the driver behind your question? Why are you concerned about the concept of feminism, surely how we define things is of less importance than what we practice? Is the ideal surely not to pursue those things we believe to be of real value, and how we label them, secondary? re you more concerned that the definition is carefully defined and controlled, and then conformed to in some particular way? I have no issue debating the argument as you have posed it, however the only value I can see in this exercise is a political one, not one of finding true value or knowing the reality of our gender landscape.
Snafu
People Person
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 04, 2005
Location: Wednesday
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 22
Posted 11/11/07 - 08:19 AM:
quote post
#11
TMB wrote:
What is the driver behind your question? Why are you concerned about the concept of feminism, surely how we define things is of less importance than what we practice? Is the ideal surely not to pursue those things we believe to be of real value, and how we label them, secondary? re you more concerned that the definition is carefully defined and controlled, and then conformed to in some particular way? I have no issue debating the argument as you have posed it, however the only value I can see in this exercise is a political one, not one of finding true value or knowing the reality of our gender landscape.


Asking everyone how they practice feminism seemed a bit useless, since I can hardly attack them on their practices without first determining their beliefs. Besides, the central issue that is shaping the third wave of feminism is the definition of feminism. Rather than the solid unification found in the early first wave (suffragists) or second wave (60's and 70's feminists) that was formed surrounding key political issues, the third wave feminists are finding themselves spread out across the political spectrum. When you have movements like Feminists for Life, Cake, ecofeminism, and the opt-out revolution, it becomes difficult to say which one is seriously feminist, and which one isn't. Are they all just because they say they are? The third wave is trying to get at the heart of this matter.
So, asking everyone their definitions of feminism, and what a "perfect" feminist might be is revelatory into the ultimate perceived goal of feminism. In essence, what do you believe feminism should be doing/achieving? This is a worthwhile aspect of debate, since it mirrors exactly what feminist scholars are doing right now.

_____________________
"Née pour venger mon sexe et maîtriser le vôtre."
--La Marquise de Merteuil
TMB
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 14, 2007
Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 240
Posted 11/12/07 - 05:28 AM:
quote post
#12
Snafu, you said,

Asking everyone how they practice feminism seemed a bit useless, since I can hardly attack them on their practices without first determining their beliefs. Besides, the central issue that is shaping the third wave of feminism is the definition of feminism. Rather than the solid unification found in the early first wave (suffragists) or second wave (60's and 70's feminists) that was formed surrounding key political issues, the third wave feminists are finding themselves spread out across the political spectrum. When you have movements like Feminists for Life, Cake, ecofeminism, and the opt-out revolution, it becomes difficult to say which one is seriously feminist, and which one isn't. Are they all just because they say they are? The third wave is trying to get at the heart of this matter.
So, asking everyone their definitions of feminism, and what a "perfect" feminist might be is revelatory into the ultimate perceived goal of feminism. In essence, what do you believe feminism should be doing/achieving? This is a worthwhile aspect of debate, since it mirrors exactly what feminist scholars are doing right now.


This makes more sense. By approaching from the belief held and then contrsucting something that is more effective I agree with.

In my view, the need is to understand the base values on which inequity can be assessed, in such a way that you have evaluate some of the superficial, social manifestations and break it down to some core value (or values), and get a more accurate view of where inequity exists.

This approach might not be possible. It seems likely that our drive for power is greater than our drive to understand our reality. I suspect that in the process of striving for control we unconsciously know the reality, but might not publicise this for fear of losing some power. This applies to both men and women.
Petunia
silent muse
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 24, 2005
Location: Cold North, brrrrrrr
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 164
Posted 11/13/07 - 05:17 PM:
quote post
#13
For me feminism is simply being open to what women are capable of doing and not pre-defining them. It is about approaching women without stereotypes. It should be a subset of approaching all people in this way - not limiting their potential before they have opportunity to demonstrate that potential.

Professionally I have experienced some negative gender bias. Growing up with a single mother, our family didn't have the same degree of social power that a family with a male figurehead typically had in that time and culture. However, I don't see anything constructive about taking a victim stance. I'm okay with having certain things more difficult, because that way I get to demonstrate how I am put together. Life by its nature is not fair. It is whatever it is. For me feminism is knowing myself well enough to know where my hidden strengths lie, and to use these strengths to counter false assumptions about women.

_____________________
Peer over the precipice
TMB
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 14, 2007
Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 240
Posted 11/14/07 - 04:06 AM:
quote post
#14
Petunia, you say,

For me feminism is simply being open to what women are capable of doing and not pre-defining them. It is about approaching women without stereotypes. It should be a subset of approaching all people in this way - not limiting their potential before they have opportunity to demonstrate that potential.


I like the idea, however I do not believe this is possible except on a very limited and inefficient way. If we are to evalute everyone on all their merits, avoiding any preconceptions, this means one should not even take a position on their gender. This is an extreme position, however we are reliant on society to provide us with information on many things about members of society. If this infromation was individually specific we could not process such a volume of information. Even with people we know well, we cannot possibly understand them fully, most of us do not even understand our own potential. Without knowing all about someone we should be precluded from making any judgments about the unknown areas.

Even the idea of doing this is in itself a social stereotype. That we should approach people on this basis, is politically good, because it keeps us out of trouble and conflict with others to a high degree. Society itself, has given us this stereotype that we are actually capable of this, the stereotype that we ought to be capable of this. When we fail to do this, we should feel that we have failed in some way, and so are wary of admitting it to others.

Professionally I have experienced some negative gender bias. Growing up with a single mother, our family didn't have the same degree of social power that a family with a male figurehead typically had in that time and culture. However, I don't see anything constructive about taking a victim stance. I'm okay with having certain things more difficult, because that way I get to demonstrate how I am put together. Life by its nature is not fair. It is whatever it is. For me feminism is knowing myself well enough to know where my hidden strengths lie, and to use these strengths to counter false assumptions about women.


I have seen or experienced negative bias and positive bias on most things. Gender, age, race, nationality, health, ability, martial status, sexual preference. I put this down to the fact that most people are not capable of knowing the facts about all, or indeed many situations. So they make assumptions and operating in their own interest and self centric view, they show bias. I include myself in this judgment.

I agree that life is not fair, and would go further. People are not fair either, and will usually put their own self interest, and those of family, ahead of others. If this means being unfair, they will usually try and conceal this fact. This does not mean that everyone is like this all the time, probably just most people, most of the time. You countering false assumptions about yourself and women, will encounter others doing exactly the same as you. The difference is that we do not all care about each other, as much as we care about ourselves. This means we get into power struggles like the gender debate.

The gender debate appears different to most other forms of power struggle based upon a difference. In all other selfish scenarios, there is not the same complementary role that male and female share. In race, nation, religion, sexual orientation, these have no true dependence on others. Parent child relationships are similar. but the power balance is very different.

This means that gender conflict has an unavoidable tension between selfish individualism, and the urges that attract us, because we want and need each other, driven by the biology that often overrides our intellect.

Feminism will do whatever it can to take advanatge and better the gender relative to men, regardless of the true state of equality. It is weakened by the conflict between heterosexual women competing for men, but still women hold this aspect together far better than men do.
PeeGee
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 05, 2003
Location: I am omnipresent
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 158
Posted 11/14/07 - 12:56 PM:
quote post
#15
I don't agree with some of the established definitions. One of them has all feminists (by definition) hold the belief that the world is largely patriarchal. Are we to understand that if suddenly the world wasn't (mostly) patriarchal feminists cannot exist? I don't think so. But that's just one tiny semantics problem.

My definition of feminism is simply the same as masculism, except the focus on females. I think it works. Wikipedia's one paragraph summary of masculism is:

Masculism (also referred to as masculinism) consists of social theories, political movements, and moral philosophies primarily based on the experiences of men. Although masculism provides a general critique of social relations, many of its active proponents also seek to analyze gender inequality and promote men's rights, interests, and issues.


Replace 'men' with 'women' and you have what I hope is proper feminism. Anything else is too militant for me, and I think most females my generation (I'm 28) would agree to some degree. I also prefer the above definition (with men replaced with women) because it doesn't focus the definition with specific goals, which I have come to associate with feminism. Gender equity is a goal. Feminism gives me the impression they want the pendulum swing in their favor, which by default makes men in a position to revolt (using the same rationale). A more neutral definition eliminates these problems and also makes the philosophy less militant, which I don't think is necessary (arguable as it is)

_____________________
The individual has always had to struggle to
keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it,
you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened.
But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.
wuliheron
Assistant Professor
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 341
Posted 11/15/07 - 07:58 AM:
quote post
#16
The meaning of words changes with the context. Hence feminism in some third world countries means you advocate the right for women to work for a living, drive a car, show their face in public, etc.

However, I would like to interject here that the modern feminist movement in the developed world has largely revolved around and re-invigorated anarchist and consensual philosophies as alternatives to the more contentious democratic ones that have been more popular among other progressive movements. Since their inception in the feminist movement, these philosophies have spread in popularity to some of the most unlikely organisations, such as corporate america.
unenlightened
Mysteriosopher
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 813
Posted 11/15/07 - 11:59 AM:
quote post
#17
In the context of these hallowed web-pages, I beg to suggest that there is a role for feminism (and others) to question the philosophical heritage of 'the dead white males', and perhaps in particular the 'enlightenment' idea of the rational self-interested individual. For a potentially pregnant, nursing, pushchair wielding woman, this philosophical individuation is already a violation - but there is hardly a thread here that could not be subjected to an illuminating feminist critique - a woman's work is never done, and even more seldom paid for.

_____________________
The observer is the observed. J Krishnamurti

"Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys
Exigency
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2007
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 77
Posted 11/15/07 - 12:14 PM:
quote post
#18
Paul wrote:
At any rate, pregnancy is the one and only example you've given. It hardly justifies the vast world full of separate rules which you're implying. And who knows, it may not be too many years until men can be pregnant. There's no point in making rules that specify they can only apply to one gender, even if they usually do. And these differences are of course just extensions of common sense rules like "make reasonable accomidations for all medical conditions" which are not gender-specific.


Okin argues that pregnancy is the most obvious example. However, society is also structured in ways towards the role of mother-care and father-work. This means that women need different rights, or different considerations, for example, in divorce, it isn't enough to split the house 50:50 and for the father to pay some child support for a pre-determined amount of time. The most valuable asset of a family is the work career which is faciltated through mother caring for children and father going to work, and is reinforced through the structure of society. Therefore, in the event of divorce, the mother is far worse off than the father. I kind of argued her point wrong to begin with. She argues that there are only certain things women can do, such as carry children and lactate, and that because of this, society is structured towards that mother-care dynamic which is damaging to women and needs to be address. Ultimately, questions of gender shouldn't arise, as being female and being male should be seen as irrelevent to roles in society.
TMB
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 14, 2007
Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 240
Posted 11/17/07 - 05:30 AM:
quote post
#19
Paul, you say



Most of what people think of as differences -- like the supposedly different types of intelligence aptitudes -- has been shown either wrong or highly suspect by science. More importantly, such things are statistical averages and not rules.


What is the range of the things that people consider as differences. You have mentioned intelligence as one, what are the others, and which ones do you believe are not valid?

we need to consider not only biological differences, but differences that are permanently embedded in a society's culture. Women aren't allowed on front lines in American wars not because they're incompetent (my Navy sister would certainly attest to that fact) but because American men are socialized to protect women, male soldiers will often sacrifice their lives to save a female comrade.[/quote]

If I read this correctly Snafu is using her sister as the validation that all women in wars are not incompetent, relative to men. Using an anecdoate as evidence aside, what exactly defines competence on the front line of battle? I would imagine that the effective ability to kill the enemy, with minimal equipment, at lowest cost to all resources might fit this, if we believe that annihilation of the enemy, at lowest cost is the objective. Even though there are remote weapons, there appear to be plenty of gunfire injuries, tanks, grenades etc are used in Iraq. Doing this with minimal fuss and indifference all appear to be competence in this model. Or would we consider a competent front liner to be one that avoids bloodshed on both sides, and is able to negotiate a bloodless war and peace with the opposition, and enter into harmonious relations? Without a clear view of what we judge to be of value in soldiers, how can we judge gender differences. By whose subjective standards shall we judge this?

Countries like Israel (despite being religiously-based and conservative in many ways) find no trouble putting women on the front lines. America's current wars don't have front lines of course (when there are front lines, they're actually safer since it means conventional war at which we always win easily). Women are involved in the combat and frequently killed. The exclusion from the front lines is nothing more than lip serice to appease people like you. My poor googling skills show 33 killed and 240 women injured in Iraq as of early 2005, so presumably several times more by now, despite composing only 14% of the army according to other googling, and presumably a smaller percentage of combat forces.


You appear to be suggesting that Israel fields women as much as they do men, and presuambly this implies casualty rates are similar? Excuse me for saying this but your information on this does not present like you are an expert on this or well educated on this topic. Your figures from the US troops in Iraq also seem to be based on limited research. I would suggest that to get a perspective on something like this (which I do not have either), is to cover all modern armies at war, across countries. My limited googling skills gave me the idea this is not a simple exercise. If you are qualified to judge this, then I apologise, and ask for some more meat and facts on this. It appears that although women are being taken into the armed forces, in the US at least the current laws prevent them from being exposed to combat situations.

The total death toll in Iraq through to Sept 2006 is just under 3000, this means what something over 1% of casualties are women. The figures I found included accidents, suicides, as well as from enemy engagement.

Israel does not appear to put women into combat either, in 2005 around 2% were in combat positions. See this reference on how increased exposure to masculine roles in the army changes the behavior of the women, despite them still not being significant in combat positions.

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6742045/W...

[quote]Your rather offensive stereotype of american men as chivalrybots from the 17th century simply doesn't hold true in the real world. I cannot imagine a guy in a war situation who has trained with both men and women as equals being so much more likely to protect the woman (if he has bias it'll be toward saving his friends). Self-sacrifice for the sake of other men in time of war does happen, and is generally applauded and rewarded with posthumous decorations rather than frowned on, so calling it a problem is silly. The idea that women are utterly irresistable to the point of guys happily piling on the gernade 20 deep is absurd and reeks of sexism. I've read Coulter-type conservatives argue that women would be "distracting" because men can't help but fall in love with them and romance hinders combat... that's absurd enough, but you've taken it to a new extreme which even the conservative lunatic fringe won't touch.


If you can establish with some credibility that wartime armies operate with plenty of women in their ranks, and in the combat line (not my impression), how are you going to support your view of their behavior? Because you cannot imagine something? From my own experience in western and developing countries doing stereotypical activity (war not being one of them), I see plenty of chivalry given by men and taken from women. I see men assisting women to change punctures, not the other way around. I still see women behaving and looking quite feminie and using plenty of wiles in business, and men being seduced by this (into signing contracts for exmaple). Formal work like firefighting is still the domain of men. There are no formal laws to prevent women initiating their own female firefighting forces to add to this scarce and risky resource. Both genders are voting with their feet. There are exceptions, but these seem to highlight the real differences. Issues with sexual behavior in the forces does appear to be a major problem, because if you throw men and women together into stressful situations, you will get plenty of sexual activity. I have seen it often distract people in the workplace, if anything, the army will be even more so.

It appears that a number of countries do draft women, Eritrea, North Korea, Israel, but this is not the same as assigning them to combat positions. I could not find references that showed more than around 5 countries.It appears that no western countries have women in combat positions, there are probably others that do. However, the example of Israel as one with women in combat is misleading.

Men are not automotauns who worship women. Men have brains, believe it or not. The overwhealming majority of men do not try to be paternal protectors of co-workers on a gender basis -- if they did then women would have to be kicked out of the business world too in order to keep men undistracted -- you may as well just stick the women in burquas to protect men from their influence. If someone comes at you with a knife on the street, I'm running away, not taking the knife for you -- and so are 99% of other men.


This is not about being automatons, It is about having our behavior influenced by hormones and genes, things that override rational minds on a regular basis. Women do manage to get a form of protection from senior males in business, this often helps them perform well on interactive courses. It also limits their progress, because dominant men want to stay that way, and they are more comfortable with women who are not after their job. Once again, business behavior in western countries show that males and females are more likely to assume stereotypical roles. There are plenty of men who do not risk their lives to assist strange women, but the ones that do assist in violent situations are almost always men, not women.

Fortunately here in the 21st century most people realize that, so even the regressive bastion of intolerance that is the american millitary leadership (the soldiers aren't the problem) has moved onward to a great extent -- though it still believes gay men in the ranks will pile on gernades 20 deep out of love for men apparently -- and has observed a complete lack of any problems with the thousands of women serving on dangerous duty in Iraq and Afghanistan as we speak. We're not talking about managing to hope with the stream of protective men here, we're talking about absolutely zero issues to my knowledge. If you can cite an article where men and women fighting togeather has hindered the combat operation, please do. Just one surely isn't much to ask when you're insisting it's a huge widespread problem which calls for making separate gender-specific rules. You're just rehashing a new version of the argument made last century that racial integration would destroy the millitary since it's impossible for different races to get along.


This is not a question if things cannot change around gender, however the relationship between men and women is quite different to one between races. One race does not need another, men and women are hand and glove, without one of them the other will disappear (at least until we succeed in mass asexual reproduction). And racial issues still exist in all spheres, just as individual conflict also exists. Producing studies around men and women in combat are probably not top priority, however there is anecdotal support for this.

You could just as easly be arguing that women as negotiators or CEOs or just as co-workers would be disastrous because men would be unable to pull off the sometimes harsh confrontations of the business world against a woman. Back in reality, men compete with women every day and don't cede them any chivalrous advantage. Welcome to the 21st century... or the 20th for that matter.


Without knowing your experience or reference to take this position, it is hard to discuss. I have seen numerous instances in corporate and small business in western, african and eastern countries where genders are treated differently. Even when the legislation measures them no differently, people still recognise and act upon the differences in many ways. How we do this has changed significantly over the years, and is rebalancing in many areas, however much of the sexual tension and interplay between the genders is being swept under the carpet. It pops up on a regular basis in business, in the home, in sport, and in the military.






Snafu




There are differences that are being proven through science. As I stated, they are extremely subtle. Science has found that women have more neural connectors between the left and right sides of their brains, enabling them to be better multi-taskers (however, with Gen Y this multi-tasking gap between the sexes is quickly closing). Deborah Tannen--a highly-regarded social scientist and feminist--has also found that women communicate for different purposes than men, and in different ways (although it's unclear whether this is socially or biologically-influenced behavior). It's not anti-feminist nowadays to admit that there are biological differences between men and women. I know a lot of feminists today resist these kinds of findings, but it seems as though they share a little too much with religious fundamentalists refusing to believe that dinosaurs existed because it's more convenient for them to say otherwise. I don't believe there's much good in fighting what science has shown. I do believe in approaching it with a grain of salt, however.


Finding differences in brain biology should not come as too much of a suprise. Individuals of the same sex have brain functions and capacity that vary greatly. Men and womn have very different biology in many aspects. The primary sex organs, secondary sexual features like body hair, musculature, vision, susceptibility to disease. It would be very strange if our brains were identical. Our bodies have evolved for different and specialised functions, the brains have as well.

To that end, I've seen nothing in scientific research thus far to suggest that there is anything significant to these differences--they are (as I said) rather subtle. Their importance is mostly in allowing us to understand each sex, not legislate or oppress them. I can't think of a single thing that's been shown to be a biological difference between sexes as of yet to merit some kind of special right. However, if something came up, I think it would be fair to give special consideration to it legally (the same way American law grants special consideration for parents who kill in defense of their children's lives--a "privilege" (if you will) that is not granted to other people who kill in defense of others). Again, I don't see anything yet that would be worthy of this kind of consideration, but I would rather not rule it out since this field of science is still rather new.


I am not sure what you mean by subtle. The best way to understand the differences is to define what they are and what we use them for. There appear to be differences in the connections between the brain lobes, meaning that a woman is better able to integrate the various aspects of the brain. The human brain is thought to have evolved through some distinct phases from our ancestors. These 3 division are supposed to account for different functions. The most human part, the forebrain is supposed to responsible for conscious thought, moral values etc. Men appear to be able to seperate the operations of their mind better than women, this appears to account for the ability to seperate rational thought from feelings. This idea is very political and has been seen as an insult to women, and used to discriminate against them. It does however make sense in evolutionary terms. Women also have better verbal skills than men, once again this is far better spread across various parts of the brain, whereas in men is is more fixed and localised. Women have poorer spatial skills than men, one of the reasons men seem to dominate professions like air traffic controllers. Women have better peripheral vision than men, who have better long distance focussed vision. Once agin, this can be explained in evolutionary terms.

Without reference to all the work that has been done on this subject, and no doubt some information will be squashed because it sounds ugly, and we will change our views, and we agree that these are general differences between the genders, its clear that different brains are part of the reality. I am not sure why you think this field of science is new and the differences appear subtle. I have not done any specific research on brain differences, however most human science and sociology books will cover aspects of this. I think if you went looking, you would find plenty of material.

Believe you me, I was livid when New York State decided it's public schools needed to restrict the dress code (surprisingly directed almost entirely at girls' fashion) in order to "prevent violence and classroom distraction." This includes short skirts and spaghetti-strap tank tops, because apparently a bra strap has caused gang wars and is the sole reason for why boys aren't paying attention in Calculus. Allow me to channel my high-school self: Puh-leeze.


I am not sure if you are a parent, or what your school days were like, or your perceptions of school boys. I have teenage and subteeneage daughters, and I am fascinated to see just how important the social structures are, almost life and death. To spend hours preparing your hair for a school social, or large quantities of money on a dress. I watch the other kids at school and its not unique to my daughter, or to the kids in one country. I also watch young men, risking and sometimes losing their life showing off in front of girls or competing with their mates. The forces generated by gender tension are often life and death. Many young girls cause major damage to their bodies through eating disorders caused in the main by the inability to control their lives, through the social perception of their bodies, so they distort it in order to regain an illusion of control. Sydney (Australia) had some ethnic gang riots a couple of years ago. One of the instigating factors was the women stirring the men up to fight, sometimes in subtle ways. My message here is that you should not imagine that our social structures and politics are built around high ideals, mostly they come down to some simple biological drivers, sex being one of them. I have watched young male baboons challenge the dominant troupe male, just to gain status in order to mate with the females. Every time I watch young human males taking risks, fighting, striving for status, the baboon images come flashing back.

What I'm getting at with the military example is an example of how the government treats one sex differently from the other because of how the two interact. It's not a fair law, and I'm strongly opposed to the idea that women are kept from front lines and that they are not drafted. I believe it still stands today that women don't fight on front lines--although, as you say, there hardly are any nowadays. I know the reason for it was as I said: they believed that an entire platoon would die just so a female comrade lived.


This is a gross simplification of the mechanisms behind this. Most explanations for this behavior are political and dumbed down for public consumption. The military is an example of treating the sexes differently, but there are many others. The question is, should we treat different things differently, and in what way, and in what way does it become antisocial and dysfunctional? It is an easy stance to say that all women should be equal in the front lines, however you are not likely to tested on this one. Its a good politcal stance to take, and still not risk it actually happening. I have had friends maimed and killed in war, and its very ugly. If we struggle with women boxing and doing mixed martial arts contests, do you think we have the stomach (in the west at least) with women dying in the same numbers as men? Its a hypothetical scenario and you will be safe lobbying for it to happen, because I doubt veyr much that society would tolerate this.

I know women are on front lines in dozens of other countries--Israel being one of them, although I know there are more


Are there? Which countries have women equally in combat with their men, as front line soldiers? You think there are dozens, I would like you to tell me which these countries are.

And I'm sure most men in the military do not behave as such anymore (although you'd be surprised at the protective nature men have in the military towards women. They might as well be in feudal England.). I don't think men are a bunch of dumb neanderthals who cannot resist the wiles of a woman. And even if they were, I wouldn't punish the women for it. You have to remember, I'm not the one who implemented this rule of "no women on the front lines." I'm merely stating the reason why someone did it. There's a difference between explaining a reason and defending one. I was just using it as an example of how we've treated the sexes differently because of socialized behavior. I imagine at one time, it was a serious concern for the military. (The 1950's attitude toward interaction between the two sexes seems especially suspect.) However, as far as social change is concerned, the military is often the last bastion of conservativism. I doubt it's really all that serious of a problem now. But, then again, you'd be surprised at the kinds of men who join the military: my sister is getting cock-blocked by her fellow sailors because they don't want anybody breaking her heart. (Seriously, they are physically protecting her--they surround her during meal time and push away any guy who tries to talk to her. One might imagine a few of these guys would possibly take a grenade for her.)


Discounting male behavior as neanderthal does not help us to understand the primal mechanisms that drive some of our behavior. Lets take another exampe and see how we can understand a person driven by purely emotive and non thinking behavior. Love. We uphold the notion of romantic love, and incredibly understand almost nothing about it, except we know it to be self-evidently good as something to be praised and sought after. Under the mantle of love we have people (we say they are rational), do some very foolish things, go without sleep, lose concentration, find a particular person who unsettles their mind, their feelings, and even find that when apart from them have difficulty in operating normally or being happy. They can lose or make money just for that person, become ill, even klill themselves in extremes. If you are looking for strange behavior between men and women, we have examples around us everyday. The subjugation of our mind by a hormonal rush does pass and as people get older they are able to better manage their emotions (usually), and have far less hormones than before. Not everyone does this, and not everyone grows out of it, but it illustrates that men and women have very mindless and intense behavior. I could apply the same analysis to love for our children. It has differences, but once again our biology rules us very strongly. Society modifies some of this behavior, but biology underpins it. We might sneer at some forms of behavior and throw some political stones, but we all operate pretty much on the non thinking parts of our systems.

Women and men have biological differences, although science has yet to prove anything that would merit giving special consideration to either sex.


Without knowing what you consider as special merit its hard to argue this. Its easy to see that we do give special considerations to both sexes under certain circumstances. An obvious one of the sex discrimination in sport. Women are kept seperate from men in all Olympic events. If they were not, apart from some of the less quantitative events like gymnatsics and diving, women would be excluded from all track, all field, all swimming events. Even the womens record holders do not give them qualifying times for the mens events. Golf, tennis, the list is endless, where we give females special consideration.

If you want to get pedantic, focus on mens and womens illnesses specifically by gender. Even though a small number of men get breast cancer, this is a disease where women are clearly defined as the recipent of health care, research etc. Likewise for men with prostate cancer (no women get this). Once again this seems like special merit to me.

As far as the brain is concerned, this is a very political area, however perhaps some of the outcomes occcur naturally. As I said selection for air traffic controllers appears to favor men almost exclusively. If women have better social and verbal skills, perhaps this is why they dominate as speech therapists?

However, baseline equality runs the risk of hurting more than helping in the event that a difference between the sexes is, in fact biological, and merits giving special legal consideration. Also, it needs to be remembered that while most differences between the sexes are socialized, it does not change the fact that they exist (albeit on a temporary and superficial scale).


What does this mean? What differences are socialised that have no basis in biology? And which ones do you imagine are superficial and temporary? Will the better connections in womens brains be matched in mens quite soon? Will this happen through a social process? Will it be a quick one, and be able to help me in the next few years or decades? Will women be socialised into getting prostate cancer and more body hair? Will the effects of additional testosterone on mens behavior be matched by social influences upon women? There is plenty of influence that society has upon our behavior and the way it treats our diefferences, but do not get confused by those things that are fundamental differences, and have many social mechanisms arising from them.

Therefore, we need to give special consideration for these socialized differences, since they are almost as difficult to change as biological ones. I cannot think of an example outside of the outdated military example, but I imagine there are still a few in existence. Maybe there are none anymore, or at least any that would merit special consideration given to either sex.


Once again I am not quite sure what you are saying here. You seem to be saying that there are no examples of socialised differences outside the military. I also do not know how you make the distinction between sociological differences that have come about because of a biological difference. An simple example might be that men are more inclined to be aggressors in rape situations, and women the victims. This is based upon obvious physical differences. As a result of this biological difference, different social rules and laws exist to restrict men from dealing with girls. People might be more comfortable with teenage girls employed as babysitters than teenage boys. Another example is the social structure that arises around childbirth. From a biological view, men are not capable of giving birth. Because women give birth social structures arise around the following stages of child rearing, and men and women play quite different roles. There is plenty of debate that the biology of childbirth should not restrict women to be solely responsible for raising children, but it still provides a common example of biology underpinning culture.

Another exmaple is the gender discrimination that exists in sport. Women are allowed to compete in a parallel event to the men, as if they competed with men they would be excluded from the sports at elite levels. However, social gender pressure has meant that the prize money for events like Wimbledon are now equal for men and owmen. Here a biological difference created different treatement, and social forces achieved equal reward.

Perhaps some examples exist where a social gender scenario exists, that has no biological basis, but these are not likely to be significant or sustaining.

If not, well, that's why I'm suggesting we apply a bit of caution before we say the law should be blind to sex. Overly progressive laws can be just as oppressive as overly conservative ones.


This I agree with. I would say that a rational approach would be to do this, however the debate between men and women is not rational, it is political, and although some arguments get offered to support the position, I do not think anyone is that concerned with the facts, the critical incentive is to get more control over their destiny, both for men and women.
tomv
Bee Hive Resident
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 26, 2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 19
Posted 03/27/08 - 10:01 AM:
quote post
#20
Exigency wrote:
Women must have specific rights that men don't, the rights to, for example, paid maternity leave, to truely be in a just society which respects the unique talents of the gender.


I live in Australia (which is surprisingly very behind the rest of the developed world when it comes to human rights) and it is only now talking about paid maternity leave. I discussed this issue with my feminist girlfriend (I'm male) and at first, I did not understand why she didn't support it. But then she told me there in Australia, 70% of casual staff are women - casual staff have absolutely no rights beyond their hourly pay. On top of all that, just like in other countries, women do not hold enough professional positions in which they would benefit from maternity leave. So when Australia is discussing paid maternity leave, it is only really giving more help to those people who really don't need any. And those women who are struggling are once again getting less.
And as for my (male viewpoint) definition of feminism, I believe that it is notihng more than equal rights activism - and in that sense, we have a long way to go.
What I do quite often wonder about is whether or not it could ever be achieved because of the physical limitations that are placed on women (in the sense that they make babies). From a Machiavellian point of view, no - women are not ruthless and cruel and evil enough. But from a Mandela-, Gandhi-an point of view, yes, it is possible.

_____________________
"The door is open, the road transformed. The exit code to civilisation is hacked beyond despair, chased by the moon toward the freeing sun, on our journey to light. This is an open plea to the beautiful insanity of your hearts. It is time to consummate the kiss of oblivion into the obsidian of love!"
- Serj Tankian
The_Rational_Animal
Übermensch
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 21, 2008
Location: München, Germany
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 137
Posted 05/06/08 - 08:06 PM:
quote post
#21
I can't tell whether feminism wants equal rights or more rights than men (for their "unique talents"). Which one is it?

Feminism is a rather confusing topic to me. They have concocted an entirely new system of metaphysics and aesthetic judgement. It smells to me like the deconstructivist nonsense that dominates/d postmodern philosophy. There are strong strands of collectivism in today's feminism. These strands of thought treat men and women as hostile classes. Some infamously ascribe radically different thought patterns to men and women as such. I reject such group-thinking. Each individual should be judged based on character, actions, and ability, not merely on the person's sex.

A woman's place is where she chooses to make it. A women needs to pursue relationships based on mutual respect and the honest exchange of value-for-value. She needs to engage in a career of productive work. She needs friendship and love. Child-rearing may be an important part of her life, but if she so chooses she should approach raising children with the seriousness of engaging in serious work. In short, there is no objective basis for restricting women's choices based merely on their sex. Like all individuals, women have the political right and the moral need to be free and choose their own courses in life.


Edited by The_Rational_Animal on 05/07/08 - 08:40 AM

_____________________
"Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." ~Ayn Rand
Goaswerfraiejen
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 04, 2006
Location: Canada
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 415
Posted 05/06/08 - 09:17 PM:
quote post
#22
The_Rational_Animal wrote:
I can't tell whether feminism wants equal rights or more rights than men (for their "unique talents"). Which one is it?




Agreed. I had to read a great deal of feminist literature for my undergraduate work, and man... Far too much of it just reversed the same situation it decried. And from that perspective, to point such a thing out is just to prove the point that the patriarchal male feels threatened by the female's grip on power and so on. This kind of of aggressive rhetoric does the "cause" more harm than good, in my opinion.

In any case, my vote goes to the masculism-definition. I wholeheartedly agree on that point.
TMB
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 14, 2007
Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 240
Posted 05/08/08 - 04:40 PM:
quote post
#23
Rational Animal, you said

These strands of thought treat men and women as hostile classes. Some infamously ascribe radically different thought patterns to men and women as such. I reject such group-thinking. Each individual should be judged based on character, actions, and ability, not merely on the person's sex.


you do not think that men and women have some hostile elements in their interdependence? Why not? I like the idea of treating individuals on the basis on this basis, but how does this actually work?
Download thread as


You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.

Contact the Administration

25 total queries
This page was created in 21.72 seconds
Memory used: 6821660 bytes
Server Status: time since last reboot is 47 days, 15:49, load average: 4.61, 3.46, 2.92