I have a problem with Feminism

[lunanueva]

I was a minor but I wish I had double majored with it. I agree with everything you've said in this thread as well! Great minds think alike, eh? Where did you go to undergrad?

UCLA. Still contemplating going back for grad school. Don't know who would want me though!!! You?

 

[Rogue Robot]

^ you never know until you try.

 

[lunanueva]

^I know I know. The part of me that is afraid of rejection is hindering me. I'm working on that part of myself.

 

[ebola?]

I will warn you, I am a male feminist, and maybe that far left-winger you dislike.

That isn't what feminism about. Feminism is the study of the female gender in relation to society. Some schools of thought say that women and men are exactly the same. Others recognize a difference in essence and mode of being. With alot of middle ground in between.

exactly right. I define feminism, in the wide sense, as the push to enact equal freedoms for members of both sexes (political, economic, and social), with a focus on overturning patriarchy.

Maybe, or maybe it has something to do with Testosterone, a steroid hormone. What happens when bodybuilders start boosting up their testosterone, I dunno, things like Roid rage. Give a woman the same hormones and you will see similar aggressive behaviour. Thats not socialization.

While I will concede that testosterone matters, the primary direction of causation (experiences and behavior can modify levels of testosterone) and the relative importance of testosterone vs. cultural roles is unclear. There aren't enough women supplementing testosterone to make this clear, nor would such evidence be definitive.

It seems to me ridiculus that even in just the past 100,000 years of evolution that the different daily tasks of living for the diferent sexs, ie hunting or cooking/gathering hasnt had an effect on our respective biologys yet I have been abused by militant feminist Nazis for suggesting that woman and men are equal but different. Nothing more, nothing less.

You are not in a position to tease apart cultural adaptation (which looms large in humanity's evolutionarily brief history) from Darwinian evolution leading to sexual differentiation. If anything, we've seen evolution adapting humans into very malleable creatures. Slandering feminists as "Nazis" won't help you too much.

It's then quite funny to use the term 'feminism', i.e. only mentioning one side of the coin. Egalitarianism is a much better term.

Well, most gendered oppression in our society benefits (some) men, or disproportionately hinders (some) women. Hence the focus.

I was a school student throughout the 80's and 90's in a Western liberal democracy. Girls that went to my school had every opportunity that we did.

Women have almost caught up or superseded men in educational attainment. This lends support to the notion that disparities in economic and political power are due to gendered oppression.

Are the men in your life really just out to keep you down?

That there is oppression does not entail that it is willful or self-conscious.

the only problem i have with some feminist is that they claim to hate men.....not sure what the specific term is, but it is the equivalent of misogyny....not cool at all....but, i'm sure they validate their belief somehow.....

This would be "misandrony". I have never met such feminists, even though I have professional relationships with fifty or more feminists.

That being said, I don't think it's discrimination to accept that there are some jobs that men simply do better, and vice versa.

As was said, that men, on average, do better at some jobs than women (and vice versa) does not mean that individuals who deviate from the dominant gendered pattern should be overlooked, let alone discriminated against, nor does it point toward the sources of these differences.

Alot of the university feminists I've come across were of the Marxist sort. Nothing against Marxism but it is one of the first models to use the concept of an oppressor. Not exactly a frame where I could objectively discuss my views on gender roles.

I think that Marxism that claims most (let alone all) oppression is willful, overt strategy misunderstands Marx quite severely.

Feminism is liek, sooo 1970's. Get with the times! Queer Theory is what's in right now!

You're kinda right, although the two converge in post-Butlerian whatever-studies (not that anyone can understand Butler).

I am gay and they talk about fucking oppression? But where I fall short in their eyes is that even though I am gay, I am quite masculine as opposed to the wimpy little beaten puppydogs of guys that follow them around.

I would be surprised that self-conscious feminists would be so unthinkingly heteronormative.

I will warn you, I am a male feminist, and maybe that far left-winger you dislike.

That isn't what feminism about. Feminism is the study of the female gender in relation to society. Some schools of thought say that women and men are exactly the same. Others recognize a difference in essence and mode of being. With alot of middle ground in between.

exactly right. I define feminism, in the wide sense, as the push to enact equal freedoms for members of both sexes (political, economic, and social), with a focus on overturning patriarchy.

Maybe, or maybe it has something to do with Testosterone, a steroid hormone. What happens when bodybuilders start boosting up their testosterone, I dunno, things like Roid rage. Give a woman the same hormones and you will see similar aggressive behaviour. Thats not socialization.

While I will concede that testosterone matters, the primary direction of causation (experiences and behavior can modify levels of testosterone) and the relative importance of testosterone vs. cultural roles is unclear. There aren't enough women supplementing testosterone to make this clear, nor would such evidence be definitive.

It seems to me ridiculus that even in just the past 100,000 years of evolution that the different daily tasks of living for the diferent sexs, ie hunting or cooking/gathering hasnt had an effect on our respective biologys yet I have been abused by militant feminist Nazis for suggesting that woman and men are equal but different. Nothing more, nothing less.

You are not in a position to tease apart cultural adaptation (which looms large in humanity's evolutionarily brief history) from Darwinian evolution leading to sexual differentiation. If anything, we've seen evolution adapting humans into very malleable creatures. Slandering feminists as "Nazis" won't help you too much.

It's then quite funny to use the term 'feminism', i.e. only mentioning one side of the coin. Egalitarianism is a much better term.

Well, most gendered oppression in our society benefits (some) men, or disproportionately hinders (some) women. Hence the focus.

I was a school student throughout the 80's and 90's in a Western liberal democracy. Girls that went to my school had every opportunity that we did.

Women have almost caught up or superseded men in educational attainment. This lends support to the notion that disparities in economic and political power are due to gendered oppression.

Are the men in your life really just out to keep you down?

That there is oppression does not entail that it is willful or self-conscious.

the only problem i have with some feminist is that they claim to hate men.....not sure what the specific term is, but it is the equivalent of misogyny....not cool at all....but, i'm sure they validate their belief somehow.....

This would be "misandrony". I have never met such feminists, even though I have professional relationships with fifty or more feminists.

That being said, I don't think it's discrimination to accept that there are some jobs that men simply do better, and vice versa.

As was said, that men, on average, do better at some jobs than women (and vice versa) does not mean that individuals who deviate from the dominant gendered pattern should be overlooked, let alone discriminated against, nor does it point toward the sources of these differences.

Alot of the university feminists I've come across were of the Marxist sort. Nothing against Marxism but it is one of the first models to use the concept of an oppressor. Not exactly a frame where I could objectively discuss my views on gender roles.

I think that Marxism that claims most (let alone all) oppression is willful, overt strategy misunderstands Marx quite severely.

Feminism is liek, sooo 1970's. Get with the times! Queer Theory is what's in right now!

You're kinda right, although the two converge in post-Butlerian whatever-studies (not that anyone can understand Butler).

I am gay and they talk about fucking oppression? But where I fall short in their eyes is that even though I am gay, I am quite masculine as opposed to the wimpy little beaten puppydogs of guys that follow them around.

I would be surprised that self-conscious feminists would be so unthinkingly heteronormative.

I will warn you, I am a male feminist, and maybe that far left-winger you dislike.

That isn't what feminism about. Feminism is the study of the female gender in relation to society. Some schools of thought say that women and men are exactly the same. Others recognize a difference in essence and mode of being. With alot of middle ground in between.

exactly right. I define feminism, in the wide sense, as the push to enact equal freedoms for members of both sexes (political, economic, and social), with a focus on overturning patriarchy.

Maybe, or maybe it has something to do with Testosterone, a steroid hormone. What happens when bodybuilders start boosting up their testosterone, I dunno, things like Roid rage. Give a woman the same hormones and you will see similar aggressive behaviour. Thats not socialization.

While I will concede that testosterone matters, the primary direction of causation (experiences and behavior can modify levels of testosterone) and the relative importance of testosterone vs. cultural roles is unclear. There aren't enough women supplementing testosterone to make this clear, nor would such evidence be definitive.

It seems to me ridiculus that even in just the past 100,000 years of evolution that the different daily tasks of living for the diferent sexs, ie hunting or cooking/gathering hasnt had an effect on our respective biologys yet I have been abused by militant feminist Nazis for suggesting that woman and men are equal but different. Nothing more, nothing less.

You are not in a position to tease apart cultural adaptation (which looms large in humanity's evolutionarily brief history) from Darwinian evolution leading to sexual differentiation. If anything, we've seen evolution adapting humans into very malleable creatures. Slandering feminists as "Nazis" won't help you too much.

It's then quite funny to use the term 'feminism', i.e. only mentioning one side of the coin. Egalitarianism is a much better term.

Well, most gendered oppression in our society benefits (some) men, or disproportionately hinders (some) women. Hence the focus.

I was a school student throughout the 80's and 90's in a Western liberal democracy. Girls that went to my school had every opportunity that we did.

Women have almost caught up or superseded men in educational attainment. This lends support to the notion that disparities in economic and political power are due to gendered oppression.

Are the men in your life really just out to keep you down?

That there is oppression does not entail that it is willful or self-conscious.

the only problem i have with some feminist is that they claim to hate men.....not sure what the specific term is, but it is the equivalent of misogyny....not cool at all....but, i'm sure they validate their belief somehow.....

This would be "misandrony". I have never met such feminists, even though I have professional relationships with fifty or more feminists.

That being said, I don't think it's discrimination to accept that there are some jobs that men simply do better, and vice versa.

As was said, that men, on average, do better at some jobs than women (and vice versa) does not mean that individuals who deviate from the dominant gendered pattern should be overlooked, let alone discriminated against, nor does it point toward the sources of these differences.

Alot of the university feminists I've come across were of the Marxist sort. Nothing against Marxism but it is one of the first models to use the concept of an oppressor. Not exactly a frame where I could objectively discuss my views on gender roles.

I think that Marxism that claims most (let alone all) oppression is willful, overt strategy misunderstands Marx quite severely.

Feminism is liek, sooo 1970's. Get with the times! Queer Theory is what's in right now!

You're kinda right, although the two converge in post-Butlerian whatever-studies (not that anyone can understand Butler).

I am gay and they talk about fucking oppression? But where I fall short in their eyes is that even though I am gay, I am quite masculine as opposed to the wimpy little beaten puppydogs of guys that follow them around.

I would be surprised that self-conscious feminists would be so unthinkingly heteronormative.

But in terms of female values is this really freedom? Is the man free to be in touch with his emotions? Is a man free to seek out a socially fulfilling lifestyle instead of a monetarily fulfilling one? Is he free to stay home and take care of the kids while the wife works?

This is where 3rd wave feminism comes in.

it all has to do with the productivity of the armed forces

Please expound.

 

[AmorRoark]

^ I'm surprised it took you so long to come in and intelligently lay out many of the thoughts I have difficult explaining, ebola?. Nice post, as usual. But you reposted the same responses like 3x. Done on purpose for clarity?

luna: I went to DePaul University in Chicago for my undergrad. I'm going to another less-than liberal university this fall and I hope to apply a great deal of what I've learned in my undergrad WMS classes to post-grad but we'll see.

 

[Rogue Robot]

^I know I know. The part of me that is afraid of rejection is hindering me. I'm working on that part of myself.

come to c&u sometime. i'm sure there are plenty of BLers here (*cough*AR & ebola?*cough*) that would be more than willing to share advice with you.

 

[ebola?]

I'm surprised it took you so long to come in and intelligently lay out many of the thoughts I have difficult explaining, ebola?. Nice post, as usual. But you reposted the same responses like 3x. Done on purpose for clarity?

Heh...many thanks. It took me that long to be fucked to read the threads that may yet matter.

The redundancy? The more polysyllabic drivel, the smarter you look.

 

[MynameisnotDeja]

Chivalry is not sexist. It's just being polite.

 

[neonads]

Chivalry grew out of probably the very first feminist movement back in 11th century Provence with the popularity of Courtly Love literature where the knight revered the lady as if she were his divine lord (yeah, the cardinals were apoplectic). The court ladies began to demand more and more displays of adulation and it became the norm all over Western Europe soon after. It was about this time that women were given the right of titular inheritance as we see the first duchesses and eventually, queens.

Sure, medieval chivalry might seem sexist by todays standards, but by definition it is supposed to change with the times and always remain as it was in spirit.

 

[Middleway]

Okkk, I am really trying to understand, not just rail against Feminists I have had a run in with in the past so indulge me please. Ebola especially as it seems you have a good idea what your talking about.

Firstly,

Originally Posted by Middleway
It seems to me ridiculus that even in just the past 100,000 years of evolution that the different daily tasks of living for the diferent sexs, ie hunting or cooking/gathering hasnt had an effect on our respective biologys yet I have been abused by militant feminist Nazis for suggesting that woman and men are equal but different. Nothing more, nothing less.

You are not in a position to tease apart cultural adaptation (which looms large in humanity's evolutionarily brief history) from Darwinian evolution leading to sexual differentiation. If anything, we've seen evolution adapting humans into very malleable creatures.

Ok, maybe I am not in a position to tease apart cultural adaptation, and there will alway be indiciduals who fall well outside the norms, but GENERALALLY, I believe that many behaviours that that men and women display are the result of our genetic heritage rather than being culturally imposed.
I think Men are naturally more aggressive and woman more maternal ON AVERAGE. Yet this seems to be something that feminists reject. To what sence then does mainstream feminism believe that our genetics define our behaviour? I have talked before at length with some pro feminist people about this bringing up the different roles and behaviors of the differing sex in animals and all they reply is that 'we are more evolved than animals and we have control over our drives' Which I personally believe is a furphy based on the irrational actions of people every day and the generally fucked up state of the world.
I would also like your take on the link I posted in my original post please Ebola.
Thanks

 

[Rogue Robot]

I don't think that men or women are genetically engineered to be maternal or aggressive. I think it has to do with how we were brought up, and how we were treated, more or less, as children. Men, as boys, are frowned upon for playing with dolls or "feminine" toys. Such as women, as girls, are generally given those dolls to play with rather than toy trucks. Not everyone was brought up that way, but that definitely has something to do with it. It also goes beyond that to how our parents treated us as children growing up. How do you and your father relate? How do you and your mother relate?

We're given our roles as soon as we're born, not before, usually. It all goes back to what's masculine and what's feminine from the time we come out of the womb, and then we, as adults or teenagers, elaborate on that.

 

[neonads]

^ I agree with nearly all of the above. There are some developmental dimorphisms such as the quicker grasping of motor skills in boys and social skills in girls. However, these are just mild trends that are easily overcome by environment.

But just because we can change gender roles, doesn't necessarily mean we should. From a strictly utilitarian (and stereotypically male) POV, feminism seeks to despecialise our roles and leave us weaker as functioning couples for the real or perceived inequality between the sexes.

Or is feminism more to do with the social inequality within the female hierarchy?

 

[Middleway]

Then what about the link on the first Post? There was a boy who was gender reassigned at birth and raised as a girl and how did he turn out?

 

[Rogue Robot]

higher levels of testosterone are more than likely what you're talking about, middleway, but regardless, both men and women are producers of testosterone and either can produce too little or too much causing one to be more "aggressive". however, what i'm saying is that often times it's usually the gender roles pushed on us through society, such as only girls can wear pink, etc.

 

[jpgrdnr]

Another feminist lie, this whole "civilisation" thing is only a temporary fascade

civilization as feminist lie

that is pure awesome right there lol

 

[yougene]

Feminism's greatest lie is that gender and gender roles are just societal constructs, WRONG, they are inherently biological, deeply rooted in our genes and hormones. Our environment cannot easily override that fact, but our genes and hormones can.

Geez dude, tone it down a bit. Why are you trying to bring all this ruckus into a peaceful dialogue?

If gender roles are purely biological then they would be consistent through the various types of societies but they are not. Some societies are matriarchal and some are patriarchal.

Certainly there are differences in man and woman but the gender roles that we see in society are not universals.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

Easy there, yougene. I don't think beamers was being too pushy, just emphatic.

Even if gender differences have a large biological component (which I think they do), that still doesn't mean that human societies ought to be selecting for (i.e. discriminating against) individuals in such a way that maintains or increases the level of gender dimorphism. For example, just because men are far more likely to be drawn to competitive and dominance-related pursuits than women, doesn't mean we shouldn't do all we can as a society to support and encourage the minority of women interested in such pursuits, just as strongly as we do their male counterparts.

We can do this while acknowledging that at least for now, women are likely to remain in the minority of those pursuing this kind of glory, and that this is a vestige of the past.

Simply put, is =/= ought to be =/= will always be.

 

[nikol]

^ you can define anything as anything but that doesn't really help.

i'm sure most people would agree on a simple definition of feminism being the social and economic equality of the sexes.

Middleway, given this definition, do you think it's bullshit? if so, why?

alasdair

Why can't you just call it "equalism"? My only problem with "feminism" is that is still insists on using a divisive term for something that is supposed to be pertaining to breaking down certain divisions.

 

[alasdairm]

^ why feminism?

(i don't necessarily agree - just showing you that there are arguments for using that term specifically).

alasdair

 

[nikol]

^ why feminism?

(i don't necessarily agree - just showing you that there are arguments for using that term specifically).

alasdair

that's fine, i understand where you are coming from. and of course i suppose my comment wasn't directed towards you personally, it's more of just a general sentiment.
from a layperson's standpoint it just seems to make more sense to not use gender-specific terms, when the whole issue seems to revolve around taking both sexes/genders into account equally. or equivalently, perhaps.