Jump to content
Roderick

Feminism

Recommended Posts

The thing is I'm not sure where gender discrimination would be appropriate, because there's enough variation that even the statistically significant differences between men and women are not consistent enough to legislate by, or for example plan teaching lessons around.  Some women and men learn differently, and from the macro view there is a significant enough difference to consider, but each individual person is capable of such a broad spread that it doesn't make sense for us to differentiate by gender.

well i think the more studies that separate the social aspects of gender and the biological aspects the better, but there is no denying that different amounts of testosterone or estrogen has a major effect on a human, and it is the effect on the brain which i feel is the most relevant to talk about

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if the definition of a feminist was purely "a feminist is just someone who holds women in equal regard" then i am a feminist, but i don't want to be associated with people who think being angry at people is a good way of getting their point across.

 

and Clyde maybe tone is a separate discussion than the actual core principles of feminism, but i think it is still a valid discussion and it shouldn't be dismissed by calling people who wan't to talk about it "concern trolls"

NOBODY thinks being angry at people is a GOOD way of getting their point across. Feminists don't get angry as an ARGUMENTATIVE TACTIC. We get ANGRY because THE WORLD IS SHITTY TO WOMEN and when we try to fix it, people FIGHT AGAINST US, tooth and nail! And after years and years of being fought against, we get angry. Then sometimes we say angry things, and when we say angry things, people like YOU dismiss our arguments (which have remained unchanged from the days in which we were not angry) JUST BECAUSE we are angry! And this makes us MORE ANGRY!

Not all feminists get angry - some are massive milquetoasts who would turn the other cheek if you stabbed them in the first cheek with a knife. I'm a mellow guy in real life but on the Internet I have no problem getting angry because why not? It's not like being angry makes me wrong. Oh unless I'm talking to you or the legions of other people who think the tone argument is the best thing since sliced bread. News flash: just because people get angry about social injustice doesn't mean they're wrong about it.

well, if we are saying that not everybody in the feminist movement has exactly the same approach or goals for feminism, there are certain groups within the umbrella of feminism that would suggest the the ultimate goal of feminism is total androgyny and the eradication of gender, and i just think that is an impossible goal, and any kind of enforcement of that goal would only benefit whoevers natural behaviour is more androgynous or whatever gender is decided to be the more neutral one (because i believe that a lot of behavior is biologically driven).

This is a stupid fucking strawman that I've never seen anyone argue for.

well i think the more studies that separate the social aspects of gender and the biological aspects the better, but there is no denying that different amounts of testosterone or estrogen has a major effect on a human, and it is the effect on the brain which i feel is the most relevant to talk about

This is an incredibly simplified view of the science (more testosterone or estrogen does not make you act in a more man-like or woman-like fashion) but putting that aside, of course there are biological aspects of gender. In Western society we create gender almost entirely based on what we perceive an individual's biological sex to be! No feminist in the world would ever deny that there are significant biological difference between archetypal members of the two genders that the Western world uses. Again you are arguing against a strawman and it's not even clear what your argument is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NOBODY thinks being angry at people is a GOOD way of getting their point across. Feminists don't get angry as an ARGUMENTATIVE TACTIC. We get ANGRY because THE WORLD IS SHITTY TO WOMEN and when we try to fix it, people FIGHT AGAINST US, tooth and nail! And after years and years of being fought against, we get angry. Then sometimes we say angry things, and when we say angry things, people like YOU dismiss our arguments (which have remained unchanged from the days in which we were not angry) JUST BECAUSE we are angry! And this makes us MORE ANGRY!

Not all feminists get angry - some are massive milquetoasts who would turn the other cheek if you stabbed them in the first cheek with a knife. I'm a mellow guy in real life but on the Internet I have no problem getting angry because why not? It's not like being angry makes me wrong. Oh unless I'm talking to you or the legions of other people who think the tone argument is the best thing since sliced bread. News flash: just because people get angry about social injustice doesn't mean they're wrong about it.This is a stupid fucking strawman that I've never seen anyone argue for.This is an incredibly simplified view of the science (more testosterone or estrogen does not make you act in a more man-like or woman-like fashion) but putting that aside, of course there are biological aspects of gender. In Western society we create gender almost entirely based on what we perceive an individual's biological sex to be! No feminist in the world would ever deny that there are significant biological difference between archetypal members of the two genders that the Western world uses. Again you are arguing against a strawman and it's not even clear what your argument is.

la la la I'm not listening to Mr Angry

 

of course it is a simplified view of science it was barely two lines, do i need to write a thesis on science every time i want to talk about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is I'm not sure where gender discrimination would be appropriate, because there's enough variation that even the statistically significant differences between men and women are not consistent enough to legislate by, or for example plan teaching lessons around. Some women and men learn differently, and from the macro view there is a significant enough difference to consider, but each individual person is capable of such a broad spread that it doesn't make sense for us to differentiate by gender.

I'm totally in way over my head here, but I thought substantive equality meant taking into account irrefutable differences between the sexes (like the ability to give birth), not the statistical stuff you mention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every day I thank God for angry feminists. I got yelled at a lot for casually using words like "bitch" in my music and comedy and then I realized "Hey, maybe I'm being yelled at for a reason. Being an empathetic human being, seeing my actions cause others to be so upset makes me reconsider them." 

 

Blocking thestalkinghead now, for my health.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm completely in over my head as well, just making assumptions based on the way substantive equality sounds :P.  It's entirely possible that it's only concerned with those exclusive differences and I'm just giving dirty looks to a strawman.  On that topic though, I do vaguely recall some state in the US making father's leave allowable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not like being angry makes me wrong.

 

It makes you seem confrontational as fuck, though. Not to mention you're putting words into his mouth here, I haven't seen thestalkinghead dismiss the idea of feminism because of the tone, just the tone itself. In fact, why is that stupid argument even a thing, so far I haven't seen one person being like "uh, no, men have more rights and that's awesome, let's keep it that way!"

 

I've come to view this community as being a very intelligent and reasonable one, I'd be shocked if there was an even remotely significant amount of people disagreeing with the core idea of feminism here. So why are people jumping at eachothers' throats?

 

I'd strongly assume the whole point of tone, if brought up here, is not about whether the points made are valid, but rather if there's any sense in spreading them that way. You even bring up yourself that it's not a good method. So why would it ever be a bad thing to address this? In your owns words: "people fight against us", well, every angry part of the movement, no matter how understandably angry, is ammunition for the ones ones fighting against you to show to the uninformed outsider, is it not?

 

What this thread needs now, more than anything, is more bad jokes!

 

Well, I made a post. Some people might say that qualifies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

la la la I'm not listening to Mr Angry

 

of course it is a simplified view of science it was barely two lines, do i need to write a thesis on science every time i want to talk about it?

Fine, block your ears, I'll just block you then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It makes you seem confrontational as fuck, though. Not to mention you're putting words into his mouth here, I haven't seen thestalkinghead dismiss the idea of feminism because of the tone, just the tone itself. In fact, why is that stupid argument even a thing, so far I haven't seen one person being like "uh, no, men have more rights and that's awesome, let's keep it that way!"

 

I've come to view this community as being a very intelligent and reasonable one, I'd be shocked if there was an even remotely significant amount of people disagreeing with the core idea of feminism here. So why are people jumping at eachothers' throats?

 

I'd strongly assume the whole point of tone, if brought up here, is not about whether the points made are valid, but rather if there's any sense in spreading them that way. You even bring up yourself that it's not a good method. So why would it ever be a bad thing to address this? In your owns words: "people fight against us", well, every angry part of the movement, no matter how understandably angry, is ammunition for the ones ones fighting against you to show to the uninformed outsider, is it not?

 

People fight. Some people fight angry. Some people fight calm and collected. Not all conflicts are equal and not all conflicts are solvable the same way every time. The audience matters as much as the presenter. Anger is a tool just like any other emotion. Sometimes you just need people to understand your frustration. And anyway, there's been plenty of examples already cited that disprove both the "angry feminist" caricature and all the other arguments you're associating with it. Or, in my typical blunt fashion, I would say you guys are just continuing to drop a load of bullshit.

 

 

 

Anyway, I've got another bad joke, now. An objectivist, a nihilist, and a feminist walk into a bar. They all have a drink and bitch about work because that's what people do in bars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, weren't you paying attention, there's all these alleged people who are like 'gender should be erased yo' and they're angry all the time.

Oh shit that's me. Sorry.

 

Just to clarify, though, erasing gender doesn't mean everyone should be androgynous. That is silly. It means that we should stop assigning expected behaviors based on people's naughty bits and instead relate to them as human beings. Dudes would still be free to grow big gnarly beards and chop down trees and oppress indigenous peoples or whatever stereotypically manly behavior is, ladies would still be free to wear lacy things and bake cookies and be passive-aggressive or whatever stereotypically girl behavior: The difference is, ladies would also be free to wear beards and chop down trees and oppress and dudes would be free to wear ALL THE LACE and bake the cookies and be passive-aggressive. Though some people might have a problem with the specific behaviors, such as oppressing indigenous peoples or intentionally sabotaging fresh-baked cookies with laxative, they would no longer be subject to attack on the basis that such activities are not APPROPRIATE to one of their sex -- just, perhaps, dickish behaviors in their own right.

 

It's kind of funny, I've been programming a system for creating entities with a modular behavior system, where each entity is a blank slate and behaviors can be added to it until it behaves as desired... ideas sometimes kind of echo themselves in different walks of life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thestalkinghead, I'm curious why it is you are so fixated on this supposed subset of feminists that you keep citing. Think of it in terms of any other classification or group you might identify with. Feminists, gamers, civil rights advocates, environmentalists, sports fans, left wing supporters, right wing supporters, lumberjack enthusiasts, etc. Every single one of these groups contain different subsets of people. Each group has reasonable people, unreasonable people, optimists, pessimists, intelligent people, stupid people, and dickwads. Just because these groups contain each of these elements doesn't mean that any one of those elements defines that group. If that were true then you could say that humanity is an angry race because there is a subset of people that are very angry.

 

For this reason I think you should let your argument go. I suspect that you identify with other groups or classifications despite the fact that they contain those same fringe elements. You have been given the definition of feminism, which you seem to agree with, and that should really be all you need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And anyway, there's been plenty of examples already cited that disprove both the "angry feminist" caricature and all the other arguments you're associating with it. Or, in my typical blunt fashion, I would say you guys are just continuing to drop a load of bullshit.

See, this is the thing. I'm not associating anything with anything, I don't even subscribe to any "angry feminist" trope. In fact, I had brought up a similar point about feminist impatience in your typical comment section and Tycho summed up the cause for that very nicely in Post 1165. See, ignorant outsider educated. From my point of view that is pretty much what this is about. This is also what the overdone tone discussion is about afaik within this thread.

Eh whatever. Everyone seems to be agreeing about the core idea and the implication of tone, so this is propper pointless. Back to lurking it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

or this reason I think you should let your argument go. I suspect that you identify with other groups or classifications despite the fact that they contain those same fringe elements. You have been given the definition of feminism, which you seem to agree with, and that should really be all you need.

There's not even an argument as far as I can tell, just a vague complaint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, this is the thing. I'm not associating anything with anything, I don't even subscribe to any "angry feminist" trope. In fact, I had brought up a similar point about feminist impatience in your typical comment section and Tycho summed up the cause for that very nicely in Post 1165. See, ignorant outsider educated. From my point of view that is pretty much what this is about. This is also what the overdone tone discussion is about afaik within this thread.

Eh whatever. Everyone seems to be agreeing about the core idea and the implication of tone, so this is propper pointless. Back to lurking it is.

Whether a discussion about feminism on the Internet devolves into an endless cycle of "I hate feminists" vs feminists, "I don't understand feminism and think it's wrong" vs feminists, or "feminism sounds great in the abstract guys but you're totally using the wrong tone so I have to disagree" vs feminists, or whether it is an actual discussion about feminism without having to defend it against haters, comes down to the community the discussion occurs in, I think. Forums with lots of people hostile to feminism like RPG Codex or the Star Citizen forums are in the first category. Most places on the Internet (although maybe not quite as many gaming-focused places, since gaming culture hates women) end up at point #2. More accepting/open/understanding/smart/whatever communities (like ours, or the Penny Arcade forums) end up at point #3. Pretty much only places that ban concern trolls rather than letting them get their way ever make it to point #4. That's my theory, at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thestalkinghead, I'm curious why it is you are so fixated on this supposed subset of feminists that you keep citing. Think of it in terms of any other classification or group you might identify with. Feminists, gamers, civil rights advocates, environmentalists, sports fans, left wing supporters, right wing supporters, lumberjack enthusiasts, etc. Every single one of these groups contain different subsets of people. Each group has reasonable people, unreasonable people, optimists, pessimists, intelligent people, stupid people, and dickwads. Just because these groups contain each of these elements doesn't mean that any one of those elements defines that group. If that were true then you could say that humanity is an angry race because there is a subset of people that are very angry.

 

For this reason I think you should let your argument go. I suspect that you identify with other groups or classifications despite the fact that they contain those same fringe elements. You have been given the definition of feminism, which you seem to agree with, and that should really be all you need.

I'm not fixated, it is just a subject that came up and i am talking about it, i don't generally identify myself with any group unless it saves time explaining my position, i had stopped talking about it but it was brought up again 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not fixated, it is just a subject that came up and i am talking about it, i don't generally identify myself with any group unless it saves time explaining my position, i had stopped talking about it but it was brought up again

Your position is not unusual - lots of people like to view themselves as enlightened, reasonable freethinkers that avoid the traps of becoming mired in an ideology and who hold themselves above the witless sheeple who throw their weight behind view after view without understanding the implications or ever making a decision for themselves about what to believe.

I think the problem with that attitude, though, is that when it comes to social issues like racism, sexism, and all other instances of bigotry, intolerance, and inequality, to refuse to throw yourself behind a movement is to implicitly endorse the status quo, which exists largely on the backs of people who do nothing rather than on the backs of virulently racist, sexist, and otherwise intolerant people. If you read Martin Luther King Jr.'s letter from the Birmingham Jail for instance, you will see some good examples of the sorts of reasons one might have for ascribing to an ideology that one believes is correct rather than just saying "I never use labels unless it saves time" as if staying neutral is always better unless it's inefficient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not fixated, it is just a subject that came up and i am talking about it, i don't generally identify myself with any group unless it saves time explaining my position, i had stopped talking about it but it was brought up again 

 

Okay, then hopefully you agree that the complaint you originally brought up is moot since every group contains those exact same elements. With that thrown aside it sounds like you are on board with the concept of feminism based on what you've said previously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your position is not unusual - lots of people like to view themselves as enlightened, reasonable freethinkers that avoid the traps of becoming mired in an ideology and who hold themselves above the witless sheeple who throw their weight behind view after view without understanding the implications or ever making a decision for themselves about what to believe.

I think the problem with that attitude, though, is that when it comes to social issues like racism, sexism, and all other instances of bigotry, intolerance, and inequality, to refuse to throw yourself behind a movement is to implicitly endorse the status quo, which exists largely on the backs of people who do nothing rather than on the backs of virulently racist, sexist, and otherwise intolerant people. If you read Martin Luther King Jr.'s letter from the Birmingham Jail for instance, you will see some good examples of the sorts of reasons one might have for ascribing to an ideology that one believes is correct rather than just saying "I never use labels unless it saves time" as if staying neutral is always better unless it's inefficient.

humm, so in a way I am the "white moderate", i suppose i agree with certain types of "tension" and not others, i would disagree with something that claims that i personally am a bad person simply for being a man, but i would be for the tension created when i am shown how bad some men can be, like this http://femfreq.tumblr.com/post/59024747681/online-harassment-what-drives-it-and-how-it-lowers i want to stop this type of thing from happening

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I'm going to derail this derailment with something that I take exception to within the feminist movement: the attitude towards stay-at-home moms. The argument goes that every woman that drops out of the work force or chooses not to enter the workforce stands in the way of gender equality. This argument actually kind of makes logical sense when you look at the reasoning behind it but it is something I just can't get behind.

 

My wife is currently a stay-at-home mom. She graduated in 2008 with a bachelor's degree in Family Studies and Human Development and was 6 months pregnant at the time. She decided not to enter the workforce upon graduating and instead planned to stay at home with the baby. The main two reasons she did this were that she planned to breastfeed and she wanted to have a greater hand in raising our child instead of having the child raised in day care. I could have stayed home with the baby but it ended up being her because the field I graduated in pays much more (enough to support all of us) and she did not want to bottle feed (keep in mind that her degree was Family Studies and Human Development and raising a child in the best way possible was very important to her). We just had our second child and her plan is to continue being a stay-at-home mom until our youngest enters school, at which point she will start working.

 

Unfortunately, despite the logical and biological reasons for her being in this position, she is looked down upon by some people, notably feminists. You would be surprised how quick some people are to visibly show their disdain for the damage we are doing to the feminist movement. Now I know this isn't the prevailing thought among all feminists (we both consider ourselves feminists) and there are many that fully support the position my wife is in but I'm curious what the knowledgeable people here think about this topic. Is there a prevalent school of thought within feminism that either supports or discourages a mother who chooses to stay at home with the kids? And in what direction is this kind of thinking headed?

 

Also, as an aside, my wife works her ass off as a stay-at-home mom. I have no doubt when I get home that she's had a rougher day than me so I really don't understand why some people think stay-at-home moms are lazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

on a sort of related subject, what is feminisms view on paternity leave? and that women are automatically assumed to be the better parent and get custody of a child in the majority of cases? (not trying to make a morbid prediction here Zeusthecat)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nfortunately, despite the logical and biological reasons for her being in this position, she is looked down upon by some people, notably feminists. 

This really grinds my gears as well. It's incredibly irritating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's amazing the variety of ways that human beings will find to look down on each other for leading their lives in 'the wrong way'.

 

Power without choice isn't power at all. Anyone who doesn't respect the choices that other people make with respect to their own lives is NOT working to empower those people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I think it's pretty appalling to look down your nose at someone for the choices they make. Feminists worked hard to ensure that women aren't expected to be stay-at-home moms (for equality's sake, of course, but also.. it's a fucking hard job!!), but I can't possibly imagine what problem they have with a woman who chooses to do it. Hell, I'd do it and I know my wife would do it if either of us had a job that could support us all.

 

Having taken paternity leave for only 2 months, and being completely overwhelmed at various points throughout, I have immense respect for stay-at-home moms. Holy christ..

 

stalkinghead, I think paternity leave is definitely something feminists fight for. Because it challenges the assumption that women are naturally better at taking care of children and that it is ultimately a woman's job. That doesn't exclude fighting for more/better maternity leave, though.

 

EDIT: stalkinghead, here's an article about how custody issues have changed through the years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×