Moderator:Forum Administrators
mōdgethanc wrote:I'm not watching that video because tl;dw but my position on feminism is simple: liberal feminism is better than radical feminism, third-wave feminism is better than second-wave feminism*, and individualism is better than collectivism. One individualist feminist I admire is Camille Paglia**.
*Third-wave feminism is broader and tends to be more post-modern, but also there's more room for what feminists call "sex-positivity", which is way better than the "stop having fun guys" anti-porn, anti-sex mentality of second-wavers like Gloria Steinem and Andrea Dworkin.
**Except for her views on transsexualism. I don't get why so many feminists are transphobic.
Basically you have the "sex is rape and pornography is violence against women" old guard, and the "deconstructing the arbitrary nature of gender roles" new wave. Where feminists of all kinds go wrong, IMO, is that they ascribe way too much influence to the role of socialization in human behaviour and tend to outright ignore biology. I'm not just referring to putative gender differences, mind you.Not that I know all of the ins and outs of the arguments put forward by the people you mentioned, but it sounds pretty much like what the guy in the video is saying.
mōdgethanc wrote:Where feminists of all kinds go wrong, IMO, is that they ascribe way too much influence to the role of socialization in human behaviour and tend to outright ignore biology. I'm not just referring to putative gender differences, mind you.
Johanna wrote:The thing about biology is that it's used as an excuse to force people into gender roles, which is probably why modern feminism tends to ignore it.
I don't think that anyone who knows the ins and outs of the whole thing deny that the average man differs from the average woman, but they are just that: averages, and there's a lot of overlapping, so it doesn't say much about the individual.
In other words: there are men who are more "female" than most women, and there are women who are more "male" than most men, and they still fall within the normal category for their own gender.
One extremely controversial debate is over whether rape is some sort of adaptation as opposed to a manifestation of the patriarchy's dehumanization of women or whatever. I wouldn't rule it out as a possible explanation, even a partial one, though it would suggest some ugly truths about human nature. (On the other hand, rape is quite common in the animal kingdom.) Evolutionary psychology is quite controversial in general, partly because of some of the hypotheses it has about sexual selection and reproduction (for example, that men tend to prefer partners who are younger because they are more fertile, or that women prefer men who are financially stable because of the greater costs to them of pregnancy). Sometimes it seems like even suggesting men and women may not be completely identical in every possible way is grounds for excommunication among feminists.Ciarán12 wrote:In what ways do you think they tend to ignore biological differences in favour of a social explanation?
It can be, but ignoring it can also be used as an excuse to force people into preconceived notions about how they should behave as well.Johanna wrote:The thing about biology is that it's used as an excuse to force people into gender roles, which is probably why modern feminism tends to ignore it.
I wish I could say this is a mainstream view in feminism, but it doesn't seem like it is.I don't think that anyone who knows the ins and outs of the whole thing deny that the average man differs from the average woman, but they are just that: averages, and there's a lot of overlapping, so it doesn't say much about the individual.
Of course. Gender essentialism is a very bad thing.In other words: there are men who are more "female" than most women, and there are women who are more "male" than most men, and they still fall within the normal category for their own gender.
The biggest fault with this argument is that he realises himself that what he calls "feminists" are not nearly the majority of feminists, but ignores most of feminism because he feels victimised by some. I can admire the chutzpah in inviting all feminists minus the radicals to join his new, libertarian-infused feminism, but really he's just perpetuating the idea that all feminist are man-haters not living in the "real world".Ciarán12 wrote:My position is the same as this guy's:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZiarrgcahw
mōdgethanc wrote:I'm not watching that video because tl;dw but my position on feminism is simple: liberal feminism is better than radical feminism, third-wave feminism is better than second-wave feminism*, and individualism is better than collectivism. One individualist feminist I admire is Camille Paglia**.
*Third-wave feminism is broader and tends to be more post-modern, but also there's more room for what feminists call "sex-positivity", which is way better than the "stop having fun guys" anti-porn, anti-sex mentality of second-wavers like Gloria Steinem and Andrea Dworkin.
**Except for her views on transsexualism. I don't get why so many feminists are transphobic.
I don't think that academic feminism as found in wymyn's studies departments everywhere necessarily represents what women who identify themselves as feminists actually believe. If I were a woman, I think I might be more concerned with pressing issues like the gender wage gap, disgustingly high rape statistics and repeated attempts to infringe on my reproductive freedoms than armchair revolutionary crap like dismantling the kyriarchy.The biggest fault with this argument is that he realises himself that what he calls "feminists" are not nearly the majority of feminists, but ignores most of feminism because he feels victimised by some. I can admire the chutzpah in inviting all feminists minus the radicals to join his new, libertarian-infused feminism, but really he's just perpetuating the idea that all feminist are man-haters not living in the "real world".
mōdgethanc wrote:Johanna wrote:I don't think that anyone who knows the ins and outs of the whole thing deny that the average man differs from the average woman, but they are just that: averages, and there's a lot of overlapping, so it doesn't say much about the individual.
I wish I could say this is a mainstream view in feminism, but it doesn't seem like it is.
mōdgethanc wrote:If I were a woman, I think I might be more concerned with pressing issues like the gender wage gap, disgustingly high rape statistics and repeated attempts to infringe on my reproductive freedoms than armchair revolutionary crap like dismantling the kyriarchy.
mōdgethanc wrote:"Feminism" is practically a slur to some people, mind you.
Luke wrote:mōdgethanc wrote:If I were a woman, I think I might be more concerned with pressing issues like the gender wage gap, disgustingly high rape statistics and repeated attempts to infringe on my reproductive freedoms than armchair revolutionary crap like dismantling the kyriarchy.
The part in red is part of the part in green.
While it's true that various kinds of discrimination can overlap, I wouldn't necessarily assume a problem like the wage gap has any causal relationship with racism or something.The idea is that people don't exist on isolated groups of oppressed and oppressors, and that people aren't "oppressors" by merely existing.
I'm pretty sure (straight) women look at and notice attractive men, and even (gasp) objectify them for their bodies, even if they aren't as obvious about it as men are.I have been thinking on what women tell me about feeling constantly stared at by men (normally in the form of blank creepy stares). The way some of the put it, it almost sounds like a constant persecution. I am trying to understand the exact reason for the apparent unbalance of this phenomenon. Why do men look at women? Do women not look at men the same way, and if they do, do men not notice it or react differently? Why? And how would this go in an environment composed of women attracted to women and one of men attracted to men? What's the separate influence of the individual, of hormones and of culture on this whole thing?
Why is it nonsensical? You're begging the question by assuming it's not true. But even if it is true, men are still responsible for their actions. As Spartacus says, "I am not an animal".So far I can only reexamine my own doing, and I'll describe it because I feel it's probably just the same for a lot of people regardless of sex (although I might be wrong about that, but who knows). I do notice a lot the appearance of women around me. If I'm in a bus or something and I feel very attracted to someone I can't help to try some quick shy peek to at her without being noticed (normally I feel a slight blush and I'm unsettled by the idea of being caught), and then that's it. In other occasions, I noticed I was looking at people almost subconsciously while thinking on whatever (my mind drifts a lot), certainly not on the people I was looking at. Normally I try to to avoid eye contact with people I'm not interacting with in public settings, focusing on random inofensive things. I don't think a simplistic and somewhat nonsensical "men have a greater natural tendency to look at what they are attracted to" explains this whole thing.
Luke wrote:Because you have to go through all the red ones.
Luke wrote:The idea is that people don't exist on isolated groups of oppressed and oppressors, and that people aren't "oppressors" by merely existing.
Luke wrote:And how would this go in an environment composed of women attracted to women and one of men attracted to men?
Luke wrote:I don't think a simplistic and somewhat nonsensical "men have a greater natural tendency to look at what they are attracted to" explains this whole thing.
Luke wrote:Sorry for the long boring post
mōdgethanc wrote:Show me the kyriarchy exists and isn't just a conflation of several different and only marginally related social issues.While it's true that various kinds of discrimination can overlap, I wouldn't necessarily assume a problem like the wage gap has any causal relationship with racism or something.The idea is that people don't exist on isolated groups of oppressed and oppressors, and that people aren't "oppressors" by merely existing.
mōdgethanc wrote:Why is it nonsensical? You're begging the question by assuming it's not true. But even if it is true, men are still responsible for their actions. As Spartacus says, "I am not an animal".
johnklepac wrote:Luke wrote:Because you have to go through all the red ones.
Wait a sec. We're agreeing. But there's also a lot more red stuff that would also go into the green - perhaps an infinite amount, which is part of why modgethanc and I think that pursuing the green goal itself, without attention to the red ones, isn't a good idea.
Luke wrote:The idea is that people don't exist on isolated groups of oppressed and oppressors, and that people aren't "oppressors" by merely existing.
I disagree. Per this, a kyriarchy is based on privilege (which, insofar as it is indeed a viable concept, allows people to be oppressors just by existing), and people have one level of privilege for each of their demographic groups.
Luke wrote:And how would this go in an environment composed of women attracted to women and one of men attracted to men?
There wouldn't be asymmetrical amounts of perceived persecution by gender.
Luke wrote:I don't think a simplistic and somewhat nonsensical "men have a greater natural tendency to look at what they are attracted to" explains this whole thing.
My guess is that, growing up and into adulthood, men are discouraged from being shy and timid more than women are.
mōdgethanc wrote:I'm just going to leave this here.
Well, I'm certainly glad we agree about that.But that definition of privilege which allows people to be oppressors by existing is bollocks and not a viable concept.
Well, yeah. That's why feminists get so much criticism for perceived misandry or just focusing solely on women's issues and ignoring men's issues. I think this is changing though and nowadays feminists are more likely to realize that men's issues deserve to be taken seriously too, although I still see SJAs claiming it's impossible for women to be sexist against men/minorities to be racist against whites/etc.Anyway, the reason I prefer the kyriarchy to the patriarchy is because it seems wider. Sexism in one direction carries sexism in the inverse direction, normally. So it covers the whole thing. You can't defeat sexism by solving solely sexism against one sex because it retroaliments and you will perpetually fail at it.
Maybe, but this thread is about sexism, not racism or any other kind of discrimination. So talking about the kyriarchy isn't really constructive to solving gender issues that exist right now. How about we just say people shouldn't be dicks to other people? Because that's basically what "dismantling the kyriachy" means, deep down.I don't think the implication is that the different issues have a direct relationship. A physical or causal one. It's not about the causes of the issues, it's about the different collections of issues that happen to you putting you in a different social position to others. Thus alienation, etc. Or at least that's how I understand it.
Which is a fancy way of saying men are supposed to make the first move, or as TvTropes says, Men Act, Women Are. (Also shades of All Men Are Perverts and All Women Are Prudes.)Well men are cast into the hyperagent role so it wouldn't surprise me in the slightless.
Sure. How do you think the prosody of women differs from that of men due to enforced gender roles?Wanna talk phonology?
Return to “Politics and Religion”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests