Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Feminism vs. Equality

Page 8 of 18 [ 263 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 18  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age:27
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

26 Mar 2011, 1:50 pm

puddingmouse wrote:
The strawman is drawn from radical feminism but radical feminism is not currently significantly active (except maybe in Scandinavia, I don't know).



Even this is fallacious,
as no part of radical feminist philosophy involves misandry.


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age:23
Posts: 1,867

26 Mar 2011, 1:52 pm

puddingmouse wrote:
Actually, the thread was titled 'feminism vs. equality', the OP was erecting the strawman from the start. The strawman is drawn from radical feminism but radical feminism is not currently significantly active (except maybe in Scandinavia, I don't know).


It is uncommon for a threads OP to actually dictate the tone of a thread. But your assertion that radical feminism is inactive is false, radicals do not have to be at the forefront or in a controlling position in a group to have an effect. The reforms towards domestic violence(That is including gender in a law and subsequently throwing men under the bus.) and their effects on the family court(Domestic abuse allegations which while never making it to court, still affecting custody, and also feminism not going against the current trends of the family courts to award sole or primary custody to women.) have happened because radicals have convinced mainstream feminism that their primary concern is women, and as such their views leak into policies feminists are advocating.

Significantly active is meaningless where radicals exist in a group in an uncontrolled manner their views well effect the policies and views of the group as a whole, regardless of whether or not the mainstream segments actually agree with them fully.

Quote:
I don't think the radicalisation of religion is a reaction to feminism, but I think the radicalisation of religion includes anti-feminism because Abrahamic religions hate women. The increasing popularity of conservative forms of Islam and Christianity is an idealisation of tradition. It's a form of 'radical conservatism' that severely seeks to reverse the gains made not just by feminism but by all modernist movements. The fact that this largely takes place in countries that I don't live in does not make this irrelevant to me. I live in a place with high immigration from these countries and it is an increasingly globalised society. Muslims living in Britain are still influencing British culture by virtue of living and reproducing here.


I cannot speak on this issue, I have no experience with it, and unbiased sources are hard to find. I will say that Abrahamic religions are not inherently anti-women, there are denominations which embrace feminism more than others, at least here in America.

Quote:
I do agree with you about Western governments not condoning patriarchy and feminism needing to take a protectionist role. I believe the protectionist role is very important. I also agree with you that the indifference or hostility of the Western feminist movement towards men's issues is damaging feminism, and that it will need to adapt. However, I don't think the intention was, or is, to extort power - at least not for the majority.


The effect is an extortion of undue power. Does the intent of the group majority really matter in this instance when the group is supporting the continuation of assigning rights and privileges to women, if the majority of the group really disagrees with these extortions then they need to stop them.



ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age:23
Posts: 1,867

26 Mar 2011, 2:00 pm

Bethie wrote:
puddingmouse wrote:
The strawman is drawn from radical feminism but radical feminism is not currently significantly active (except maybe in Scandinavia, I don't know).



Even this is fallacious,
as no part of radical feminist philosophy involves misandry.


Are you serious? What is your definition of radical feminism, because there are prominent radical feminists who's philosophies could be argued as misandrist.



ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age:23
Posts: 1,867

26 Mar 2011, 2:03 pm

Bethie wrote:
puddingmouse wrote:
I think the radicalisation of religion includes anti-feminism because Abrahamic religions hate women.


Most definitely.

If an author wrote and tried to publish the holy texts of said religions today,
he would not land a publishing contract-
they're truly horrific tales of genocide, rape, and slavery.


A religions holy texts to not dictate the entirety of that religion. And while there are arguments you can use to say that the bible is anti-women, the existence of genocide rape(I suppose punishments of rape and being rape could be argued as anti-woman, but that is not what you said.) and slavery in it's pages is not one of them.

Bethie wrote:
ikorack wrote:

Why do you do you think the difference in views between people who study gender issues and people who do not generally persists?


Because views are informed by the information at hand, and those with more in-depth knowledge are likely to have different views?

That's universally-true.


This assumes that the information obtained is valid and necessary to form a valid opinion, aka it assumes that anyone who has not studied said information is wrong by virtue of ignorance. Would you agree this is what you are saying? If so i am curious what standards do you apply to processing new information? What kind of information (supporting an argument) do you require to accept an argument as true? Also I am curious if these are your standards why do I not see you supplying sources backing up your claims?



Last edited by ikorack on 26 Mar 2011, 2:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age:29
Posts: 9,121
Location: Cottonopolis

26 Mar 2011, 2:03 pm

Bethie wrote:
puddingmouse wrote:
The strawman is drawn from radical feminism but radical feminism is not currently significantly active (except maybe in Scandinavia, I don't know).



Even this is fallacious,
as no part of radical feminist philosophy involves misandry.


Apart from Valerie Solanas?

Though really, most radical feminism is just Marxist and some of it is separatist. I find it more androphobic than misandristic.


_________________
Zombies, zombies will tear us apart...again.


Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age:27
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

26 Mar 2011, 2:04 pm

ikorack wrote:
But your assertion that radical feminism is inactive is false, radicals do not have to be at the forefront or in a controlling position in a group to have an effect.

No, but it's fallacious to ascribe the philosophies and policy advocacy TO said group,
when they are, in fact, espoused only by a MINORITY of that group.
....keeping in mind, of course that feminism is NOT a cohesive group at all. :D
ikorack wrote:
Significantly active is meaningless where radicals exist in a group in an uncontrolled manner their views well effect the policies and views of the group as a whole, regardless of whether or not the mainstream segments actually agree with them fully.

How might some feminist groups and individuals "control" other feminist groups and individuals? I'm curious.

It's disengenuous to claim that one branch of a philosophy necessarily takes cues from another-
they are distinct entities for well-defined reasons.

It would be much more accurate to assert that one branch affects PUBLIC PERCEPTION of the philosophy as a whole, even wrongly.
ikorack wrote:
I cannot speak on this issue, I have no experience with it, and unbiased sources are hard to find. I will say that Abrahamic religions are not inherently anti-women, there are denominations which embrace feminism more than others, at least here in America.

Of course they are. The texts they consider divinely-inspired are full of rape, sexual slavery, and more fun themes. "Misogyny" is less-fitting in a description of them than "vicious sadism against women".


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age:27
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

26 Mar 2011, 2:05 pm

puddingmouse wrote:
Bethie wrote:
puddingmouse wrote:
The strawman is drawn from radical feminism but radical feminism is not currently significantly active (except maybe in Scandinavia, I don't know).



Even this is fallacious,
as no part of radical feminist philosophy involves misandry.


Apart from Valerie Solanas?

Though really, most radical feminism is just Marxist and some of it is separatist. I find it more androphobic than misandristic.


A person is not a philosophy, but all right.

Although I wonder what part of radical feminism is androphobic?


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age:27
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

26 Mar 2011, 2:09 pm

ikorack wrote:
Bethie wrote:
puddingmouse wrote:
The strawman is drawn from radical feminism but radical feminism is not currently significantly active (except maybe in Scandinavia, I don't know).



Even this is fallacious,
as no part of radical feminist philosophy involves misandry.


Are you serious? What is your definition of radical feminism, because there are prominent radical feminists who's philosophies could be argued as misandrist.


Are you serious? A couple homocidal abortion opponents are irrelevant to pro-life philosophy. A couple bombers of animal testing facilities are irrelevant to ethical veganism.

Decide whether you'd like to discuss philosophies, or the less-than-desirable views of a few cherry-picked individuals who adhere to them.


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


Last edited by Bethie on 26 Mar 2011, 2:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age:29
Posts: 9,121
Location: Cottonopolis

26 Mar 2011, 2:12 pm

Bethie wrote:
Although I wonder what part of radical feminism is androphobic?


Lesbian separatism?

I, personally, get the feeling that wanting to create a manless subculture, even to the point of deciding your sexual orientation based on it, indicates a fear of men. I know lesbian separatism is about trying to create an alternative to patriarchy, but the fact that they don't want men involved at all in this alternative, suggests that they fundamentally don't trust them not to screw it up or assume dominant positions all over again.


_________________
Zombies, zombies will tear us apart...again.


Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age:27
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

26 Mar 2011, 2:15 pm

puddingmouse wrote:
Bethie wrote:
Although I wonder what part of radical feminism is androphobic?


Lesbian separatism?


Oh, all right, so not a philosophy that's inherent to radical feminism at all,
but is, in fact, a more narrow ideology within it.


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 3,729
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

26 Mar 2011, 2:17 pm

Bethie wrote:
ikorack wrote:

Me I see feminism in the west as a way for women to extort power from the government, they already have the same rights as men, they have the same enforcements, they have the same access to education and most jobs, so why are they continueing to act like the west is wholely a traditional patriarchy, or that the western governments are condoning patrarchy in some way.


Equal legal rights do not translate to cultural equality, or economic equality, or domestic equality, etc
even IF one agrees women have equal legal rights.

As per it's colloquial definition, "a society in which men occupy most or all positions of authority",
the west, or America, at least, most certainly IS a patriarchy.
The way I see it everyone should make equal rights and that's it. Institutional equality cannot guarantee social equality and equality itself takes generation after generation to catch on.



puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age:29
Posts: 9,121
Location: Cottonopolis

26 Mar 2011, 2:18 pm

Bethie wrote:
puddingmouse wrote:
Bethie wrote:
Although I wonder what part of radical feminism is androphobic?


Lesbian separatism?


Oh, all right, so not a philosophy that's inherent to radical feminism at all,
but is, in fact, a more narrow ideology within it.


You asked what part of radical feminism...but no, it's not inherent to the whole ideology. Just the idea that society needs to radically change in order to change gender relations, that's really plain radical feminism with no toppings. It usually comes with toppings, though, prefixes like anarcha and green and lesbian.


_________________
Zombies, zombies will tear us apart...again.


Last edited by puddingmouse on 26 Mar 2011, 2:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age:27
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

26 Mar 2011, 2:19 pm

AceOfSpades wrote:
Bethie wrote:
ikorack wrote:

Me I see feminism in the west as a way for women to extort power from the government, they already have the same rights as men, they have the same enforcements, they have the same access to education and most jobs, so why are they continueing to act like the west is wholely a traditional patriarchy, or that the western governments are condoning patrarchy in some way.


Equal legal rights do not translate to cultural equality, or economic equality, or domestic equality, etc
even IF one agrees women have equal legal rights.

As per it's colloquial definition, "a society in which men occupy most or all positions of authority",
the west, or America, at least, most certainly IS a patriarchy.
The way I see it everyone should make equal rights and that's it. Institutional equality cannot guarantee social equality and equality itself takes generation after generation to catch on.


It seems to be at least somewhat aided by deliberate efforts to promote it through various aspects of society.

:roll:


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age:27
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

26 Mar 2011, 2:20 pm

puddingmouse wrote:
Bethie wrote:
puddingmouse wrote:
Bethie wrote:
Although I wonder what part of radical feminism is androphobic?


Lesbian separatism?


Oh, all right, so not a philosophy that's inherent to radical feminism at all,
but is, in fact, a more narrow ideology within it.


You asked what part of radical feminism...but no, it's not inherent to the whole ideology. Just the idea that society needs to radically change in order to change gender relations.


Right. I realize my phrasing wasn't very specific. :D


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age:29
Posts: 9,121
Location: Cottonopolis

26 Mar 2011, 2:23 pm

ikorack wrote:
The effect is an extortion of undue power. Does the intent of the group majority really matter in this instance when the group is supporting the continuation of assigning rights and privileges to women, if the majority of the group really disagrees with these extortions then they need to stop them.


Mainstream feminism is not largely concerned with controlling a radical offshoot of the same ideology. I do think it would have more effect if feminists supported greater legal rights for fathers rather than tried to 'stop' radical feminists.


_________________
Zombies, zombies will tear us apart...again.