Page 3 of 9 [ 137 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 9  Next


What do you identify as?
Feminist 66%  66%  [ 99 ]
Not A Feminist 17%  17%  [ 26 ]
Indifferent 16%  16%  [ 24 ]
Total votes : 149

Mysty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,762

06 Apr 2010, 4:39 pm

The conclusion I've reached, from reading this thread and participating in it, is that feminism is not the idea that men and women are equal (or that women are human beings), but rather, feminism is working towards that idea of equality (or that women are human beings) being realized in society. In some ways, the distinction between the two isn't important. But that distinction is why the label "feminism" fits. It doesn't make sense to call the idea that men and women are equal feminism. It doesn't make sense to call the idea that women and men are both fully human "feminism". The bias in the term doesn't fit the idea. It does make sense to use the word "feminism" for working towards implementing that idea in society, because of that starting point we have been coming from.

Well, that's how I see it.


_________________
not aspie, not NT, somewhere in between
Aspie Quiz: 110 Aspie, 103 Neurotypical.
Used to be more autistic than I am now.


pandd
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,430

06 Apr 2010, 7:24 pm

LKL wrote:
Feminism that does not recognize differences between males and females does not exist.

According to Mysty her form of what she calls "post feminism" does not recognize these differences as important. We do not generally have segregated facilities in respect of unimportant differences.

Quote:
That's why you don't see many feminists advocating sharing public bathrooms. Logically, you are using a device known as a 'straw man.'

Feminism advocates equal rights, not state-enforced hermaphroditism.

Are you even reading this thread? It is not a strawman fallacy to argue against something someone actually suggested. Here is what Mysty said
Quote:
I see men and women as equal and gender difference as not important,

As commented above, if the difference is not important then why segregate separate facilities or have different facilities within the segregated facilities?



Mysty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,762

06 Apr 2010, 9:27 pm

pandd wrote:
LKL wrote:
Feminism that does not recognize differences between males and females does not exist.

According to Mysty her form of what she calls "post feminism" does not recognize these differences as important. We do not generally have segregated facilities in respect of unimportant differences.

Quote:
That's why you don't see many feminists advocating sharing public bathrooms. Logically, you are using a device known as a 'straw man.'

Feminism advocates equal rights, not state-enforced hermaphroditism.

Are you even reading this thread? It is not a strawman fallacy to argue against something someone actually suggested. Here is what Mysty said
Quote:
I see men and women as equal and gender difference as not important,

As commented above, if the difference is not important then why segregate separate facilities or have different facilities within the segregated facilities?


Except you aren't arguing against what I suggested. You are arguing against your misunderstanding of what I was trying to say. Not wanting to continue the arguement, but it seems relevant to point that out.


_________________
not aspie, not NT, somewhere in between
Aspie Quiz: 110 Aspie, 103 Neurotypical.
Used to be more autistic than I am now.


pandd
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,430

06 Apr 2010, 10:51 pm

Mysty wrote:
Except you aren't arguing against what I suggested. You are arguing against your misunderstanding of what I was trying to say. Not wanting to continue the arguement, but it seems relevant to point that out.

Which is still not a strawman fallacy. It is not a strawman fallacy to posit the necessary implications of what someone appears to be arguing, particularly where the person will not or cannot clarify what they actually do mean or how it differs from what they have been interpreted to mean.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

07 Apr 2010, 12:01 pm

If you just make up something absurd when you don't understand someone else's point, they yes: it remains a strawman.



Stone_Man
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2009
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 266
Location: retired wanderer in the Southwest deserts

07 Apr 2010, 1:15 pm

It appears to me that the discussion of gender-based issues today has a lot of parallels to the discussion of race-based issues in the 50's and 60's.

There is, for instance, always someone who declares that the movement (for want of a better word) has "gone too far", as if certain demographic groups are entitled to opportunity, as long as it's not "too much" opportunity. These are the backlashers, and you can recognize them by the way they complain about "preferential treatment" given to women or racial minorities.

There is always someone who dreams up bizarre consequences of the "movement", and uses them as justification for quashing it. One reason the Equal Rights Amendment ran out of steam in the 70's is that the idea got around that men and women would have to use the same bathrooms. That issue has been brought up in this thread as well, and it's as silly now as it was then. Who has separate men and women's facilities in their home? Does anybody worry about it there?

There is always someone who interprets "equality under the law" as meaning that men and women, or black people and white people, may not have their own concerns or interests. Or that it means that all humans must be considered as sexless, raceless, homogenized zombies. You see the backlashers here too. They will complain about women's studies programs in universities on the grounds that there's no corresponding "men's studies".

Myself, I simply look forward to a day when the rhetoric has died down, the backlash has died down, and people are accepted for what they are ... nothing more, nothing less. Although, having said that, I do agree with the previous poster who commented that the main issue is equality under the law, and we shouldn't worry too much about attitudes. Leave the attitude adjustment for later generations, if necessary.

What we need here and now is a legal system that does not permit half the population to be denied the rights and opportunities of the other half.



zee
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,280
Location: on a cloud

08 Apr 2010, 12:56 pm

Stone_Man wrote:
It appears to me that the discussion of gender-based issues today has a lot of parallels to the discussion of race-based issues in the 50's and 60's.

There is, for instance, always someone who declares that the movement (for want of a better word) has "gone too far", as if certain demographic groups are entitled to opportunity, as long as it's not "too much" opportunity. These are the backlashers, and you can recognize them by the way they complain about "preferential treatment" given to women or racial minorities.

There is always someone who dreams up bizarre consequences of the "movement", and uses them as justification for quashing it. One reason the Equal Rights Amendment ran out of steam in the 70's is that the idea got around that men and women would have to use the same bathrooms. That issue has been brought up in this thread as well, and it's as silly now as it was then. Who has separate men and women's facilities in their home? Does anybody worry about it there?

There is always someone who interprets "equality under the law" as meaning that men and women, or black people and white people, may not have their own concerns or interests. Or that it means that all humans must be considered as sexless, raceless, homogenized zombies. You see the backlashers here too. They will complain about women's studies programs in universities on the grounds that there's no corresponding "men's studies".

Myself, I simply look forward to a day when the rhetoric has died down, the backlash has died down, and people are accepted for what they are ... nothing more, nothing less. Although, having said that, I do agree with the previous poster who commented that the main issue is equality under the law, and we shouldn't worry too much about attitudes. Leave the attitude adjustment for later generations, if necessary.

What we need here and now is a legal system that does not permit half the population to be denied the rights and opportunities of the other half.


Interesting post. I wonder if you could make the same argument about the rights of people on the autism spectrum vs. neurotypicals? It might be the next big movement.

I've never felt that I had an advantage or more opportunities for being a woman; quite the opposite.
If it wasn't for unions, I think there would be even less women working in trades. And sometimes it feels like it's going backwards again: for instance, port-o-potties at construction sites used to be unisex, but now they have 'special' pink ones for the girls, for some reason. And pink hard hats.
Once I tried to apply to the official carpenter's union, and a rep tried to talk me out of it, citing that it was 'rough and dirty work', with 'coarse language' and there was only port-o-potties, no real washrooms. (I was going to tell him that I consider port-o-potties a luxury as I've worked as a landscaper and had to squat in the bushes a lot, but I doubt that was the real issue...) :roll:



Stone_Man
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2009
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 266
Location: retired wanderer in the Southwest deserts

08 Apr 2010, 5:24 pm

zee wrote:
I wonder if you could make the same argument about the rights of people on the autism spectrum vs. neurotypicals? It might be the next big movement.


Yep, no doubt. People are discriminated against and disrespected for all kinds of things in addition to gender: age, handicapped status, political affiliation, sexual orientation, etc, etc. Even their looks.

Quote:
And pink hard hats.


Was that your choice or theirs?


Quote:
citing that it was 'rough and dirty work', with 'coarse language' and there was only port-o-potties, no real washrooms.


I'm sure that's all true. But the choice should be yours, not that union rep's.



zee
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,280
Location: on a cloud

08 Apr 2010, 7:55 pm

Yes, I guess they wouldn't make pink hard hats if no-one would buy them. But the port-o-potty thing is stupid.

It's funny that the union rep tried to talk me out of it, because at that time the same union was doing a lot of advertising aimed at women... at that time there was a big labour shortage. Why specially reach out to females if you don't really want to hire them?



Stone_Man
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2009
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 266
Location: retired wanderer in the Southwest deserts

08 Apr 2010, 8:44 pm

zee wrote:
Why specially reach out to females if you don't really want to hire them?


My guess would be so they can make it look like they're "reaching out", while in fact not really doing anything different at all.



pandd
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,430

09 Apr 2010, 12:17 am

LKL wrote:
If you just make up something absurd when you don't understand someone else's point, they yes: it remains a strawman.

I did not make up anything absurd. If you can think of some reason why we would have separate facilities on the basis of gender or sex in the absence of any sex or gender difference that merits recognizing, or you can find some error in my interpretation not dependent on mysty meaning something other than the words she used to express her point, I'd be most interested to read about that.



Mysty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,762

09 Apr 2010, 12:21 pm

By the way, the reason I choose not to further explain myself to you, Pandd, is that I've learned not to bother having conversations with people who, from what I can see, aren't going to try to listen and understand. Such discussions are a waste of my time. The one recent reply was really for the benefit of others reading.

It's not that I can't further explain my perspective. It's that it's not worth my time.


_________________
not aspie, not NT, somewhere in between
Aspie Quiz: 110 Aspie, 103 Neurotypical.
Used to be more autistic than I am now.


Daniella
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jun 2009
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Posts: 317
Location: Netherlands

09 Apr 2010, 4:26 pm

Definitely not a feminist. If it would've been the 50's, I might have been, but now, I don't see a reason why I would be.


_________________
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.


agape
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 7

16 Apr 2010, 10:26 am

I'm not a feminist. I believe in the equal treatment and rights of all human beings. Females are not the only minority group. Actually, females are the majority in population, but are still considered a minority group. There are many other minority groups that are just as, if not more, segregated or unfairly treated than females. Many people are paid less, treated badly or excluded based purely on their looks, their lifestyles, their beliefs. Poor people, little people, fat people, deformed people, people with any array of diseases or disabilities. And actually, within many minority groups, it's actually the men that are looked down upon moreso than the women within that same group. Homeless and poor people for example...the men in these groups are generally shown less sympathy and receive less help than their female counterparts, and more is expected from them. There are also plenty of men from different minority groups that make well below the average female income. And for these reasons, i'm not a feminist, but believe in equal rights of all human beings.



MEATGRINDER
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 20 Dec 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 50

16 Apr 2010, 1:29 pm

zee wrote:
MEATGRINDER wrote:
zee wrote:
Yes, very feminist. I work with mostly men; many different jobs. When a man with less experience/skill than me gets promoted over me, or gets paid more, it upsets me. :evil:



When a woman's word is considered to be valid by default just because she's female(as in he said/she said disputes), THAT upsets Me. :evil: I've noticed that men in positions of authority, be they bosses or judges, will side with women whenever she claims to be "threatened" by a man who she simply dislikes and wants to get rid of.
I live in the US where AFAIC the advantage has shifted in favor of women for people of my generation. Now I recognize that for past generations this very well may NOT be true, but I do believe that for teenagers and 20somethings the social advantage is clearly in women's favor.


What are you basing all this on? :roll:
Definately not on my post, anyway.


I'm basing it on my own personal experiences with life in contemporary America.



Solsikke
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 7 Aug 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 199

05 Jun 2010, 4:14 am

I'm also a feminist.