Is feminism sociologically unhelpfull? Or is it a true reflection of society?

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I was not ignorant of the history of feminism, i was questioning i suppose the validity of its continued presence in Western sociological discourse after women have now gained more or less equal rights as men in western civil society. It was the notion that the patriarchal attitude against women had continued into modern times i was struggling to deal with being only 22, and not having experienced much in the professional world that would give me direct first hand knowledge of a continued patriarchal dominance over women. Yet, having reflected, i can see how there does appear to be a continued subjugation of women among some men. But saying that one would have to spend a lot of time to know the extent of it.... And the burning question remains, do men even realise what patriarchal values they are suppedly displaying toward women by their masculin behaviour? This is a very deep question for our culture, and i feel its much deper than most sociologists can comprehend, at least the ones ive come accross.

a reply to: Iamschist

The foreskin is a bit more important than that, but I agree with you that women have it worse. At least with men they aren't producing eunuchs anymore. Here's the thing, if the Torah commanded emasculation, I would be 100% against that regardless of the religious rights of Abrahamics, but because it is "just the tip," I'm torn. I don't want to violate the rights of practicing Jews by abolishing circumcision, but I also don't think genital mutilation is fair to infants whatsoever. I certainly think circumcisions that are not absolutely medically necessary should be abolished unless for religious purposes, and I think female circumcisions should be abolished altogether. No currently popular faith requires them and there's no reason to add to the savagery.

a reply to: Nechash

all that points me to the question of what spiritual benefit would one have by not being able to have sex like others. i think if we ever figure out exactly what sex is and its efects that we may not know then we might view it differently. at least that is all i can come up with as an answer why some do that cause it makes no physical sense. there has to be more to the story.

a reply to: Nechash

Exactly, you expressed what i was more or less about to say perfectly. I was not belittling the suffering that a lot of women and girls go through as a result of circumcision, but campaigners who only speak out against female circumcision i feel are hypocrites and frankly cowards for not speaking out the barbarity of circumcision for both men and women.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
men and women are not eaqual

Being equal and "equal rights" is not the same thing.

"Equal Rights" is about the right to make decisions/choices for yourself ---- not to be denied those decisions/choices because of gender.

It's also about being treated equally without gender bias in those decision/choices.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Nechash

... i think if we ever figure out exactly what sex is...

I love ATS.

Man, do I love this website.

a reply to: deadeyedick

I think it is indicative of that type of faith. They are uncomfortable with human sexuality and they are self-sacrificial. They want to set themselves apart by mutilating their most sensitive organ, depriving themselves of future pleasure and proving how much they are willing to offer up of themselves to their God.

A foreskin is also not the most aesthetically pleasing feature of a natural male, so it may have had some vanity behind it. With the skin removed like that, the glans appears to be in a perpetual state of arousal, so maybe at one time early tribal groups thought it made them appear more virile? It could also have had something to do with the transition to wearing clothing. Maybe early tribes wore animal hides that were leading to infections in the penis? I have no idea how it started, but it seems silly to continue it today with everything we know now.

a reply to: Annee

It's also about being treated equally without gender bias in those decision/choices.

i think there is a danger sometimes when feminists mis-identify these biases as gender biases, when in reality they could be for example friend biases. And there is a deeper spiritual and cultural issue to be meted out around that point because the friend bias, where male friends feel bias towards male peers is something that goes to the heart of the gender bias debate when principally the heart of Patriarchal is in my opinion probably more built around that than something consciously as sinister as sexism, and there appears to be very little sociological deconstruction of that distinction. And thats why i find myself asking, is current feminist ideology unhelpfull sociologically? Or is it a true reflection of our society? (men are self serving because they are sexist and view women as inferior???)....

a reply to: Nechash

Actually Jews started it because they felt it would prevent temptation and lust, making it easier to walk a spiritual path of renunciation from worldly pleasure and desires. Muslims and others i believe share the same reasoning.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: deadeyedick

men and women are not eaqual

Being equal and "equal rights" is not the same thing.



"Equal Rights" is about the right to make decisions/choices for yourself ---- not to be denied those decisions/choices because of gender.



It's also about being treated equally without gender bias in those decision/choices.

wow i agree with you except the last line. it really only comes down to the physical aspect of it. women are just as mentally capable as men. however the majority of women are not physically eaqual to men in strength but often on the job they do not need to be. the other major factor is the beauty they possess and how it makes men feel. that is not the fault of woman in most cases but it is to often ignored. we are not eaqual at all and when we pretend to be we can overlook some major factors that can leed to long term suffering on both sides.

originally posted by: AgentShillington

originally posted by: deadeyedick

a reply to: Nechash



... i think if we ever figure out exactly what sex is...

I love ATS.



Man, do I love this website.

a place where you can take out small portions of a post and then pretend you did not know what the person was refering too. i know you have a job to do.

you do highlight a good point though. what is really happening outside the physical when all that energy is manifested? If we do have souls and spirits then it is likely things happen we know not of. the whole subject that we are on here about could have possible effects that harm us long term. i think religion is just acting out in the physical on things that effects the spirit.

Equality is very helpful! And that is the heart of the matter regarding feminism.

Feminism is being used for superiority over men rather than equality. They say "there is never an excuse to hit a woman" but if men and women are equal, why not say "there is never an excuse to hit"? Why is it only ok for a man to be hit and abused? Why is it ok to circumcise a male against his will but not a female?

Some (NOT all) feminist women say that they are strong and don't need help from a man, but then when they are doing a difficult task they use the fact that they are a woman as an excuse to get a man to do the difficult task. How come it's not ok for a man to manipulate people like this? Why is it that when a woman is relaxing that is ok, but if a man does it, it's called "laziness"?

Either men and women are equal or not. If people believe in feminism, that men and women are equal, and they are quick to help women, then they should be quick to help men, too.

Most people are hypocrites and do not care for equality but only want to follow social "rules" they were taught to follow, rather than caring about Justice for the sake of Equality.

Circmcision removes a fair amount of nerves, so it isn't harmless and reduces the pleasure a man gets from sex.

jjie.org...

Still, males remain a largely invisible population within the dialogue on sex trafficking. According to a 2008 study by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, in fact, boys comprised about 50 percent of sexually exploited children in a sample study done in New York, with most being domestic victims.

fyi...

originally posted by: Iamschist
Men do not have their penis removed, circumcision for them means a tiny bit of nonessential flesh. For a woman it means no pleasure from sex. Men, to my knowledge are not kidnapped and turned into sexual slaves. The other things do happen to men and they are deplorable, however women suffer disproportionately more incidences.

originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa
a reply to: Iamschist

I think there is reason to hope in western countries, but as long as women are circumcised, enslaved, forced to marry someone not of their choosing, subjected to rape and domestic abuse, feminism best remain.

All of these things happen to men too.


But i agree with this:

Feminism is about equality. About women having the same rights, freedoms and benefits as men.

originally posted by: TDawgRex
a reply to: funkadeliaaaa

It's not complicated at all. Just tell the woman to get back in the kitchen and make you a sandwich and bring you a beer. Easy Peesy!

Kidding ladies! I'm kidding!

I would call this behavior the single biggest thing women dislike about many men (which is only tangently revelant to feminism) and that is passive agressive behavior.

Saying that 'you were just joking' doesn't excuse or negate what you actually did say. Whenever a man, or women, says "I was only joking) and I include myself here, I know without a shadow of a doubt that the person saying it really means what they said prior to the "joking" justification and it was no joke.

On the feminism front, personally I wasn't really into it when I was younger (and still believed - it was just a joke). I was always a bit pissed that I had to perform (in any area) to a higher degree then the males around me, but took it in stride and used the fact that I excelled in a male dominated arena to inflate my ego.

But after reading, and a few classes I changed my tune.

Didn't care for the tone of most feminist theory but came to love the following two books which are not feminist but do support the need for an active feminism.

They are "The Chalice and the Blade" by Riane Eisler and "The Alphabet vs the Goddess" by Leonard Shlain. Both are more Sociological but excellent and interesting reading especially the Shlain book. I've never had anyone I recommended it to, that read it, complain; usually it becomes one of their favorite books as well, male and female alike.

originally posted by: Nechash
a reply to: funkadeliaaaa



I think many feminists view childbirth as a cruel joke of nature instead of ...

Are you really that ignorant? Have you asked any feminists the question or are you just projecting your assumptions onto a whole class of people.

While their may be a few that hold such an opinion in the whole I'd say feminists think childbirth (and the freedom to concieve, birth and raise children in the manner they want) to be a central, even sacred, tenant of the movement.

Having outside authorities tell us how to control and manage this central fact of our lives - is what began the movement.

a reply to: FyreByrd

I think I just opened my mouth on tumblir, imgur, reddit and 4chan one too many times. Maybe I'm a bit gunshy? ;p Honestly, if you think about it, there aren't that many feminists around on the local level, and having been around anarchists much of my life, most of the feminists I've met have been the vegan types that ask you what pronouns you like to be referred by before speaking to you. That whole sector of society is a bit wonky to me.

a reply to: Evil_Santa

It's a shame that intelligent (and seemingly) sane people would even have to have an argument made to them about why it's not fair to take a male and slice a piece of his body off which will permanently affect his life. If it's not ok to slice off a baby's finger because it's "unnecessary" since they have other fingers, then this should automatically be seen as just as insane and made illegal.

a reply to: arpgme

Isn't it? Honestly, if it were any other body part for any other reason, I'd be against it, no thought needed. It is only the special circumstances of religion which cause me to pause. We have made religious ideology so special in our society that it has almost risen above criticism. That is troubling in and of itself.

edit: dp