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

As i was saying (and if we could please stick on topic from now on that would be great), there appears to be very little discussion about whether the patriarchy that Feminism fundamentally opposes is a result of sexism or something less sinister like the phenomenon of friend-bias. Ignoring the biologically differences between men and women in this regard i think has been a big mistake by feminists.. given the influence of feminism and the potential it has to enlighten society, it is a shame that no one deconstructed the core themes more, exposing their hidden fascets, and exploring more deeply their sociological implications as a new field of intillectual discovery would inevitably open up from it, leading to an enriched sociology rather than a depleted one as we have at the moment because of these poor intellectual standards, clearly driven and blinded by passion and emotion on all sides rather than reason.... I always say it should never be a surprise that humans are this stupid, but humans are not actually this stupid.... were just too passionately defending our intelligence, because of how stupid we all know society is... and poor academics dont want to be made to feel stupid... they want in on reason at all costs... even if it comes at the price of intelligence, but they were always too stupid to know that.... the trifactor of money sex and power must really put them in a hyper funkadelic mood, to come up with all these flawed sociological and political theories. Universities are a cesspools of stupidity, hence people think feminists are nazis, but dont bother engage in higher level sociology. Its passion and hatred that drives people to debate these days not their inteilligence or reason, and the academics seemed to have set this precedent themselves, as the 60s were very passionate politically charged time, hence it was a bad time reason that we seem to still be recovering from.... this is me spilling some change all over you carpets sorry about that... lol

Feminism is mainly focused on women's issues, but author bell hooks and others have argued that, since feminism seeks gender equality, it must necessarily include men's liberation because men are also harmed by sexism and gender roles.[12]

Feminism

The reasons women are feminists are varied. For the most part, the ones I've seen have been jilted in a relationship by men, either abused physically or cheated on. They become "man-haters" because they are left to fend for themselves in the world, their dream of a white house and picket fence and lovely family was shattered, and they are left cold and bitter. I don't know if I've ever met a feminist who is a dictionary definition of the word. Some women just wish they were born males, and see the grass as being greener on the male side. (trust me, it isn't) Some women are lesbians, and see feminism as a way of their rights being protected. And I'm sure there are some "true feminists" out there.

As far as degrading things that happen to women, the fact that they are women doesn't single them out. In other parts of the world children are starving, boys AND girls, and being trafficked as slaves, sexual and otherwise. When a band of ISIS shows up they kill the men and rape the women. Which is worse? Evil doesn't discriminate.

Women's rights, in my view, are very much protected in the U.S. Already in a young, growing family, women pretty much wear the pants and make as many if not All the major decisions in a household. There is nothing wrong with this, in my view, because women are generally more emotionally mature and sound for their age. It is almost taboo to even joke about a woman being less than equal, as you can easily see even in this thread. If a man assaults a woman in a domestic violence, he does go to jail as a rule and it does stay on his record for the rest of his life.

We have cultural problems in the U.S. far more complicated than any issues of feminism.

I call it like I see it, and I'm sure this won't get any accolade from self-proclaimed feminists.

originally posted by: Nechash
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Not at all. I wouldn't ever say anyone must reproduce. I'm not. I would never wish to reduce women to the status of being brood mares for the state. That is the real problem of discussing issues like this. People are vastly too emotionally invested and the slightest wording on a single sentence can "trigger" someone. Plus, many people feel that men have no room at all whatsoever to comment on women's issues, so some of those types will be offended no matter what a man says.

What I am saying is that if a woman chooses to be a mother and to raise children instead of focusing on a career, many people who claim to be feminists are critical of that saying that she's sacrificing her own career for that. I'm saying child rearing is a career, and stay at home moms should be proud of leading their children into a better future, not that all women must be mothers or that motherhood is the best contribution they can make. It is just one of many.

I've never actually heard a feminist say that. I have often heard anti-feminists say that feminists say that. It reminds me of fundamentalists' claims that scientists say humans evolved from monkeys. Nope, scientists don't say that. Fundamentalists claim that scientists say that. Can you document any prominent feminist saying that?

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
I find the way feminism has been hijacked to be counterproductive. It does not concentrate on the positive aspects and abilities of women, rather, it concentrates on the negative aspects (real, presumed or imagined) of men. At the same time it tries to make women more like men and men more like women. That's manipulated social engineering, that's not striving for equality. Feminism deals with men much like the triplets in Minority Report, it's all about pre-crime, feminists think it will happen therefore it will or did happen, with no reason, basis in reality or facts to levy a pre-punishment.
....


Cheers - Dave

What are the positive aspects and abilities of women? List some.

In what specific ways does feminism (the notion that women should be equal under the law) try to "make women more like men and women more like women"?

originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa
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.

This strongly suggests that you don't know what is meant by female circumcision. It's an entirely inappropriate term that trivializes a barbaric and life-affecting procedure.

originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa
As i was saying (and if we could please stick on topic from now on that would be great), there appears to be very little discussion about whether the patriarchy that Feminism fundamentally opposes is a result of sexism or something less sinister like the phenomenon of friend-bias. Ignoring the biologically differences between men and women in this regard i think has been a big mistake by feminists.. given the influence of feminism and the potential it has to enlighten society, it is a shame that no one deconstructed the core themes more, exposing their hidden fascets, and exploring more deeply their sociological implications as a new field of intillectual discovery would inevitably open up from it, leading to an enriched sociology rather than a depleted one as we have at the moment because of these poor intellectual standards, clearly driven and blinded by passion and emotion on all sides rather than reason.... I always say it should never be a surprise that humans are this stupid, but humans are not actually this stupid.... were just too passionately defending our intelligence, because of how stupid we all know society is... and poor academics dont want to be made to feel stupid... they want in on reason at all costs... even if it comes at the price of intelligence, but they were always too stupid to know that.... the trifactor of money sex and power must really put them in a hyper funkadelic mood, to come up with all these flawed sociological and political theories. Universities are a cesspools of stupidity, hence people think feminists are nazis, but dont bother engage in higher level sociology. Its passion and hatred that drives people to debate these days not their inteilligence or reason, and the academics seemed to have set this precedent themselves, as the 60s were very passionate politically charged time, hence it was a bad time reason that we seem to still be recovering from.... this is me spilling some change all over you carpets sorry about that... lol

If you'd actually bothered to read feminist writings, you'd know that people have "bothered" to discuss these things. You seemed to have reached many conclusions about a variety of topics without having lived nearly long enough to have compiled much knowledge or experience.

a reply to: Tangerine

Ok, tangerine, who?

a reply to: Tangerine

I am not trivialising anything by using the word circumcision. Foreskin removal is not a trivial event in a male boys life, and it can cause death and problems as much as female circumcision. You need to get your facts straight.......

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
I find the way feminism has been hijacked to be counterproductive. It does not concentrate on the positive aspects and abilities of women, rather, it concentrates on the negative aspects (real, presumed or imagined) of men. At the same time it tries to make women more like men and men more like women. That's manipulated social engineering, that's not striving for equality. Feminism deals with men much like the triplets in Minority Report, it's all about pre-crime, feminists think it will happen therefore it will or did happen, with no reason, basis in reality or facts to levy a pre-punishment.
....


Cheers - Dave

What are the positive aspects and abilities of women? List some.

In what specific ways does feminism (the notion that women should be equal under the law) try to "make women more like men and women more like women"?

Positive aspects: They can do pretty much anything a man can plus they can make babies. But then, if we really wanted to, in a few more years we should be able to develop and fertilize cloned and/or genetically altered ovum, so it kind of makes males equal in that respect.

Second question: feminism tends to make women more aggressive (more like men), especially via the program of radicalized militant feminism and in doing so it tends to make many men change their attitudes in order to be with women (or not), subsequently they become more like women by being effeminate or use women as they wish to be "used" or the men go gay or even celibate as women become too much trouble and not worth the effort. I think the new term for a heterosexual effeminate male is metrosexual, LOL. This change in social structure and gender interactions appears to be promoted by both media and government. I don't think I have to explain or cite the media campaigns of straight men in dresses, high heels and/or with purses ;-)

I have no problem with "equal under the law" for rights, pay and position (for equal work/intelligence), I support that idea fully and it is the way it should be, but I want a level playing field. If women want equality then there can be no quotas, no special treatment, no favoured gender status, no affirmative action garbage, no more injured bird crap in favoured gender family courts, etc. and that way the competition for resources (which should not exist between men and women) would probably become equitable. Actually, I would prefer to see something like a meritocracy where positions and grants were given based on actual performance rather than the slanted quota system under which we are presently operating, which is promoted and reinforced into the business sector (as well) by governments.

With the twisted way in which feminism these days is operating, that being the non-level playing field, I see a lot of bitter old women having a hard time trying to get along on their own because they have been psychologically polluted to the point that no man (or other woman) will have them.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
I find the way feminism has been hijacked to be counterproductive. It does not concentrate on the positive aspects and abilities of women, rather, it concentrates on the negative aspects (real, presumed or imagined) of men. At the same time it tries to make women more like men and men more like women. That's manipulated social engineering, that's not striving for equality. Feminism deals with men much like the triplets in Minority Report, it's all about pre-crime, feminists think it will happen therefore it will or did happen, with no reason, basis in reality or facts to levy a pre-punishment.
....


Cheers - Dave

What are the positive aspects and abilities of women? List some.

In what specific ways does feminism (the notion that women should be equal under the law) try to "make women more like men and women more like women"?

Positive aspects: They can do pretty much anything a man can plus they can make babies. But then, if we really wanted to, in a few more years we should be able to develop and fertilize cloned and/or genetically altered ovum, so it kind of makes males equal in that respect.

Second question: feminism tends to make women more aggressive (more like men), especially via the program of radicalized militant feminism and in doing so it tends to make many men change their attitudes in order to be with women (or not), subsequently they become more like women by being effeminate or use women as they wish to be "used" or the men go gay or even celibate as women become too much trouble and not worth the effort. I think the new term for a heterosexual effeminate male is metrosexual, LOL. This change in social structure and gender interactions appears to be promoted by both media and government. I don't think I have to explain or cite the media campaigns of straight men in dresses, high heels and/or with purses ;-)

I have no problem with "equal under the law" for rights, pay and position (for equal work/intelligence), I support that idea fully and it is the way it should be, but I want a level playing field. If women want equality then there can be no quotas, no special treatment, no favoured gender status, no affirmative action garbage, no more injured bird crap in favoured gender family courts, etc. and that way the competition for resources (which should not exist between men and women) would probably become equitable. Actually, I would prefer to see something like a meritocracy where positions and grants were given based on actual performance rather than the slanted quota system under which we are presently operating, which is promoted and reinforced into the business sector (as well) by governments.

With the twisted way in which feminism these days is operating, that being the non-level playing field, I see a lot of bitter old women having a hard time trying to get along on their own because they have been psychologically polluted to the point that no man (or other woman) will have them.

Cheers - Dave

To summarize your post:

1. The only positive aspects and abilities of women is that they can have babies.

2. Men are aggressive. Women are "effeminate" (whatever that means).

3. Women want to be "used".

4. Feminism makes women aggressive like men and makes men effeminate and gay or celibate (presumably like women).

5. There's a media campaign to put straight men in dresses and heels.

6. You have no problem with equal rights but you want a meritocracy.

7. Feminism is twisted.

8. Bitter old women have a hard time getting along on their own because they're psychologically polluted and no one wants them.

I'd say you have a serious problem and it's not feminism.

a reply to: funkadeliaaaa

It supports the idea that there is a clear distinction between "man" and "woman" and that a woman can be proud to be a, "woman", as a matter of identity, and stand up for herself in the world of "men" and demand that they treat her as equal despite her perceived "differences" as a woman.

There is basically a "stance" that men and women are almost separate "species" on this planet (although technically they were at a very early point in the evolution of life).

In my mind, speaking from the point of evolution and reincarnation, we should have all experienced being both male and female at this stage, and really, I don't see why we should try and slot our identity as either "male" or "female" based upon our incarnation in this life alone.

Really, we should already be able to understand the differences between the two and the contention that exists between male and female is definitely not productive.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

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.

I know you don't know me, but I really was joking. Often humor is taken out of context on-line. I have five older sisters and am the only male child in my family (and the youngest of all) and the battle of the sexes was something I was raised with, though it was almost always with humor. So it is with ironic humor that I point out that much of my humor was honed by the female of our species.

I have to wonder where these horror stories about feminism come from. Hmm, out of a certain cavity?

Granted, I agree that feminism has its contradictions and needs to re-define itself. It has its inconsistencies and modern weaknesses. But that's a whole other matter from the monstrous notions some appear to have. If feminism means shaming women for staying at home and being a mom, or somehow castrating men (*snip!* of with their balls!) or female domination I disagree with them in that regard. But still, I still need to come across such opinions (and no, one crazy lay who writes an aggressive hateful log that max 5 people frequent is not an argument imo as it doesn't define a major branch within the movement)

Thus far it seems as if certain writers, individuals, blogs, sites and movements have this weird and rather terrible caricature of feminists in their head and fear that these feminists will do what men have been doing for tens of thousands of years and are still doing all over the world And as if they really want to keep that status quo. Even as a child I couldn't help but wonder what was up with that: You deem it unjust (rightfully so) to be oppressed or become oppressed, but while doing so, staunchly defend exactly THAT system, just because it benefits you/doesn't harm you? Is there any honesty left in that?

I have no problem with "equal under the law" for rights, pay and position (for equal work/intelligence), I support that idea fully and it is the way it should be, but I want a level playing field. If women want equality then there can be no quotas, no special treatment, no favoured gender status, no affirmative action garbage, no more injured bird crap in favoured gender family courts, etc. and that way the competition for resources (which should not exist between men and women) would probably become equitable. Actually, I would prefer to see something like a meritocracy where positions and grants were given based on actual performance rather than the slanted quota system under which we are presently operating, which is promoted and reinforced into the business sector (as well) by governments.

The first ERA ammendment was written and presented to congress in 1923 and was presented every year afterwards up till 1972 when it was then allowed to go on to the states to vote on. The deadline for state ratification was 7 years and it had been extended to 1982. It was three states short and thus not ratified. I would propose that all those special treatments that you are griping about came about as a way to pacify the women and thus lose their interest in the ERA. After all who wants equal rights when they can have so much more!! And, it is all so much easier to change laws than it is an ammendment isn't it?? I would propose that all these special perks did more harm to the women's advances than good. All they did was give women a choice as to whom they would serve- a husband or the gov't. But well there was no way they were going to allow women to become financially independent and thus not need a lord of some kind.

I am gonna get a tad bit spiritual and religious on yous for a bit - just a warning. but since the topic we are discussing is relevant to the histories of religions I think it might be necessary to dive into it.

I think that there is a spiritual food source that we all need to survive that we obtain through God or whatever you wish to call that supreme being that created us. For the most part it is freely given but occasionally we can do things to block it or entirely refuse it. When that happens one tends to seek out that energy from second hand sources- people!

In the original hierarchy in religions the children slaves and women were at the bottom with the husband as her head.
The husband had quite a few heads above him really- his father, the elders of his family, the clan leader, the priests, the king, and finally GOD! I think somehow that manages to divert the flow of that energy away from the one to one as it should be to being channeled down as well as being fed up when someone in that chain did something to block the downward flow. when that happened those at the bottom were spiritually cannabilised to empower those above them. The feminist movement was just a part of a much bigger movement that helped restore the flow of that energy somewhat. The priests and kings were removed from their place in the flow as man claimed their right to nourish their own spiritual growth as they saw fit (or chose not to!) God was made approachable to them, and the slaves were freed and given the right to vote. But then they stalled both in the legal aspects as well as the religious aspects. They have softened the tone a bit in the churches when it comes to the place of women but they still place her below the husband. And she is still very much at an economical disadvantage. So, all in all I would say that the door has been left very much open for a quick retreat from this grand experiment if and when it is decided that a retreat is needed. And once women are place in a lower subservient role under men again it will only take a few generations for the children to accept the idea that everyone has a place in the pecking order and fall in line!
And all the other gains that have been made will be easily replaced!

So well maybe we still need the feminism to hold their ground and just maybe the men have much more to lose than they think if the true feminists falter in any key areas.

As far as the radicals??? Well what can I say I've talked to some radical christians who claim to have the god given right to decide just who their daughter will marry, who would deny a women any escape from an abusing husband all they while claiming that she must not be doing enough or maybe she is just doing something wrong and that is why she is receiving the abuse! There seems to be radicals in every camp now days!

My favorite feminist author was Elizabeth Stanton.

Sometimes it helps to understand the place we are in if we understand where when came from!

ecssba.rutgers.edu...

A very contraversial question: Do feminists deny the science of biological differnces?

a reply to: Tangerine

Well, maybe the vocal feminists of the internet are actually all trolls. That would explain much.

originally posted by: Nechash
a reply to: Tangerine

Well, maybe the vocal feminists of the internet are actually all trolls. That would explain much.

Looking into at the flawed sociology behind a lot of the feminist arguments i think explains more.

originally posted by: Nechash
That is the real problem of discussing issues like this. People are vastly too emotionally invested and the slightest wording on a single sentence can "trigger" someone. Plus, many people feel that men have no room at all whatsoever to comment on women's issues, so some of those types will be offended no matter what a man says.

I didn't get emotional. I just read your post and wanted to check with you to see what you meant. I didn't mean to attack or anything. I am not one of those who think men shouldn't comment on women's issues.

What I am saying is that if a woman chooses to be a mother and to raise children instead of focusing on a career, many people who claim to be feminists are critical of that saying that she's sacrificing her own career for that.

I agree with you completely. I just didn't get that message in your first post. Now, I get it. No hard feelings.

a reply to: funkadeliaaaa

there are many different flowers within the flower arrangements but they all seem to equally contribute to the beauty of the arrangement! Tell me which instrument in the orchestra is the greatest? And which instrument can it do without?
1+9=10
8+2=10
6+4=10

each statement has it's differences but still all very much equal.

And isn't there significant differences among men?? as well as among women? Differences does not mean inequality!
They only divide us into groups to peer at each other and find ourselves superior because of one or more differences. And when it comes to male and female I have to say that either group would be a sorry lot without the other if not nonexistant.

If you find that women seem to be wanting to be men maybe you should ask the question. Why??? Maybe they don't want to be part of that statistic that says the ranks of the proverty stricken consists overwhelmingly of females. Maybe they have found society as not giving enough value to the feminine nature? I mean it seems to have taken the position of mother, ( a job that is so demanding that personally when I found the opportunity to work outside of the home I felt my screen printing job was more like a vacation! ) as meaning sitting at home all day doing nothing but watching tv all day or going out and blowing the poor sap of a husband's hard earned money on frilly dresses and shoes! Equality, unencumbered by the standard stereotypes would mean that gee the mother could spend part of her time earning her own money and the father wouldn't be working so many hours that he has no time to get to know his kids.. Of course it would and should be expected that if the mother is working to help pay the bills then the man should also be taking up part of the slack on the homefront but it would have been an advantageous deal for both parties as I see it. Much better than the screwed up system we call welfare and child support!

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: funkadeliaaaa



there are many different flowers within the flower arrangements but they all seem to equally contribute to the beauty of the arrangement! Tell me which instrument in the orchestra is the greatest? And which instrument can it do without?

1+9=10

8+2=10

6+4=10



each statement has it's differences but still all very much equal.

so you do not care about 5's
5+5=10
0+10=10
i found these numbers under the bus