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

originally posted by: Tangerine

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.

Anything more you want to "cherry-pick" or is twisting what I said which was women can do generally speaking anything a man can.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: funkadeliaaaa

I do not speak for 'isms'. I speak to them.

I am an old white guy. Since I do NOT like unfair anything and have fought against it, with some success, and have been victimized by it to some degree, I arrived to a conclusion. It's not unshakeable but it does allow ME to operate in this world of privilege seekers.

I could care less about much of the basis for declaring your worthiness to be treated better than me. I do not care about the travails of your ancestors, few of any of them were blessed. Nearly all suffered or were slaughtered for millennia. The world has gotten much better at understanding how to apportion liberty, justice and the benefits of society in recent history.

I do not claim the perfection or completion of those processes. Backsliding is common and regrettable. This may never come to completion due to the obvious insanity of the elite and the 'believers'. This is not my fault. I do support progressive pursuits to mitigate our present.

No matter who YOU are, I want YOU treated fairly. It is not always easy to maintain that attitude. For some of YOU are merely scum. Some by choice, others inherently and some by your rearing. Regardless, YOU should be treated fairly.

When you tell me that I have had a life benefited by my skin color, yeah. I do not apologize because I did not design that favorable prejudice. I do not recall ever using this to my advantage. In turn, it also has been used to my detriment. I do not ask YOU to stop railing at me or sympathizing. I adapted as needed.

What so many want is for the Universe to comfort them, to adopt them as a favored class. Bite me. YOU deserve no more than fair. You aren't being paid what you feel you are worth, prove it. Bully to you, if this is true. Do not tell me about the biological differences that make you less reliable. Do not tell me of your great (Repeat as necessary.) grandparents tribulations. It does not matter to me.

YOU represent YOU to ME. IF you do not like the system, fine. Change it. Band together. To try to guilt me into screwing other people like me to help people like you instead, forget about it. To say that you want a chance and that you are willing to accept the consequences of taking that chance is mature. (I exempt kids from this as everybody is a chucklehead when trying things out for the first time.) I will respect you. When you attempt to cleave society into portions that YOU find acceptable, please, go away. I know that much of social justice's achievements were through sector's efforts. Unions, NAACP, Indian conclaves, etc., and they were necessary.

So now the Unions are being marginalized by corruption, the Black Pols take advantage of their constituents and the Indians run Casinos. See how it turns? The Feminists were funded by people who wanted to take advantage of their greed and stupidity (Rockerfellers, CIA).

Make your demands as you will but I will support you ONLY if this makes beneficial changes to all of MY society. Otherwise, you are as nothing to me. We will all hang together.......

I've always had a strong dislike of the word 'feminism', I agree with the concept behind it, equality between genders, but the word itself conveys superiority for females over males. Equalism is a more accurate term in my opinion.

It should not matter your gender, age, race or religious background, everyone's choices/opinions should be respected, unless they are opposing on another's opinions/views.

If a female wants to behave in a masculine way, then that is her choice, if a female wants to be a stay at home wife then, again, that's her choice and it should be respected. If a male wants to be a stay at home dad, his choice. If he wants to be the bread winner, that's fine too. As long as someone's opinion/choice is being respected and not inflicting on another's opinion/choices, then to me, that is Equalism (or feminism, whichever term you prefer).

I do believe that the term 'feminism' is unhelpful to our society because the term can be viewed by people as women only fighting for equality for women or superiority for women (ie 'feminazis'), but the concept behind 'feminism', 'equality between both genders' is a valid one. It's very beneficial to our society because I believe that each gender, or person even, has positive points to contribute to our society.

Feminism is basically the admittance by some women that women have done very little to shape civilization. However, if we look at it, it has been women who have have had the greatest influence in early childhood development, and thus setting the course for every human being throughout human history, including those who mistreat women.

I never really understood what the problem is with the word 'feminism'. It's not a men's or general civil rights group; they have objectives (although changing, shifting and imo rather weak) regarding one social group: women. What's wrong with that? It's also not as if I'd go ''but straight people?!'' when someone advocates gay rights. If gay people wish to get equal to straight people, straight people have nothing left to gain or fight for in that sense and it's not about them anyway...

It's okay to want emancipation for other specific groups, think ethnic groups, gay people, trans people etc. They don't want to take anything away generally, they just want their equality. Equality TO whatever group it is that is the most privileged in that sense. And no, I feel no need to be let in a gay or trans activism organisation because I simply don't belong there.

''More rights to straight people!!''

==> ''errrr... such as?''

==> ''Oh... well I just wanna be part of this group as well! '' Makes little sense.

originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa
A very contraversial question: Do feminists deny the science of biological differnces?

A much more pragmatic question: Should "biological differnces" allow for inequality under the law?

Should blacks and whites be treated differently because of the color of their flesh? If not; should men and women be treated differently because of the shape of their flesh?

a reply to: AgentShillington

Should blacks and whites be treated differently because of the color of their flesh? If not; should men and women be treated differently because of the shape of their flesh?

Treated by whom?

a reply to: Words

Put on your thinking cap and try again.

A much more pragmatic question: Should "biological differnces" allow for inequality under the law?

Should blacks and whites be treated differently because of the color of their flesh? If not; should men and women be treated differently because of the shape of their flesh?

It makes sense when you take the entire (small) post together, as it was intended.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Well hell. I get emotional. I love emoting most of the time. ;p I don't know why intelligent people get so defensive when accused of being emotional. Isn't that part of being human? I try to temper both my emotion and my reason into one cohesive unit. Seems to work well for me, and of course there are no hard feelings.

Also, please be cautious when reading my words. I try to paint with a broad brush when I observe a situation and my intention truly isn't to commit an ad hominem, although that is how it comes off. I am trying to be more illustrative and objective, although that is probably impossible. My goal isn't to attack you.

I think the problem is that I came out of a very arrogant and selfish state of being which had been pervasive and all encompassing for the entirety of my life, so my personality style, my entire tool box is built around being an asshole. So, when I say things like: "People are vastly too emotionally invested," I'm not trying to make the attribution error of saying that you are definitely being overly emotional to the point of irrationality. I am more trying to relay to you my own position of frustrated caution because I am afraid of insulting you and I don't want to step on your toes. Let's call that some type of projection.

I just basically need to deconstruct the entire way I build sentences and start all over again. And of course, no hard feelings whatsoever. I've seen your comments before on several other things and you are good people by my book.

a reply to: funkadeliaaaa

There are two sides to modern feminism:

1) Women who have a seething hatred and use the guise of feminism as a platform to spread their idiocy.

2) Women (and men) who actively seek equality amongst the sexes. Not one over the other, but equal.

Unfortunately, the voices of the extreme group "1" is often louder than the real feminists in group "2" painting a picture of the modern feminist movement as nothing more than hateful b***s. This is of course my own opinion based on my observations. I support group "2", group "1" can kiss my masculine rear.

a reply to: Auricom

I would actually counter that only one of those two groups represents what Feminism is, and the other is the group that opposition to Feminism latches onto to try to discredit the philosophy. Who controls the media? Perhaps its those trying to keep the status quo by giving the detrimental element a bigger mouthpiece than it would normally have.

a reply to: AgentShillington

Laws do not have volition and are incapable of treating anything. Thinking cap.

thoughtcatalog.com...


An interesting read, and she makes valid points. I think what feminism has evolved into is harmful, however what it started as was good, and helped people. I consider myself to be a equalist over feminist. I don't like what feminism is turning into and I don't support a lot of the feminist campaigns by companies. Most of the reasons the women writes for why she isn't a feminist is exactly why I don't consider myself a feminist, and exactly why I think New-Feminism/Tumblr Feminism/Man hating is harmful to all people. When it shouldn't be harmful to anyone.

originally posted by: dawnstar



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!

In the original hierarchy of religions? Uh...humans (ie. Homo sapiens) have existed for at least 150,000 years. The Abrahamic religions are nowhere near the first religion. Before them were polytheistic religions. Before that shamanism. Before that animism. Women had significantly higher status in those pre-Abrahamic religions. The earliest known religious artifacts dating to Neolithic times depict women. More recently, Celtic polytheism serves as an example. Under Breton law, women could own property, inherit, hold office, and divorce at will. They had essentially equal status with men. Then along came Christianity and the destruction of their status. Another example would be Native Americans prior to the arrival of Christians. In most (perhaps all, but I'm not certain) tribes, councils of female elders selected and could replace the chiefs. Then along came the European Christians who refused to deal with women and, when they destroyed the Native American cultures, destroyed the status of women. The worst thing that ever happened to women was the Abrahamic religious hierarchy you have somehow mistakenly come to believe was the "original hierarchy of religions".

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

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.

The claim that he made is common but I've yet to hear an actual feminist say it. Are you agreeing that that is a feminist position?

a reply to: Words

No one said that laws themselves were treating anyone of anything. However, I see my error, and I apologize. You were being sincere when you asked your question. My mistake.

So to answer your question...

Treated by whom?

Society.

originally posted by: InfamousSiren
I've always had a strong dislike of the word 'feminism', I agree with the concept behind it, equality between genders, but the word itself conveys superiority for females over males. Equalism is a more accurate term in my opinion.

It should not matter your gender, age, race or religious background, everyone's choices/opinions should be respected, unless they are opposing on another's opinions/views.

If a female wants to behave in a masculine way, then that is her choice, if a female wants to be a stay at home wife then, again, that's her choice and it should be respected. If a male wants to be a stay at home dad, his choice. If he wants to be the bread winner, that's fine too. As long as someone's opinion/choice is being respected and not inflicting on another's opinion/choices, then to me, that is Equalism (or feminism, whichever term you prefer).

I do believe that the term 'feminism' is unhelpful to our society because the term can be viewed by people as women only fighting for equality for women or superiority for women (ie 'feminazis'), but the concept behind 'feminism', 'equality between both genders' is a valid one. It's very beneficial to our society because I believe that each gender, or person even, has positive points to contribute to our society.

Perhaps you should study the history of feminism from which you have benefitted so much. It seems to be in vogue now for young women to disdain that which gave them the rights they enjoy. Yes, feminism is about women fighting for equality. It's a shame that you're ashamed of that. It's appalling that you also chose to use a word to describe women that is as offensive as the 'N' word. Are you so desperate for male approval that you feel the need to separate yourself from the rest of your gender as if to say, "Oh, I'm not one of THOSE"?

originally posted by: Pitou
I never really understood what the problem is with the word 'feminism'. It's not a men's or general civil rights group; they have objectives (although changing, shifting and imo rather weak) regarding one social group: women. What's wrong with that? It's also not as if I'd go ''but straight people?!'' when someone advocates gay rights. If gay people wish to get equal to straight people, straight people have nothing left to gain or fight for in that sense and it's not about them anyway...

It's okay to want emancipation for other specific groups, think ethnic groups, gay people, trans people etc. They don't want to take anything away generally, they just want their equality. Equality TO whatever group it is that is the most privileged in that sense. And no, I feel no need to be let in a gay or trans activism organisation because I simply don't belong there.

''More rights to straight people!!''

==> ''errrr... such as?''

==> ''Oh... well I just wanna be part of this group as well!

'' Makes little sense.

The problem with the word feminism is that some people loathe women and some of those people are women. Those people feel that women aren't even entitled to have a word that describes their movement for equality. It's no different from those who feel that women aren't entitled to have their own names and should take the surnames of their fathers and then their husbands.

a reply to: AgentShillington

I apologize.

Society

I suppose it would depend on what any particular society deems a citizen. Usually, race and gender do not play any role in modern definitions of citizen. Historically, however, that hasn't always been the case.

Feminism on the other hand pushes the idea of a "blank slate", and that most, if not all people, are fully conditioned by their society, for instance career choices, aggressiveness, empathy, "gender roles" etc. However, studies have shown that hormones determine interests even before a child is born, for example, infants with more of a certain type of hormone gravitate towards what might be considered "male" toys (trucks), whereas those with less of this hormone gravitate towards "female" toys (dolls). I think feminism avoids the biological facts here when it comes to a lack of women in, say, engineering, and believe it is a conspiracy of sorts.

originally posted by: Words
a reply to: AgentShillington

I apologize.

Society

I suppose it would depend on what any particular society deems a citizen. Usually, race and gender do not play any role in modern definitions of citizen. Historically, however, that hasn't always been the case.

Feminism on the other hand pushes the idea of a "blank slate", and that most, if not all people, are fully conditioned by their society, for instance career choices, aggressiveness, empathy, "gender roles" etc. However, studies have shown that hormones determine interests even before a child is born, for example, infants with more of a certain type of hormone gravitate towards what might be considered "male" toys (trucks), whereas those with less of this hormone gravitate towards "female" toys (dolls). I think feminism avoids the biological facts here when it comes to a lack of women in, say, engineering, and believe it is a conspiracy of sorts.

I find it very hard to believe that there are any credible, peer reviewed, published studies that indicate that what you are saying is accurate. What it is to be a "man" is so diverse throughout not only history, but even currently in our word, that to even determine a cultural baseline to test the biological hypothesis would be a enormous undertaking in itself.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying I am curious as to which studies you are citing.