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

a reply to: Tangerine

"Desperate for male approval"
i think to suggest the desire to seek a mans approval is a bad thing is an extremely sexist sentiment in itself. The same way a femnist would feel offended by men criticizing other men for seeking female approval. This is the thing i disagre with most: feminists trying tear down the whole of patriarchy with viscous & jealous sentiments, thereby setting up their own sexist matriarchy.

originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa
a reply to: Tangerine

"Desperate for male approval"
i think to suggest the desire to seek a mans approval is a bad thing is an extremely sexist sentiment in itself. The same way a femnist would feel offended by men criticizing other men for seeking female approval. This is the thing i disagre with most: feminists trying tear down the whole of patriarchy with viscous & jealous sentiments, thereby setting up their own sexist matriarchy.

You're finally coming out of the closet with your real attitude toward feminists!

a reply to: AgentShillington

Infants’ Preferences for Toys, Colors, and Shapes: Sex Differences and Similarities
Sex differences in infants' visual interest in toys.
Early Androgens Are Related to Childhood Sex-Typed Toy Preferences

Even finger length helps determine interests:

Testosterone and domain-specific risk: Digit ratios (2D:4D and rel2) as predictors of recreational, financial, and social risk-taking behaviors.

What might be most telling, is it also occurs in non-human primates:

Sex differences in rhesus monkey toy preferences parallel those of children
Sex differences in response to children's toys in nonhuman primates (Cercopithecus aethiops sabaeus)

Now this isn't to say social conditions do not factor in, but that the reason we enact such "gender roles" on our children is because biologically, this is the way it usually goes, and not because some shadowy group of men are forcing people to conform to a patriarchy.

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 sounder question: Has feminism become sexist by disrespecting all forms of patriarchy?

*snippety snip*

a reply to: funkadeliaaaa

I remember the feminist Camille Paglia, who is quite the opposite of typical feminists, once said "If women were in charge, we'd all be living in grass huts." If history is any indication, I would have to agree.

originally posted by: Words
a reply to: AgentShillington

Infants’ Preferences for Toys, Colors, and Shapes: Sex Differences and Similarities
Sex differences in infants' visual interest in toys.
Early Androgens Are Related to Childhood Sex-Typed Toy Preferences

Even finger length helps determine interests:

Testosterone and domain-specific risk: Digit ratios (2D:4D and rel2) as predictors of recreational, financial, and social risk-taking behaviors.

What might be most telling, is it also occurs in non-human primates:

Sex differences in rhesus monkey toy preferences parallel those of children
Sex differences in response to children's toys in nonhuman primates (Cercopithecus aethiops sabaeus)

Now this isn't to say social conditions do not factor in, but that the reason we enact such "gender roles" on our children is because biologically, this is the way it usually goes, and not because some shadowy group of men are forcing people to conform to a patriarchy.

These studies are ridiculous, and are begging the question in their initial concept.

Girls with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) who were exposed to high levels of androgen in the prenatal and early postnatal periods showed increased play with boys” toys and reduced play with girls' toys compared with their unexposed female relatives at ages 3 to 8. Boys with CAH did not differ from their male relatives in play with boys' or girls' toys. These results suggest that early hormone exposure in females has a masculinizing effect on sex-typed toy preferences.

These results suggest...

At least the studies themselves understand that they are merely suggestions and aren't trying to claim any sort of causality. I haven't looked at the rest of them, but if this one is any indication, it's about the level of commitment that I was expecting.

No smoking gun, but interesting none the less.

originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa

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 sounder question: Has feminism become sexist by disrespecting all forms of patriarchy?

No. Why should patriarchy be respected in any form, save for individualistic settings, like the choiceof a wife to be submissive to her husband?

a reply to: Words

Now this isn't to say social conditions do not factor in, but that the reason we enact such "gender roles" on our children is because biologically, this is the way it usually goes, and not because some shadowy group of men are forcing people to conform to a patriarchy.

No. Well potentially. Either way, whether or not it is still occuring / relevent in todays world (i suspect it is) you mustn't ignore the fact there has been a shadowy group of men forcing people to conform to patriarchy for a long time in recent history, and it only began declining as a result pro womens right activists. However, as the ontology of the debates in sociology evolved, feminists seem to become a lot less rational and a lot more reactionary as philosophers... perhaps this was necessary some decades ago, im not sure, but now, im still not sure... Well, i know irratinality is a bad thing, that i am sure about, but the reactionary nature of feminism may not have been so bad given the stranglehold patriarchy had over womens liberty in society. What i do disagree with however is feminists taking feminism too far and continuing to try take down patriarchy as a whole ( which i do not beleive is bad in itself, just as i do not believe matriarchy is bad), instead of respecting the limits of feminism, as a womens rights movement. Some feminists (this is not an exaggeration) think all men are rapists for effs sake, if that not evidence of a human rights movement becoming philosophically demented as it has grown i dont know what is.

originally posted by: AgentShillington
No. Why should patriarchy be respected in any form, save for individualistic settings, like the choice of a wife to be submissive to her husband?

I think you have misunderstood what i mean by patriarchy. I do not mean men being self serving, and acting exclusive, i simply mean the relationship men have with their own masculine virtues and the way people relate to it, and the society that forms around it. The same thing happens with femininity. I do believe there are differences between the two and that in order to have a healthy egalitarian society those differences should be respected.

a reply to: Words

Yeah, I cant stand philosophers who rely on studies, rather than their own experience and reasoned intillect, to me these are weak. Sociological studies can sometimes be good but often just pollute the water, in my opinion, sorry.

originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa

originally posted by: AgentShillington
No. Why should patriarchy be respected in any form, save for individualistic settings, like the choice of a wife to be submissive to her husband?

I think you have misunderstood what i mean by patriarchy. I do not mean men being self serving, and acting exclusive, i simply mean the relationship men have with their own masculine virtues and the way people relate to it, and the society that forms around it. The same thing happens with femininity.

You clearly don't understand what patriarchy means. In fact, you have a poor understanding of the meanings of a number of words. You don't know the difference between feminism and femininity and you misused ontology. If you don't understand what patriarchy means, you really have no place in this discussion. It's like talking about volcanoes and thinking the word means hills.

a reply to: Tangerine

Ahh, mis-used words.. sorry...

The same thing happens with femininity. I do believe there are differences between the two and that in order to have a healthy egalitarian society those differences should be respected.(edited_)

there is a word that begins with "O" in sociology, but you're right it is not ontology. The word i had intended to use means the something like "nature of knowledge" / "topics of knowledge" ... something like that...

a reply to: AgentShillington

These studies are ridiculous, and are begging the question in their initial concept.

At least the studies themselves understand that they are merely suggestions and aren't trying to claim any sort of causality. I haven't looked at the rest of them, but if this one is any indication, it's about the level of commitment that I was expecting.

No smoking gun, but interesting none the less.

This is why I said feminists avoid any and all discussions about biology. First you say you find it hard to believe that there are any peer-reviewed studies on the subject, and when I produce some, you refuse them on no kind of reasoning. Refusing to observe evidence is not an argument, unfortunately.

a reply to: funkadeliaaaa

Yeah, I cant stand philosophers who rely on studies, rather than their own experience and reasoned intillect, to me these are weak. Sociological studies can sometimes be good but often just pollute the water, in my opinion, sorry.

I cannot stand philosophers who cannot offer a counter-argument. I was asked to show these studies. On showing, they were refused. Moving the goalposts and cherry picking is not philosophy.

My whole argument is that feminists refuse biology. Point proven, I suppose.

a reply to: Words

Fair enough. Btw, Words, do you know the word im looking for?

a reply to: funkadeliaaaa

I think you were correct with ontology.

a reply to: Words

lol ffsake

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

Two points - there have been studies on the very things you are speaking of. I references just two in an earlier post.

and second - please use complete sentences in shorter 'blocks of texts' . Stream of conscousness may be a literary style but is counter-productive to productive discussion and understanding.

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

Don't forget "and do them backwards and in high heels".