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

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle


Second question: feminism tends to make women more aggressive (more like men),
Cheers - Dave

It doesn't give them the ability to be more assertive because they are no longer afraid to speak their mind.

However calling it agressive assumes that 'real women' are docile by nature and that is not the case. It has been fear of brutalization or death (for themselves and their children) at the hands of menthat has socialized women into being 'domesticated' or at least pretending to be.

Many women still live in such conditions.

originally posted by: Auricom
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.

What is it with this 'seething hatred of men' and 'bitter old women' crap.

Women are quite capacible and happy to live without men in their lives.

More and more young women are choosing to live this way and not because they 'hate men' but in order to avoid having to care for self-centered and immature men in a domestic situation. And no I'm not saying that all men are like that but if you are honest many are.

It's interesting to note that men have more trouble living alone and taking care of themselves in many cases. After a divorce it's usually the man that runs out and marries the first woman that will have him.

Some women do hate men and are bitter - just as some men hate women and are bitter. The venomous the assertation the more likely it is a projection of one's own feelings.

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.

Whoa - really, really f'd up. We are complete and whole people in and of ourselves, or that is natures design. Only when one is whole can one have a successful (as in not disfunctional) intimate partnership (straight or gay or whatever....)

My main push for feminism is this:

Sexism is rampant in all modern societies. All the other 'equal rights' agenda will never be attained until sexism is irradicated. I do not advocate for a matriarchy, it's been done'; patriarchy is done and something new is required.

Feminism is about freedom from sterio types for men and women. It's about moving beyond a culture of domination by fear and intimidation. Men are even more abused in the patriarchy where the powerful abuse those of lower status. Wouldn't you, as a man, like to escape the "Boy Code" where you have to pretend to have all the answers, be 'strong' (whatever that is) all the time and never, never back down or admit to a mistake.

originally posted by: 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.

So what are you saying.

The fact is men and women are different in many ways. However they are of equivalent worth and value. Actually, a case can be made that women, by the very fact that they can bear children, have more sociatal value.

And that may be the reason for all the passive-agressive verbal (and not so verbal) abuse that women are subject to.

Men head the anti-abortion movement - I never understood and didn't want to believe the reason an old feminist told me years ago - because men are afriad that their mothers might have aborted them if they were free to do so.

How sick is that. Can you imagine any woman wanting to abort a child that they chose to have except under extreme circumstances? Well their may be a few psychotic ones out there.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

What is it with this 'seething hatred of men' and 'bitter old women' crap.

I don't know, I'm not a bigoted and hateful person using feminism as a guise. From women actively suggestion public castration of males to open rape of males, is it any wonder why people think what they do? I'm guessing you adhere to group "1".

I remember thinking the very same thing, OP, when I took Soc. in highschool. My teacher, Judson Everitt--that I had while attending Loyola University Chicago--used a textbook that he had compiled himself & it was fantastic and covered the topic beautifully. Anyway, he was a great teacher that used role playing and getting students involved with learning through engaging the class on a wide range of sociological issues. It's a great way to learn, honestly. Definitely memorable. He was pretty wild though ^_^ cursing and red-faced with emotion and energy. He was funny and smart and everyone in our class thought that he was an amazing teacher. Different but one of the best I've ever had.

That's the way I wish the focus was going toward.

I too agree with the sentiment that feminist care ethics seems to be a bit dry. I am also female, age 23, well-liked socially, etc. etc. I like the point of it but it is too narrowly focused as an ethical theory. I'm in an ethics class at the moment and it's everywhere. I'm sorry but the Womens Studies course I took (or, sandwich-making 101 as I lovingly refer to it as) was revolting. I can go into the experience at length but I doubt anyone really cares to hear about it anyway, as it is subjective and doesn't really answer the topic in the thread.

So yeah, I think Judson Everitt is doing it right.

originally posted by: rukia
I remember thinking the very same thing, OP, when I took Soc. in highschool. My teacher, Judson Everitt--that I had while attending Loyola University Chicago--used a textbook that he had compiled himself & it was fantastic and covered the topic beautifully. Anyway, he was a great teacher that used role playing and getting students involved with learning through engaging the class on a wide range of sociological issues. It's a great way to learn, honestly. Definitely memorable. He was pretty wild though ^_^ cursing and red-faced with emotion and energy. He was funny and smart and everyone in our class thought that he was an amazing teacher. Different but one of the best I've ever had.

That's the way I wish the focus was going toward.

I too agree with the sentiment that feminist care ethics seems to be a bit dry. I am also female, age 23, well-liked socially, etc. etc. I like the point of it but it is too narrowly focused as an ethical theory. I'm in an ethics class at the moment and it's everywhere. I'm sorry but the Womens Studies course I took (or, sandwich-making 101 as I lovingly refer to it as) was revolting. I can go into the experience at length but I doubt anyone really cares to hear about it anyway, as it is subjective and doesn't really answer the topic in the thread.

So yeah, I think Judson Everitt is doing it right.

"Feminist care ethics"? What does mean?

"too narrowly focused as an ethical theory?" What does that mean?

Imagine the desire of half of the population to have equal rights being "everywhere". I'm aghast.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Whoa, really really misunderstanding my point. Seeking someones approval, one does automatically not becoming a subordinate, it means being humble enough to recognise in another person wisdom that you lack and qualities or characteristics that you yourself do not posses, but can learn from. Seeking approval, is the same in my mind as seeking advice about something from someone wiser than you. Good counsel. If you cant see that, then you need to step away from the academic fantasy realm, and experience life for once in the real world, without judging it from afar with the perspective of an armchair psychoanalyst.

People recognise in men virtues women lack, people recognise in women virtues men lack. This is human nature. Its time feminism got real and stopped trying to impose its deluded ideas and theories about men and women on society, imo. This is a seperate issue from the rights issue, its an an academic / philisophical one.

Feminism is about freedom from sterio types for men and women. It's about moving beyond a culture of domination by fear and intimidation. Men are even more abused in the patriarchy where the powerful abuse those of lower status. Wouldn't you, as a man, like to escape the "Boy Code" where you have to pretend to have all the answers, be 'strong' (whatever that is) all the time and never, never back down or admit to a mistake.

Patriarchy means male dominated culture. Among a group of males, i see no problem with patriachy. Matriarchy means female dominated culture. Again, no problem with that in womens society in my opinion. This has nothing to do with a political ideology, or political status quo, its a simple understanding of what those terms basically mean. My argument is both patriarchy and matriarchy have a place in society, as they are both corner stones of human civilisation, that without which we would completely fail as a species. They both have virtues that are unique, and should never compete unhealthily against one another, as i see happening with feminism trying to undermine patriachy wherever it stands.

a reply to: Words

regardless of the biology there is one thing that can't be debated here!
The women driving down a deserted road who's car breaks down will find the time she spent as a child playing with the toy tools and the time she spent in her teens learning a litte bit about the mechanics in a car was well spent!

just like the mother who has her husband to flutter away with his sexitary and leaving her with six kids would be grateful that she had developed the skills she needs to earn the money she needs!

or if it's the wife that flutters away the man would be happy knowing that he can cook a decent meal those 6 little picky eaters will eat instead of using as ammunition against his or her siblings!

the world we live in at the present time makes it necessary for women to have at least one foot in the doorway of employment and that makes her need for income just as much a priority of any mans! which means that I'm sorry but I think that the biological aspects and any differences in interests and preferences need to be set aside- for survival. And it also makes it necessary for the man to be prepared to take on the women's role when necessary.

My God!! Men have no problem dropping everything onto women's shoulders when they have a good war to fight! The women of the revoulutionary war, the civil war, the two world wars had if all dropped into their laps and managed. But how much easier would it have been for them if they were allow to gain some experience in the man's sphere before the men fluttered away to fight?

a reply to: Tangerine

---------------------------------------

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".

--------------------------------------------------

Ya I know before there was a God there was a Goddess and for some cultures they actually had both. But those Abrahamic religions did a pretty good job of wiping them all out didn't they?? In my culture it seems that it is those patriarchal religions that has the most influence so well although technically you are right but as far as the western world goes I think one must look at the jewish religion and it's offshots to understand our present time since they are the ones that has so greatly infuenced our culture.

It's also interesting that in most cultures the further down the social scale you go the less those gender roles are binding. Like it's only the most affluent that really gets to enjoy the benefit of those roles as the rest end up having to fight the stereotypes imposed on them by those of affluence in order to survive.
But if all you picked up on from previous post was my little error then you missed the bulk of the message.
The biblical "traditional family" with it's strict separation of genders helps immensely when it comes to shackling men since it teaches from an early age on up that each person within a society is given a place in the pecking order by God himself and so it's only naturally that your blindly obey those above you in that pecking order. After all we are all created different aren't we?

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!

see thats not a bad idea but the extreme feminist radicals of today would most likely lace your beer with crushed glass and put anthrax in your sandwich, play the victim as suffering from the object subject dichotomy while blaming their actions on the patriarchal dominant opressive system that teaches men to rape home entertainment systems.

originally posted by: Tangerine

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"?

Hahahaha oh dear lord, I actually have studied the history of feminism thank you very much. Perhaps you should start reading the whole of someone's message before getting up in arms and attacking someone's POV.

If you read my post FULLY it should be quite clear that I am an advocate for equality between all people, no matter their age, gender, race, religion or sexual preference it is the TERM 'feminism' that I have a strong dislike for, I support the BELIEF behind it.

Please do not make assumptions on my character unless you know me, I am not 'ashamed' of women fighting for equality, everyday of my life I am trying to fight for equality between ALL PEOPLE, not just only between genders.

I do not use the term 'feminazi' to describe ALL women, I use it to describe women who are radicals and believe that all men are inferior to women and that women are superior.

Lastly, I really do not appreciate having someone tell me that 'I am desperate for male attention'. That is hurtful and cruel, why are you stooping to insults, when again, you do not know me? I am not interested in men whatsoever, thank you very much. And what do you mean 'I'm not one of those'? One of who? I am who I am. Nothing more, nothing less.

originally posted by: InfamousSiren

originally posted by: Tangerine

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"?

Hahahaha oh dear lord, I actually have studied the history of feminism thank you very much. Perhaps you should start reading the whole of someone's message before getting up in arms and attacking someone's POV.

If you read my post FULLY it should be quite clear that I am an advocate for equality between all people, no matter their age, gender, race, religion or sexual preference it is the TERM 'feminism' that I have a strong dislike for, I support the BELIEF behind it.

Please do not make assumptions on my character unless you know me, I am not 'ashamed' of women fighting for equality, everyday of my life I am trying to fight for equality between ALL PEOPLE, not just only between genders.

I do not use the term 'feminazi' to describe ALL women, I use it to describe women who are radicals and believe that all men are inferior to women and that women are superior.

Lastly, I really do not appreciate having someone tell me that 'I am desperate for male attention'. That is hurtful and cruel, why are you stooping to insults, when again, you do not know me? I am not interested in men whatsoever, thank you very much. And what do you mean 'I'm not one of those'? One of who? I am who I am. Nothing more, nothing less.

You DID use the word Feminazi. That says all that we need to know about you. If you think your post came off as pro women and pro women's rights, you're delusional. I stand by every comment I made.

originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa
a reply to: FyreByrd

Whoa, really really misunderstanding my point. Seeking someones approval, one does automatically not becoming a subordinate, it means being humble enough to recognise in another person wisdom that you lack and qualities or characteristics that you yourself do not posses, but can learn from. Seeking approval, is the same in my mind as seeking advice about something from someone wiser than you. Good counsel. If you cant see that, then you need to step away from the academic fantasy realm, and experience life for once in the real world, without judging it from afar with the perspective of an armchair psychoanalyst.

People recognise in men virtues women lack, people recognise in women virtues men lack. This is human nature. Its time feminism got real and stopped trying to impose its deluded ideas and theories about men and women on society, imo. This is a seperate issue from the rights issue, its an an academic / philisophical one.

Feminism is about freedom from sterio types for men and women. It's about moving beyond a culture of domination by fear and intimidation. Men are even more abused in the patriarchy where the powerful abuse those of lower status. Wouldn't you, as a man, like to escape the "Boy Code" where you have to pretend to have all the answers, be 'strong' (whatever that is) all the time and never, never back down or admit to a mistake.

Patriarchy means male dominated culture. Among a group of males, i see no problem with patriachy. Matriarchy means female dominated culture. Again, no problem with that in womens society in my opinion. This has nothing to do with a political ideology, or political status quo, its a simple understanding of what those terms basically mean. My argument is both patriarchy and matriarchy have a place in society, as they are both corner stones of human civilisation, that without which we would completely fail as a species. They both have virtues that are unique, and should never compete unhealthily against one another, as i see happening with feminism trying to undermine patriachy wherever it stands.

I don't recall when I've read a more misinformed and utterly absurd post. Your claim that patriarchy has nothing to do with a political ideology or political status quo**SNIP**

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Tangerine

---------------------------------------

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".

--------------------------------------------------

Ya I know before there was a God there was a Goddess and for some cultures they actually had both. But those Abrahamic religions did a pretty good job of wiping them all out didn't they?? In my culture it seems that it is those patriarchal religions that has the most influence so well although technically you are right but as far as the western world goes I think one must look at the jewish religion and it's offshots to understand our present time since they are the ones that has so greatly infuenced our culture.

It's also interesting that in most cultures the further down the social scale you go the less those gender roles are binding. Like it's only the most affluent that really gets to enjoy the benefit of those roles as the rest end up having to fight the stereotypes imposed on them by those of affluence in order to survive.
But if all you picked up on from previous post was my little error then you missed the bulk of the message.
The biblical "traditional family" with it's strict separation of genders helps immensely when it comes to shackling men since it teaches from an early age on up that each person within a society is given a place in the pecking order by God himself and so it's only naturally that your blindly obey those above you in that pecking order. After all we are all created different aren't we?

It wasn't a little error. It was a whopping huge error. By the way, there is no evidence that "Goddess" was worshipped in pre-abrahamic times. That's an invention of Wicca which dates to 1950 only. Pre-abrahamic polytheistic cultures worshipped gods and goddesses, plural. They had no concept of The Goddess (not that you used the "The".)

Yes, of course patriarchal religions have dominated for some time, but to pretend that they have always dominated feeds their agenda. There's a reason why most Westerners don't have a clue about pre-Abrahamic religions. The current big three religions don't want anyone knowing that there is a viable option and a past that didn't include them. We can't understand the present unless we understand the past.

I don't see how you have concluded that the farther down the social scale you go, the less gender roles are binding. Could you elaborate on that? It seems quite the opposite to me.

I absolutely agree that patriarchy shackles men. Unfortunately, so long as under that system they have someone to look down on they don't seem to be aware of how oppressive that system is to them.

a reply to: Tangerine

.I absolutely agree that patriarchy shackles men. Unfortunately, so long as under that system they have someone to look down on they don't seem to be aware of how oppressive that system is to them.

I would rather be shackled to wisdom than bound to my own stupidity.

originally posted by: Tangerine

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!

Indeed, and 'equality' nowhere to be seen.

a reply to: InTheLight

Said in my opening post modern academic feminism did not impress me. That doesnt mean i have a negative attitude towards feminists. Just toward the academic feminist perspective in sociology.

originally posted by: Tangerine


You DID use the word Feminazi. That says all that we need to know about you. If you think your post came off as pro women and pro women's rights, you're delusional. I stand by every comment I made.

READ THE FULL POST. I know I used the word feminazi and I admitted it in my previous post! Instead of picking and chosing what you want to hear actually read the whole article someone posts. I have read every single one of your comments towards others and you attack their point of view rather than having an intelligent DEBATE on their opinion with them! Why do you do this? And how do you stand by the fact that you some how believe I am 'desperate' for male attention. I repeat I am not interested in men

When you rip apart another person opinion like you do instead of giving it some thought to it, that shows me that you are incapable of walking in another's shoes. So how can you discuss the topic of feminism when you are unable to see someone else's perspective? How can you advocate for male rights as well as females when you cannot understand what another person feels? Or understand why believe what they do? Do you have any respect for others?

Every person has a valid view/opinion

And I still want to know what you meant when you said "as if to say, "Oh, I'm not one of THOSE"?"

originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa
a reply to: InTheLight

Said in my opening post modern academic feminism did not impress me. That doesnt mean i have a negative attitude towards feminists. Just toward the academic feminist perspective in sociology.

Structural Oppression: Structural oppression theories posit that women's oppression and inequality are a result of capitalism, patriarchy, and racism. Socialist feminists agree with Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels that the working class is exploited as a consequence of the capitalist mode of production, but they seek to extend this exploitation not just to class but also to gender.

sociology.about.com...


Where I believe this to be true, just look at how women are charged more money for the same services and products, e.g. hair cuts and razors, and the list goes on and on.

www.marieclaire.com...