View Single Post
Unread 15 Jul 2012, 11:04   #24
Mzyxptlk
mz.
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: RBS / Natwest / Ulster bank system Failure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tietäjä View Post
First, there is the case of the giant umbrella. Feminism is a movement that's main perception is to liberate women: everything else is non-interesting. Yes, there are parts in the discussion (Kimmel being probably the lead example) that are also interested in equality on a broader level and apply the theoretical tools of feminism to discuss it. But it doesn't mean that at the same time the same movement wouldn't also be the home to a different bunch of people (Google radfemhub) who have the interest of aborting male fetuses to control the amount of men in the population down to 10%. They're both feminists; they're both interested in women's rights (which is not wrong). Whatever else they do is secondary, ergo their stance on men, trans, and so on (some feminists have also said that trans-men are simply seeking to objectify women and to become victimized, which I find hilarious).
If whatever else they do is secondary, then you can be a 'good' feminist and a terrible human being (I didn't check radfemhub, I'll take your word for it).

I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with focusing your efforts on one particular issue. In fact, it's usually a good thing: it gives your movement focus. We see the opposite of this principle at work in the Occupy movement: there are a lot of well-intentioned people involved in it, but because they try to achieve up to a dozen unrelated goals at the same time, it'l' probably fizzle out without having achieved much of anything. Better to define a single concrete goal and achieve it, than define a complete utopian picture of What Society Must Become and then fail to achieve concensus.

In that light, even "liberating women" may be too ambitious a goal because it inspires concrete changes from "revoke all laws that ban women from doing things that men are allowed do" to "kill all men", neither of which quite gets it right (one because it's a subset of what 'feminism' is, the other because it's a superset).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tietäjä View Post
Second, there is the subject of inclusion. I believe feminism has it right on a societal sciences level - there is a gender system that causes a lot of prejudice, stigmatization, and is essentially an uncomfortable straight jacket that causes harm. I'm a fan of personal liberty of choice, and I do acknowledge that as a female it's difficult to say enter certain fields due to societal factors, and that you're pressured to certain things. However, I don't think gender is a construct that can be discussed only acknowledging the female side of the view. This currently seems to happen a lot through a certain type of logical fallacy: we compare all women to the priviledged upper class white male. We forget that say across Europe, young men's unemployment is a big problem. But these men, despite being on the streets of London robbing and stealing (which is blamed on their lack of fathers!) are so privileged they're not interesting; surely their rising numbers only have to do with young men being lazy and not having ambitions for a career to become breadwinners like they should?

For whatever female role or stereotype there is, there is a corresponding male situation. It's fair that we work to enable women to enter the work force and thrive in it equally well with men, and talk about the problems involved with this, the family, the housework, and the career. But it's not intelligent to forget, that at the same time we also have a set role for males: whereas stereotypically we'd expect women to take care of the housework, the man is expected to bring home the bacon and succeed at work. Men are, on this side of the coin, very much assessed based on their work and career and success in these. I consider it equally a restricting role as the female one, however, most feminists aren't concerned in this. Rather than considering it as a restriction, they consider it a "price" to pay for the priviledge of being a patriarch. I think the two genders are so entwined, that this is part of the thinking that has lead to the "second" shift mentality, where women have both careers and excess housework, and men simply have careers (and result having in higher pay partly due to higher hours worked, since women's second shift isn't paid for). To discuss problems like this, or to reach genuine equality, feminism would need to give up on the stance that women are the sole and only victims of the system of social pressure and restriction.
I don't know. To me, it feels a little like saying "yes, slavery is bad, but we shouldn't forget that slave owners have a lot of responsibility because they need to care for their slaves". Of course, the analogy doesn't hold: slave owners can choose to not keep slaves, while men can't change their gender without some extremely invasive surgery and hormonal treatments.

However, I agree with one point, which is that feminism isn't just a women's issue. It's merely framed from women's perspective because it is easier to ask for equal rights for women than it is to ask for a reduction in privilege for men (even though they amount to the same thing). In any case, a 'proper' feminist society would be good for everyone, men and women. It would (should) solve both the issues men have with the roles they're forced into and the issues women have with the roles they're forced into. Phrasing it like that, I'm having a hard time taking seriously anyone who's concerned with either "women's rights" or "men's rights"; 'proper' feminism takes both into account.

(I realise I keep using the term 'proper' without explaining what I mean by that. I'll get to it, eventually.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tietäjä View Post
Third, there is the question of generalization. Feminists can be very hostile even to women who make choices feminism doesn't "approve". Whether we like it or not, some women do genuinely enjoy and genuinely want to be housewives. It's not something bad, something inherently wrong; it's equally good and okay as some women wanting a career instead (of course, you don't get to have both). Discussing problems related to citizen wage, the leader (female, feminist) of the youth left alliance brought up this point: have we considered what the effects of this are to women? Will this simply encourage more women to become stay at home moms, since it essentially funds them too? Needless to say, I didn't see this problem arising in the citizen wage discussion. I think it's trash. The easy Jungian example has to do with sexuality, but it's broader than that. Objectifying women is harshly wrong - but what if some of them like being objectified and want such? The sales figures of 'The Fifty Shades of Grey' are a story itself. (I'll order and read the book once I'm on vacation). I think a lot of hypocrite elements are instilled in this ideal.
Objectifying women is wrong, but objectifying a woman may not be, if that's what she wants.

One of the main issues feminism struggles with is drawing the line between the two. When Beyoncé writhes on the screen like a porn actress, is she empowering herself through her sexuality, or is she setting a role model for teen girls everywhere that 'your body is the only thing that matters'? The unfortunate truth is the same that human nature hits on time and again: that there is no line between black and white, there is only a gigantic grey area. Beyoncé is doing both at the same time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tietäjä View Post
Fourth, there is the discussion of double standards. A Finnish newspaper, on it's editorial, a while back, had written statistics on Finnish men's alcohol related violence towards women. They proceeded to speculate, paraphrasing and citing here, "perhaps there is a genetic trait to drunken violence in Finnish men". A True Finn member of the parliament made a complaint to about it, but it was deemed acceptable. He wrote on his own blog, later, about Somalis. First citing statistics, and then speculating "perhaps there is a genetic trait to theft and crime in Somalis". He got gutted, grilled in the media, lost some of his positions in work groups of the parliament. And he's taking the case to EU courts, which should be a fun gist to follow. In enforcing their views of the world, the feminists often have a habit of becoming what they critisize: a rigid system of social rules.
While I acknowledge the hypocrisy at work here (and am fundamentally opposed to it), I don't agree feminism opposes rigid systems of social rules in general; it's just opposed to one that currently defines what behaviour is appropriate for each of the genders.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tietäjä View Post
Fifth, there is the case of exclusion. The local Union of the field gets public funding and runs say educational conferences that are only open to members of one gender. It's not something you'd expect a movement that's aiming for equality to be about - unless the definition of equality is that only one gender has issues (and maybe, intersectionality, can grant us that ethnic minorities and sexual minorities also have issues, but there are no social pressures or problems related to being male and white).

I think this is simply an approach that won't yield an optimal outcome on the long run. If we want to abolish the gender roles, we need to make it so that it's equally acceptable for a higher earning woman to date a low-earning man as it is vice versa. That it's equally acceptable for a man to stay home taking after the children without being called Mr Mom (which would be an important part in enabling a career-orientated female to have a family and be able to pursue a career). None of this is really interesting to feminists. Until it becomes so, I can't really share their views.
Postive discrimination is something I've had a problem with from time to time. Ultimately, it's just disguised negative discrimination. Giving half the population 50 bucks is morally equivalent to taking 50 bucks from the other half.

However, if your goal is 'creating equality', then taking from the over-privileged portion of society and giving to the under-privileged portion is an entirely valid action. It compensates for an unequality inherent in our current society. In that light, it is no different than heavily taxing high incomes in order to pay for the negative taxation of lower incomes. The major difference is that we consider our gender more sacred and more personal than our income level.

Finally, I'll add that it's entirely possible that my pragmatism in this matter is solely due to my support for the ultimate goal (I tend to be an egalitarian), rather than a fundamental agreement with the means used, and that in other situations, I might not be so tolerant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tietäjä View Post
edit. disclaimer: if opposing the idea that the society needs to control the birth rate of male individuals through abortion makes me an anti-feminist (since this idea has also been proposed by people who label themselves feminists) then I'll gladly label myself as one. however, I do still consider that it is ultimately down to feminists to make clear what is and what is not acceptable in their philosophy; much like it is for any other political lobbyist group. i'm not really down to discussing whether "feminism" thinks like this, or whether "some feminists" or "radical feminists" think like this, but as long as there's no consensus along feminists reached about this it's a fair point to make that opposing it would make one technically anti-feminist.
As promised, I'll get back to the word 'proper' I keep using. I realise you aren't interested in discussing the exact definition of the word 'feminism', and I agree that it reeks of a level of meta that I usually can't be bothered with either. However, in a discussion about a certain topic, the definition of what that topic actually is needs to be clear, or you just end up talking past each other. My definition of 'proper feminism' pretty much matches Wikipedia's (and as far as I know, that of the wider feminist movement), so I'll quote that:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women. In addition, feminism seeks to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist is "an advocate or supporter of the rights and equality of women."
To me, the most important word in that definition is not 'women', as you might expect it to be, but 'equality'. People who instead seek to switch the gender roles, or at least the levels of privilege associated with them, are not actually feminists, but misandrists. As might be expected, they're usually women, just like misogynists are usually men. Just because they call themselves feminists doesn't mean they are that.

Similarly, just because some people who you disagree with call themselves feminists doesn't mean you're anti-feminist; I'm going to assume you're against terrorism too, but that doesn't mean you're anti-Islam, even though some terrorists label themselves as Muslims.

The term 'feminist' is simply not a very good one, because it lends itself to abuse and misunderstanding (both from people who are afraid of mislabeled misandrism and people who are in favour of same) so well. We should've picked a better word, and that is a failure of the [strike]feminist[/strike] movement.
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.

Last edited by Mzyxptlk; 15 Jul 2012 at 11:13.
Mzyxptlk is offline   Reply With Quote