The main reason I'm not on board with feminism........
Offline Here's an article from a mainstream feminist blog Feministing. You can read the article and responses here:
http://feministing.com/2010/12/10/faith-feminism-a-message-to-secular-sisters/#more-27943
And here it is:
Faith and Feminism: A message to secular sisters
Whether “western” secular feminists like it or not, religion continues to play an enormous role globally in the 21st century, and women of faith are key participants. In fact, within some religious traditions, women make up the majority.
Last year I went to an important conference on Women, Religion and Globalization at Yale University (my place of study) that began to address critical issues of representation when it comes to talking about women and religion. Even as we drew attention to problematic representations, sometimes we unknowingly enacted them. My time at the conference helped me articulate four common problems that come up when feminists talk about women and religion:
Problem #1: We make monolithic statements about women and religious traditions.
To talk about any religious tradition with monolithic statements is like talking about “women” as a monolithic category—both are just bad feminism.
For example, it’s deeply problematic to say something to the effect of: “Muslim women who “veil” must be oppressed by their religion.” While such a statement might be an honest attempt to name perceived harm, these monolithic statements almost always prove to be ignorant, arrogant, and infused with “western” constructs of the self. Monolithic statements just don’t get at context and the complexity of systems within which we live. They certainly don’t respect cultural diversity or women’s agency.
Problem #2: We assume that religion is inherently “irrational.”
There is a tendency, especially within the academic world, to secretly assume that religious people aren’t quite on board with the modern “rational” project. But, it’s a serious misrepresentation. We have to realize that when we use the language of “rational” and “irrational,” we are borrowing (consciously or not) a hierarchical system of thought gifted to us largely by Anglo-patriarchal Enlightenment philosophers. It’s a binary that has justified sexism, racism, and colonialism. We feminists ought to be suspicious, to say the least, whenever the terms of this binary are invoked, implied, or even just snuck into the conversation by our dismissive attitudes.
When we assume women of faith are “irrational,” we elide their agency, and worse yet, we tend to marginalize important players in women’s history—because the truth is, women’s history is infused with super smart religious women who are writers, peace-keepers, reformers, and political agents.
Problem #3: We let loud fundamentalists define what a religious tradition is.
It is simply poor feminist strategy when we allow Sarah Palin or George W. Bush or Jerry Falwell to define for us Christianity. If we let fundamentalists define Christianity in America, we seed the battleground they want to create. Such people want you to think this is an “us” versus “them”—they want you to think that Christianity looks like their politics. Feminists can’t afford to buy into it their representation. There is a great deal of diversity within all religious traditions—Christianity included. We need to find the diversity that already exists and harness a middle base that isn’t being represented by the “us” and “them” binary.
Problem #4: We are too dogmatic about our feminism.
The tendency to be dogmatic about our beliefs is not so much a religious tendency as a human one. But our feminist dogma—even if inspired by the best of intentions—won’t fuel change.
What will fuel change is diligently studying the complexities of the systems in which we live, and then practicing a spirit of partnership, dialogue, listening, and curiosity. This point is critical. Even if we find ourselves adamantly atheist, we must still create imaginative space inside our heads/hearts that respects there might yet be a religious impulse—a kind of receptivity to the Divine—that has merit in people’s lives. That impulse lives in many, many people, even it’s shrouded in religious structures that can be weighted down by patriarchal and spiritual abuse. If we don’t allow for the genuine possibility of the religious impulse, we won’t partner well with religious women. And if we don’t partner well with religious women, we are not doing our job in the 21st century.
What gets my goat the most is the statement in problem #2 that being rational "is a hierarchical system of thought gifted to us by Anglo-patriarchical philosophers". With twits like these, is it any wonder why atheist and skeptic groups are largely dominated by men? And it is unfortunate that the majority of feminists are indeed religious. What they need are more individuals like Ayaan Hirsi Ali to be their spokespersons.
- Login to post comments
The main reason you are not 'on board' with feminism is an article you read about 'Faith & Feminism'? Seems to me the problem is the 'faith' part, not the feminism.
Try this instead. And this.
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
I don't hang with the academic type feminists. Going on and on about how they have been abused by "Anglo-patriarchical philosophers" is a waste of time. So I have never taken a women's studies class - nor a black studies class nor any other class that singles out a group of people. Stop whining and get on with life.
That doesn't mean I'm not on board with some "feminist" agendas. Equal pay for equal work - we still aren't there, women or people of color and especially women of color. A safe home environment - no one deserves to be abused physically, psychologically or sexually. Reproductive choice. Education. All of that.
It seems some people are ready to label you a feminist if you don't hold with a woman spending her life bare foot and pregnant. And others label you a traditionalist if you don't go for the poor me, women have been ignored and tramped on for centuries.
Put me back on the fence. Stuck in the middle again.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
You are 100% correct. All to often there are individuals who self-designate themselves as speakers of a social justice movement infusing religious dogma and then and use "patriarchy" as a pretext to sweep away secularism. This is a problem in fact with any ideology.
I think that sums up my feelings about the whole thing quite well. It's almost back to that false 50/50 Dichotomy with some people, it's either this way or no way, type of thing. There's always variables to everything in my opinion.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
It sounds to me like a lot of her information is correct but that she's coming to bad conclusions.
She's absolutely right that feminist dogmatic thinking (like any other dogmatic thinking) is hardly ever going to be as useful as reasonable and non-judgmental mentality. Unfortunately where she takes this truth is to rationalize the good in religious belief. One doesn't have to be dogmatic to identify deeply irrational and intellectually lazy thinking when they see it. This is a common defense of religious thought which always worries me when I see it because it is *almost* true. Things which are wrong but *almost* true are just far too easy for moderates to swallow. This is a form of political correctness to which religious thought seems to be exclusively entitled and all it does is keep those who disagree from saying anything. It is designed specifically to put up a buffer to keep dissenting opinions from being too openly expressed.
"Believing that woman was born of a rib bone is ridiculous and patently irrational" is not dogmatic - it's just stating the obvious.
She is correct that there have been many clever and influential people who have been quite religious. Unfortunately she takes this to mean that religious thought isn't inherently irrational. That's just completely wrong and she should be embarrassed for having said it. Just because someone can be clever while also being religious doesn't prove anything but their ability to compartmentalize their application of skeptical thought; it doesn't prove or even allude to the thought being valuable in and of itself.
She seems like a smart lady and she likely does a great amount of good allying so closely with the moderate base. I don't think her arguments hold water but they are correct enough to get most people behind her. The whole "coexist" movement is very popular among fence sitters and they will rally behind that flag.
That's a tricky one, and I think laws protecting from discrimination in hiring and firing over pregnancy are helping to cause that inequality.
From an employer's position, one has to consider the chances that any woman one hired is going to confess to being pregnant the day after being hired and thereafter be completely unproductive, draining the company of a salary and health care expenses. It happens. At the same time there are women who either chose not to become pregnant, or actually work just as effectively as anybody else all the way through a pregnancy instead of complaining and making excuses, taking only a couple days off to have the baby, and then get right back on the job.
It seems like part (of course not all) of the problem may be unfair situations of abuse that the law puts small companies in. Hiring a woman is a bigger risk, it's as simple as that, and the salaries will always reflect that until hiring and firing laws are changed to accommodate for that.
After all, it's a woman's choice to be pregnant and have children; and if she does become pregnant, women have demonstrated that it's a choice to suck it up and actually work, or to slack off and do nothing for nine months-- it should be fair to contain provisions for termination if the woman makes that choice, without risking lawsuits over it.
Without psychic powers to predict the future, if there's a 10% chance that a woman is going to get pregnant and choose to slack off, costing the company obscene amounts of money for nearly a year, all women's wages are going to end up that much lower. Sucks for the honest and hard working ones, but it's unavoidable thanks to the few stereotypical barefoot baby makers out there who take advantage of the system.
It's simply much easier to fire men if they slack off. Change that- to make the sexes actually equal from the perspective of employment- and there will be much better arguments for equality in wages.
The idea of equality between men and women is damn tricky, certainly once we get down to minutia like this. It's easy enough when we are talking about basic civil equalities like the right to vote and freedom from violent and coercive treatment; these are things where gender is an irrelevance and is easy enough to decide on... just apply the same rights to everyone and you're good. When we get down to legislation which centers around situations in which men and women won't and can't ever be equal - well - that's quite a problem.
Regarding the pregnancy issue, Blake, where would you come down if men and women have the same availability of time off for pregnancy? Like, if the company had to offer maternity and paternity leave, would you find that a more equitable arrangement?
Part of the problem of American feminism is that it still operates from a premise that saddled women with the moral double standard of having burdoned women with guilt over sexuality in the first place.... I believe this is the root of the "Mars/venus stereotypes, and Until the "moral" double standard is exposed as utter perfidy... the battle of the sexes will continue.
I maintain that if feminism is abouot equality, the "battle" has to stop... although women should never have to suffer male insecurity, which is why that double standard exists (men wrote religious doctines, my guess is, they were preoccupied with their dicks)...but ust as importanly, female empowerment cannot be achieved through 'battling, let alone emasculating, men. My experience with "feminism" is that its often used as a tool to angrily respond to males, and withold sexuality as a weapon.
My opinion is... Until sexual equality exists, and women have the right to engage their libidos with the same liberty as men without being made to experience insults about their promiscuity... "feminism" will be about the battle, and not about equality
www.RichWoodsBlog.com
That would equalize it, but in a kind of silly way. Like saying "well, some people are handicapped, so in order to make things equal, we'll make everybody use wheelchairs"
Men don't ever need to be relieved from long hours or physical work when their wives are pregnant.
The more rational way to solve it would just be to allow companies to fire women for getting pregnant if it affects their work. They choose to become pregnant. They shouldn't have done that if they weren't in a secure situation to take unpaid leave (and pay their own medical expenses). There are other *options* (Which, IMO, should be state mandated for low income mothers who won't be able to support the child- but that's another issue).
It's illegal to fire somebody for having a disability, but pregnancy is an *elective* disability, and much of the time one that's used as an excuse rather than a legitimate reason work can't be done (and the employer can't say anything about it unless it can be proven that it's being used as an excuse).
Men and non-pregnant women do the same thing with regards to things like "back pain" and the like from accidents or "sitting trauma" from being seated too much. Some of it is legitimate, most of it is an excuse. Filtering out the legitimate from the excuses requires private investigation and spying (and is extremely expensive). Pregnancy is simply another tool women have that men lack in that regard (men have to go through more work to engage in the same kind of fraud)- and ease of use makes it done all the more often.
It should not be the responsibility of the employer to lose money and fund employees procreation, particularly because some employees take advantage of it while others opt out, and that's extremely unfair.
Now, if the federal or state government wanted to have a "child tax", and then use that money to compensate employers when women take paid maternity leave (or exhibit diminished productivity), that would be more acceptable.
Christianity is marketed as family values, a safe place and a place for the sexually monogamous. Things that appeal more to women. But Islam has made converts by appealing more to men, with things like violent jihad against your oppressors and submissive wives(up to 4).
I think the feminists are often pushing an agenda that our sexual biology doesn't matter. Whenever one wants to push an irrational, non-scientific agenda, religion always helps, so they just invent a God that conveniently approves of their agenda even though the bible is very oppresive toward women.
Also, Christianity has suceeded in making many males highly submissive which appeals to a lot of feminists.
I think the answer is get rid of the whole concept of 'employee', just make everyone an independent contractor. Everyone responsible for their own negotiations and benefits.
I don't think there can be equal wages for women. Men are biologically programmed to be risk takers. We also strive to get rich so we can get laid with hot women. Women don't have this motivation. Feminists want to legislate away what nature has produced.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Wooooh, very nice. I can't believe the feminists (men and women) haven't gone ape shit over what you guys are saying. Problem with your point is - it's rational and defensible. You silly skeptics.
It does seem that society in the US is pushing toward the denial of the differences between men and women. They get confused and suggest that men and women are basically identical the same as a black man and a white man are functionally identical. This is, of course, an exercise in intellectual laziness. The urges and motivations as well as the obvious biological complications as described before make it so that the idea of social equality is a fun dream wished up by philosophers.
Granted, I don't know what the solution to this confusion is, it's just a shame to see that our society is in such a hurry to emasculate men (as someone mentioned briefly earlier). Each time I see a woman arguing that it is somehow deviant that a man has a clear motivation to sleep with women is a sad display. The idea that the male drive to compete and test his manhood on as many women as possible is shameful for the fact that it is a "baser desire" is disturbing. How close to men have to resemble women before the feminist agenda will be happy?
I totally agree with that.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
I'm on board with the sentiment of your ideas but this particular approach is a super bad idea. Not because it is illogical but that it is impossible to action without great risk to the citizenry. The increase of population in general should be deeply regulated but not by this or any other governing body. That will almost certainly lead to horrible, HORRIBLE problems where the state has sick and fascist control over its people.
Mandates like these will get me into the street, marching on government buildings.
Women are fully capable of being motivated for making money - I'm one- and my motivation IS NOT to get laid by hot men.
The problem is the Fairy Tale life style that society (and religion) has brainwashed women into believing - and your comment is living proof that men are also fed and propagate this lie: that women are meek and inferior to men, who by their nature are genetically born to be the bread winners. What a load of shit!
Your attitude, in a nut shell, is exactly what feminists are fighting against: men are by nature the dominant gender who are driven to succeed by the reward of getting laid by 'hot women' (not ugly women...like hot women are, by nature, gold-diggers and ugly women have to settle for bums) who themselves are genetically designed to be submissive and bear his offspring - and by Blake's opinion, loose their job or be fired for being pregnant... 'Keep 'em barefoot and pregnant because that's how Nature/god designed them'.
Nature/god designed men to be knuckle-draggers, too but, some have evolved beyond that stage.
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
Are you suggesting that men don't have a special drive due to their evolutionary design? Or that, even though they do have a particular drive which women obviously don't have, women are capable of having the same drive for success as men? One is clearly wrong and one is an argument which I am not sure I agree with but at least it doesn't ignore reality entirely.
Men and women are different to the core, their hormonal impulse and evolutionary purpose couldn't be more different from women. Men are designed to be more aggressive and this would suggest that, even in modern feminized society, men are still prone to competing for success more so than women (if only to a small degree). Perhaps this assertion is incorrect, but I am doubtful because the argument seems sound to me.
Which is why modern feminism doesn't get any respect - it's purpose is to enforce an absurdity.
No one made this argument, this is a straw man.
No one made this argument, this is a straw man.
Men are designed to be more aggressive than women which, contrary to as I understand your suggestion, is not shameful.
This stuff is ugly. This all boils down to the evolutionary reality of our species against the society our culture would like to build.
My thinking on this is the idea/meme of equality might be more valuable in the long run than the reality of evolutionary divergence. Do men have an evolutionary advantage when it comes to certain things? Yes. Do we want a society where men are allowed to dominate society because of those advantages?
The other thing is, I'm not sure how pronounced those evolutionary advantages would be in a controlled situation...empirically I'm not sure how we separate nature from nurture without testing methods most would consider abhorrent, like raising large numbers of test subjects from birth in controlled environments.
Then to add to that, I'm not sure if a society ruled by the evolutionary imperatives of men is a 'better' society ruled by the evolutionary imperatives of women. I'm not sure if there is a good, objective reason to reward men more for indulging in their instincts...hell, objectively it might be better to reward men who 'emasculate' themselves. In the long run the best thing we could do might be to socially make men more like women. I see a lot of talk on either side about what reality is (most of it wrong), but I don't see much talk about what is best for the human race.
--------------------------
I dislike that having frank conversations like this means none of us can ever run for public office though.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
This post is for all of the he-men, mighty hunter types.
I enjoyed a time when young of screwing any hunk who would say yes. And I can tell you this - the most he-manish ones were rotten lovers. Hop on top, huffa puffa, done - it was good for me was it good for you? Well, no. So I don't personally believe men are more wired to mess around than women. Come on, if a guy is cheating on his wife, most of the time he is with another woman - not always, but usually. So at least half of the cheaters out there are women. Do the math.
Give me an "emasculated" man any day of the week. The man I'm married to cooks, sews, cleans house, fixes the car, is a gifted handyman doing better work than most professionals I have seen. I don't know if he can hunt - but who the hell cares at that point? And he is a great lay - kind, considerate, and thoughtful of my needs.
The evolutionary crap of "mighty hunter" myth is just that - crap. No woman who is intelligent and not brain washed into "stand by my man" is going to go for the big brainless ones. She is going to want the brainy man - who can sneak up on the prey and take them down without a lot of fan fare. And damn few broken bones. Who needs or wants a stupid who stands around and waves his staff while the cape buffalo sneak up behind him and stomp him to bits. Human hunters were good hunters when they were clever because most prey out weigh, out run, and have more natural defenses than humans. Uhg didn't have a rifle and scope.
Note: for those who don't know, when they hunt cape buffalo, they also have betting on the side. Will the hunter get his prey or will the buffalo get the hunter? Most people bet on the buffalo. Because the buffalo usually win. They will gang up and sneak up on the hunter and then stomp him. This, from a gal we knew who was from Botswana.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Would you be willing to put up some of your thoughts on what is a closer estimation of reality? This is a topic of particular interest to me and I am always interested in hearing reasonable arguments.
I certainly don't have that answer and wouldn't claim to. I just want to make sure I challenge anti-male ideology as I find it not only counter productive and intellectually dishonest but quite offensive as well. We as skeptics shouldn't be cut any slack in our arguments - if anything we should be under the microscope more than anyone. Who has the responsibility of being reasonable if not us?
So keeping that in mind, poke holes in our arguments if you can Mellestad, I am pretty sure I am not alone in valuing your opinion.
Further, I think that is the central idea of my disagreement. We have stark differences in our motivations and thus how we interact with the world around us. Some of the male qualities give us advantage on some stages while female qualities give them a head start in others. Since this is the case the difficulty in designing social boundaries which put us on equal footing is an epic undertaking. Attempting to feminize men to remove any advantage they may have would have to happen for us to function anything approaching equality.
Current society seems intent on doing this exact thing, making men into women. The modern version of feminism gleefully supports this idea and should seriously consider the implications of success in this task.
I should have qualified this: there are I'm sure many feminists that are not intent on destroying the male. To these women I apologize for lumping you in with those who are.
P.S. Sorry for spamming lol
I have no idea, that is my point. I'm not sure how you even come to 'reality' in this discussion without some testing. The reason I think most people are wrong is most of the ideas are contradictory, it is sort of like religion, where you can't all be right but maybe you can all be wrong. And when I say both sides I'm not talking about this particular thread, I should have been clear. I'm not sure if anything I've said contradicts anything anyone else has said anyway.
Again, I'm not sure what to poke holes in. Your central point seems to be men and women are different, and I don't disagree. What I *might* disagree with is the assumption that putting men and women on an equal footing regardless of biological reality is a bad thing.
To me this is more like a cost benefit thing, what is the cost of socially enforced equality? What is the cost of letting society be ruled purely by blunt biology? Can we weigh those decisions without knowing what the blunt truth *really* is? Is it a practical possibility to discover those truths?
Reality: Regardless of cause, men are, on average, more aggressive than women. This seems to have the effect of making men the traditional ruling class. OK, so from an evolutionary and biological standpoint this makes sense, it is just the way it is, it is a fact. Now, is that the society we want, or are we better off forcing artificial restraints and supplements to both sexes to make a level playing field? What are the pros and cons?
Reality: Most western societies have decided that enforced equality is worth the social cost. This seems to have the effect of....well, you tell me I guess.
The child thing is a good example. Women, on average, seem to have, regardless of source, a higher imperative to raise children, just a fact. So do we just let that reality proceed without intervention? Do we shape it with social pressure? Do we support it as an integral part of their humanity and swallow the cost? Do we penalize them for something they can't change? Something else?
We can be rational all we want, but at some point rationality has to include the real concept of the world we prefer to live in and the morality we prefer to have and what is practical to achieve. Those 'soft' realities are just as important to Human society as the hard realities because we aren't Vulcans.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Totally valid - I just think skeptics should start with what we know to be true and avoid hiding from reality. I figure, if we start there then we at least have a chance of coming to some valid conclusions. A question like this is almost unanswerable but if we start with faulty assumptions any answers we come to are likely to do more harm than good.
I have to say, though, I'm more attracted to the he-man type - a he-man with a brain who is not personally threatened by a strong, independent woman.
Where would a girl find one of those these days?
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
Okay. Here's what I think...
The problem is, that we are trying to pigeonhole All men and All women into their separate little boxes and that won't work.... not in any modern society successfully.
Obviously, men and women are biologically different but, some women act more like a man than some men...and they are happy with who they are and some men act more like women.
'People' should be evaluated on their likes and dislikes and their abilities. Not all women want to carry a rifle and join the military so, it should not be mandatory that all women be required to join. Same should apply to men. If a man wants to be a nanny or kindergarten teacher (typically jobs for women) he should not be ridiculed for wanting these types of jobs.
I guess what I'm saying is that people should be treated as people and not, male, female, black, white, smart, stupid, etc... and their employment should be decided on their ability to fulfil their responsibilities and not on their gender specifics.
The he-men on this thread who view feminism as a threat to their masculinity need to wake up and smell the sweet perfume of evolution. Men are no longer knuckle-daggers, they are no longer required to kill the woolly mammoth or protect their family from neighboring tribes - we have WalMarts now - which are specifically designed for the gatherers not the hunters and police departments to protect us from evil-doers (well, supposed to anyway). Since the invention of bullets, women have had the ability to defend themselves - usually from men.
Bottom line: If you want to be a knuckle-dragging he-man, go ahead. There are plenty of helpless females who will dote on your every muscle twitch BUT, don't expect every woman to be like that. Some of us know how to take care of ourselves.
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
That's two people who have called the desenters on this thread "he-men" in a fantastic display of contempt. Is this really constructive? Are the opinions the desenters expressed actually proposing some kind of he-man or are we having a rational conversation and making points you don't happen to agree with? Do you actually believe that what you are presenting here is going to bring anyone to respect your assertions or are you just trying to make people angry?
I find your arguments defensive and irrational and I have refrained from name calling, I'd ask you to do the same. We may not be on the same side of this discussion but can at least display a minimum amount of courtesy.
So, the dissenters on the board are "he-men" and "he-men" are lousy in bed? If you actually just insulted the sexual prowess of people on this board I can't even describe how outright immature that is. That is just bait for a flame war.
If you didn't then I apologize. I'm just seeing a lot of vitriol and am having difficulty not taking it personally.
I can tell you that there are plenty of women who have this "stand by my man" mentality that are quite intelligent. We all have different things we want out of a relationship, which you expressed when it comes to your own preferences. Are women who take a different approach not intelligent? Are women who want something different now "brain washed"?
Hardly.
I get the impression everyone is on the same page with this sentiment. At least on its surface.
(not sure what the deal is with the font size, my big ape fingers probably just can't hit the right keys)
You just agreed with Blake and Marcus.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Honestly, I don't mean to insult you or anyone on this thread but, with some of the comments posted by the men, it's real hard not to rationally respond without doing so.
As I said, there is nothing wrong with being a knuckle dragger and wanting a woman who needs that in a man. To each his own. BUT as I also said, not all men and women are the same nor do they have the same needs.
I guess the main point I'm trying to make here is that quite a few human beings have evolved past the Neanderthal stage. Fred & Wilma, Ricky & Lucy, Ozzie & Harriet, Bogie & Bacall are a thing of the past. Women are slowly coming to realize they have been fed a crock of shit all their lives with the Fairy Tales of Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty and the Knight in Shining Armor... not to mention, the Adam & Eve and bible BS. Women are learning that it is okay to be self-sufficient and independent, to have an education and a career...and still be able to be mothers and wives.
Society needs to keep up with evolution and not be a stumbling block to the advancement of the human race by stubbornly hanging on to and enforcing gender stereotypes.
It's okay for little girls to ask for Tonka Trucks for Christmas and it's okay for little boys to ask for a Suzy Homemaker set. People could achieve so much more if they weren't held back by racists, bigots and sexists.
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
That was their whole point though, at lest regarding the pay gap between men and women...if you decide to just treat everyone equally on pure merit, women are going to get the shaft in some areas because, statistically, they are not as valuable to an employer (for many jobs) because of the things they are talking about like pregnancy and aggressiveness.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Stripped of any ideological or relgious baggage and a wholly common sense approach to the notions of gender equality, I'm on the side of atheist women like cj. Susan Jacoby, Wendy Kaminer and Greta Christina are other atheist feminists I totally respect who uphold the idea that civil liberties do not have to be sacrificed in the name of equality. I'll throw into the mix Kelly O'Connor, Ashley Paramore (Healthy Addict), ZOMGitsChriss and xxxThePeachxxx on Youtube.
What irks me the most are many "mainstream" feminists that dominate the blogosphere who cling to moral and ideological absolutes in regards to patriarchy and sexuality. No doubt there are many social problems that beset women ie. reproductive freedom, equal pay for equal work, violence against women, etc...But I generally don't see all this as a product of an oppressive, western, capitalist patriarchy. Women in the west do not live in a totalitarian society. Men are not collectively conspiring to bring women down. This is not the reason for the status quo. Yes there are sexist men out there but what harms women in the United States is that they are more divided with varying and often conflicting ideological and cultural goals. Unfortunately there are many women who share Sarah Palin's right wing theocratic ideology particularly in regards to abortion and reproductive freedom. But I'd wager that the majority of them believe in equal pay for equal work. It is possible (and dare I say likely) that even if the Senate and the House are 50% women that the majority may be Palinists much to the dismay of liberal feminists. It is the "you must think like me to be a real feminist" mentality that pushes many women away from feminism ie. stats show that only a quarter of women consider themselves to be feminists. And it makes matters worse when liberal feminists cave into cultural relativism and now also brush aside the secular Enlightenment roots of feminism in the opening thread. My heartfelt sympathies to Mary Wollstonecraft. Feminism has devolved into battling tribes and instead of rejecting the rationalism of our Enlightenment "anglo-patriarchical" philosophers (only a lunatic actually believes that) they should be fighting tooth and nail against women like Sarah Palin if they want their freedoms preserved.
And in regards to sexuality, I really wish the self-righteous who claim to speak on behalf of women would get off the damn high horse. I bet even the most staunch anti-porn Dworken feminist masturbates to objectifying mental images. Women like to look and behave in ways to attract men. That's the way it has always been and always will be. Women wear crop tops, thongs, bear their cleavage, go to strip clubs, enjoy pole dancing, pose nude/semi-nude for lad mags, watch porn, get breast implants, get a Brazilian wax job, etc......they do all these things because they want to and no amount of feminist ranting is going to change this behavior. And yes, men are going to always get horny over these behaviors. It has been 5 years since feminist Ariel Levy published Female Chauvanist Pigs and the raunch culture has only flourished. Finger pointing and finger wagging individuals who stand on Mount Sinai and decide what is and is not proper feminist behavior only build small rigid ideleogical fences with rules and fatwas. As I think I've said before, women are always trying to break out of the fence even the one created by feminists.
That said, I am concerned about the impact of hypersexualized imagery on young adults (young girls in particular). But I'm also concerned about high cholesterol fatty foods, the impact of alcohol, violent video games, etc..What is the solution? I'll give an analogy. The hypersexualized and drug addicted counter culture of the 60s gave us Charles Manson but it also gave us Jim Morrison of The Doors. And it is his music and ideas that is the legacy of the 60s hippie culture. The young hot women of the raunch culture will get old and their looks will fade and what they will have to leave behind is what Jim Morrison left behind--beautiful ideas.
Wow, so you truly have no interest in being civil but insist on making these backhanded childish attacks.
I'm impressed. People are rarely so tenacious about being nasty.
Not in a bar, that's for sure. Not in a church. I found mine at a university class.
I guess it all depends on what you like - I never liked to be smothered or mauled, so someone who thought I needed to be kept under his thumb never appealed. I don't like someone overly possessive. I am strongly monogamous when I am in a relationship, you don't need to grill me on where I've been or who I talked to while shopping. I am perfectly capable of taking care of myself including the handy work around the house. It sure is nice that my husband can do it all, but if he couldn't I would cope. I don't like someone who thinks they know better than I do - about anything. (I am oldest daughter and oldest child - double whammy on the know-it-all.) I don't like physical abuse, not even in fun. The last man who tried to spank me "just playing" got himself arrested for trespassing.
Be warm and welcoming, but don't touch me unless I ask you to. And cut out the macho shit, no one is impressed.
For those who want to know, my husband is as masculine as any man could be. So confident in his masculinity, that we can laugh together about sex and that just makes it more fun.
Who wants to be around a wimp who can't even take a joke and his itty bitty ego gets hurt?
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Mellestad, you are quickly becoming my favorite poster.
Don't tell Hamby though, I've been brain crushing on him for years
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
I'm just relating my experiences. If you don't like my opinions - purely anecdotal and unscientific - don't. In my personal experience, the ones who thought they were something special - weren't. And it was usually the ones who believed that we should go back to the times when "men were men and women were grateful" who were the worst. As Sandy said, "if the loincloth fits" - it ain't my problem. Please note, I didn't address my post to you specifically.
I have known women who were in an abusive relationship, got away, and then went back - voluntarily. Yes, they were able to read and write, hold a reasonably intelligent conversation - but they were idiots. And brain washed. It actually is an emotional dependency almost as strong as some drug addictions. Was the guy she was in the relationship with ever going to change? The odds are very much against it. So you are going to spend your life with someone who puts you down emotionally, puts you in the hospital frequently, and some day manages to kill you? These women almost always wind up at the morgue. I'll hunt up stats if you really need to see them.
But wait - that is not the discussion at hand. We are talking about equal pay. Women get pregnant and that makes them not only worth less, but more expensive. So a woman who can not have children for whatever reason - hysterectomy, tubal ligation, menopause, etc - still doesn't get paid the same as the men. hmmm... But we can't ask if you are permanently infertile, so we just assume that if you are 60 <naming no names> and post menopausal you could still get pregnant as a surrogate mother and still cost the company hundreds of thousands of dollars. Yeah, that makes sense!
Aggression: http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/downloads/304/kelly.pdf
If you can't read this file, I'll post a few highlights. It is 65 pages long so it is too long to quote in its entirety.
This one is a little shorter: http://www.economist.com/node/7245949/print?story_id=7245949
Be rational, do some research, get educated.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Well said Ragdish.
I dont consider myself a "He-Man" or anything like that. Nor do I wish to see a society where women have a "place". But at the same time, I think some sort of balance could be achieved to all of this. In point of fact, I held the door for this girl where I worked one time. She copped this major attitude with me about objectifying her and loads of other rubbish. She wrongfully seemed to assume that because I am a biker, that must constitute a lack of education and social skills (Oh she went into this long tirade about the sexist counter culture of motorcycles and blah, blah).She got this real condescending attitude about college and how she could tell that I have probably never been. I had to interuppt her and flat out say " LADY, I was holding the door just because I was holding the damn door. If you had been a dude, I would have held the door just the same,". Which seemed to piss her off further.
Again, I am not no He-Man ( for one thing, I am a skinny dude whose hair is almost as long as my current girlfriend's hair, hehe). I mean, I pretend to be interested when we are shopping at the Home Depot for curtains, I do the dishes, and I even do my own laundry. I am even nice to her parents (a major feat). She's her own person and does her own thing and I like that. I don't think of her as less than me and certainly do not think of her as having a "place". I would not want her to.
BUT, like the above mentioned girl that got all pissed off at me for holding the door, there is alot of behavior in my life that some of the more stricter feminists would deem to be sexist. The biker subculture is filled with all sorts of wild antics, scantily clad females, and all the other crazy stuff that goes along with it. Thing about it is, most of the women I run across in the biker world can wrench, ride, party and hang with the toughest of them. I am sure that many feminists would interpret this as a sign of chauvinism but I just personally don't see anything wrong with it.
I don't wish for any woman to be dependent upon me, I don't wish for women to be submissive to me. (I prefer the ones that stand toe to toe with anyone and don't take shit from no one.)
But at the same time, I don't wish for a world where all displays of sexuality is considered sexist nor a world where all the adult entertainment is banned for being sexist.
That's just my own personal take.
I think women should be allowed to do whatever they want, wherever that they want and that no one should be able to tell any woman what to do with her life.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
I always found this attitude to be weird. Where I used to work, there were double doors to get into the building. Good thing, because the wind would scream past the building. Someone would open one set of doors, I would thank them, then open the second set of doors for them. Men or women, seemed like common courtesy to me.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Holding a door open for someone is just plain manners, imo, and not sexist. I'm sure many feminists still enjoy being treated like a lady. For me, even though I've learned to be self sufficient, sometimes I wish for a strong shoulder to lean on... but then I remember what I like about being single and I get over it.
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
I thank you and largely agree with you. There are only a few comments I wish to make.
The thought of any majority being largely Palinist is dismaying. I once read an article by Phyllis Schlafly. Given the quality of that one article, I haven't read anything she has written since. Sarah Palin is aptly nick-named "Caribou Barbie" as far as I am concerned. And I agree, as long as women have varying and often conflicting goals, not much is going to be accomplished. But we can say that about any group of people. The culture of individualism that is so strong in the US is both a hindrance and a strength to getting anything accomplished. And I don't have any solutions.
It is always difficult to deal with our successes. And the feminists of my generation - and my grandmother's - have had many successes. I am in a technical field. I have been the only woman in the department. I have had other women watch me work and they would comment that I really knew which end of a screwdriver would remove the screws. There are so many differences now. No one questions that a woman can use a screwdriver, knows how to program a computer, can repair a truck or jet fighter, or go into combat. And we don't question those that would prefer to stay at home and be homemakers. The younger women who have never had those challenges do not relate to our tales. But it is always this way. My grandmother was a young girl when women were given the vote. And now, here in the US, we are aghast that there are still places in the world where women can't vote - by law.
Now, if we could just get the old bats in academia to retire....
I would never want any culture to be like the US in the 1950s as to sex. I grew up with young girls having "reputations". And girls could not wear pants to school, their skirts had to be exactly level with the center of their knee caps, a married teacher who became pregnant was not allowed to teach after the third month when she first started to "show". Yet sex still happened - just as much if not more than it does today. Seems to me a lot of it is all talk and damn little action.
I'm not real fond of some of the raunch culture though. I'm hoping it will swing back to some sort of happy medium. The muslims have it right in one respect - a body is much more tantalizing if covered up. You want sexy? The scene in The Happy Hooker when Lynn Redgrave puts her clothes back on.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Even if we swing back to the 1920s when women covered up and a lot of beauty was left to the imagination, no devout muslim would ever approve of Mary Pickford or the burlesque dancer:
But I do agree. Men would certainly get a stiffy over the burlesque dancer but an even greater stiffy thinking about what Mary's body looked like under the clothes. Oh the inhumanity if such classic beauty were forcibly covered with burqas.
I wouldn't class myself with Hamby though, I'm not sure how I stand in intelligence but I know I'm not as well read or informed, and I never will be since this stuff isn't as important to me as it is to him.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Well said.
However, if you were a cold, ruthless, calculating employer with no legal entanglements to worry about and you had two young job candidates, one male, one female, which should you choose, if they have equal qualifications? Now, if you are a large corporation, and you hire 20,000 people, half male, half female, which sex would give you the best return on investment?
Personally, I don't know the answer to that, because I imagine it is very complex. Sure, a certain percentage of the women are going to get pregnant and you'll likely lose something from that, but will it be balanced by something else? Maybe, I don't know. I'd be interested to see if studies have been done. I imagine they have, but I'd be curious about their brutal honesty either way.
So, say there is a gender bias such that either sex has a 10% poorer ROI over time...now what do we do about that? Anything? That is more what I am trying to discuss, if we actually found one sex is 'worse' at something do we just leave it as is or do we try to fix it at a societal level?
--------------
@CJ: I *think* that the kind of blatant gender bias you talk about will go away over time as my generation takes over in leadership roles. Will it go away entirely? Not in my lifetime, but it will be much reduced when the CEOs of large corporations have all grown up being told about gender equality to some degree.
I'm curious though...in a vacuum of social pressure, do you think gender bias would be better or worse than it is now?
As another part of that, bluntly, do you think men and women are, on average and in absence of social pressure, biologically equal for leadership ability? Is that even something specific enough to define, or is the very concept of leadership too tied up in societal values to separate from the gender bias of a culture?
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
That could help, yes. Not necessarily a sure thing, though.
I would be more likely to give an important contract to a man if I thought the woman had a chance of chosing to become pregenant and dropping the contract half-done because she spent all day throwing up.
In addition, if it were legal to stipulate things like that in the contract, then we'd be getting somewhere;
"Contractor will not endeavor to become pregnant, and if such comes to pass by mistake, contractor will seek swift medical resolution. If by the contractor's will this is neglected, contractor shall be liable for any and all damages incurred by the contracting company due to delays in delivery of forfeiture. Contractor agrees to obtain insurance to cover damages up to one billion dollars at contractor's expense."
I'd be O.K. with that. It might even be legal in some jurisdictions.
In the end, I wonder when one subtracted the cost of pregnancy insurance from the contracted payment if one would be pretty close to the wage discrepancy.
Sandycane, it's easy not to hire a woman if she already is pregnant and the pregnancy will interfere with the job. However, any woman who is not barren or otherwise sterile could become pregnant at any moment. And if that woman is irresponsible, she may choose not to remedy the situation (and no employer can make her remedy the situation).
Men don't have so many opt-in disabilities. That's the problem. You can't ignore the elephant in the room.
A physically fit, aggressive woman who is also barren or otherwise sterile should receive the same pay as a physically fit aggressive male. To that I will agree.
Women who have their tubes tied should be fairly entitled to higher pay.
Regarding aggression: That's a personality characteristic, and should only factor in on a case-by-case basis.
That may play into average salaries of men and women (if it is the case that more men are aggressive than women), but unlike the potential for pregnancy, aggression and ambition are not only more easily determined in an interview, but one can also (crucially) legally fire somebody for being lazy/without motivation.
The same with intelligence (one can generally be fired for being an idiot), and any other number of character traits.
The problem is when one can't be fired for something that could spontaneously change, affect performance, and is inherently unequally distributed between the sexes.
Right, there are implementation problems. For political reasons (because there's no practical way to implement this), I'm pro-choice, even in these desperately irresponsible situations.
As a society, though, we need to be moving to solve these problems somehow, and motivate the responsible action indirectly through means we do have power over.
How does one regulate without regulating? Any regulation body inherently becomes government.
The programs that pay people to be sterilized are potentially a good start, but something needs to be done about people who reject that, shun birth control and then refuse simple (and often free) morning after solutions.
These people breeding impoverished children are not obeying the social contract- they are not taking care of their children, and as a consequence they are manufacturing juvenile criminals.
If I bred untrained pitbulls in my back yard and turned them loose in the neighborhood, I would be held accountable for that. We should be holding people accountable for the products of their own genitalia even more so.
I prefer prevention to punishment, but if ethical prevention isn't socially acceptable, then all we have left is to punish these mothers (and sometimes fathers)* when they allow their progeny to run wild.
Perhaps we make "producing a juvenile delinquent" a crime. When children are sent to juvie, DNA testing convicts the mothers (and potentially fathers) and sends them directly to sentencing. No need to waste time and money for a trial for the parents (although the child's trial would be more important, since it determines the parents' sentences).
I bet that would get parents into disciplining and raising their children properly instead of watching TV, if they know they'll get the axe if they allow their children to become criminals.
I think that's a fair proposal.
*I say sometimes father, because the final executive irresponsible choice rests on the mother (as it must, because it is her body). I believe that unless the mother put it in writing before intercourse that she would not be getting an abortion, the father should be off the hook after he offers to pay for an abortion (free of all legal responsibility to the child), if the mother chooses to be irresponsible.
I read an article written by a transgendered individual (male to female) on this perspective. Essentially, when male, men listened to him and followed orders with high productivity. When female, despite identical job experience and leadership ability, men were much more reluctant to follow instruction, it had to be asked differently to get them to do anything at all, and in general productivity was comparatively pretty shitty.
It's not necessarily the women who are to blame for the statistically poorer performance in leadership roles- it could be the men who are more reluctant to be productive under them.
That said, a company still isn't responsible for social norms- only time will (or maybe won't) solve that one.
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
This ass I worked with was exactly like that. With the boss/owner, he was a pathetic brown-nose, ass-kisser, yes-man. With me, no matter what technique I tried, he not only refused to do what I asked but, often did just the opposite. If he and I were alone, I had better luck but, if he was in the presence of other men, he would actually completely ignore me and act like he didn't hear a word I said. The only technique that always worked, was if I pretended to be stupid and helpless...
There were other men I worked with who I never had this problem with and who were eager to do their job as I directed. So, it depends on the mentality and not specifically the gender.
I suppose you could have the same problem giving direction to another female, one who feels that men should give the orders and not women but, I never personally experienced this problem with female employees.
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
Adorable.
I'm all done listening to your gas.
Now I remember why I took such a long break from RRS.