Lifestyle

TOPICS:

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46

 ... 886

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Next

unfiltrator

unfiltrator

San Francisco, CA
April 2004

JUL 12, 2007 10:05 AM

I hope I expressed that properly. I'm not sure "abstract" is the right word.

I wish I could continue to edit that thing. frown

browngirl

browngirl

New York, NY
April 2007

JUL 12, 2007 03:06 PM

Subrosa said:

browngirl said:
i have yet to see a feminist fight to eliminate female preference for child custody for example. but in doing so they could achieve equality in that arena.


A) Simply because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
B) In fact, many states (like my own, for example) don't have female preference for child custody.
B) You seem to be under the impression that "equality" means "sameness" and that "sameness" is the only thing that feminists are working towards. That is not really the case.



A) that's true but it doesn't mean it does exist either. unless you're ready to provide proof that there's a feminist somewhere fighting for the end of female preference for child custody. (which still wouldn't amount to much unless you could prove that most feminists were doing so)
B) "many states"? how many exactly?
C) i'm not under that impression at all but, please, tell me what you think equality means.

wildswan

wildswan

I'm lost
June 2006

JUL 12, 2007 03:40 PM

Necia said:

ignisfatuus said:

SignalNoise said:

ignisfatuus said:
i've read and re-read this several times. are you saying to make feminist ideology more abstract so as to be more digestable by the masses?



Clearly all of my education has been well spent. wink

I was going for the *opposite* - by making feminism more concrete, and obvious in terms of cost-benefit analysis (especially to men and non-feminist women), you could accomplish more of its stated goals. Which, by and by, would not mean in any way changing the *tenor* of feminism - just an attempt to make it even more patently obvious as good.



woulding it be more palatable if presented as a humanitarian issue and not a feminist one? humanitarianism is all encompassing and doesn't have the taint that's implicated in the divisive label of "feminism"?



Why are you so hell bent on dismissing the worth and value of feminist movement? What's threatening to you about feminism?

This cute little "humanitarianism" dismissal of feminism isn't nearly as convenient or useful to me as it is to you, you see, because when we decide to reject the "divisiveness" and refuse to acknowledge that things like gender make a difference in our experiences and in our rights and liberties and social worth and so on, it's my distinctions and experiences and particularities and voice that get ignored, not yours. Our world is an androcentric one, so this broad "humanitarianism" crap that sweeps all gender-related issues under the rug continues to support your experience and values and agency; not so for mine. Are you just somehow unwilling to admit that there exists any difference in terms of rights and liberties and experience and social worth, etc., that stems from gender?

I'd like to know what truly bothers you so much about feminism. Your vehement opposition to it is puzzling.



Oh, my. After reading this, I'm all flush, and friggin' jealous as shit of Subrosa.

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

JUL 12, 2007 10:58 PM

browngirl said:

Subrosa said:

browngirl said:
i have yet to see a feminist fight to eliminate female preference for child custody for example. but in doing so they could achieve equality in that arena.


A) Simply because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
B) In fact, many states (like my own, for example) don't have female preference for child custody.
B) You seem to be under the impression that "equality" means "sameness" and that "sameness" is the only thing that feminists are working towards. That is not really the case.



A) that's true but it doesn't mean it does exist either. unless you're ready to provide proof that there's a feminist somewhere fighting for the end of female preference for child custody.


Google is a wonderful tool.

The maternal presumption for custody remained firm for many decades in the United States, challenged only after the divorce rate began its dramatic rise in the 1960's. Spurred on by fathers' claims of sex discrimination in custody decisions, constitutional concerns for equal protection, the feminist movement, and the entry of large numbers of women into the workforce, most states had substituted the standard of the "best interests of the child" for the tender years presumption by the mid 1970's. For the first time in history, custody decision-making was to be rooted in a consideration of the child's needs and interests, rather than based simply on the gender of the parent.



(which still wouldn't amount to much unless you could prove that most feminists were doing so)


No. That's not the case. You said initially you had yet to see "a" feminist fight to eliminate female preference. As in "one". It's clear from a very cursory review of applicable scholarship and law that at least some feminists have done just that. And successfully. I don't have to prove anything more than that.

B) "many states"? how many exactly?


Well, I'm not an expert on law in every state, but it's my understanding that the answer is "most if not all". Including yours!

C) i'm not under that impression at all but, please, tell me what you think equality means.


Equality can mean many things to many different people. Equality can mean equality of opportunity, equality of situation, equality under the law and many more. Differently situated people can fight for "equality" under any number of these ideas and be fighting for very, very different things.

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

JUL 12, 2007 11:03 PM

wildswan said:
Oh, my. After reading this, I'm all flush, and friggin' jealous as shit of Subrosa.



I get jealous of me sometimes too.

TheFuckOffKid

TheFuckOffKid

NEWSWIRE

Australia

JUL 12, 2007 11:07 PM

Subrosa said:
Equality can mean many things to many different people. Equality can mean equality of opportunity, equality of situation, equality under the law and many more. Differently situated people can fight for "equality" under any number of these ideas and be fighting for very, very different things.



Indeed.

Which is why I've previously advocated that feminism abandon its fetishisation of "equality" outside of particular well-defined situations where equality can be meaningfully defined and measured.

Outside of those particular situations, I think symbiosis is a really good word. A symbiosis of men and women (of all stripes, hues and sexualities), without fixating on whether we're all getting an equal number of orgasms or doing an equal number of hours in the office. I really think feminists could make a lot of progress in new and appealing-to-the-unconverted directions by focussing on defining and achieving a healthy symbiosis.

But I usually end up talking to myself on these matters.

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

JUL 12, 2007 11:10 PM

TheFuckOffKid said:
But I usually end up talking to myself on these matters.



You say that like it's an unusual thing.

TheFuckOffKid

TheFuckOffKid

NEWSWIRE

Australia

JUL 12, 2007 11:18 PM

Subrosa said:

TheFuckOffKid said:
But I usually end up talking to myself on these matters.



You say that like it's an unusual thing.



No, I'm pretty used to it.

It's really more that sometimes I expect slightly higher standards. Silly, I know.

browngirl

browngirl

New York, NY
April 2007

JUL 13, 2007 12:17 AM

Subrosa said:

(which still wouldn't amount to much unless you could prove that most feminists were doing so)


No. That's not the case. You said initially you had yet to see "a" feminist fight to eliminate female preference. As in "one". It's clear from a very cursory review of applicable scholarship and law that at least some feminists have done just that. And successfully. I don't have to prove anything more than that.



however, even though i used a singular example, the point of the argument i'm trying to make here is that, in spite of feminist (the term) standing for sexual equality, feminists (the people) don't seem to be in a rush to give up rights in situations where males are less well off than females. sorry that wasn't plain to you. so as i said, one example doesn't really amount to much as my initial argument hasn't really been rebutted.

C) i'm not under that impression at all but, please, tell me what you think equality means.


Equality can mean many things to many different people. Equality can mean equality of opportunity, equality of situation, equality under the law and many more. Differently situated people can fight for "equality" under any number of these ideas and be fighting for very, very different things.



no. equality is "the quality or state of being equal". the definition of equal as it applies to male/female rights is "like for each member of a group, class, or society (as in 'provide equal employment opportunities')." definitions are fact not opinion. [also as a side note, a word can not be defined using the word being defined.]

now while it's true that some so-called feminists with their own personal definitions concerning what equality is, fight a myriad of battles in the name of a word they don't know the definition of, that doesn't make them all right.

i concede the point, however, that most states seems to have abolished the ancient tender years doctrine in favor of less blatant preferential doctrine. one popular factor is the newer "primary caregiver" doctrine which gives preference to the parent who performs such arbitrary tasks as putting the children to bed, grooming the children, and acting to teach the children basic life cooping skills. of course, since it's up to the judge to decide what activities make one a "primary caregiver" moms still seem to receive preference over dads, albeit somewhat less so than before.

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

JUL 13, 2007 01:20 AM

browngirl said:
however, even though i used a singular example, the point of the argument i'm trying to make here is that, in spite of feminist (the term) standing for sexual equality, feminists (the people) don't seem to be in a rush to give up rights in situations where males are less well off than females. sorry that wasn't plain to you.


That wasn't plain to me because that wasn't the statement I was responding to. The overarching argument that you're making is so hugely broad and full of generalizations that it's both unprovable and unrebuttable. I will say that in my opinion "feminists" are not nearly as united in actions or thought as you're making them out to me. Even just reading this thread (specifically TFOK's posts) one can see how those can diverge.


no. equality is "the quality or state of being equal".


Yes, but what does that mean in application?

the definition of equal as it applies to male/female rights is "like for each member of a group, class, or society (as in 'provide equal employment opportunities')."


Yes, but what does THAT mean in appliction? Also, define "like".

definitions are fact not opinion.


Interesting theory. But practically, that's not really how things work, is it? People disagree over definitions all the time. Does that mean that one person is always right and one person is always wrong? No. Some definitions are fact-ier than others.

[also as a side note, a word can not be defined using the word being defined.]


Also as a side note, you realized you did the very same thing above?

now while it's true that some so-called feminists with their own personal definitions concerning what equality is, fight a myriad of battles in the name of a word they don't know the definition of, that doesn't make them all right.


I never said any particular group of feminists were right or wrong. Certainly some people misinterpret things or don't behave how (I would argue) a feminist should behave, but then again I'm not the end-all-be-all arbiter of what a feminist should and should not do. I will say that my impressions of people who call themselves feminists are generally a lot more positive than yours seem to be.

i concede the point, however, that most states seems to have abolished the ancient tender years doctrine in favor of less blatant preferential doctrine. one popular factor is the newer "primary caregiver" doctrine which gives preference to the parent who performs such arbitrary tasks as putting the children to bed, grooming the children, and acting to teach the children basic life cooping skills. of course, since it's up to the judge to decide what activities make one a "primary caregiver" moms still seem to receive preference over dads, albeit somewhat less so than before.


You've actually just demonstrated my point about the different interpretations of the word "equality".

Here, you have equality under the law. The law is gender neutral. It is written specifically devoid of gender preferences and should be applied to give custody to the primary caregiver no matter the sex of the parent.

However, it is your argument that there is inequality of opportunity because women tend to be primary caregivers. In jurisdictions where the Primary Caregiver Doctrine is used, this has turned out to be the case, in fact. (It should be noted that most states do not use the Primary Caregiver Doctrine and those that do use it as one of the factors to be considered in the Best Interests of the Child Doctrine, which is the prevailing modern standard.)

Now, some feminists will fight for equality under the law. Some will fight for equality of opportunity. Which is more equal? Some would argue that the only equality that government should be concerned with is equality of law, for to attempt to control for the inequality of opportunity makes us less equal because it invariably ends up forcing people to conform to standards that some people may not be able to fit in. Others argue that the only way to ensure equality is to attempt to make everything as fair as possible, nevermind that the language itself is gender-neutral. Which one is right? Which one has the best handle on the word "equality"?

You see what I'm getting at here? Equality might have a simple definition if you look it up, but what it really means when it gets down to brass tacks is going to vary wildly depending on each individual's perspective.

joker_

joker_

Windsor, CA
October 2005

JUL 13, 2007 01:59 AM

Subrosa said:

browngirl said:
however, even though i used a singular example, the point of the argument i'm trying to make here is that, in spite of feminist (the term) standing for sexual equality, feminists (the people) don't seem to be in a rush to give up rights in situations where males are less well off than females. sorry that wasn't plain to you.


That wasn't plain to me because that wasn't the statement I was responding to. The overarching argument that you're making is so hugely broad and full of generalizations that it's both unprovable and unrebuttable. I will say that in my opinion "feminists" are not nearly as united in actions or thought as you're making them out to me. Even just reading this thread (specifically TFOK's posts) one can see how those can diverge.



I agree with you Subrosa and I agree with TFOK in the statement that there are many different branches of feminism. For the most part I've had positive experiences, and learned (at least I think) many things that have enhanced my perspective.

I am curious about something browngirl.

If we are too look at the world, and start counting the various situations where males are less well off than females. Then did a count of situations where females are less well off than males. Which gender would come out with a greater number of negative situations? You might be able to list the male issues in one book. The female issues? There are libraries that describe the situation.

I see no reason why feminists should focus on situations where males are less well off than females, when they already have their work cut out for them with female issues. Not to say feminists can't or shouldn't focus on helping out with male issues, but seriously it looks like their hands are full.

TheFuckOffKid

TheFuckOffKid

NEWSWIRE

Australia

JUL 13, 2007 02:42 AM

browngirl said:
no. equality is "the quality or state of being equal". the definition of equal as it applies to male/female rights is "like for each member of a group, class, or society (as in 'provide equal employment opportunities')." definitions are fact not opinion. [also as a side note, a word can not be defined using the word being defined.]



Simple counter-example.

Defining equal rights is not one and the same as equal opportunities, neither of which is the same as equal outcomes.

I've seen feminists (and others) conflate these and other interpretations of "equality".

unfiltrator

unfiltrator

San Francisco, CA
April 2004

JUL 13, 2007 12:56 PM

Subrosa said: Others argue that the only way to ensure equality is to attempt to make everything as fair as possible, nevermind that the language itself is gender-neutral.



I would only argue for a cultural attitude for good sportmanship in all things competition, fostering a taste for it as being a geeky yet sophisticated superior taste (eg being more sexually liberated/complete than a particular woman/group of women because as a man you can't get pregnant hardly counts as a definition of being sexually liberated).

Politically that is another ball of wax. What? 100% estate tax for the rich? It sounds great but I'm not equipped to defend it.

TheFuckOffKid

TheFuckOffKid

NEWSWIRE

Australia

JUL 13, 2007 08:35 PM

joker_c said:
I agree with TFOK in the statement that there are many different branches of feminism.



True. That's sometimes presented as being a good thing, whereas I think it tends to cause damage.

ahcoldpizza

ahcoldpizza

Edmonton, AB
June 2007

JUL 15, 2007 12:24 AM

Cigarette said:

SignalNoise said:

ahcoldpizza said:
I was waiting for someone else to point out that male birth control exists (not just condoms... pills too) but apparently that's not gonna happen. But once again, I respect a pharmacist's right and a woman's rights. The point is, a pharmacist is not obliged to give you service. Nor are you obliged to give him your business. You can go find another pharmacist who will give you the birth control. It's hardly that difficult. And both of you end up happy because neither of your rights were violated. You got your birth control, and he got his right to refuse.



It seems important to note that "pharmacy" is a profession that is defined and protected by the state. Not just anyone can walk in a be a pharmacist - rather, there is a whole mess of training, testing, and standards that have to be met. This, of course, protects you and me from quacks. It also works to pharmacists' advantage - as it gives them a great deal of control over the market, allowing them to get high pay, social status, and all sorts of great things. Anyway, given that pharmacy is a state-defined role, subject to various oversight, it seems perfectly reasonable that if you're going to be a pharmacist - you have to be prepared to fulfill *all* of the duties of that position. In other words - pharmacists just don't have rights, their relationship with the state also gives them responsibilities and obligations.



Right. It's not like it's a toy store not stocking toy guns. These are basically nurses, handing out the means to maintain health. Why should they get free free reign?




Like it or not (I know I don't), health is a commodity. Therefore, it is like a toy store not stocking toy guns.

ahcoldpizza

ahcoldpizza

Edmonton, AB
June 2007

JUL 15, 2007 12:36 AM

I like you. You're perceptive and thoughtful. I'm gonna think about all that for a while. In the meantime...

I know that's definitely not a case example, but hardly anything is a perfect parallel nowadays.

Present any analogy and you'll immediately hear people screaming "That's not at all the same type of thing!" Like I could do to your handicap inaccessible example, but I won't, because I don't think it was your intention to use it as an argument against pharmacists refusing service. And if it was, then I'll gladly rip it apart as imperfect for comparison.


publicAnemone said:
Making building not handicapped accessible is discrimination even if it isn't done to keep paraplegics out. It's a way of thinking you have to get used to. So if you want to make a case that some feminist ideas are benefiting from excessive influence and are thus overreaching I don't think this is your case example.

Cigarette said:

ahcoldpizza said:
I was waiting for someone else to point out that male birth control exists (not just condoms... pills too) but apparently that's not gonna happen.


Er... because it doesn't exist?



There are male birth control pills but they prevent you from ejaculating semen, not just sperm, from ejaculating semen! Link

It doesn't sound very fun to me but who knows, maybe it is. It hardly makes withholding birth control a bilateral issue in the sense that you mean. It is bilateral if you are a man and also do not want unwanted pregnancies for teen women, but we are arguing against bilateral in the sense that every person behind an issues is motivated by the potential to be directly effected by it (eg. men will also not get the male birth control pill if they and their partner use that to manage their reproductive relationship). Unless you abstract that potential far enough that's not a very effective way to make policies, and therefore not a very effective way to make arguments about policies.

Here is another example of abstracting widely enough to use that type of analysis...

Bitch_PhD said:
that all those things are worth the "cost" of seeing a few more women at the top, and telling a few more entitled guys to learn to fucking share.



Men should seek to improve their taste for fair competition for power, not seek to reduce their power in solidarity to feminism like martyrs to a cause as though there is limited power available in society. Increased competition will create more efficient use of resources, not deny others those resources in a zero-sum game. If I was making feminist statements part of what I sometimes said would express that that's the culture I wanted to build. What proof of masculinity is there in using unfair advantages? Does wrestling paper tigers make you more of a man?

Unfortunately even white men are dirty competitors with other white men (gasp!). Anything that a feminist or other identity politico can do for that cause will certainly help everyone as long it about increasing competition.



ahcoldpizza

ahcoldpizza

Edmonton, AB
June 2007

JUL 15, 2007 02:52 AM

MessyJessy said:

ahcoldpizza said:

MessyJessy said:

ahcoldpizza said:
And I have no problem with child-support payments. I'm just wondering why I don't hear about women paying child-support payments to men?

Or more women being convicted in rape cases against men?

I'm not anti-feminist. In fact, by the very definition, I AM a feminist. However, I look at the whole matter based on "EQUAL rights for all". Not "more rights for women" as some "feminists" seem to.





Cute. Did you go through all the effort of finding a douche-box image just for me?

Look, you can try meaningless insults like that (which don't bother me in the slightest actually. That one made me laugh to be perfectly honest). OR you can carry on an actual debate.



Okay....first of all, the point was to make people laugh, so if it made you laugh, great. As for your issues I will address them one by one.

1) Why don't you hear about more women paying child-support payments to men? The major reason is likely that a large percentage of the time the mother receives custody of the child, in which case, obviously the father would be making the child-support payment. Furthermore, it is also fact that on average women make less than men, and thus there would likely be little to no child support payment.

2) Why aren't more women convicted in rape cases against men? I would argue that firstly, women are probably less likely than men to commit a rape as rape is an inherently violent crime and more often than not violent crime is committed by men (though that is not always the case). Furthermore, I would add that there is definitely a social stigma against men coming forward after being raped (by either a man or a woman) as it is somehow perceived by society as "weakness".

3) I think that your impressions of feminism are completely misguided. Where are these women screaming for "more rights for women"? Because most of the feminists I know believe in equal rights for all.




First of all, thank you for indulging me in an actual debate now.

1.) If that's true, why not just award custody of the child to the father. Obviously, he is better suited to provide/take care of the child if he's rolling in so much frikken money.

Fact: Women do on average make less than men, but they are also on average less likely to ask for a raise or a promotion then men. Furthermore, when they do ask for a raise and are offered a small one, they are less likely then men to negotiate for a bigger one. There's studies of a more academic nature out there that say the same thing but I'll leave it to you to find them:
http://www.paywizard.co.uk/index.php?pid=64
http://thingsilearnedthehardway.com/2006/10/asking_for_more_money.html

Fact: Another reason this used to be true was because before women were also less likely to be the breadwinner of the house so the boss sympathized with their financial need less because there was no child depending on them, though that is quickly changing, and all the power to you.

I find it funny that so many people quote the "75 cents to every dollar" statistic but don't actually look into why that is, instead assuming it's because society is somehow conciously making a decision to pay women less. The ball is in women's hands to change the "75 cents to every dollar" situation, mkay?

2.) Sweet. Sound good. Let's add that to the feminist agenda then: Erasing the social stigma against men who claim to have been raped. And less perpetuatiing the stereotype that "men are more violent than women". Actually, if we want to make generalisation, I think if we take psychological/emotional abuse into consideration the two genders would be on par for violence.

3.) They're out there. i'm glad to here you're not one of them.

MessyJessy

MessyJessy

Fort Myers, FL
August 2005

JUL 15, 2007 09:22 PM

ahcoldpizza said:
First of all, thank you for indulging me in an actual debate now.

1.) If that's true, why not just award custody of the child to the father. Obviously, he is better suited to provide/take care of the child if he's rolling in so much frikken money.



Maybe because there are more factors taken into account than simply who has more money. Issues like, say, who is going to be better emotionally equipped to raise the child, come into play as well. I never said that women should get custody by default, I simply stated a fact, that women are more likely than men to get custody.


Fact: Women do on average make less than men, but they are also on average less likely to ask for a raise or a promotion then men. Furthermore, when they do ask for a raise and are offered a small one, they are less likely then men to negotiate for a bigger one. There's studies of a more academic nature out there that say the same thing but I'll leave it to you to find them:
http://www.paywizard.co.uk/index.php?pid=64
http://thingsilearnedthehardway.com/2006/10/asking_for_more_money.html



I don't doubt that this is the case, however, I also do not see how this (at least to a great extent) explains the enormous disparity. Even on the website you cited the difference is somewhat negligible (44% of men spoke to their supervisor about pay rate while 39% of women did). And if there are more "academic" studies that prove this point, why not cite them instead of the sources you chose? Furthermore, this type of scenario does not at all explain the lack of female individuals in corporate management where "asking" likely isn't going to get you the job.


Fact: Another reason this used to be true was because before women were also less likely to be the breadwinner of the house so the boss sympathized with their financial need less because there was no child depending on them, though that is quickly changing, and all the power to you.



Fact: this has not been the case for decades. And if this is changing, as you stated, why haven't we seen a sharp decrease in the wage gap? Some sources such as the one at the bottom of
this page even show an increase in the gap.


I find it funny that so many people quote the "75 cents to every dollar" statistic but don't actually look into why that is, instead assuming it's because society is somehow conciously making a decision to pay women less.



I never once argued that society is "consciously" making a decision to pay women less than men. What I am arguing is that there is an implicit bias in many developed nations (such as the US) (and an even more explicit bias in many developing nations) that somehow values women's contributions to the economy to a lesser extent than it does men's.


The ball is in women's hands to change the "75 cents to every dollar" situation, mkay?



I find it both ironic and humorous that you say this yet you fault feminists for working towards changing this fact....well played.


2.) Sweet. Sound good. Let's add that to the feminist agenda then: Erasing the social stigma against men who claim to have been raped. And less perpetuatiing the stereotype that "men are more violent than women". Actually, if we want to make generalisation, I think if we take psychological/emotional abuse into consideration the two genders would be on par for violence.



First of all, the idea that men commit more violent crime than women is not a stereotype, it is a fact. Secondly, who said anything about emotional violence, I thought we were talking about rape here...


3.) They're out there. i'm glad to here you're not one of them.


Wow, well I'm satisfied. Your anecdotal experiences are certainly sufficient enough to generalize to the entire population of feminists...

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

JUL 16, 2007 02:50 PM

TheFuckOffKid said:

Subrosa said:
Equality can mean many things to many different people. Equality can mean equality of opportunity, equality of situation, equality under the law and many more. Differently situated people can fight for "equality" under any number of these ideas and be fighting for very, very different things.



Indeed.

Which is why I've previously advocated that feminism abandon its fetishisation of "equality" outside of particular well-defined situations where equality can be meaningfully defined and measured.

Outside of those particular situations, I think symbiosis is a really good word. A symbiosis of men and women (of all stripes, hues and sexualities), without fixating on whether we're all getting an equal number of orgasms or doing an equal number of hours in the office. I really think feminists could make a lot of progress in new and appealing-to-the-unconverted directions by focussing on defining and achieving a healthy symbiosis.



I think I agree with this.

MessyJessy

MessyJessy

Fort Myers, FL
August 2005

JUL 16, 2007 05:25 PM

SockPuppet said:

TheFuckOffKid said:

Subrosa said:
Equality can mean many things to many different people. Equality can mean equality of opportunity, equality of situation, equality under the law and many more. Differently situated people can fight for "equality" under any number of these ideas and be fighting for very, very different things.



Indeed.

Which is why I've previously advocated that feminism abandon its fetishisation of "equality" outside of particular well-defined situations where equality can be meaningfully defined and measured.

Outside of those particular situations, I think symbiosis is a really good word. A symbiosis of men and women (of all stripes, hues and sexualities), without fixating on whether we're all getting an equal number of orgasms or doing an equal number of hours in the office. I really think feminists could make a lot of progress in new and appealing-to-the-unconverted directions by focussing on defining and achieving a healthy symbiosis.



I think I agree with this.



Me too, but I think that is what most feminists are working towards. I guess what I don't understand are the people who are critical of feminists and feminism in general for not trying to work towards goals that would specifically benefit men. To me this is akin to arguing that an organization dedicated to saving the whales should be working on saving x species... Quite obviously an organization, movement, etc... dedicated to goal x is going to spend the majority of their time and effort working towards goal x and arguing that they should "broaden their horizons" is in my opinion asinine.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Next