Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Feminism

124

Comments

  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,282 Skive's The Limit
    Yes there is :)

    :o missed that. Too busy looking at...

    3. a. The condition of being female or male; sex.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Posts: 16,688 Skive's The Limit
    Skive wrote: »
    Yes they do.
    Biology affects the way we think. I don't see what the problem is in admitting that there are difference between the sexes, both biological and psychological?
    Definitely not, but that doesn't mean that there are people of the "wrong" gender.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Definitely not, but that doesn't mean that there are people of the "wrong" gender.

    It's not that they're the 'wrong' gender, it's that they feel that they were born in to the wrong shaped body. Hormones go mental on occasion, look at dwarfism for example.

    We appear to have derailed the thread somewhat.
    I don't see what the problem is in admitting that there are difference between the sexes, both biological and psychological?

    I think it's something that should be taken into consideration. Women and men are different, it's a fact of life. However, each and every person should be given the opportunities to make the most of every skill they possess, and every opportunity avaliable, regardless of gender :)
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Posts: 16,688 Skive's The Limit
    We appear to have derailed the thread somewhat.
    Yes we have... :D
    It's not that they're the 'wrong' gender, it's that they feel that they were born in to the wrong shaped body.
    Same thing. It's still the society that's at fault, their body is fine.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    That's a good point. I believe that it really would depend on what feminist you talk to, her nationality, her religion and so on.

    It really doesn't depend on individual feminist opinion - no sane person can argue that men & women are unequal in evolutionary terms because the continuance of the species is dependent on both. That certainly isn't a feminist position, it's an undeniable truth.
    What do you mean 'evolutionary sense'? Do you mean the biological differences between men and women as pure fact (e.g. the objective physical aspects) or as in the idea that one sex is more 'evolved' than others?

    Neither, I mean that both sexes are required to procreate. So we're equal in that sense. But as I say, that's not a feminist position.

    The right to their own bodies, the right to birth control, the right to report both sexual violence and domestic violence incidents, the right to vote, the right to equal pay, the right to report being sexually harassed.

    Most people, men and women, are going to agree with that. But that's the minutiae; the wider perspective of what that article terms gender feminism - the underlying vision behind the ideology - is one in which all differences are eradicated and society becomes androgynous. Only then could "equality" truly come into being. Believing in those rights you've listed doesn't entail belief in that vision of society (which, in any case, is utterly impossible given the known pyschological and chemical differences between the sexes).

    To use an analogy, you'll find plenty of people who agree with parts of the BNP's programme, such as an end to immigration, tougher law and order and so on - but who reject the BNP's vision of society (i.e. fascism). The same goes for far-left groups as well. In other words, agreeing with certain facets of an movement's ideology doesn't entail accepting the full programme.

    I disagree.

    Prohibition of rape (excluding the the loophole within marriage) was not a product of feminism. Likewise, women have been working long before modern feminism came into play; it may be argued that you can trace that freedom back to the Englightenment feminists, but their feminism (based on liberalism) bears no comparison to the feminism of today.

    Yup, feminist thought has been around long before that (e.g. Wollstonecraft). The latter part of what you say though and all due respect, panders to stereotypes put out about feminists. You don't have to be a stone butch lesbian to be a feminist, nor do you have to refuse to take your husband's name. Sure, some women will do that because they feel like it... But it is about choice, not about moral obligation to a 'sisterhood'.

    True enough, I'll concede that wasn't the best of arguments as i was rushed for time. What I mean is, as i've said, it's the underlying vision of post-WW2 feminism which is off-putting to women. Feminists such as Greer, Dworkin & McKinnon can't be compared to Englightenment feminists because there is a massive ideological difference. Wollstonecraft didn't believe in the eradication of gender difference - which modern feminism generally does. That's the key difference.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    I don't see what the problem is in admitting that there are difference between the sexes, both biological and psychological?

    Because those differences are the basis for what feminists term 'patriarchy'. Admitting that women are naturally inclined towards being care-givers moreso than men, and that men are more aggressive and objectively-minded etc than women would render feminists' vision of total equality across the board as unattainable and unnatural. Which is why feminists since the 60s have been stressing the need to raise boys more like girls and vice versa.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    Not really... Because women have always been oppressed. If men were oppressed throughout time, if history were written by women, if society were run (entirely) by women then 'masculism' would be an appropriate term to define a movement for the liberation of men, surely.

    You think the majority of men haven't been oppressed throughout history as well? And how much better a deal did men have slaving away down the pits while women stayed at home & raised a family? Hmmmm!

    Whatever feminism is called though, people will always attack the concept that women are equal, either with the biology arguements, or the "well actually, women are already more equal with men! We can't even slap their arses anymore."

    Maybe people will attack the concept that women are "equal" (i.e. all differences are socialised) because it's pure bollocks?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Spliffie wrote: »

    You think the majority of men haven't been oppressed throughout history as well? And how much better a deal did men have slaving away down the pits while women stayed at home & raised a family? Hmmmm!
    It still goes on today, but that is an arguement against capitalism and/or social mobility, not an arguement of gender politics or feminism. It really isn't worth even bothering to type an in depth reply to.
    Maybe people will attack the concept that women are "equal" (i.e. all differences are socialised) because it's pure bollocks?
    Some people have disabilities, but that shouldn't mean anything towards the idea that they are less equal, that they deserve less pay, harassment, rape, less entitlement to inheritance ect regardless of physical differences.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Spliffie wrote: »
    Because those differences are the basis for what feminists term 'patriarchy'. Admitting that women are naturally inclined towards being care-givers moreso than men, and that men are more aggressive and objectively-minded etc than women would render feminists' vision of total equality across the board as unattainable and unnatural. Which is why feminists since the 60s have been stressing the need to raise boys more like girls and vice versa.
    So you don't think that a single male parent can do as well as a single female parent in raising a child because men are 'more inclined' to be aggressive and less so to be caregivers?

    I find that sad because I now many very sensitive and caring men who would be very insulted by that statement. Perhaps it's a culture which breeds violence, maybe cultures even attach that 'violence' to patriarchy. I know some very aggressive women, some very gentle men... Dont you?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Spliffie wrote: »
    It really doesn't depend on individual feminist opinion - no sane person can argue that men & women are unequal in evolutionary terms because the continuance of the species is dependent on both. That certainly isn't a feminist position, it's an undeniable truth.
    Do you mean biological in a sense inclusive or exclusive of psychological traits?
    To use an analogy, you'll find plenty of people who agree with parts of the BNP's programme, such as an end to immigration, tougher law and order and so on - but who reject the BNP's vision of society (i.e. fascism). The same goes for far-left groups as well. In other words, agreeing with certain facets of an movement's ideology doesn't entail accepting the full programme.
    So what aspects of feminism are people rejecting?

    Prohibition of rape (excluding the the loophole within marriage) was not a product of feminism. Likewise, women have been working long before modern feminism came into play; it may be argued that you can trace that freedom back to the Englightenment feminists, but their feminism (based on liberalism) bears no comparison to the feminism of today.
    Working for equal pay? Of course women have always worked, in 'less developed' countries it has to be done, on top of other gender related roles such as child rearing... But pretty much universally throghout history, men have always called the shots and controlled the wealth.

    Why do you not think feminism and women's rights movements have had anything to do with the prohibition and visability of rape?

    You can compare the writings though, whilst still recognising the relevence of the era in which they were written. They still mostly say that women are equal.
    True enough, I'll concede that wasn't the best of arguments as i was rushed for time. What I mean is, as i've said, it's the underlying vision of post-WW2 feminism which is off-putting to women. Feminists such as Greer, Dworkin & McKinnon can't be compared to Englightenment feminists because there is a massive ideological difference. Wollstonecraft didn't believe in the eradication of gender difference - which modern feminism generally does. That's the key difference.
    Second wave feminism is subjective towards the time in which it was written, as has third wave feminism been. It doesn't mean that you can't value what it has achieved and how it has empowered women.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    I know some very aggressive women, some very gentle men... Dont you?

    There are variations everywhere. In a biological sense, men are generally more aggressive than women due to hormones, and this is where science plays a bigger part than sociology.
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,282 Skive's The Limit
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    There are variations everywhere. In a biological sense, men are generally more aggressive than women due to hormones, and this is where science plays a bigger part than sociology.

    :yes:

    Our biology plays a very big part in the way we behave, so with there being clear biological difference between the sexes there are going to be some behavioral differences.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Environment plays a far bigger role in how we behave than biology, though, and that's the most important thing to remember.

    Who we find attractive, what we find attractive, and how we relate to others is mostly determined by how our parents and our families related to each other. Come from a family of sweary fighting alcoholics and you're far more likely to be a family of sweary fighting alcoholics than if you come from a family of hippies.

    I think its a bit of a fallacy that men are "naturally" more aggressive than women, I think the fact that the male social norm is aggressive and cold plays a far bigger role.

    That said, gender definition does have roots in biology, but I don't think men and women are really all that different when it comes down to it.

    Other than that, what on earth is there to hate about feminism? People should be treated equally, and the fact that women didn't get equal suffrage with this men until after WWII, and still don't get equal pay for equal work, kinda blows Spliffie's argument out of the water really.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    and the fact that women didn't get equal suffrage with this men until after WWII.

    I hate to be a history pedant* but it was 1928.







    * I don't really
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    I think its a bit of a fallacy that men are "naturally" more aggressive than women, I think the fact that the male social norm is aggressive and cold plays a far bigger role.

    That said, gender definition does have roots in biology, but I don't think men and women are really all that different when it comes down to it.

    I agree with you. I believe both biology and environment play a part in our behaviour as a species.

    I remember watching/reading something about Prof Wrangham's theory called the Demonic Male Hypothesis. I'm sure some of you will have heard of it. Basically he reckons that the only mammals that actively hunt out and kill their own kind are chimpanzees and humans. The demonic behaviour is seen in the male chimpanzees only. He suggests that the vast vast majority of violent crime is commited by men and that there is a direct link between this and the behaviour observed of chimpanzees. Therefore, proving that it is almost programmed into the DNA.

    Anyway make of that what you will. I'm not for a second going all 'man hater' or anything.

    Personally I agree with the general consensus that female/male traits (if there are any) are both biological and environmental.

    I know that is going a bit off the point. :blush:
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Posts: 16,688 Skive's The Limit
    I think that the fact itself that makes us human, that separates us from the rest of the animals, is the ability to overcome our nature, to do something different than what our insticts say.
    It's exactly why the way we grow up is so important in what someone's personality is going to be like.
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,282 Skive's The Limit
    There are clear difference between the sexes in so many other species. Is that down to enviroment?
    Weekender Offender 
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Posts: 16,688 Skive's The Limit
    Skive wrote: »
    There are clear difference between the sexes in so many other species. Is that down to enviroment?
    You got it backwards: I was saying that the same thing that makes us human is what causes the difference between the sexes in us to be less clear, psychology-wise.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think that the fact itself that makes us human, that separates us from the rest of the animals, is the ability to overcome our nature, to do something different than what our insticts say.
    It's exactly why the way we grow up is so important in what someone's personality is going to be like.


    But that side of nature hasn't been overcome. Humans still fight, wars still occur and these traits have been witnessed in chimpanzees too. Chimpanzees don't have the same reasons for war but wars happened between rival groups non the less.

    I do agree though and I see what you are saying.
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Posts: 16,688 Skive's The Limit
    I'm not sure which side of our nature you're referring to, could you make that clear?

    And in any case, I said that we have the ability to overcome it, not that we have overcome it completely, and I even think that for some parts we shouldn't.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm not sure which side of our nature you're referring to, could you make that clear?

    And in any case, I said that we have the ability to overcome it, not that we have overcome it completely, and I even think that for some parts we shouldn't.

    Im referring to violence and aggression which is most commonly found in males. Most violent crimes are commited by men.

    I don't think for one moment that all men are violent or even that most men are, but I do think the agression and violence witnessed by Prof Wrangham proves some biological link. Which in turn shows that there are biological differences between the genders which cannot be fully explained by environment.

    I feel like I'm having a go at men here and I'm not meaning to at all. I am a firm believer in equality amongst the sexes, I just wanted to highlight something I had found interesting myself.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The problem with the biodeterminist idea of male violence and aggression, apart from the fact that it could be dehumanising to men is that in saying a sex, or any group of people more likely has a trait is something which can be used as an excuse for things.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    The problem with the biodeterminist idea of male violence and aggression, apart from the fact that it could be dehumanising to men is that in saying a sex, or any group of people more likely has a trait is something which can be used as an excuse for things.

    Well exactly.

    That doesn't make it any less true though does it?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    The problem with the biodeterminist idea of male violence and aggression, apart from the fact that it could be dehumanising to men is that in saying a sex, or any group of people more likely has a trait is something which can be used as an excuse for things.

    It's not all about violence.

    You think patriarchical societies and men being seen as the "breadwinner" has no biological basis? It does.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    It's not all about violence.

    You think patriarchical societies and men being seen as the "breadwinner" has no biological basis? It does.

    :yes:
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Posts: 16,688 Skive's The Limit
    RaggyDoll wrote: »
    Im referring to violence and aggression which is most commonly found in males. Most violent crimes are commited by men.

    I don't think for one moment that all men are violent or even that most men are, but I do think the agression and violence witnessed by Prof Wrangham proves some biological link. Which in turn shows that there are biological differences between the genders which cannot be fully explained by environment.

    I feel like I'm having a go at men here and I'm not meaning to at all. I am a firm believer in equality amongst the sexes, I just wanted to highlight something I had found interesting myself.
    I see what you mean, don't worry, you're not having a go.

    Actually I think this is true: Like I said, it's the ability to overcome something.
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,282 Skive's The Limit
    RaggyDoll wrote: »
    That doesn't make it any less true though does it?

    :yes:
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    There are variations everywhere. In a biological sense, men are generally more aggressive than women due to hormones, and this is where science plays a bigger part than sociology.

    God, not this again....

    It's very inconclusive as to the genetic precursors to aggressive or violent behaviour. It's almost impossible to single out all the relevant factors within a sample of males to uncover the 'cause' of aggressive and violent behaviour. As Kermit has mentioned, the interaction of environment, upbringing, and socialisation has far more to do with how violent an individual has become. And this is from a guy who did first hand research in a high school in Glasgow and noticed the girls were just as violent as the guys. I would disagree that sociology plays a bigger part in explaining this variation that science, unless one is a biodeterminist.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    Do you mean biological in a sense inclusive or exclusive of psychological traits?

    Eh? I have no idea what you're referring to.
    So what aspects of feminism are people rejecting?

    The vision of a society in which women are more manly, and men are more womanly - i.e. a rejection of women giving up femininity.


    Working for equal pay? Of course women have always worked, in 'less developed' countries it has to be done, on top of other gender related roles such as child rearing... But pretty much universally throghout history, men have always called the shots and controlled the wealth.

    And why do you think that is? In most species, there is a dominant sex, and in mammalian species this is - without exception - the male.
    Why do you not think feminism and women's rights movements have had anything to do with the prohibition and visability of rape?

    Well, if you can provide evidence that prohibition of rape was a result of feminism, I might believe otherwise.
    You can compare the writings though, whilst still recognising the relevence of the era in which they were written. They still mostly say that women are equal.

    But as I've said, their conceptions of equality are radically different. You're throwing the word 'equality' about without unpacking its meaning in differing contexts.
    Second wave feminism is subjective towards the time in which it was written, as has third wave feminism been.

    And? What relevence does that have to a lot of women refusing to associate themselves with the feminism of today, for the reasons i've given?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think that the fact itself that makes us human, that separates us from the rest of the animals, is the ability to overcome our nature, to do something different than what our insticts say.

    How can denying your instincts be a good thing? All that would achieve would be to create a psychological conflict - in other words, we'd become totally neurotic. Obviously, to have a civilised society we can't live by pure, unfettered instinct, but a healthy society requires recognition of our inner nature.
    God, not this again....

    It's very inconclusive as to the genetic precursors to aggressive or violent behaviour. It's almost impossible to single out all the relevant factors within a sample of males to uncover the 'cause' of aggressive and violent behaviour.

    Testosterone and what is known as ancestral memory (evolutionary psychology) are undeniably major factors.
    And this is from a guy who did first hand research in a high school in Glasgow and noticed the girls were just as violent as the guys.

    So why are the vast majority of people convicted for violence male? Why are the vast majority of boxing & MMA fans and participants male? Why don't we have mobs of female footie hooligans doing battle on the streets?
Sign In or Register to comment.