Home Politics & Debate

Are you a feminist?

24

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Would you want to work for a law firm like that? If they've got such a poor understanding of the law that they don't even understand that asking a question like that is likely to get them up in a tribunal quicker than I can blink (and almost certain to loose). They will go bust so quick you're better not working for them
    Do you seriously think that companies don't get away with discrimination?

    It's not about not understanding the law, it's about the fact that some aspects of the law are harder to challenge and employers knowing this.

    They may not say at interview, or on receiving CVs "sorry, no Africans/people with disabilities/older people ect", but they can always say "well somebody else was better for the job" or ask roundabout questions to suss people out based on prejudices.

    It's something difficult to challenge, even more so, during a recession where we are in an employer's market. :(
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    I don't think some of the issues above are conflicts... I think a lot of it comes down to gender roles and society's expectations. A man should have every right to be a stay at home Dad and have paternity leave, as a woman should have for pursuing a career.... I don't view any conflict there, beyond gender roles and so called 'business need'.

    I think a part of the issue is that a lot of companies aren't family friendly. It's sad that some people have to miss out on their kids growing up, especially if they can't afford not to work less hours due to low wages.

    Gender discrimination can happen, but I think that it's hard to really tell the depth of a problem in work until at least, the work place allows for its workers to have a family life.

    I agree 100% that gender roles are an issue in themselves. But a lot of the systems have been set up and created historically by men (with no specific agenda) and so indirectly do create that conflict. I mean it can be very subtle - look at the US where taller people are significantly more likely to get hired and promoted. Women on average are shorter (along with me :p).

    I don't like a lot of the predefined gender roles, but systems that say 'you must be 'manly' or take on historically manly gender character traits to achieve' and vice versa do cause this 'conflict'. I call it a conflict not in a way to imply there is animosity but more that you have to prioritise one historic gender trait over others.

    I see two perspectives on progression:

    1. Women to achieve in areas previously dominated by men must shed their gender roles and act more like men. Business women must be overconfident, striking killer deals, that kind of thing. Men to be a stay at home dad need to be extra empathetic, a good househusband, subservient almost (in the sense, you have tasks assigned to you by the household that you will fulfil).

    2. We change the areas previously dominated through legislation and otherwise so that they can incorporate the general gender traits of both sexes. So positive discrimination to force employers to consider the best women, and what they can really bring to the table. Think of Norway where the law requires 40% of company boards be female. We introduce paternity leave for dads so they are on a level footing with women.

    Of course these overlap and a whole lot of other stuff is going on too, but really there is the social side to it - people becoming more 'homogenous' in how they act and the traits they have, and the structural side to it - how the law and governance systems work to ensure we have a level playing field.

    For an obvious example of the 'conflict' I was talking about before, think about rape / serious sexual assault laws. The problem is, rape and sexual assault is a crime that is mainly committed against women. It is a crime that is mainly carried out by men. It is often difficult under the pre-existing legal framework to get a conviction, which means largely women are at risk at a crime that may not be punished. But if you make it artificially easier to convict, then you are mainly taking the group of men and making them more vulnerable to imprisonment. It doesn't sound like a bad thing - if they've done the crime - they should do the time. But pretend it was just black men, and then the realisation that the law is not always equal doesn't seem right. (I'm not arguing for or against this btw, just offering an example.)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    Do you seriously think that companies don't get away with discrimination?

    It's not about not understanding the law, it's about the fact that some aspects of the law are harder to challenge and employers knowing this.

    They may not say at interview, or on receiving CVs "sorry, no Africans/people with disabilities/older people ect", but they can always say "well somebody else was better for the job" or ask roundabout questions to suss people out based on prejudices.

    It's something difficult to challenge, even more so, during a recession where we are in an employer's market. :(

    Of course they do. But on the other hand if I was a law firm and planning to discriminate I wouldn't ask such a blatant question that a five year old would know not to ask. Or perhaps its a way of screening out candidates - those who don't take them to court are just too thick to be lawyers.

    I would also suggest that the level of discrimination isn't like you suggest. My sister recruits for a blue-chip company and it isn't in their interest to discriminate on the basis of names - they want the best person they can get and if that person is a black one-legged lesbian from Hackney she'll get the job over a white Etonian.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Of course they do. But on the other hand if I was a law firm and planning to discriminate I wouldn't ask such a blatant question that a five year old would know not to ask. Or perhaps its a way of screening out candidates - those who don't take them to court are just too thick to be lawyers.

    I would also suggest that the level of discrimination isn't like you suggest. My sister recruits for a blue-chip company and it isn't in their interest to discriminate on the basis of names - they want the best person they can get and if that person is a black one-legged lesbian from Hackney she'll get the job over a white Etonian.
    I work with helping older people in to employment, so see it fairly often. I don't know what happened with the woman being asked if she was planning on having kids... Maybe some people feel too powerless to challenge it.

    Also, sometimes it's a case of how do you prove that you're being discriminated against? Many people don't even know it's against the law (in general, not just the legal sector) and even if they did, what would you do?

    I don't believe I have suggested any 'level' of discrimination either, just recognised is exists for some groups and with some firms. I don't have any statistics, just what I have experienced in the work place with service users, training material and the experiences of other people.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I've been asked what I would do about work if my child was sick, I've been told that I the person whose results were under mine was being promoted instead of m because I am a mother. I've also been advised by a (black) friend who worked in recruitment to use an english sounding name on my CV as she was often asked to sift out the non-whites for jobs.... The stuff happens all the time, there's fuck all you can do about it really.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ive been asked about childcare too, and whether i was planning to have more children.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I could see how an argument could be advanced that childcare etc. is wanting your cake AND eating it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    how?

    How do you suppose working families get by without childcare, and why should it automatically fall on the woman. Fathers dont get overlooked for promotion or jobs yet they have children as well as mothers
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    how?

    One viewpoint often cited is the woman's right to enjoy corporate servitude. (Presumably this is in opposition to the child rearing housewife role).

    The provision of corporate renumeration should pregnancy occur appears to be having the cake and eating it.

    (Notwithstanding the economic reality that this practice serves corporations well, but that discussion is perhaps for another day).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    DIGBY.CORY wrote: »
    I don't go out of my way to be politically correct, neither do I try my best to offend, I consider myself to be a normal bloke of today.

    You do go out of your way to be a massive spam-face, though.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    One viewpoint often cited is the woman's right to enjoy corporate servitude. (Presumably this is in opposition to the child rearing housewife role).

    The provision of corporate renumeration should pregnancy occur appears to be having the cake and eating it.

    (Notwithstanding the economic reality that this practice serves corporations well, but that discussion is perhaps for another day).

    How is it having your cake and eating it? What do you mean "the womans right to enjoy corporate servitude?" I genuinely cant work out what you mean
    corporate servitude as in having a job??

    corporate renumeration as in getting maternity pay?

    Do you have a problem with using normal language to speak?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    he is the god of schmuck after all...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    corporate servitude as in having a job??

    corporate renumeration as in getting maternity pay?

    Yes I believe those are the political synonyms.

    If you wish to label them normal, so be it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    katralla wrote: »
    he is the god of schmuck after all...

    And that is probably all I will ever be . . . .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Do you have a problem with using normal language to speak?

    He has a problem saying anything at all - though he's rarely shy of a word count.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    One viewpoint often cited is the woman's right to enjoy corporate servitude. (Presumably this is in opposition to the child rearing housewife role).

    It's only in opposition to the housewife role in societies that don't have allowances for women to do both. Women in The Netherlands, for example, have no problem going part time after having children, even when in very high-powered jobs at top companies, because their society is structured in a way to allow them to do this.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    katralla wrote: »
    I've been asked what I would do about work if my child was sick, I've been told that I the person whose results were under mine was being promoted instead of m because I am a mother. I've also been advised by a (black) friend who worked in recruitment to use an english sounding name on my CV as she was often asked to sift out the non-whites for jobs.... The stuff happens all the time, there's fuck all you can do about it really.
    What industry do you and your mate work in?

    I was talking to somebody who used to lecture something media/PR related and she was saying that it's really hard to get in to PR if you're black.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    I don't think some of the issues above are conflicts... I think a lot of it comes down to gender roles and society's expectations. A man should have every right to be a stay at home Dad and have paternity leave, as a woman should have for pursuing a career.... I don't view any conflict there, beyond gender roles and so called 'business need'.

    I think a part of the issue is that a lot of companies aren't family friendly. It's sad that some people have to miss out on their kids growing up, especially if they can't afford not to work less hours due to low wages.

    Gender discrimination can happen, but I think that it's hard to really tell the depth of a problem in work until at least, the work place allows for its workers to have a family life.

    But people already have those rights?

    There is nothing stopping a man staying at home, looking after the children while the woman goes out to earn the bread. But being realistic, that isn't what most men are suited for, nor is it what most women desire. It is delusional to think the majority of women would be attracted to a man whose ambition in life is to look after the kids and do the housework while his wife brings the money in. That man is a laughing stock in their eyes, and we all know it.

    As for the workplace allowing workers to have a family life...what does this entail? That if I want to set up a business, I should pay women a wage (or men, to pre-empt the obvious retort) to stay at home in exchange for nothing?

    This is what the other poster meant be having your cake and eating it, you want it both ways...women making 50/50 in comparison with men financially, having 50/50 representation in all social/political/employment fields yet at the same time expecting to be provided for and allowed special provisions.

    For a non-feminist woman, the provider is a man; for a feminist women, the provider is the state.
    I don't believe they should be two different things, however.

    Feminism is a neo-Marxist ideology based on a completely discredited view of human nature and is concerned solely with the promotion of women's interests over men's. The idea of a man, of a masculinity, of innate sexual difference is anethema to them, hence the obsession with socially engineering a "new man" who will serve women in their fantasy matriarchal future. They cannot and will not co-operate with "masculinists" because their interests (or rather their perceived interests) are completely contradictory, although the trick of creating "men's studies" (where "men" dicuss masculinity and manhood within the parameters set by feminists, i.e. something to be derided, mocked and deconstructed) to create this impression of is certainly amusing.

    Of course, there are some politically libertarian women who identify themselves as feminists such as Christina Hoff Sommers, Camille Paglia etc who do not believe in the authoritarian, misandristic ideology of the mainstream and in practice are as much men's rights activists as much as they are women's. Such women, however, are few and far between and loathed within the feminism movement.

    Lexi99 wrote: »
    Im for equality between men and women but i dont call myself a feminist cos i probably will get looked down upon as a bra burning lesbian.

    Trouble is, its the extreme feminists who give them a bad name. The ones who think women should be given more rights than men when actually, feminists just want to be equal

    Can you please suggest some literature by moderate feminists, other than the thoroughly derided aforementioned?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Spliffie wrote: »
    There is nothing stopping a man staying at home, looking after the children while the woman goes out to earn the bread. But being realistic, that isn't what most men are suited for, nor is it what most women desire.
    Evidence?
    It is delusional to think the majority of women would be attracted to a man whose ambition in life is to look after the kids and do the housework while his wife brings the money in. That man is a laughing stock in their eyes, and we all know it.
    And you're speaking as a woman, or on behalf of women?

    A lot of women find nurturing men, or men who are good with kids attractive. I say this as somebody who has experienced the world as a woman, who has many female friends. I can probably bring up evidence if needed...

    I think your view is actually very degrading towards men, calling house husbands and potentially male lone parents a laughing stock. I'm not sure what world you live in there, but you should give yourself and your (male friends) more credit for their potential. Also, who cares if people laugh? Anybody secure in themselves won't give a shit what other people are doing.
    For a non-feminist woman, the provider is a man; for a feminist women, the provider is the state.
    Evidence please. :)
    Feminism is a neo-Marxist ideology based on a completely discredited view of human nature and is concerned solely with the promotion of women's interests over men's.
    Is this a joke?
    Can you please suggest some literature by moderate feminists, other than the thoroughly derided aforementioned?
    Can you please suggest any evidence for anything you've just written? or is it a wind up? :confused:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    Evidence?

    You concede the point yourself when you refer to "society's expectations". Social expectations which, in your view, can be rectified through social engineering.

    I'd suggest you consider the fact the females of all mammalian species are the primary, if not sole providers for their offspring and then take a look at the same phenomenon occuring throughout the entirey of human history, across all eras and cultures. The conclusion here would appear rather obvious, would it not?
    And you're speaking as a woman, or on behalf of women?

    On behalf of women - I have no issues with gender identity, though it seems others do.
    A lot of women find nurturing men, or men who are good with kids attractive. I say this as somebody who has experienced the world as a woman, who has many female friends. I can probably bring up evidence if needed...

    Nice strawman there. There is an evident different between a man who is willing to play a role in raising kids and the sort of man I am referering to - I shall reiterate for your benefit, a man whose ambition in life is to look after the kids and do the housework while his wife brings the money in.

    Not, of course, that you required clarification in the first place, you are merely being obtuse.
    I think your view is actually very degrading towards men, calling house husbands and potentially male lone parents a laughing stock. I'm not sure what world you live in there, but you should give yourself and your (male friends) more credit for their potential. Also, who cares if people laugh? Anybody secure in themselves won't give a shit what other people are doing.

    No, you don't think my view is degrading to men at all. You think it is degrading to women, otherwise you would not deny maternal instincts are inherently female instincts.

    Sure, I think house husbands are a laughing stock, as much to women as to men if not more so. In what way is this degrading to men in general, considering house husbands are a small minority?

    Single fathers bear no relevence to my comments. If a man has to raise his progeny on his own, NO-ONE is going to look down on them for that.

    In what way should I be giving myself and my male friends (not that you know them in any case) more credit? For what, exactly? You think I am underestimating myself because I don't want to coddle children and do housework? LOL come on Namaste, you can do better than that, surely?
    Evidence please. :)

    The evidence is in your call for companies to be family friendly, and your movement's call for state-provided childcare etc. Your refusal to answer my question re this :
    Gender discrimination can happen, but I think that it's hard to really tell the depth of a problem in work until at least, the work place allows for its workers to have a family life.

    is noted :thumb:
    Is this a joke?

    Errr...are you really suggesting the theory of tabula rasa isn't completely discredited? Are you really unaware of the neo-Marxist origins of mainsteam feminism orthodoxy? Somehow, I think not. Again, you're being obtuse.

    Can you please suggest any evidence for anything you've just written? or is it a wind up? :confused:

    Stop playing ignorant, Namaste. Why not give me some suggested reading material, there must be plenty of "moderate" feminist theory out there, given that the misandry, hatred of all things masculine and authoritarian desconstructionist ideology is confined to the lunatic fringe?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Spliffie wrote: »
    I'd suggest you consider the fact the females of all mammalian species are the primary, if not sole providers for their offspring and then take a look at the same phenomenon occuring throughout the entirey of human history, across all eras and cultures. The conclusion here would appear rather obvious, would it not?

    And yet in the entirety of human history, the one thing that has coincided with rocketing standards of living has been the ability for women to control their own reproductive cycle, and break nature's role as a baby machine. It is still the only guaranteed way to lift societies out of poverty. You're just invoking the naturalistic fallacy to state that because something is a particular way in nature, that's therefore the ethically correct solution, or in the best interests of our species.

    In the most equal societies in the world, the vast majority of what women request is the ability to allow parents the chance to provide for their own children without facing punishment from employers. Things like flexible hours, decent childcare and maternity/paternity leave. I don't see how people demanding things that will allow them to continue to work is expecting the state to provide for them. It sounds more like it's expecting to be able to provide for themselves, without relying on a husband having to work twice as hard, and getting something in return for all the tax they pay.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'd suggest you consider the fact the females of all mammalian species are the primary, if not sole providers for their offspring and then take a look at the same phenomenon occuring throughout the entirey of human history, across all eras and cultures. The conclusion here would appear rather obvious, would it not?
    So there are no examples of male caregivers throughout history? :confused:

    On behalf of women - I have no issues with gender identity, though it seems others do.
    What's your gender identity?

    I assume by the way you are posting, that you are male identified, deciding for women what we should think, rather than listening to women's experiences.

    Nice strawman there. There is an evident different between a man who is willing to play a role in raising kids and the sort of man I am referering to - I shall reiterate for your benefit, a man whose ambition in life is to look after the kids and do the housework while his wife brings the money in.
    I still don't see how this is a problem though... There are men who choose to be house husbands. Just because you seem to have a problem with it, or would feel emasculated in doing it, does not mean that the rest of the society should be ashamed of men for doing something a bit different to tradition.

    Not, of course, that you required clarification in the first place, you are merely being obtuse.

    No, you don't think my view is degrading to men at all. You think it is degrading to women, otherwise you would not deny maternal instincts are inherently female instincts.
    I'm not denying that women can't be maternal. I believe both men and women can be maternal.
    Sure, I think house husbands are a laughing stock, as much to women as to men if not more so. In what way is this degrading to men in general, considering house husbands are a small minority?
    No offence... But is this a personal issue of yours, rather than societal? I don't know any women who would look down on a house husband for staying at home. What cultural perspective are you speaking from?
    The evidence is in your call for companies to be family friendly, and your movement's call for state-provided childcare etc. Your refusal to answer my question re this :
    What movement exactly?

    Sorry, I missed that part of your post, due to being in late last night...

    I think that work places should be more family friendly, in that I think things like flexi credits should be available through the private sector too. My department is quite flexible (well, if you have children, not if you wanted to see a sick relative in hospital for example), people can also get time off during half term which is good. We have people where I work, who return after a period of time of bringing up kids, then go back to their jobs and carry on where they left up (apart from training and being made aware of policy changes, obviously).

    I would also argue in putting up the minimum wage, so people could afford to work less hours and spend more time at home with their family. I'm sure we've all known people who have had to scrape by in the city, despite working 50 hours a week.

    it's not just about equality in the work place either. Children deserve to have both parents around growing up (in my view) and at the moment, it sometimes isn't financially possible.... But more people in to work also means less reliance on the welfare states and less people ending up trapped in benefit cycles for years, as many people are more incentivised to work.
    That if I want to set up a business, I should pay women a wage (or men, to pre-empt the obvious retort) to stay at home in exchange for nothing?
    Is this in reference to maternity pay, or income support? :confused:
    For a non-feminist woman, the provider is a man; for a feminist women, the provider is the state.
    :confused:
    Errr...are you really suggesting the theory of tabula rasa isn't completely discredited? Are you really unaware of the neo-Marxist origins of mainsteam feminism orthodoxy? Somehow, I think not. Again, you're being obtuse.
    Tabula rasa isn't discredited? You mean you believe gender roles to be entirely innate? That would make an interesting thread in itself. There is a type of feminism called 'difference feminism', which stresses how women and men are different. Some scientists are now saying that difference is due to socialisation.

    Re neo-Marxism: There have been feminist pamphlets produced, before Marx was even born. For example, A Vindication for the Rights of Women, which was published in 1972, written by Mary Wollstonecraft.

    If you're talking about first wave feminism, I don't understand where Neo-Marxism is linked. :confused: Could you back this up at all?

    Feminism is a collection of movements that has took many forms, it's not exclusively 'neo-Marxist'. For example, anarcha feminism (like Emma Goldman, the movement incorporated anarchism with feminism), liberal feminism (which focussed on social reform, see Wollstonecraft), black feminism (linking racism and feminism together, for example Audre Lourde), pro-life feminism, eco feminism (for example Vandana Shiva, this movement links patriarchy with deep ecology)... Ect ect ect

    You can't honestly say that feminism is a neo-Marxist ideology at all because that's not even a matter of opinion. It just sounds like something Pat Robertson would say, or somebody who hasn't even bothered to read up on the history of some of the many feminist movements.

    Some feminists are probably misandristic. Some feminists are transphobic and this has been an issue in certain groups in London. No doubt, some people who are feminist are also racist. Maybe you have experienced that from a person who identifies as feminist yourself (or maybe you have read the SCUM Manifesto and decided on behalf of millions of educated women and men, that it is what they believe, kind of like how you have decided for 'most women', what they want in a man), but that was just the individual themselves. However, I'm yet to meet any racist or misandristic feminists and I know loads.

    Seriously, it's a huge

    Stop playing ignorant, Namaste. Why not give me some suggested reading material, there must be plenty of "moderate" feminist theory out there, given that the misandry, hatred of all things masculine and authoritarian desconstructionist ideology is confined to the lunatic fringe?
    Only feminism isn't as simple as "moderate", or "harsh"... If you'd have bothered to research it, even if your research is looking at a wikipedia page, or a few blogs, or books/magazines, or spoken to a few people with an open mind, then you'd know that.

    And you're calling me ignorant. :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    wtf is having your cake and eating it about not being able to progress in your chosen career just because you happen to have been born with a uterus?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    wtf is having your cake and eating it about not being able to progress in your chosen career just because you happen to have been born with a uterus?

    Right on, sister.

    It is hereby decreed, with immediate effect, the role of Tarzan is to be given to Mr. Spiggott.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty68LPKRQQQ&NR=1
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm really amused, honestly, chortle chortle.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    haha i like that
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    So there are no examples of male caregivers throughout history? :confused:

    Yet again, I shall re-iterate for your benefit what I had actually posted -
    I'd suggest you consider the fact the females of all mammalian species are the primary, if not sole providers for their offspring...

    This quite obviously does not preclude there being examples of male care-givers, in fact the relatively high involvement of male homo sapiens in the raising of children is one of the curious features of human nature.

    I can understand your reticence in making a serious response to my point though, as opposed to making a deliberate non-sequiteur a reasonably sharp 10 year old could recognise as such. Don't worry Namaste, I wouldn't try to defend the indefensible either, however much self-interest pushed me towards belief in evident falsehood.
    What's your gender identity?

    Heterosexual male.
    I assume by the way you are posting, that you are male identified, deciding for women what we should think, rather than listening to women's experiences.

    You couldn't be more wrong, but then assumptions are all you seem to make. I listen to what all women have to say about these things, not that I am naive enough to take all the professed views of politicised minority of women at face value. Behaviour speak louder than words. My thoughts are denied by some women, verified by others and also by a mountain of studies, anecodatal and scientific evidence, not that basic social observance isn't sufficient. You see what I'm saying in women, there is no doubt about it - self-deception can only deceive so far.
    I still don't see how this is a problem though... There are men who choose to be house husbands. Just because you seem to have a problem with it, or would feel emasculated in doing it, does not mean that the rest of the society should be ashamed of men for doing something a bit different to tradition.

    There is no problem with it. Of course, that I personally find the concept laughable doesn't mean the rest of society should hold the same opinion, I don't seek to create the world in my own idealised image as is our tendency, it is merely the case that society generally does hold the same opinion and always will, however much some would like to deny it.
    I'm not denying that women can't be maternal. I believe both men and women can be maternal.

    I don't deny a men have an interest in their offpsing either - like I say that instinct, which I should add is paternal, not maternal, is a more pronounced feature in our species compared to other mammals. The difference is, you would deny an innate propensity towards maternal instinct in women whatsoever, and therein lies the rub. What makes you think humans are different from other mammalian species, contrary to all known human social organisation?

    No offence... But is this a personal issue of yours, rather than societal? I don't know any women who would look down on a house husband for staying at home. What cultural perspective are you speaking from?

    No offensive taken - my perspective is that of pretty much anyone outside the self-righteous, "enlightened" inhabitants of middle-class, Guardian-reading fantasy land who views themselves as the end goal of human social evolution.
    What movement exactly?

    The feminist movement, sweatheart :heart:
    Sorry, I missed that part of your post, due to being in late last night...

    I think that work places should be more family friendly, in that I think things like flexi credits should be available through the private sector too. My department is quite flexible (well, if you have children, not if you wanted to see a sick relative in hospital for example), people can also get time off during half term which is good. We have people where I work, who return after a period of time of bringing up kids, then go back to their jobs and carry on where they left up (apart from training and being made aware of policy changes, obviously).

    I would also argue in putting up the minimum wage, so people could afford to work less hours and spend more time at home with their family. I'm sure we've all known people who have had to scrape by in the city, despite working 50 hours a week.

    it's not just about equality in the work place either. Children deserve to have both parents around growing up (in my view) and at the moment, it sometimes isn't financially possible.... But more people in to work also means less reliance on the welfare states and less people ending up trapped in benefit cycles for years, as many people are more incentivised to work.


    Is this in reference to maternity pay, or income support? :confused:

    Its a reference to feminist demands for an increase in state-provided childcare, courtesy of the taxpayer, so a middle class elite of feminist women can have their high-flying careers as "strong, independent women" and at the same time fufill their biological destiny. Male priviledge and female priviliedge, or National Organisation of Women's slogan puts it, we want it all, and we want it NOW!

    Tabula rasa isn't discredited? You mean you believe gender roles to be entirely innate? That would make an interesting thread in itself.

    Tabula rasa is UTTERLY discredited. A good starter would be to read Pinker's The Blank Slate, a very accessible and comprehensive demolition job of tabula rasa and deconstructionist theory.

    And no, I do not mean gender roles are entirely innate. No-one believes in biological determinism. Again, you make an elementary logical error - to say that human nature is not 100% socially determined in NO WAY WHATSOEVER implies that human nature is 100% biologically determined.

    It wouldn't make an interesting thread in itself at all - today, there is no nature versus debate at all, other than in than in the minds of people who are either politically motivated or have little to no understanding of issue in the first place.

    The question is in the interaction between nature and nuture, not whether its all nature or all nurture.
    There is a type of feminism called 'difference feminism', which stresses how women and men are different. Some scientists are now saying that difference is due to socialisation.

    Some scientists are now saying this? "Scientists" have been saying this for decades, including prominent and otherwise respected biologists such as Rose and Lewontin who admit their belief in tabula rasa is ethical, not scientific. Fortunately, such characters are on the decline, although the apparent need for belief in this sort of fantasy lives on.

    If you actually research the issue, you will find there are undeniable innate sex differences, there is a HUGE edifice of evidence proving this if living amongst, growing up with and knowing people of both sexes isn't enough.

    An article in the Guardian making reference to a couple of politically-motivated academic non-entities and portraying trashy pop psychology and Hollywood bullshit as the basis for what they are arguing against isn't something to be taken seriously.
    Re neo-Marxism: There have been feminist pamphlets produced, before Marx was even born. For example, A Vindication for the Rights of Women, which was published in 1972, written by Mary Wollstonecraft.

    Marx was born after 1972? Is he still about today? :p
    If you're talking about first wave feminism, I don't understand where Neo-Marxism is linked. :confused: Could you back this up at all?

    I'm not talking about first wave feminism. Enlightenment beliefs on which original feminism was based are unlikely go down well in modern Gender Studies classes.
    Feminism is a collection of movements that has took many forms, it's not exclusively 'neo-Marxist'. For example, anarcha feminism (like Emma Goldman, the movement incorporated anarchism with feminism), liberal feminism (which focussed on social reform, see Wollstonecraft), black feminism (linking racism and feminism together, for example Audre Lourde), pro-life feminism, eco feminism (for example Vandana Shiva, this movement links patriarchy with deep ecology)... Ect ect ect

    You can't honestly say that feminism is a neo-Marxist ideology at all because that's not even a matter of opinion. It just sounds like something Pat Robertson would say, or somebody who hasn't even bothered to read up on the history of some of the many feminist movements.

    Some feminists are probably misandristic. Some feminists are transphobic and this has been an issue in certain groups in London. No doubt, some people who are feminist are also racist. Maybe you have experienced that from a person who identifies as feminist yourself (or maybe you have read the SCUM Manifesto and decided on behalf of millions of educated women and men, that it is what they believe, kind of like how you have decided for 'most women', what they want in a man), but that was just the individual themselves. However, I'm yet to meet any racist or misandristic feminists and I know loads.

    Emma Goldman was a communist, anarchy is the end goal of communism, eco-feminism, black feminism, just about every variation you can mention share the same basic ideology which is neo-marxist, a modification of communist theory spawed by those in the Frankfurt School (openly Marxist) who realised the the proletariat would not rise against the bourgeoise, so the battle lines had to be re-drawn with straight white males, formerly those they primarily championed as the oppressed, cast as the great satan.

    Technically, you're right when you say modern feminism is not exclusively neo-marxist, but the ideology binding most of these supposedly disperate groups is neo-marxist in nature.

    For purpose of practical categorisation, there are really only two forms of feminism - neo-marxist feminism, or gender feminism if you prefer, with relativism/deconstructionism as theory and an authoritarian political approach as a means of creating utopia via social engineering.

    And don't bother mentioning the SCUM manifesto. That quite obviously is the lunatic fringe, although I do see it as an extreme reflection of mainstream feminist ideology.

    Contrary to your belief I need to read up on feminism, I actually have and do. I read up on all kind of stuff, and wouldn't comment on something unless i've got an understanding of it to do so. If you want to win someone over to feminism, I would seriously suggest you do no encourage them to actually read the theory, unless of course they hold deep-rooted issues that can be sublimated into political activism.

    Finished Iragaray's Je, tu, Nous earlier today as a matter of fact, some interesting admissions to say the least. Check it out, if you have haven't already ;)
    Only feminism isn't as simple as "moderate", or "harsh"... If you'd have bothered to research it, even if your research is looking at a wikipedia page, or a few blogs, or books/magazines, or spoken to a few people with an open mind, then you'd know that.

    I was replying to the other poster's claim that the perception of feminists as misandrists comes from the lunatic fringe, not the mainstream, so merely asked for some examples of who these feminists are & what literature I should acquire so as to rectify my apparently misinformed opinion - glibly, of course, but I'm still open to suggestions...?
    And you're calling me ignorant. :rolleyes:

    I accused you of feigning ignorance, not of actually being ignorant, which you could actually take as a compliment - i think feminists and certain types of leftists do a very good job when it comes to dishonesty and feigning ignorance for tactical purposes. Then again, perhaps I am giving too you much credit? ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Eh, you think there are two sexes?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You're just invoking the naturalistic fallacy to state that because something is a particular way in nature, that's therefore the ethically correct solution, or in the best interests of our species.

    I'm not invoking the naturalistic fallacy at all. And where did I make reference to an "ethical solution" solution to anything?

    The problem I have is with the denial of human nature, the denial that men and women will veer towards certain careers and roles more than others, and we can be re-socialised as androgynous beings. Trying to push this sort of bullshit on children is not only misguided but seriously damaging for those individuals and society as a whole. But it does not follow logically that rigid gender roles should be set for people.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Oi, Spliffie, poke poke. I wanna play too. Let's go back to this idea of two sexes, two opposite sexes. I call bullshit...
Sign In or Register to comment.