Home Politics & Debate

Are you a feminist?

13

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    katralla wrote: »
    Oi, Spliffie, poke poke. I wanna play too. Let's go back to this idea of two sexes, two opposite sexes. I call bullshit...

    Ok, go for it. I think there's two sexes, male and female.

    By all means, feel free to re-educate me from my ignorance.








    Just a pity you've gone to bed :d
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I just wrote a reply to you Spliffie, but sadly lost it and don't have time to write it again in its entirety right now. :grump:
    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.
    Who else have you been reading, out of curiosity?
    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.

    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.
    Who loathes these women? :confused:

    Who are the misandristic 'mainstream'? What evidence do you have for this?

    Sorry for the typo... Wollstonecraft's pamphlet was 1792...
    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.
    Who?
    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!
    Surely if feminism is neo-Marxist, it would be aiming for a classless society?
    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?
    Well that depends on who I am. :d
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    I'll just say that I don't believe my opinions could only be justified if there were other (published or not) people with the same ones.
    I believe there are but even if there was no one else, my opinions would still be the same.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Spliffie wrote: »
    Ok, go for it. I think there's two sexes, male and female.

    By all means, feel free to re-educate me from my ignorance.








    Just a pity you've gone to bed :d

    And then I sobered up and stopped caring. Ok, I'll give it to you, the lacklustre version - it has been suggested that not only is gender a social construction but the notion of two sexes a cultural one too.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    I just wrote a reply to you Spliffie, but sadly lost it and don't have time to write it again in its entirety right now. :grump:

    What a coincidence! I just wrote a 2,548 word reply (excluding footnotes) before totally, absolutely and seriously without any question confusing "submit reply" with the "x" at the top right hand side of my screen.

    Sadly, with a dose of 300mg of dihydrocodeine kicking in to numb the pain, time release broken by means of raging fist, I don't have the motivation to do anything other than lie back and dream of poking.

    Don't fret yourself though, I am sure I will be back to disrupt proceedings at some point in the future. Like sometime 2015 if you're lucky :D

    Until then, namaste, Ms Namaste.

    *hug*
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    katralla wrote: »
    And then I sobered up and stopped caring. Ok, I'll give it to you, the lacklustre version - it has been suggested that not only is gender a social construction but the notion of two sexes a cultural one too.
    Biologically it certainly isn't. Unless you count hermaphrodites and XXY etc people, which unless I'm mistaken are genetic abnormalities and in any case always resemble one or both of the XY-XX sexes.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aha, you fall into the trap of thinking that just because you understand there to be two biological sexes, that those categories exist before the belief of them, which they don't.
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    katralla wrote: »
    Aha, you fall into the trap of thinking that just because you understand there to be two biological sexes, that those categories exist before the belief of them, which they don't.
    This is very obviously a topic for a different thread, but I'm intrigued: Are you saying that if people didn't believe that only two biological sexes existed, we'd have several?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This is very obviously a topic for a different thread, but I'm intrigued: Are you saying that if people didn't believe that only two biological sexes existed, we'd have several?

    There are certainly people who fall between the two accepted biological sexes, they must have always been around just not understood maybe.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This is very obviously a topic for a different thread, but I'm intrigued: Are you saying that if people didn't believe that only two biological sexes existed, we'd have several?

    Several or one, 'we' used to just have one.
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    katralla wrote: »
    Several or one, 'we' used to just have one.
    I would like more info on what exactly you're talking about, but I don't want to derail this thread...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I would like more info on what exactly you're talking about, but I don't want to derail this thread...

    Just one last poke, what she means to say is we as a species were formerly androgynist before teh nasty menz took over and invented "gender" (which she confuses with "sex") as a means by which to subjugate teh poor little womenz.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Spliffie wrote: »
    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.
    Yes, but feminism, like any social movement, is more concerned with how things should be rather than the biological facts of a situation (no matter how much they might invoke them in an attempt to give their argument more authority). If you're debating feminism, you are inherently debating sociology, not biology, which may inform what is in the interests of our species, but does not determine it. And so a society encouraging less or no gender boundaries in society is not necessarily discredited by biology, it will be discredited or praised based in its sociological results.

    Of course you have to decide if problems are really problems, and this is one major issue. Women getting paid less on average isn't necessarily a problem, if it turns out that most of that is due to the choices they make. Women getting paid less for the same job as a man, or being refused a job because she's a certain age and might get pregnant is a problem imo. But again, it'd be wrong to just assume that women get paid less because of discrimination. There was a study into top MBA graduates in America that showed that the men got paid more than women on average. But it also showed that the men were far more likely to ask for more money. The correct response here from a feminist perspective would be to encourage women to be just as competitive, if for no other reason than the possibility that their failure to negotiate was actually masking genuine discrimination on the part of the employers.

    However, like I said, I have no problem with an employment system designed around the family and family life, because I do think it benefits society as a whole. It just so happens that women will be the chief beneficiaries of such a system, but that's only because they choose to look after the kids more often than not. But what is wrong with a system that tries to allow people to have their cake and eat it? I don't think that wanting to spend time with your kids should prevent you from having high-level, important jobs in society, and I think society, law and business should do everything it can to help that become the case. The fact that it will mainly benefit one gender is irrelevant to me.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Spliffie wrote: »
    Just one last poke, what she means to say is we as a species were formerly androgynist before teh nasty menz took over and invented "gender" (which she confuses with "sex") as a means by which to subjugate teh poor little womenz.

    Oh no, I don't confuse gender and sex at all.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    katralla wrote: »
    Several or one, 'we' used to just have one.

    And then Katralla was formed from God of Schmuck's rib. And life would never be the same.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It certainly wouldn't.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    what about the star bellied sneetches?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This is very obviously a topic for a different thread, but I'm intrigued: Are you saying that if people didn't believe that only two biological sexes existed, we'd have several?

    I'm intrigued too, but we appear to have only been offered some very nebulous allusions to esoteric truths about gender at the moment.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    cock
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm talking about sex, not gender, if you're referring to me?

    Perhaps it is an esoteric line of thought to consider that things exist BEFORE we categorise them. So, bodies exist before we categorise that there are two sexes. The idea that there are two sexes isn't a 'truth' evidenced by bodies, it's an idea that we then apply to bodies.

    I hardly think it's derailing a thread on feminism to refer to feminist postmodernist notions of social construction and chuck about a few anti-essentialist ideas around sex as well as gender. In fact, I find it amusing, it makes my brain chuckle.
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    katralla wrote: »
    Perhaps it is an esoteric line of thought to consider that things exist BEFORE we categorise them. So, bodies exist before we categorise that there are two sexes. The idea that there are two sexes isn't a 'truth' evidenced by bodies, it's an idea that we then apply to bodies.
    In that case, you could argue the same thing about hair colour. I don't disagree with that, did I ever imply I did?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    In that case, you could argue the same thing about hair colour. I don't disagree with that, did I ever imply I did?
    You can say that about everything. But having a different hair colour doesn't affect your rights and views. You could split hairs by saying gingers are treated differently, but that isn't entirely the same thing.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    cock


    Thanks. I appreciate the cogent rebuttal! ;-)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Katralla, I'm on a phone phone the moment so I'll give a proper response later!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    cock

    Where ? :hyper:
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    JavaKrypt wrote: »
    You can say that about everything. But having a different hair colour doesn't affect your rights and views.
    Precisely my point (and, I hope, Kat's too).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    katralla wrote: »
    I'm talking about sex, not gender, if you're referring to me?

    Perhaps it is an esoteric line of thought to consider that things exist BEFORE we categorise them. So, bodies exist before we categorise that there are two sexes. The idea that there are two sexes isn't a 'truth' evidenced by bodies, it's an idea that we then apply to bodies.

    I hardly think it's derailing a thread on feminism to refer to feminist postmodernist notions of social construction and chuck about a few anti-essentialist ideas around sex as well as gender. In fact, I find it amusing, it makes my brain chuckle.

    I don't take exception to discussion about the nuances of gender and/or sexual identity, I suspect it's likely to prove interesting. It was just frustrating to read the ill-concealed smugness that seemed to appear halfway through this thread; a guffawing behind the hand while trying to goad Spliffie into admitting the oh-so-naive belief that there are two sexes.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Talk about a thread getting waaaaaay too deep :eek2:

    If anyone is interested the reason I started this thread was to ask if you are a feminist, do you feel (for whatever reason) compelled to downplay the fact in public due to perceived negative traits associated with it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't take exception to discussion about the nuances of gender and/or sexual identity, I suspect it's likely to prove interesting. It was just frustrating to read the ill-concealed smugness that seemed to appear halfway through this thread; a guffawing behind the hand while trying to goad Spliffie into admitting the oh-so-naive belief that there are two sexes.

    Er, yeah, I was having a little jostle around with a few theories. He gave a very cocksure answer himself, why not challenge it? And the two sexes thing- well, it's an easy target. I actually thought he was in on the joke rather than me giggling behind my hand. Perhaps I should slow down a bit?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    katralla wrote: »
    Er, yeah, I was having a little jostle around with a few theories. He gave a very cocksure answer himself, why not challenge it? And the two sexes thing- well, it's an easy target. I actually thought he was in on the joke rather than me giggling behind my hand. Perhaps I should slow down a bit?

    I'm all for the challenging of ideas, especially on an interesting topic like this, I just think there are ways of fostering productive dialogue. Maybe I read it wrong, I dunno.
Sign In or Register to comment.