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.
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
missed that. Too busy looking at...
3. a. The condition of being female or male; sex.
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 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
Same thing. It's still the society that's at fault, their body is fine.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
So what aspects of feminism are people rejecting?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I hate to be a history pedant* but it was 1928.
* I don't really
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.
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.
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.
Well exactly.
That doesn't make it any less true though does it?
It's not all about violence.
You think patriarchical societies and men being seen as the "breadwinner" has no biological basis? It does.
:yes:
Actually I think this is true: Like I said, it's the ability to overcome something.
:yes:
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.
Eh? I have no idea what you're referring to.
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.
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.
Well, if you can provide evidence that prohibition of rape was a result of feminism, I might believe otherwise.
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.
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?
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.
Testosterone and what is known as ancestral memory (evolutionary psychology) are undeniably major factors.
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?