what is feminism?

With respect to all male dominated species?Or just humans? Was that harmony not important to maintain? Still today? I'd say no. Let me let you in on a little secret: Its not just the penis, babe. Groundless?, my ass.If it were not for male dominance, our species might not have made it... Or at least not as far as we have. Maybe further, right? Who knows? Eh?But it did happen. At it was selected for.Matriarchy worked for the Bonobos, but it didnb't work for the humans.To say that the males collectively and consciously chose patriarchy is to live in delusion.That's the bases for my points.

So then, I will pull a nator/taz/whoever move on you, and say, why mention it then?
If you mentioned, then thats what you meant, just the same way you accuse me all the time. Live by the same rules, I say. And the big difference between that and a feminist extremists is? I was wondering if there was a connection between the two.Maybe if women weren't working as much as they are, mens salaries would be enough to support everything. Their salaries would have increased relatively.Both me and my wife get a little frustrated sometimes, because we both have to work. I wonder sometimes, if the feminist movement helped that cause.

It IS penis envy! Damn, Nems, look like you were right all along

Are you fucking insane!? We all know there are no negative side effects to the feminist movement.

I could hear the paint peeling off the walls, as I wrote that. Let's see how they twist that around, and then try and tell me that I am really not a feminist.

Jon got a 6 hour suspension for the messages just upthread. You are getting "special" treatment and not getting suspended.Let's shoot for quality postings or don't post at all.Adminnemooseus

---

Of course, I cannot answer this question for all of lesbiandom, but I will answer for myself.Physically, I am attracted to a woman's body. Certain personality traits (I will get to those in a minute) will either turn me on or off, but the body provides the initial attraction. Every woman's body is different, of course, but they are generally the same. That said, I am not averse to taking on a lover who purposefully presents a more masculine outward appearance, but I have found that most women who do so are not comfortable with the female parts of their bodies and that makes us pretty uncompatible in bed.I am not attracted to the male body. It simply does nothing for me, but I can appreciate how straight/bi women and gay/bi men are attracted to men and can appreciate a beautiful male body. As an analogy, I enjoy wine and have attended many wine tastings. I know which characteristics I desire and enjoy in wine, but I can sense a well-crafted wine even if I do not particularly enjoy that wine.Now, attractive personality traits are, as you probably know, harder to delineate, except on a generic level. They usually fall into "I know it when I see it" category.Using traditional stereotypes of femininity and masculinity, I would say that I am attracted to androgynous women. I like women who are independent, but also actively make time for me. I like women who are assertive, but know when to give a little. I like women who can easily express their feelings, but aren't overly emotional. I like women who know what they want in bed and aren't afraid to tell me, but are willing to accomodate the things that I want. I like women who aren't afraid to ask for help and support, but not those who can't make her own decisions or cling to me like a child. I like women who are intelligent, but not patronizing or overly boastful about it.I can go on, but I think you get the point.I am also attracted to men (as friends) who display a similar behavioral androgyny.To summarize, I am prefer my companions to be well-rounded, balanced and emotionally healthy people, but you must be a woman in order to get into my pants. Coveting power and desiring equality aren't the same thing, though. I am not fighting for a complete reversal of power. I am simply fighting for the ability of every person to have power over their own destinies (there are, of course, other factors at play in the field of power, but they would be off-topic here). An equal place at the table. Again, you need to define these attributes in order for me to answer the question as you see it.You also need to define which spheres you are referring to.For now, I can answer that in the spheres of business, politics and sports, to name a few, traditionally male attributes such as aggressiveness, competitiveness, the desire to get ahead, the willingness to use "cutthroat" tactics, outward insensitivity to other's feelings, dominance, etc are valued and rewarded over traditionally female attributes such as passiveness, sensitivity/caring, accomodation, meekness, etc.You don't often see men or women displaying many "feminine" traits in those fields...except towards their boss!! These traits are defined as "male traits" because they have been traditionally displayed by those who worked in those fields...men.Why is it that you think that women are "coveting" these traits in order to be like men instead of realizing that in order to get ahead they have to display those traits and that it doesn't seem to be a problem for those women who choose to go into those fields? They aren't inherently male and female traits and women aren't just mimicking men. They are employing the tactics and personality necessary to be successful in certain fields. And they're very good at it.

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London

I just don't understand, then, which other ancestor you're talking about. Mm, not exactly. Things that don't impact survival can evolve, too, by genetic drift. But it's irrelevant since you don't have any evidence for your genetic theory of patriarchy. ...no. Symbiotes and parasites are two different things. Well, then let's see some evidence that it is.

But here's the problem. Your basis is the well-known Naturalistic Fallacy, sometimes known as the Is-Ought Fallacy. Just because something is, doesn't mean that's the way it ought to be.The fact that patriarchy exists is not a point in favor of preserving it. Here you are, choosing it right now, CS. Why is it so hard to imagine other men doing the exact same thing?

...and what about an unmarried woman? You seem to assume that there's a providing man in the life of every woman.Isn't that just a little fucking ridiculous? Jesus you guys couldn't be making a better argument that the feminists are right if you tried. You guys are falling all over yourselves to defend a society where women would be men's chattel, passed from father to husband as an entirely economic transaction. Um, no. Your corporate free-market overlords helped that cause.

Are you saying that you don't think it is a good idea to totally eliminate racism, just so long as we don't oppress people of other races severely?Like, a certain level of oppression of a group solely because of the color of thir skin is a good idea?Edited by nator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

With respect to all male dominated species?

​

Or just humans?

---

Well, since your message used the word "men", and we have been talking about humans, I'd say we were talking about just humans.

quote:

---

Was that harmony not important to maintain?

---

Yes.

quote:

---

Still today? I'd say no.

---

Of course it is still important to maintain harmony today. Not having harmony means not having peace and living with conflict all the time.The problem is, CS, is that you are disregarding the fact that there are many, many, many ways to achieve harmony in a group, and a hierarchical, domination model, even though it has been in practice in a lot of cultures for a long time, is probably not the best way.It breeds discontent and resentment in the oppressed and disadvantaged groups, and that eventually leads to conflict, which is the opposite of peace and harmony.

quote:

---

Let me let you in on a little secret: Its not just the penis, babe.

---

Really?What attribute do ALL men, everywhere have that ALL women everywhere lack that makes men more suitable for a given task?

quote:

---

Groundless?, my ass.

---

OK, start your list of legitimate justifications for why a female computer programmer should make 30% less than a male computer programmer with the same level of experience and performance.

quote:

---

If it were not for male dominance, our species might not have made it... Or at least not as far as we have. Maybe further, right? Who knows? Eh?

---

Can't you see how you are grasping at straws here?"Yes, we should absolutely continue treating women as second-class citizens because nobody is sure if male domination had a role in early survival of our species when being strong and violent was of prime importance. It doesn't matter that being physically strong and violent is almost entirely irrelevant in modern society."Would you just listen to yourself?I could just as easily say that our species has survived in spite of male dominance, or maybe we would have been so much more advanced if it weren't for the hinderance of male domination.

quote:

---

Matriarchy worked for the Bonobos, but it didn't work for the humans.

---

It does work for humans, along with other societal arrangements. A delusion? You haven't provided any evidence whatsoever in support of your argument, but it is me who is living in a delusion?Please.Have you done much reading on the history of the fight for women's human rights over the millenia, or of cultures where male dominance was not the norm?Somehow, I think not.And dude, aren't you consciously choosing to maintain patriarchy, right here, in writing?Edited by nator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

So then, I will pull a nator/taz/whoever move on you, and say, why mention it then?

---

Because it is a possible reason for a person to hate a group.Believe it or not, it is entirely possible, and desireable, to understand the reasons for someone's actions and attitudes without condoning or endorsing those actions or attitudes.

quote:

---

And the big difference between that and a feminist extremists is?

---

I already told you the difference in the message you are replying to, that you apparently didn't read:

quote:

---

Maybe if women weren't working as much as they are, mens salaries would be enough to support everything. Their salaries would have increased relatively.

---

Maybe if blacks weren't working as much as they are, white's salaries would be enough to support everything. Their salaries would have increased relatively.So, exactly whom do you think is going to pick up the slack when 47% of the American workforce isn't allowed to work?Edited by nator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The answer to all of those questions, is:
Primarily, yes, but exclusively, no.

---

I answered in the way the question was framed-- from perception. The fact that you recognized the underlying perception says a lot about it. Stereotypes, no matter how we feel about them, don't start in a vaccuum or out of thin air. There usually is something that substantiates the stereotype.But I wasn't really talking about professions as much as I was about characteristics between the sexes. Most women would prefer a desk job over a construction job. That's not a sexist thing to say, that's a reasonable observation.Do you think that is due to the biological differences or is that a construct of society?

---

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

I made no mention of the sort, and as I stated, I am a feminist. That means I fully understand why women need equality in the work place, all of which has nothing to do with what I was asking.Any logical thought process would have told you that. Not sure if I understand that, or if that idea is even supported.Maybe those corporate free-market overlords are capitalizing on cheap female labor?