what is feminism?

From Message 176
No, that is not what I’m saying. Remember, as I’ve told you before, when you are attempting to make me look absurd and you have to ask “So, You’re saying x?” or, something along those lines, then you might as well just answer yourself with a “No” because every time you ask I have to come back and explain that that is not what I’m saying. I wish you were less interested in making look absurd and more interested in understanding what I’m actually trying to say. Its really annoying and makes me want to just ignore you.What I was saying was that patriarchy, like racism, was something that nature, presumably, deemed necessary and that it is important to protect on some level. To decide one day to just totally eliminate those things could have drastic negative consequences, IMHO. The resistance to those changes, while ultimately futile, are important in protecting the balance that we have.From Message 177Sure, but I was asking an additional question. I was saying no to maintaining the harmony from patriarchy not just harmony, in general. Of course harmony, in general, is important to maintain. I was saying that patriarchy probably is not as necessary as it used to be. So we can, gradually, get rid of it. Well, we have to play with the hand that we were dealt. But it could have also prevented conflict from a different male dominated group that could have preyed upon the lack of male dominance in the one group, so, whatever. Ya rly. There isn’t one. But, once again, that doesn’t have anything to do with what I was actually saying What!? What does that have to do with what I was saying. I’m really starting to question your reading capabilities. I suppose I could see it that way. I haven’t said that. See what I mean about it not being groundless? Could it not become relevant again in the future? lol, would you just listen to me. (instead of concentrating on making me look absurd) Sure, we could discuss that as well. I don’t rule that out as a possibility, but IMO, male domination helped more than it hurt. Didn’t work does not mean cannot work. And I was talking about humans in general, for which patriarchy worked and matriarchy did not. What’s your evidence that patriarchy was chose collectively and consciously by men in general (not just specific small groups of men)? Yeah, they were lucky that men decided to let them have their rights I doubt my posts have any effect on maintaining patriarchy, so no, even though I am defending it.

I don't want to get in the middle of this thing between you n Crash, but I can't let that bonobos thing slide by.Yes, bonobos seem to be a gentler, sexier sort of great ape. But that doesn't mean they are entirely without violence. There's a piece in last week's New Yorker that describes the latest research. Suffice it to say ... gangs of female bonobos have been known to gang up on and beat the crap out of a male bonobo. And lots of bonobos are missing fingers and toes (cause when they scrap, they bite).

No I actually did. Feminism may have been the better answer to the problem I am talking about.My ignorance on the subject doesn't help me.However, my ignorance does not make me anti-feministic (if thats a word) The two have nothing to do with each other. Stop being so emotional.

You are right.

OK. Let me see if I've got this straight. CS. You think physical dominance still plays a role in success?

What is the thing about the bonobos that you can't let slide by?I think, IIRC, that I was saying that humans and chimps are both patriarchal so we can guess that our last common ancestor was also patriarchal.Then someone brought up that bonobos, which are more related, are matriarchal so then I am wrong. But I don't think that that means that our ancestor was NOT patriarchal. I think it is a fair assumtion that they were. No offense, but what does that have to do with what we were talking typing about?

This makes absolutely no sense. Unless you can define "some level" for us, but I'm not sure it will make much sense then, either. What balance? And how would getting rid of sexism and racism destroy this mysterious balance?Edited by Jaderis, : No reason given.

---

"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 am not contending anything, I was asking a simple question. But you didn't. You posted something, that has nothing to do with what I was asking. One can only ask why?
Fortunately, I assume the best in people, not the worst, so I won't say that is was just to try and make me look stupid or something.Lot's of people can write up papers, and so the studies, but put a screw driver in their hands, and they become a complete ass. No shit.Hey, don't be like the rest here. We can have difference of opinions, and still get along. That's my hope.

No, actually after reading Nosy Neds response, and remembering a sermon on it, I would have to say, we have it much better than we ever did. And if push came to shove, My wife and I could make it on one salary, but have much less, and it would be comparable to 60 years ago.

Success like how? Evolutionary success? or Societal success? or something else?But yeah, I think it does play a role. An important role? Perhaps.Anyways, that's not what I was trying to imply in what you quoted. I was trying to imply that the idea that men should run things does not come from just them having a penis.

So, what is it then?

---

"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

OK. I got it.Chimps are patriarchal therefore our ancestors were patriarchal.Two things.One. This kind of "evolutionary psychology" is iffy, to say the least.
Two. Even if I were to give you the benefit of the doubt and grant you that the social structure of one of our close relatives means something about our common ancestor, the point made by (I'm assuming) Crash is that bonobos are our relatives too. Why should chimps "count" more than bonobos? Why is it a "fair assumption" that the evidence offered by the social structures of chimps means more than the evidence offered by the social structures of bonobos?

What role does it play in human evolutionary success?
What role does it play in human societal success?And what were you implying initially?

Would you like me to? What?What is your point?Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.

We evolved to be a patriarchal species. We built cultures and societies on that foundation. Then we realized that the women are getting screwed. To just flip a switch and end patriarchy could cack the foundation that we built upon. I think we should ease out of it so that protecting in on some level is important. On the level of not cracking the foundation and not on the level that women are still screwed. The balance of our societies and cultures that were built upon sexism and racism. They were important steps along the way and are now uneccessary but they should be removed carefully.