what is feminism?

So, your evidence that these attitudes persist outside the academic world stems entirely from your experiences within the academic world? How does that make sense?

That's not the question at hand, though. Why did you respond at all if you weren't addressing the question at hand? Hey, I'm not the one answering questions that nobody asked.

Academia = rarified world. I would have thought that was obvious.

More specifically, how could you forget that that was exactly the point that you made - that there is a pervasive view in regards to feminism in all of academia, not just the women's studies fields?

quote:

---

i took an ecology class called environment and society. we studied all forms of ecology. as part of this, we studied feminine ecology. then i took a human geography class. again. we studied the feminine. i took a rhetoric class. we studied feminism.

---

What was this if not to say that there was a broad consensus across academia that feminism constitutes a certain view?And remember that this was the question you were responding to:

quote:

---

Where is the evidence that their views are making any inroads into the hearts and minds of the general populace, especially those who believe in gender equality?

---

which prompted my comment in the first place; what you posted had absolutely nothing to do with Schraf's question. In fact every subsequent post of yours has been a total non sequiter - do you even know what we're talking about in this thread? Your posts defy any sort of attempt to connect them to the theme, or even each other.If you can't keep track of the points under discussion, maybe you should rethink your participation here.

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data". I'm not saying that I know for sure that young men are riskier drivers, but we need to see the evidence that that is the case.Insurance companies don't play on stereotypes; they play on the bottom line. If they charge young men more - and don't forget, men have 100 times the female dose of a hormone known to cause risky, show-off behavior (maybe you've heard of it, its called "testosterone") - then its reasonable to suggest that they do it because it costs more on average to insure that cohort group.If it cost more to insure the young female cohort group, insurance companies would be charging them more. Well, the problem with insurance is that they play the averages by grouping us into cohort groups. As a young man, you're most like other young men (as opposed to 40 year old mothers in minivans). It costs more to insure young men, on average.So all us young men pay more. It sucks, but it's not sexist.

Something like that, by blood volume or whatever. Yeah, it sucks. But unfortunately there's no law that says insurance companies can't attract business from cheap cohort groups by lowering insurance rates for those groups. Since they're so rich, I doubt there ever will be such a law.Insurance in general is kind of a scam, when you think about it; it seems like the people that need it the most are the sickest people, who can't get it at all because they're sick. In the meantime, the people who pay the least are the people who need it least; people wealthy enough to keep themselves in healthy working, eating, and playing habits.There's an assload of stuff you don't get to pick, like what diseases or conditions you're genetically susceptible to. Rest assured that at such time as insurance companies can test for these conditions cheaply, your premiums will be based a great deal on your genetics.

Why, yes, yes I am. Well, my wife's a graduate student in biology. Let me see if she's grown a penis lately.Nope, just as I thought.

How does that apply to the non-academic world?

Well, that's the very issue at hand - how does feminist criticism as an academic circle have anything to do with feminism as an activist movement? Ah, but those are two fields whose specific focus is the study of the real world.The focus of academic feminist criticism is not the study of feminist activism, but the criticism of culture. Well, the non-academic feminists don't consider themselves "led" by the academic feminists, as we have plainly seen thanks to Schraf. So I submit that your first suggestion is way, way off base.

Masculine, not male. Male is a sex. Masculine is a gender. I realize you didn't understand the argument; that's not really a good reason to call it "bullshit."

Oh, absolutely, I agree. That would be sexist.But the reason I know you didn't understand my argument is because you're convinced I said something like that.

Yeah, Schraf! Didn't you know? Brennakimi invented feminism.

I guess I can just quit posting. Both you and Arach are apparently so good at reading my mind and telling me what I really meant to write but didn't, you can pretty much just cover anything I'd ever want to say, huh?