Can you please answer my question about who these "mainstream" feminists are who are advocating the things you say they are?
Perhaps some citations, links, names?
well, see that's the tricky part. no feminist will ever come out as a man-hater, advocating a woman-run society. that would make them "as bad as the men" so to speak. instead, you have to gleen it from the collective philosophy, and their attitudes.
it's not man-hating, per se. it's more of wanting their "feminist" ideals to run things, ideal to which most women would not agree. in the last womens' studies class i took, we discussed everything from how science is invalid because it founded by a chauvenist, to how absolutle truth cannot exist, to why female genital mutilation was ok.
yes girls, you heard that right. see, the current incarnation of feminism has nothing to do with equality and women's rights at all. it is a perverted offshoot of post-modern pseudophilosophy. so i'll use this example to illuminate the thinking process.
post-modernism is strictly culturally relative. cultural relativism states that we should not judge a society's actions by our own (outside) morals. feminism is ironically against gender stereotypes, of course, but in a weird way. they're against their own, biased, set of gender stereotypes. certain oppressive actions are seen as strictly male. in this case, imposing western standards on eastern and african practices would be like a man opressing a woman, something they can't do. and so, to post-modern feminism, female genital mutilation is ok.
we also discuss sci-fi. the teacher picked the worse possible movie to show us, for two reasons. one, it really is the worst movie of all time, and two, it's something i was familiar with. she showed us the sequel to "species." now, i've been an hr giger fan for many many years. some would call him a chauvenist because of his depictions of women, but he depicts men just the same. if any one has ever followed his work, most of it is about a dark eroticism and very, very feminine. but i digress. the first species is a woman monster running around killing men trying to breed. the second is male. equality of the genders, anyone?
well, the feminists still had complaints. in the second movie, the male alien was monstrosity of the male gender, using women for sexual pleasure and as baby-making factories. in the first, when a woman did the same exact thing, she was the wil force of nature that had to be oppressed by the male scientist (one of who was female).
this help you to understand the thinking a little? they claim to be so against bias, but they have worl-view really, really tilted by their own. they're contradictory, and make no sense. i would gladly provide names, but i sold off, threw away, or burned all 9 of my feminism textbooks in disgust.
see, apparently, i thought it was about equal rights for women. i STRONGLY suggest you take a college class in womens' studies before you make some kind of judgement here.
So that makes gender equality as a goal suspect, somehow?
no. i'm all or equality of the genders.
I can appreciate that you perceive the academic world as the entire universe; those of us who live in the real world are going to go on practicing real feminism, and be proud to do so.
There's a difference, which you may not have picked up on, between feminism as a framework for literary criticism, and feminism as a movement for gender equality.
the point that brenna and i are trying to make is that there is that difference.
as far as "real world" feminism, it's all but died off. its battlegrounds are few and far between. if anything, society is now mostly feminized. bill maher gives good proof: when you say "women are smarter than men" you get applause, but when you say "men are smarter than women" you get booed and called names. watch your favourite sitcom, and next time pay attention to the gender roles. how many times do you see a bumbling father/husband, outwitted by the sly mother/wife? popular culture is telling us that men are stupid, and women are smart. i think "real world" feminism should be fighting for the men. but then what we call it? masculinism?
but, uh, like i said. have you taken any women's studies classes? it's only fair to hear the other side, right?
no, but acedemia tends to dictate the paths of actual philosophies, sciences, and arts. school is the center for human advancement nowadays, haven't you heard?
SciFi is not reality.
no, but they're interpretation of pop culture is a key to the philosophy.
as i said, there's not much point in arguing about unless you've gone and taken class about. see what the academic leaders of the post-modern feminist movement are saying. i'm really not making this stuff up.
Out of curiosity, what were you hoping to learn from that class?
exactly. curiosity. i figured i'd broaden my horizons a little. that is, after all, what college is about. learning new things.
well, i figured that i was for equal rights for women in the political, social, and economic arenas and that made me a feminist. turns out i was wrong.
Feminists want women to have political, economic, and social rights equal to those of men.
like i said, take a womens' studies class. i'm for those things; i am not a feminist.
Just because people with their own personal agendas have highjacked the movement, doesn't negate the primary premise.
actually, it does. see the argument i made about fgm. traditional feminists would be strongly opposed to female genital mutilation. it is a system dictated by a man-favouring religion, designed to not only oppress and degrade women, but to physically injure them. post-modern feminists are not opposed to this, because their standards of cultural relativism are more important. the movement is no longer about women's rights at all.
it's about "problematizing" archetypal social constructs. they actually use that word, "problematize." it's mostly complaints, and the first thing you learn about the philosophy is that either way, there are complaints. if something is being done wrong, doing the opposite also tends to be wrong.
Just ignore the extraneous stuff and stick with the basics, which in the real world is equality.
the primary principle of post-modern feminism is that true equality of all parties is impossible.
like i said, try taking a class, you're in for a suprise.
Well, who would you consider to collectively have these attitudes?
What are their names?
And are they part of the "mainstream", or are they part of the mostly irrelevant, ignored academic literary feminist world
like i said, i've sold or thrown out all of textbooks for the class, in disgust. so i do not recall.
however, there's a really nice quote attributed to ani difranco (the recording artist) about why men can't be feminists. i can't verify it's veracity, but if she said it, it doesn't get more mainstream than that.
Funny, I have seen comedians get huge laughs from mixed gender audiences by talking about how the only thing women love is money, and how they say they want the nice guy but date the dangerous guy, how they dress like a prostitute but don't want to be treated like one, etc.
what was the argument before? the underdog gets the cheers?
Yeah, and the trend these days is also for the "bubmling husband" to be at least 70 pounds overweight and not that great looking while the "sly" wife is very slender, large-breasted, stylish and sexy.
Doesn't that tell men that even if you are not very attractive, overweight, and kind of an idiot, you too can score a thin, hot wife?
actually, that's more like the guy doesn't deserve the woman, and she's sort of coming down to his level. how many times have you seen that? and the fat husband and thin wife isn't THAT common. the only sit-com like that presently comes to mind is "fresh prince."
but think, oh, "boy meets world" or "home improvement" or hell, even "the simpsons." who's the smart parent and who's the dumb parent? when they get in disputes, who's right? is the wife a hottie? is it telling men they can get nookie from hot chicks even if they're ugly themselves? or is it saying that women are always right and most men are stupid?
"In Fiscal Year 2002, EEOC received 25,536 charges of sex-based discrimination. EEOC resolved 29,088 sex discrimination charges in FY 2002 and recovered $94.7 million in monetary benefits for charging parties and other aggrieved individuals (not including monetary benefits obtained through litigation)."
that's nice. statistics are fun!
now, is that men or women who filing suit? it doesn't say. i know our last sexist manager at my job paid the women more, and he was a REAL creep. *I* could have gotten him on sexual harrassment charges.
what about the section on sexual harrasment? and how many men are being sexually harrassed without reporting it?
see, i've also read some nice info on the sexual harrassment of men in the workplace, and abuse of men at home. we're told to take it by society. we get laughed at for getting beaten up by a woman, or congratulated for getting used sexually by women. if a girl wakes up the next morning and regrets it, it's rape. same with a guy? no.
i saw this legal case once where a wife was beating her husband. on one punch, she missed and hit the door jam, shattering several bones in her hand. the husband got charged with spousal abuse.
Remember also that in college and the workforce now are a good-sized group of women and men who were raised with the ideals of gender equity and were taught that girls could do anything they wanted, to go after what they wanted, etc.
It's certainly the case that the public face of feminism seems to be more about trivialities and sloagans than in feminist issues, which I have pointed out in this thread, but again, there's a distiction between feminism and the public perception.
why? so, let's see: public opinion of it: wrong. academic philosophy: also wrong. majority of current authors in the subject: still wrong. your view: right?
take a class in it before you argue with me. you're not getting all the facts.
In a feminine society, your career in academia wouldn't end the second you decided to have a child.
check. my sophomore year of college, one of our english teachers disappeared for a few months. turns out she went to china to pick up an adopted child. i grew up on a university campus, you can't tell me that a woman's career in academia ends when she has a child. it's just simply not true. i know LOTS of women professors with children.
you can however tell me that there are less women professors than men professors. as long as it's not a product of hiring discrimination, that's fine.
People like it when the percieved "underdog" is praised. You'd get the same reaction with "black people are smarter than white people", but that's no evidence that our society has been "black-ized." ("Negrotized"? You could come up with all kinds of words.)
quite the contrary. 90% of the music you hear on the radio is in a genre created by black people. rap, hip-hop, sure, but don't forget rock and roll, soul, r+b. these are not the inventions of white people.
i could list more. but i'm already coming off as a sexist, i don't wanna come off as a racist too.
This isn't new, chief. You can see this on Nick at Night (you know, with the ancient TV shows.)
like fresh prince? i do love that show.
no, go back far enough and it's the other way around. watch the honeymooners or i love lucy.
Again, you seem to fail to distinguish between real feminist issues and gender trivia.
take a women's studies class. things like "the words 'manhole cover' are discriminant against women" are actual issues! not big ones, but they cover it! but, ok, let's talk about real issues.
Hire a few more women CEO's
like, maybe as the ceo of, say hearst publications (who publishes cosmo, esquire, etc)? women's magazines, how about men's, like playboy? how about one of the largest .com's on the internet, ebay? how about the makers of the hp computer i'm on right now? heck, they're #13 on the fortune 500.
granted, the percentage is not good (not even close) but it's not like there are no women ceo's. requiring there be an equal number is just as discriminant as having none. as long as the opportunity is equal, it doesn't matter. so basically, if there IS a problem, seek to correct the promotional opportunities.
elect a few women Presidents
i would vote for a woman if she represented my political views. i'm willing to bet that first woman who runs for the presidency will win by a landslide, just because she's a woman.
in truthfullness, america is not a democracy. we do not "elect" the people who represent us, we vote for people who decided to elect someone who represents the upper .1% of the country. they're all rich, white men, over the age of 35. bush and kerry don't represent me any more than they represent one of my lady-friends, like brenna.
but that's this country. other countries have had LOTS of female prime ministers or presidents.
and get birth control on the same health plans that provide Viagra,
Until then, though, you'll pardon us if they're not a priority.
now this is the emasculating, derogatory kind of argument i was talking about. so lets see, vaginas are more important than penises? is that what you're saying?
but, uh, like i said. have you taken any women's studies classes?
exactly. take one.
but I'm familiar with feminist criticism through general literary theory classes. That's all women's studies is, anyway. At least it was at my school.
you're obviously missing something. even the non-activist camps do a lot more than criticize literature, they criticize all of society, popular opinion, science, math, just about everything. but i agree that it's just criticism.
if you had ever taken a single women's studies class, you'd know that ecology is fundamental to the movement. at least, nowadays.
becuase they work off the view that people think of nature as female and a wild beast to be conquered, and mankind as male, and therefore men (mankind) oppress, subjugate, and use nature for their own gain, they side with nature and argue strongly for conservation.
that's also the reason they reject modern science: sir francis bacon viewed nature as wild (female) and to be explored and understood by the civilized (male). it's really hard to keep track of which bias is which, because alot of time they put their own worldview on things, like this. who's equating nature with the feminine? bacon, or the femininsts?
Oh, sexism is alive and well, let me tell you. Take Wal-Mart's, pay scales and job distributions, for example. More at The Women of Wal-Mart
yes, walmart in the anti-christ, we all knew this already.
i bet we could find racism there just as easily. go down to your local walmart. who's tending the registers? who's mopping the floors? who's the manager?
Now that we've covered the nation's largest retail chain, do we want to get into the largest employer of women in the country (the DoD)? Sexism is the least of the problems there. Here's a brief article to let you know the current situation of women in the army. Here's some numbers for you that show the effect of such policies.
it's nice to call sexism when there's nothing to compare to. what would you say is the rate of men who are being raped in the armed forces? it's more than you think. it's horrible no matter who it happens to, man or woman. men, btw, are less likely to come forward about it. keep that in mind too.
but, oh i forgot, victimization can only go one way. and only men commit sexual violence.
Your attempted dodge that this wasn't so much an issue because we don't know the number of men raped in the military is a dodge.
no, it's entirely the point. you're claiming rape as a basis for sexual discrimination. are the women being treated any differently than the men? if you don't know, than it's a pretty weak point to make, isn't it?
Even if the ratios were merely on par with those in the general population (doubtful), that would mean that 91% of the cases were "male rapes female", 8% would be "male rapes male", 0.8% would be "female rapes female", and 0.2% would be "female rapes male". However, seing as I can't find a *single* case of "male rapes male" or "female rapes male" that's made it to the media, or been uncovered in an investigation, I am only left to assume that they're relatively rare, and that we're only seing an increase in the "male rapes female" case.
it's an assumption, which probably comes from very very little knowledge of the military. male rape victims are actually very common in the armed forces, a lot more so than you'd think. any numbers on this would be completely innacurate, since there is a huge hierarchy of honor. it is a largely male based sub-culture, and being victimized in this manner shames men. even in your outside-world numbers, there are a lot more male victims that just have never come forward.
ok, so it's not cool the way the female victims are dealt with. how are the male victims dealt with? you can't claim it's sexist treatment without comparing the treatment of both sides -- otherwise you're the sexist because your just arguing for your side, not equality or betterment for all.
As I showed before, this is simply a ludicrous statement in the face of hundreds of schools adopting paused tenure clocks for pregnancy. Pregnant women simply can't continue the academic pace through their pregnancy, especially in the sciences; this puts them at a disadvantage for making tenure.
you're reading something wrong here buddy. allowing tenure probationary periods to be paused allows women to not have to choose between having a child and working towards a professorial position. and it's not just for pregnant women, it's for people who fall seriously ill, have a death in the family, or other needs more important than school.
but this is just when a career is STARTING. many, many women in academic careers get their degrees and tenure first, and then have children. their careers did not end, and they did not lose their tenure for having a child.
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data", Arach.
no, it's personal experience. i know women with both children and academic careers.
Given that some 60-70 percent of undergrads are women, these days, wouldn't it be hiring discrimination by definition?
no, you don't hire undergrads, you hire post-grads. some 85% of undergrads take college-algebra. are y ou gonna hire them to teach discrete mathematics?
and most of the people working in academic careers today got hired more than 10 years ago. the people being hired today were undergrads 6-8 years ago.
So what? Again, despite the overwhelmingly black contribution to popular urban culture these days, we don't consider society "black-ized."
of course not, too many whiteys on tv.
Oh, well! Hire the band and we'll dance in the streets! There's one or two women CEO's! Feminism has won
there's two on the fortune 500. i just listed the 13th biggest company in the world, and it's run by a woman. there's a LOT more that are not on the fortune 500. like i said, the percentage is not great and has a long way to go, but it's not like they don't exist.
Boo-fuckin-hoo. Maybe the substantially larger pay for the same work we recieve as men will ease the sting a little bit.
i make 6.50 an hour. i'll call you when i see that substantially larger pay. in fact, i'll call you when i get either of the two raises they owe me. i keep hearing about this bigger pay for men thing, but i'm sure not seeing any of it. in fact, the last women that worked at our company made more than i did.
You know that it's not. You know that what I'm saying is that problems like sexual assault, pay equity, and other examples of sexism are far, far more important than making sure your feelings aren't hurt, Arach. Get over yourself, and don't try to offer such ridiculous strawmen in place of my arguments. You just look foolish.
you said birth control over viagra. i agree with you that birth control is the more important of the two, because more people need it. and i mean actually need. as purely sexual regulators, they should be ranked about equal as optional enhancements, but birth control serves a hormonal function as well. most of the women on birth control that i know are on it to even out their periods.
and like i'm really upset over not having viagra on a health plan. i'm 21, not 72. my feelings are real hurt by you liking vaginas over penises. hell, i even agree with you.
the point is that it's discriminatory, and you were intentionally being derogatory about it.
Oh, I see. You attended one college, so you're an authority on women's studies at all colleges?
no. i didn't say that.
i've taken a class in it. you haven't. no one else here has (except maybe brenna, i forget). yet i'm the one who doesn't understand all the facts? take a class.
i'm not saying it's what people who call themselves feminists are thinking, nor am i saying it's the way feminism should be. it's just the way it IS nowadays, as a school of postmodern thought.
Ok, Arachnophilia: Please explain why you would expect the rates of women being raped in the military to be a *lower* percentage of total rapes than in the military than in the general populace, in mixed sex environments.
military is more prone to rape in general.
first of all, we have voluntary service. the people who are there are there because they want to be. while it's not the case that all military personel are prone to violence, the military does attract more of the violent people than say, wallstreet does. the people who have a screw or two loose and just want to kill stuff (pyschopaths) often find appeal in the military. therefore, violent criminals such as rapists will be in a higher precentage in the armed service as compared to elsewhere.
second, the percentage of female personel in the military does not nearly represent the female population of the world. therefore, more rape and other violent crime will be committed against men than in the outside world.
so while an extraordinarily high percent of female servicemen have been raped, alot of men in the service are being raped (or otherwise dehumanized) too.
they're not talking about it, and nothing is being done. it's not being addressed at all.
And the problem here is not so much the rapes, but the culture that allows it to continue, and promotes people who think that women should see it as coming with the territory to the rank of general. A culture which gets a "60% of women reporting rapes are lying" rate instead of the civilian 8%. A culture which vehemently resists investigations on the subject until forced to by people going to the press. Etc.
agreed, but it's not sexist unles they're treating the men differently.
While it is not *exclusively* a crime against women, rape IS a crime against women the vast majority of the time.
rape is a crime against a human being, male or female.
the definition is a bit hazy too. i know i've been situations wher, had i been a woman, i could have won a rape case, easily. and there was one night when i bought a six-pack for me and my girlfriend. in my state, since i paid for more than half her alcohol that night, it was technically rape.
It's the same culture that didn't even allow women to be fighter pilots until recently, so it's not surprising. How can you try and portray something like that as not being a fallback to 19th century social attitudes toward women?
oh no, don't get me wrong. i'm not defending the military. i hate the military. in fact, i think they're outright stupid.
especially because studies have shown for YEARS that women tend to make better fighter pilots than men.