Quote:
Originally Posted by
Syl
I consider myself a feminist. I think some people get a bit caught up on the sound of the terminology, that feminism is somehow emasculating or anti-men, when it's not. Tiaexz defined the term Egalitarianism, as it encompasses feminist issues among others. I consider myself an egalitarian as well, but as most of the principles and spirit of the two are the same I use them interchangeably, and don't particularly stress out on the distinction.
Feminism is basically sexist, it only focuses on one issue, gender, and only from one point of view. Egalitarianism is, well, more egalitarian. I don't believe the two are interchangable because they come from different starting point. Egalitarianism says all people should equal, or equitable, feminism says women have been historically oppressed and this should change. Feminism was important when most men thought it was ok for women to be disenfranchised, now I consider it worse that useless because it skews the argument about gender relations and I consider that harmful to the health of society and individual relationships.
I honeslty believe that the feminist deabte has done more to oppress women than liberate them, it has made women's bodies more objectifiable by rejecting traditional gender roles that valued the more intangible elements of femininity and it has removed the impetutus for men to treat women with respect by casting the traditional man and simply sexist. I won't deny that traditional steryotypes are somewhat sexist, or that they weren't used to oppress women, but they also served to constrain that oppression. They required modification, not rejection.
Quote:
Where feminism addresses patriarchy is in regards to a system of society and not on men itself. If someone is declaring all men evil and on and on, then it's not feminism. Subotan already addressed the issue about extremists, and as in any group, are off base with the majority of the group or its principles.
What I have never seen feminism address is the conplicity of the Matriarchy and the benefit women recieved from a male-dominated political system in a violent and uncertain world.
Quote:
I think some men hear about the term patriarchy and feel that it's being portrayed as some conscious malicious force that men are actively enforcing to keep women down out of some inherent hatred, and they don't see that connection in themselves or the other good men around them, so it doesn't resonate. Again, the focus on feminism on patriarchy isn't on men as a generic archetype or directly at an individual level, but the way that society has evolved that structurally puts women at a disadvantage contrasted to men.
In some sense it is true that women were at a disadvantage, but to describe it as "Patriarchy" implies a (possibly concious) development of a social construct over a more egalitarian primitive state. I don't think that holds water, for the basic reason that division of certain tasks between men and women is economically efficient. Also, society no longer puts women at a structural disadvantage, the remaining disadvantage is, I think, a result of the basic gender difference, which is down to hormones and childbirth. I know in the UK there are a number of female MPs in Parliament who take testosterone in orde to compete. It's also worth noting that men and women both compete within their gender, and clearly need to for reproductive and psychological reasons, but in different ways.
I think men, in particular, need a place to compete free of women, because if women compete with men it ceases to be a valid ranking exercise.
Quote:
After saying all that however, the system was, and in many places still is, actively imposed by men on women. One quick but prominent example: the Abrahamic religions all have doctrine that establishes the place of women beneath men. The New Testament in Christianity forbids women from teaching or holding any authority over a man. Women are prohibited in scripture from speaking in church, and had to ask their husband any questions they had privately. In most ancient societies the church was a place of significant political power, so having no voice there was more limiting then that might let on. Those are some examples of major things that impacts a womans life when they're imposed.
Pet peave, can we not talk about "Abrahamic" religions, or "Judeo-Christianity" either? Now, you are correct about Paul, which is the only place in the New Testemant where women are prohibited as you describe, and about the teaching and formal organisation of religions in the Classical and pre-modern world. However, and this is very important, women had the power of prophecy, and prophecy is extremely influencial in shaping the decisions with religious Councils make. It's also important to recognise that religious organisation reflects the society the religion inhabits. The core religious doctrine can be largely a-sexual, but if the society is dominated politically by men then the religious organisation is likely to reflect that.
Quote:
This isn't a thread on religion so I'll cut that off there, but my point with that is it's one tangent that has shaped a great deal of the world in terms of the rights of women. Things are very different in much of the world today, but a lot of its notions have lingered much longer, like that a man is the ruler of the house hold, and that a woman's place is in the home, the stigma on a woman's display of sexuality, etc. Here in the United States women weren't allowed by constitutional amendment to vote until 1919. If much of the worlds society impacted by Christianity, Judaism, and Islam were based around a much more egalitarian code, how much sooner might that day have arrived?
Do you know, one medieval cure for impotence was to invite all the goodwives to the bed of the aflicted man and have them laugh at his flacid penis? Religion has been used to oppress women at certain period s throughout history, but while it often enshrines gender roles it does not consistantly enshrine oppression. For example, Paul says that when a man and a women marry they should not deny each other sexual relations because they own each other, both equally. Also, to see the man as "ruler of the household" is to miss that the women runs the household.
As to the arrival of women's sufferage, I would say that it arrived when it did because such a large number of men went to war and as a result women demostrate a competence that gave credence to their demand for sufferage. This brings us back to eagilitarianism, because you narrative ignores that, historically, voting rights had far more to do with wealth and social class than gender. In most medieval governmental systems high class women had more political power or influence, provided they held wealth or title, than low class men.
Quote:
I'm not saying that religion alone is to blame however, but there has been a very real act of the suppression of womens rights that continues to be active in much of the world today and still has much of its influence. Those things were enforced, and by men.
Blaming religion for the oppression of women is like blaming it for war, it makes religion (as a social system) into some autonomous force distinguishable from society at large, rather than an expression of society. To put it another way, an egalitarian society will produce an egalitarian religion, a violent one will produce a violent religion (see Vikings).
I don't really see this as much of an argument in regards to equality here. Impact on history? Absolutely. But murder tends to have a big effect on changing its course, and people tend to be more susceptible when it's from someone they trust.
Quote:
Biologically, maybe, but we live in a world where intellectual contribution is just as important. Limiting women to purely domestic issues cuts the talent pool of 50% of our population in an area where it may not be best suited. There are many brilliant women in medicine and science for example whose skill set and talents lend them to that field and have greatly contributed to society. You don't have to go far back in history to a point where that was almost universally scoffed at.
While you're right about women being unjustly excluded, we're talking about the top percentage there - in straitened economic circumstances a couple doesn't have the luxury of following their ideal dream career, they have to make the most of what they have in order to raise their children.
Quote:
That depends on the ideology itself. I'd argue that feminism expands your horizons far more than it could ever close them. Also, most people who are feminists aren't JUST feminists. They have other beliefs and convictions, usually step for step with egalitarianism.
I would say egalitarianism includes all the goals of feminism, but the reverse is not also true.
Quote:
I have so many issues with this that it's going to have to wait for tomorrow. I also haven't had time to read everything in the thread yet, so I apologize. I know there have been follow up comments on issues but I'll have to catch up when I've actually had some sleep.
As the first son going back many generations, in the direct line, I have more issues with it. Care to provide an answer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ironside
So your feminist friend is contradicting your own opinion on what feminists do? And are you telling that feminists should take their responsibillity by disbanding?
No, because I was talking about the law of unintended consequences, some feminists thought it would be provocative to take their clothes, but the core issue is the wrecking ball of feminism going through male sexual mores, rather than female ones.
Quote:
You can adapt for it though. Being pregnant is something quite natural and wanted also from a societal viewpoint after all. The dad can get 87,5% (same as the mother) of the parental leave here.
that works, but it's still not best use of resources for the couple, two interupted careers instead of one.
