Feminism out of control?

[Montmorency]

Placental mammals mean one parent has to carry the offspring. The greater the burden between the genders, the greater the difference. Our babies have proportionally massive heads and come out under-developed. This again means that the lactating parent has to spend more time nurturing.

That's the great vulnerability that admits the subjugation of women, but we can stand to cut against the grain.

[rory_20_uk]

Indeed. And if he has children and gets divorced, the fight he will have to be a parent will be vastly in excess of what the mother has to.

Those who went to private schools have greater advantage than those that didn't. Those whose parents didn't go to University and do not see the point have it tougher.

There is no facet of the world that any two people are equal.

[Montmorency]

Indeed. And if he has children and gets divorced, the fight he will have to be a parent will be vastly in excess of what the mother has to.

Those who went to private schools have greater advantage than those that didn't. Those whose parents didn't go to University and do not see the point have it tougher.

There is no facet of the world that any two people are equal.

What you say is true. What now?

[rory_20_uk]

What you say is true. What now?

Sort of my point to what I quoted...

Back to the topic - some times in some places yes. On average it still has some way to go.

[Beskar]

Indeed. And if he has children and gets divorced, the fight he will have to be a parent will be vastly in excess of what the mother has to.

What ever happened to cause you to separate from your wife in the first place? Always made me curious especially as you providing her with child support is a sore point for you.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Bit personal, that?

I suppose the question is whether we need "Feminism" or whether we've come far enough that we can just accept women should be equal and move on as a society. If we accept women should be equal then we no longer need "Feminism" to tackle inequality.

[Husar]

That could go like when we thought we wouldn't need Nazi hunters anymore and now the Nazis are everywhere.
Or like when we thought we wouldn't need unions anymore and wage slavery returned.

Every time conservatives say we don't need something they don't like anymore, it's just a ruse for reactionist measures to be implemented again.

Even apart from that, women aren't equal in society yet. That will more likely be the case once they have more space in the institutions of government/power, including in corporations. That is not to say they have to have 50%. http://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do...ts-and-figures
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/...in-leadership/

~20% seems a bit low though. Especially if you combine it with the reports about men in corporate leadership positions abusing them.
Always easy to say that maybe they're less ambitious, perhaps they're less ambitious after getting abused by their bosses.

[Hooahguy]

I mean to be fair, the Nazis that were hunted a few decades ago are not the same ones of today. The fight evolved with time. Same goes for feminism. There are new fights today that feminists of 20 years ago probably would not have imagined.

[Beskar]

Bit personal, that?

It is his choice to answer, but it would help give context to why it is such a sore point. I could fabricate twenty different reasons easily, but that won't increase understanding if none of those situations are applicable. It is also difficult to engage, as I would have to make assumptions on what happened which might be more offensive to Rory than the truth.

I suppose the question is whether we need "Feminism" or whether we've come far enough that we can just accept women should be equal and move on as a society. If we accept women should be equal then we no longer need "Feminism" to tackle inequality.

Could also say I am curious with your post. You have previously stated on this topic that you believe in traditional gender roles and that a woman's place is in the kitchen and as a mother, taking care of the household, with the man being the sole provider. Have you since embraced feminism yourself?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Could also say I am curious with your post. You have previously stated on this topic that you believe in traditional gender roles and that a woman's place is in the kitchen and as a mother, taking care of the household, with the man being the sole provider. Have you since embraced feminism yourself?

Sorry, what?

Pretty sure I never said tha​t. I have said that in the first few years of life I think most children benefit more from their mothers than their fathers. I have also observed that whilst women wake when their babies cry in the night men quite often don't. I know one friend who would insist on his wife waking him because he would always sleep through their son crying and she wouldn't. As I recall her response was that it was pointless for them both to literally lose sleep over it.

As regards Rory's personal situation, he's a big boy but I would have thought it he wanted to share he would have, and as you note it's a sore point.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I mean to be fair, the Nazis that were hunted a few decades ago are not the same ones of today. The fight evolved with time. Same goes for feminism. There are new fights today that feminists of 20 years ago probably would not have imagined.

If these are fights feminists never imagined, are they still feminist fights?

Was feminism not historically ambitious enough, or is it the case that "feminism" is now a lobbyist group as opposed to a genuine civil rights movement?

There does seem to be an assumption today that everyone has a right not to be offended and any offence caused is always grievous and cripplying.

The current sexual harassment scandal engulfing Westminster has now caught Damien Green, Theresa May's Deputy - he's accused of briefly touching a woman's knee and a year later telling her she looked good in a corset and inviting her out for a drink via text. He's apparently a friend of her father.

Is that sort of behaviour appropriate? No, certainly not, but I'm not convinced it can be called "sexual harassment" either, and the knee touch was apparently so fleeting even the alleged victim says it was "almost deniable".

There is a danger, I think, that we can create an environment where we take behaviour which should be deemed inappropriate and we elevate it to an extent that we end up making it much worse than it is for the recipient.

In this case I'm a bit confused why this girl didn't tell her father - I imagine if he's known his daughter was being "admired in a corset" he'd have knocked Green's block off.

Article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...dvance-female/

[Husar]

If these are fights feminists never imagined, are they still feminist fights?

Was feminism not historically ambitious enough, or is it the case that "feminism" is now a lobbyist group as opposed to a genuine civil rights movement?

There does seem to be an assumption today that everyone has a right not to be offended and any offence caused is always grievous and cripplying.

Well, "No plan survives contact with the enemy.", so it's not entirely unheard of that a movement doesn't die down right away after its first goal. Perhaps that is because movements tend to focus on a big, very important goal first, which doesn't mean they don't have more goals for later. And perhaps solving the initial problems makes the others become more visible as their relative impact grows with the removal of much bigger issues.
I'd see it a bit like a logarithmic function that makes more progress in the beginning and then continues with smaller steps until a certain ceiling (equality) is reached. I also won't doubt that some goals espoused by some feminists are about superiority or just going too far, but that doesn't automatically make all goals of feminism wrong. The goals should be judged individually and blanket statements can't do all of them justice.

[Beskar]

Sorry, what? Pretty sure I never said tha​t.

Got as far as Nov 2014 then gave up looking for informational purposes. I remember you expressing a viewpoint similar to that as a proponent of traditional gender roles.

Not that it matters as you have confirmed you no longer hold that position (which I am pleased about) and I won't hold you to it to defend it.

I did find this, where you did express the view point.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Got as far as Nov 2014 then gave up looking for informational purposes. I remember you expressing a viewpoint similar to that as a proponent of traditional gender roles.

Not that it matters as you have confirmed you no longer hold that position (which I am pleased about) and I won't hold you to it to defend it.

Actually, it does matter because I say I never expressed such a viewpoint, which is entirely different from saying I "no longer" hold such a viewpoint.

It is much more likely that you either misunderstood me, or you are miss-remembering and conflating my views with someone else's. In any case, I would say that having admitted you can turn up no evidence to the contrary you will, perforce, have to accept that you miss-represented my opinion on the matter.

[Beskar]

It is an open secret and known by everyone and nothing was ever done about it.
https://www.nytimes.com/video/movies...unch-line.html

And now for the Kevin Spacey one...

[rory_20_uk]

What ever happened to cause you to separate from your wife in the first place? Always made me curious especially as you providing her with child support is a sore point for you.

She left without notice one morning. I put him in his buggy and waved him goodbye. I have no idea why she left. Was everything perfect?No. But to vanish without warning, without ultimatum with a 6 month old child? The reasons kept changing. I begged. I pleaded. I asked for counselling. I did not see my son for c. 8 months. I had no idea if he was alive or dead. I had no idea where he was. The police did nothing. Many nights I cried myself to sleep since I was so worried he was dead. His cot was next to my bed but I couldn't bear to look at it nor dismantle it. My brother had to come and help me dismantle it. Has it scarred me...? Why, yes it has!

The woman's refuge gave her several pointers and phrases to raise "concerns" at court to delay seeing him. I missed his first birthday. She made several accusations - none found to be true. Her conduct has raised several concerns with Social Services but none enough to let me have my son full time - or more time when it is not convenient.

She's taken him out of school without telling me, she's moved away from where I live without telling me. She threw me out of the house when I came to see my son on his 4th birthday. She seems to care little beyond the money she can get for him. Now he's seven and he's having to deal with an unstable parent who is constantly demanding more money and is jealous of the relationship who he refers to as his step-mother.

The sore point is the hypocritical system that has the mother as the best carer and all evidence to the contrary is studiously ignored - but any concerns raised are to be fully investigated before the father can see his child.

This whole issue is rarely acknowledged. BUT we do hear constantly about the number of women who are on Company Board of Directors - even though no effort is made to see what proportion of women even want these roles and the personal sacrifices they require. Perhaps I am the only father in this position who cares about his child. I doubt it. And which is more important?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Are you discussing gender-neutral in how language is biased against women and the movement to make it gender-neutral as not to imply a preference? This would be changing statements from "A man's personal right to freedom of expression shall not to be infringed upon" to "A person's personal right to freedom of expression shall not be infringed upon" then there are words such as man-kind, his-story, etc.

Then there are things like the 'worst insult' apparently refers to a woman's vagina. As a heterosexual male, do you dislike a women's vaginas that you use the c-word to insult other people? You really have to question what those people are actually saying sometimes.

Did you know, the word "Vagina" is inherently sexist?

So is the word "person".

Isn't Latin great?

There is, in fact, no such thing as a "Gender-Neutral" word because all words, in all languages, have gendered roots.

[Beskar]

She left without notice one morning. I put him in his buggy and waved him goodbye. I have no idea why she left. Was everything perfect?No. But to vanish without warning, without ultimatum with a 6 month old child? The reasons kept changing. I begged. I pleaded. I asked for counselling. I did not see my son for c. 8 months. I had no idea if he was alive or dead. I had no idea where he was. The police did nothing. Many nights I cried myself to sleep since I was so worried he was dead. His cot was next to my bed but I couldn't bear to look at it nor dismantle it. My brother had to come and help me dismantle it. Has it scarred me...? Why, yes it has!

The woman's refuge gave her several pointers and phrases to raise "concerns" at court to delay seeing him. I missed his first birthday. She made several accusations - none found to be true. Her conduct has raised several concerns with Social Services but none enough to let me have my son full time - or more time when it is not convenient.

She's taken him out of school without telling me, she's moved away from where I live without telling me. She threw me out of the house when I came to see my son on his 4th birthday. She seems to care little beyond the money she can get for him. Now he's seven and he's having to deal with an unstable parent who is constantly demanding more money and is jealous of the relationship who he refers to as his step-mother.

The sore point is the hypocritical system that has the mother as the best carer and all evidence to the contrary is studiously ignored - but any concerns raised are to be fully investigated before the father can see his child.

This whole issue is rarely acknowledged. BUT we do hear constantly about the number of women who are on Company Board of Directors - even though no effort is made to see what proportion of women even want these roles and the personal sacrifices they require. Perhaps I am the only father in this position who cares about his child. I doubt it. And which is more important?

Thank you for sharing your story. This is definitely an example where you are being failed by the system.

[Fragony]

Sorry to hear all that, that must be maddening

[Montmorency]

She left without notice one morning. I put him in his buggy and waved him goodbye. I have no idea why she left. Was everything perfect?No. But to vanish without warning, without ultimatum with a 6 month old child? The reasons kept changing. I begged. I pleaded. I asked for counselling. I did not see my son for c. 8 months. I had no idea if he was alive or dead. I had no idea where he was. The police did nothing. Many nights I cried myself to sleep since I was so worried he was dead. His cot was next to my bed but I couldn't bear to look at it nor dismantle it. My brother had to come and help me dismantle it. Has it scarred me...? Why, yes it has!

The woman's refuge gave her several pointers and phrases to raise "concerns" at court to delay seeing him. I missed his first birthday. She made several accusations - none found to be true. Her conduct has raised several concerns with Social Services but none enough to let me have my son full time - or more time when it is not convenient.

She's taken him out of school without telling me, she's moved away from where I live without telling me. She threw me out of the house when I came to see my son on his 4th birthday. She seems to care little beyond the money she can get for him. Now he's seven and he's having to deal with an unstable parent who is constantly demanding more money and is jealous of the relationship who he refers to as his step-mother.

The sore point is the hypocritical system that has the mother as the best carer and all evidence to the contrary is studiously ignored - but any concerns raised are to be fully investigated before the father can see his child.

This whole issue is rarely acknowledged. BUT we do hear constantly about the number of women who are on Company Board of Directors - even though no effort is made to see what proportion of women even want these roles and the personal sacrifices they require. Perhaps I am the only father in this position who cares about his child. I doubt it. And which is more important?

A sad story, but the reasons for this are well-known to rest in stereotypical role differences - i.e. if a mother is not manifestly unsuited, then by default she is a better candidate for primary custody. The problem is then not one with the courts per se; latent expectations have to change over time for family-court participants to bring that change with them. There's no quick resolution to your pain.* And it's not clear to me that this issue is acknowledged (By whom? Where?) any less than one such as corporate representation.

*I wonder if there are legal avenues to push the matter further in the system, but that's beyond me and I'm sure you have already discussed the possibilities with legal representation

Did you know, the word "Vagina" is inherently sexist?

So is the word "person".

Isn't Latin great?

What's sexist, let alone inherently sexist here?

There is, in fact, no such thing as a "Gender-Neutral" word because all words, in all languages, have gendered roots.

Equivocating on grammatical gender is a bad idea.

Also, it is plainly false to say all words in all languages have gendered roots.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What's sexist, let alone inherently sexist here?

Equivocating on grammatical gender is a bad idea.

Also, it is plainly false to say all words in all languages have gendered roots.

Vagina - a sword-sheath.

Persona - a mask, a character - feminine.

"Persona non grata" is as sexisst as "homocide".

The fact is gender-neutral language is a crock.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

As far as Rory's story goes, I think it's sad and unfair, and not uncommon because of the assumption men are more violent than women. Nothing to do with parenting specifically, just basic sexism.

[Montmorency]

Vagina - a sword-sheath.

Persona - a mask, a character - feminine.

"Persona non grata" is as sexisst as "homocide".

The fact is gender-neutral language is a crock.

Vagina: Argument from distant etymology (meaning) is irrelevant to the living. You'd be better off focusing on the word's nature as the label of a sex feature.

Persona: I just warned you about equivocating on grammatical gender.

Homo: An inclusive word, like anthropos.

The fact is gender-neutral language is a crock.

Language is certainly not neutral - but that has to do with speakers and nothing to do with etymology or grammar.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Vagina: Argument from distant etymology (meaning) is irrelevant to the living. You'd be better off focusing on the word's nature as the label of a sex feature.

Persona: I just warned you about equivocating on grammatical gender.

Homo: An inclusive word, like anthropos.



Language is certainly not neutral - but that has to do with speakers and nothing to do with etymology or grammar.

It's not a distant etymology, and "homo" isn't an inclusive word, it means "man" in exactly the same way that "man" means "man."

So if "Homocide" has no gender then neither does "chairman" and this is my point.

I am not the one equivocating here.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It's not a distant etymology, and "homo" isn't an inclusive word, it means "man" in exactly the same way that "man" means "man."

So if "Homocide" has no gender then neither does "chairman" and this is my point.

I am not the one equivocating here.

I wasn't much of a fan of the PC languaging thing at first, as I have always trended toward traditionalist. Over the years, saying "chair" instead of chairman, or firefighter instead of fireman etc. has become almost second nature. I find that it encumbers me very little while doing...perhaps...some good.

What yanks my chain is grammar and writing skills. Be PC all you wish, but please learn to write a grammatically sound sentence and...dare I hope...put 3 or 4 of them together in a paragraph that is a more or less connected thought. THAT is what this university teacher truly desires most, that the language be CORRECT, and as politically correct as you will in addition.


P.S. The modern English term 'cunt' is closest to the correct Latin cunnus term for what some label the vulva. That term, however closer to its Latin roots, is likely to cause someone to take umbrage. To a modern audience, the etymological considerations are of less note than the current connotations of any of these terms. Languages change as their users dictate. After all, the symbols we use -- words -- only have meaning because we ascribe meaning to them.

P.P.S When I was a young lad, the word 'disrespect' had no verb form.

[Beskar]

It's not a distant etymology, and "homo" isn't an inclusive word, it means "man" in exactly the same way that "man" means "man."

So if "Homocide" has no gender then neither does "chairman" and this is my point.

I am not the one equivocating here.

The 'Homo' prefix is greek and it means same. So Homosexual means Same-sexual.
Homicide means the the killing of one human by another. The homi/homo meaning we are from the same species.

Man means Man/Male. So Chairman, Fireman, Policeman, etc are roles of a male. Chair, Firefighter, Police Officer, etc are gender-neutral in the role, as the person being ascribed is not directly assumed as being a male.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The 'Homo' prefix is greek and it means same. So Homosexual means Same-sexual.
Homicide means the the killing of one human by another. The homi/homo meaning we are from the same species.

Man means Man/Male. So Chairman, Fireman, Policeman, etc are roles of a male. Chair, Firefighter, Police Officer, etc are gender-neutral in the role, as the person being ascribed is not directly assumed as being a male.

I made the effort to check the Oxford Latin Dictionary and you're definitely wrong - your etymologies are the result of the "false friend" phenomenon. You might want to consider that I'm a Classicist and a Medievalist who spends all day doing Latin next time, I don't just make this stuff up, I actually had to learn it.

Homo is Latin for "man", cognate with the English goom with it displaced and the Hebrew adam. Without qualification is can mean either "a man" or " a human", depending on context.

The word "human" and thence "man" come from the Latin humanus which is literally "a thing a man holds" from homo and manus. Your derivation for "homocide" and "hominem" are also wrong because they are Latin words.

As far as "homosexual" is a relatively modern word formed from two parts and it may actually be derived from the Greco-Latin "homo-sexual" meaning "same-sex" but it might also have been "man-sex" because likely when the term was coined there was little interest in the sexuality of women.

Compare discus from the Greek diskos "a quoit" and Latin discus "a learning".

Edit: Homo isn't a prefix, it's a noun.

[Beskar]

Your reply is supporting an earlier comment I made which you quoted which was "Are you discussing gender-neutral in how language is biased against women and the movement to make it gender-neutral as not to imply a preference?". Your examples from classic latin reinforce this point being made.

Where I disagree is where I agree with Montmorency in the changing nature and evolution of language, so whilst some words do have origins in latin such as the vagina, it has now sufficiently changed to represent the physiological terminology labelling, losing its original concoctions of sword-sheath.

However, there are still words in play which have not evolved or their meanings changed. It is this aspect of the language which should be modified reflect the equality of the different sexes.

[Gilrandir]

There is, in fact, no such thing as a "Gender-Neutral" word because all words, in all languages, have gendered roots.

Also, it is plainly false to say all words in all languages have gendered roots.

The fact is gender-neutral language is a crock.

Language is certainly not neutral - but that has to do with speakers and nothing to do with etymology or grammar.

It seems to me that you both (at least PFH) mix up grammatical gender and gender as a social construct. In the case of the former languages don't manifest a universal pattern. There are languages which don't have this grammatical category (like modern English which has lost it as an aftermath of the Norman conquest) while others have it. The number of genders also differs - some languages have a three member gender opposition (Ukrainian or German -
feminine::masculine::neuter) others only two (like in Spanish - feminine::masculine). Moreover, the term "grammatical category" is erroneously applied in relation to nouns while it is quite accurate in relation to adjectives.

[Montmorency]

Peeves, you hold a pretty strange view, so as a trained hermeneute of the Latin language back it up with some exegetics and explain why it is wrong to consider homo a substantively inclusive word, and rightly a synonym of vir.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

An interesting tidbit from an essay on femina vs. mulier:

In Republican prose and comedy it is almost exclusively mulier
that is used to place emphasis on the sex of a woman, both in
explicit and implied contrasts with vir.

[Quintilian] comments on viri et feminae in terms which imply that it had
become a fixed phrase

The use of homo here in opposition to mulier wnere vir is expected
well illustrates the decline which vir underwent in vulgar Latin in favour
of homo, which alone enters the Romance languages. The use of homo to
designate a man as distinguished from a woman is found as early as Plautus
(Cist. 723 mi homo et mea mulier, vos saluto), but first occurs with frequency
in late vulgar Latin

Assumed in another paper:

Homo and femina are not parallel terms etymologically. The usage arises from the mis-translation of homo as man
in English. Homo in Latin, derived from the same root as the Latin humanus meaning human, signifies human being in
the generic sense. Thus homo faber, homo sapiens, etc. should include femina, or Latin for woman, female gender,just as
they would include vir, the Latin for man, male gender. English, in translating both homo and vir as man, erases the
distinction made in Latin, thereby incorporating the male gender meaning into the English usage of homo

I don't think many support your version of humanus as a portmanteau of homo + manus; they're just cognate, distinct. They've meant a few things, but not that.