Da Feminism Thread

[spankythehippo]

You mean, you know you're wrong?

Yes. As much as I hate racism, I always laugh at racist jokes. Same goes for sexist jokes. It's merely poking fun at the issue in general. I find it humourous. Although, it would probably violate forum rules, if I posted some of my favourites.

[Viking]

what? I was just telling you why Animals look for STATUS. Because it is a GOOD INDICATOR that that animal will be able to provide and protect. What are you arguing with? Humans have science and logic and reason that make looking for status less important. But status is still a GOOD INDICATOR that someone will be able to provide and protect.

This debate has never been about animals in general, we are talking about humans here. What does "status" mean in the world of other animals, anyway? That someone won a fight or two, that someone looks "pretty"?

Money is one thing that can give humans status, but other animals have no money. That's one example of a form of status that humans got and other animals don't. Kingship, royalty, government positions, chieftains etc. are other examples (though you might find parallels). Also: slave versus free man.

Humans can fake status - but it's the best we got. Women apply creams to their faces to hide blemishes, and undergo the knife to appear to have higher levels of oestrogen (boob jobs) or appear younger (face lifts). Men are attracted to the younger, more fertile appearance.

Football stars, famous actors and the obscenely rich never have problems getting women, even little Goblins like Ecclestone. I'm sure it is all down to their sense of humour and rapport, not that women want gifts and a good time - if the man can provide that to her, he can provide that to their children. You can't strip out millions of years of evolutionary drives in a couple of thousand.

Football stars are not a result of millions of years of evolution, they are a modern thing. Being good at kicking a ball is not necessarily going to help you surviving a fight (or whatever). Status of today is generally highly different from what it was 400 years ago, 2000 years, 50 000 years ago; et cetera. That is to say, it must be explained why going after status in earlier times was so beneficial that it plays a huge role for selection of mates (yes, I see why going after a football star of today could be a clever move, though going for the best DNA at the same time is even wiser).

Anyway, even if many females go after wealth, that does not imply that it is an inherent trait. The more exposed you are to the masses, the more persons will be aware of you. It is no surprise that young people that are often on TV end up with a lot of offers in the love department.

Another inclination is that they are simply using their brains as much as following their biology.

i dont see what this all has to do with feminism... unless you would argue that society is purely biological and evolutionary and that what we perceive as culture is just a veneer or not even that.

feminism > emancipation > rational process

and at the same time its morals > imperative.

so whatever our biology may tell us to, if we wish this from rational and moralistic perspective we ought to overcome those drives, or atleast try.

so like i said, unless you argue that we cannot overcome those drives and that it is stupid to try so i dont see why we are diving so deep into that issue. (its very interesting but i think deviating from feminism...)

It is sort of deviating from the main topic. At the same time, feminism also seeks to explain the world, and in this light, the biology debate becomes more relevant, even if it might need a connection somewhere to feminist theory or the roles women in society/history to stay true to the topic...

[The Stranger]

well imo like i said i think its a cultural debate, while yes it might be interesting to discuss these biodrives in order to understand why we have behaved in a certain way or why we have such trouble with accepting certain changes in gender roles in the end its a moral thing, a rational thing and thus we need to overcome these drives regardless of what they are. thus for the validity of the feminist argument the biodrives shouldnt play a major role. unless again u will argue that we must live life according to nature, but in that case id say gtfo your pc and go hunt.

[spankythehippo]

This debate has never been about animals in general, we are talking about humans here. What does "status" mean in the world of other animals, anyway? That someone won a fight or two, that someone looks "pretty"?

Yup. Many animals either admire or are terrified of an alpha-male. In in animal sense, that is their status. A lion that can protect it's pride from a competing male lion is considered strong. Or that the other lions can't be bothered moving away. Either way, the male lion has the highest status.

[Viking]

well imo like i said i think its a cultural debate, while yes it might be interesting to discuss these biodrives in order to understand why we have behaved in a certain way or why we have such trouble with accepting certain changes in gender roles in the end its a moral thing, a rational thing and thus we need to overcome these drives regardless of what they are. thus for the validity of the feminist argument the biodrives shouldnt play a major role. unless again u will argue that we must live life according to nature, but in that case id say gtfo your pc and go hunt.

No, because feminism is an intricate web of understanding. If some of its premises are wrong, then the relevance of the theory changes. Viewing culture as separate from culture is meaningless, because in the end it is alpha and omega for it.

To give an example: one part of feminism concerns love, and fact is that the vast majority of females are attracted to men (and vice versa, of course). Since men are also generally the oppressors, it would be convenient if women could just stay away from men altogether socially, but given the biology, this would not seem to be a good solution. And this is one example.

Yup. Many animals either admire or are terrified of an alpha-male. In in animal sense, that is their status. A lion that can protect it's pride from a competing male lion is considered strong. Or that the other lions can't be bothered moving away. Either way, the male lion has the highest status.

Well I see now that the debate was an instance of talking past one another. I never had other animals in mind, only status for humans.

[spankythehippo]

Well I see now that the debate was an instance of talking past one another. I never had other animals in mind, only status for humans.

Men art beasts, and women, *whispers* the demons of the night.

[The Stranger]

No, because feminism is an intricate web of understanding. If some of its premises are wrong, then the relevance of the theory changes. Viewing culture as separate from culture is meaningless, because in the end it is alpha and omega for it.

To give an example: one part of feminism concerns love, and fact is that the vast majority of females are attracted to men (and vice versa, of course). Since men are also generally the oppressors, it would be convenient if women could just stay away from men altogether socially, but given the biology, this would not seem to be a good solution. And this is one example.




Well I see now that the debate was an instance of talking past one another. I never had other animals in mind, only status for humans.

perhaps i shouldve specified more clear, i meant female emancipation mostly. i mean you can look to biology to give more force to your argument but if your argument rests solely on that natural aspect and it turns out that there is no proof for equality between male and female in nature you should forfeit your case. but i think this is counter intuitive.

[Beskar]

I never understood the trend where keeping the door open when you walk through it is offensive to self-proclaimed "feminists".

I always have the habit of looking behind me to see if anyone is there before I let go of the door, male or female, I hold it till they have grab it themselves and move on. However, on some occassions, I had females magically "stop" there, and it leaves me confused then they start the tirade about how evil I am because I am keeping open the door, so I simply let go on quite a few occasions, the door has smacked back in their face and they go "You *"$%^" and then I reply "There is the reason the door is held open, to prevent that."

Then there was this argent feminist who I was friends with who ended up doing this. As the corridors were big enough to go side by side, we made her go to the front of the "group-line" so she opens the door first. She goes "Why do you do that?" and I replied "Because if we keep the door open, you find it demeaning and offensive, so we put you at the front, so you can open it for the rest of us.", then started being silly between us (the males) going "Thank you good sir, how sporting of you to open the door" in silly posh English accents. After that occasion she accepted to allow us to hold open the door so if we was behind us, she doesn't get smacked in the face or even up standing there for a minute for the door to shut close on its own.


There are equality issues but it is these challenges where 'feminists' are sexist towards males in the "fight for feminism" severely undermines support for the cause.

[CountArach]

I never understood the trend where keeping the door open when you walk through it is offensive to self-proclaimed "feminists".

Don't base your opinion of an entire philosophy on the actions of stupid people.

I'm not a fan of feminism. Because it's a form of sexism.

Not true. It is only sexist if you say that women are inherently superior to men. True feminism is about gender equality.

[The Stranger]

Don't base your opinion of an entire philosophy on the actions of stupid people.

yes... if everyone just didnt do that. but sadly about everyone does.

[spankythehippo]

Not true. It is only sexist if you say that women are inherently superior to men. True feminism is about gender equality.

I went to an all boys school. When I went to uni, I didn't hold back on offensive jokes. Whenever I mentioned any sexist jokes, all the "feminists" would become angry when the joke was demeaning women. When I told a joke that demeaned men (I have more of those jokes, by the way), they would laugh.

Alot of feminists are looking for gender superiority. I believe Rita Mae Brown is a feminist, but she still makes sexist jokes. There's a difference between joking about something and actually believing in it. You can do both at the same time, but not many do that. They think it's an infringement on their beliefs.

That's why I love George Carlin. RIP George. But I hate the audience at his shows. Always cheering at everything he says, and I can't hear him at times.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Feminism implies activism, and is thus full of stupidities. You can't be honest about what's known and what isn't, or about what the uncertainties are, or all the other things you have to do to truly think about something philosophically, when you have a pressing political stake. You can't be scientific about the results of a study when you are a public figure in a political debate like that...if a study was inconclusive regarding whether men were smarter than women, any well known feminist who accurately described the study would have their words trumpeted all over by their opponents, who would have no such scruples.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Face > figure (slim or large) > bum/legs > breasts

which is what attracts us

personality > all = what keeps us.


Im all for the best people in the best position.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Yes, and in that order for obvious reasons (or maybe not). The face is your main communicator, and an attractive face indicates good genes, so there you have good genese and the potential for a successful relationships; weight (or body fat%) can be both an indication of health and also (it appears increasingly) intelligence or at least common sense; bum/legs, pretty obvious this one, you don't want her to die in child birth; breasts, again pretty obvious, but also suggestive of high levels of fertility, and not just the ability to nurse.

Ajax is correct. Sex refers to what organs you're born with, whereas gender is with which organs you identify. The distinction is both relevant in terms of referring to trans people (Who are people whose biological sex and gender don't match up at birth) and also the idea that gender is a social construct.


Any.






You mean, you know you're wrong?



COOL STORY BRO

Ajax didn't agree with you, he simply said that there is a preference in technical language to use "gender" to mean "social construct", but if you aren't impressed by the idea of complex "social constructs" as "made" parts of culture that's not persuasive.

Oh, and "mankind" is just a word, which is clear if you look up the origin of "man", and the extinct "wer-man".

1st wave is legit, but not very special.

id say 2nd wave is feminism freaking out

and i totally applaud 3rd wave! tho i think it kinda makes being a feminist... redundant.

I don't buy into third-wave's theories, it should actually logically talk itself out of existence because "Feminism" is a linguistically prescriptive word with huge amounts of historical baggage which limits the discourse that "feminism" engages in, and the groups it includes and excludes. For example, the word "Feminist" actually excludes the heterosexual male from proper membership of the movement because he is not, "feminine" and it is not "his course".

If you consider, you would not describe a white male as a "Black Rights" campaigner, but as a "Civil Rights" campaigner, although you might use the former term to describe a black male. This is why I object to the equivilence drawn between Egalitarianism and Feminism, the latter is prescriptive in its aim while the former is not.

I also happen to think that Post-Scructuralism is both reductive and unconvincing, but that's a different argument.

I never understood the trend where keeping the door open when you walk through it is offensive to self-proclaimed "feminists".

That's because you're not doing it properly. Feminists are now told that it is "sexist" for men to open doors, but the door-opening in question is where the man goes forward of the woman, opens the door for her to go throough and then follows her. So what these feminists are reacting against is something that you don't do, not what you do do.

Beskar, you are not sexist enough!

[Husar]

So in humans, when looking for good genes, look for those individuals that have a healthy appearance - those that do not limp and appear strong. Don't look blindly at status.

That's wrong as well.

Someone can be born with perfect genes and perfect health, then end up in the wrong place at the wrong time, i.e. have an accident that's not their fault, and end up with a limp and appearing weak. However that doesn't mean the genes are bad or that a baby of that person would be born with a limp.

[Viking]

That's wrong as well.

Someone can be born with perfect genes and perfect health, then end up in the wrong place at the wrong time, i.e. have an accident that's not their fault, and end up with a limp and appearing weak. However that doesn't mean the genes are bad or that a baby of that person would be born with a limp.

If they are just limping, you can still evaluate the symmetry of their faces etc. But it is not really relevant, because it works in the vast majority of cases (and most likely, there are people with equally good/better DNA around you that do not limp/appear weak).

[Husar]

Yes, and democracy also works if you just cater to the vast majority of people and oppress the others!

You also might want to elaborate about what makes good DNA, not everything that seems advantageous at first sight has to be in the long run and vice versa.

Why is an asymmetric face a sign of bad genes anyway?

And why do you discriminate against bad genes? Are you saying people with bad genes should stay lonely? Or just mate other people with bad genes to create a genetic underclass?

[Tellos Athenaios]

Subjective symmetry of course, because nobody's face is in fact objectively symmetrical (and we'd find such faces rather unnerving/weird-looking). Why would you want a symmetric face? Because:

• It implies you have managed not to get hurt too much during fights.
• It implies you have managed not to get into too many accidents.
• It implies you body is working properly, or has done so for the time it took to grow that face.
• Specifically, it implies that you don't suffer from palsy.

Similar reasons for why both sexes, but especially the women, overwhelmingly want a tall partner. In Western cultures the magic threshold size appears to be about 6 feet or taller for men: its a documented fact that men will “cheat” on their height on dating sites, for example, to get to that 6 feet mark. (Varies with culture, for instance 6 feet won't be that impressive when you go to a culture where 6 feet is well within the norm for women, or where 6 feet is on the small end for men.) Again, height implies robust health and not just at the moment but for the entire duration it took you to grow to that size.

The corollary here is that these implications, in turn imply your parents were successful at parenting. Which bodes well for you as a parent because you are likely/bound to make the same sort of mistakes your parents' did, too. So at least such errors will likely not end up catastrophic.

Additionally your biochemical processes will likely be in good working order if you can manage to sport a healthy visage and size. So you are probably fit, fertile, and will likely remain so for the forseeable future.

Similarly we look at the chest to estimate whether or not someone is a pushover or worth reckoning with. That's because if you do get into a fight, it'll likely be the upper body strength that determines the outcome. Which is why Henry VIII liked the idea of wrestling with the French king, that is until the French king tripped him over and won.

[Tellos Athenaios]

And why do you discriminate against bad genes? Are you saying people with bad genes should stay lonely? Or just mate other people with bad genes to create a genetic underclass?

That's exactly what evolution does tend to produce: people with similar ability/attractiveness end up together, if they find a partner at all.

It happens with intellect as well. People who are smart generally want their partner to be as smart as well. It's more attractive to be bookish than to be an utter tool.

[rory_20_uk]

Even a small dip into any decent book on evolutionary would show that all species try as far as possible to screen out the weaker ones from the gene pool. some species it is more of an exact science than others.

It is true that some traits are more useful at set points - such as sickle cell or thalasaemia. Now that we have treatments for malaria sickle cell trait has no advantage.

It is not so much to create an underclass, more that they die off completely.

Successful species try to get the most number of healthy members at the expense of those which aren't. There is definitely genetic drift in what "healthy" is, and in extreme cases this will case one species to become two if the environment.

[Papewaio]

What we find attractive must be pretty deep rooted

http://cogprints.org/5272/1/ghirland...nquist2002.pdf

After all chickens rate humans beauty almost the same as humans rank human beauty.

[Rhyfelwyr]

This seemed apt for this thread.

He is quick to assure me that he and his colleagues "do not want to bring women down," as he puts it. "We just want to bring the men up to where the women are."

This seems fair enough.

Although they seem almost like more hardline feminists in wanting to change language and everything:

"Mr Pariat cites numerous examples of how his fellow brethren are being demoralised. These include a fascinating theory involving the way that gender in the local Khasi language reflects these basic cultural assumptions.

"A tree is masculine, but when it is turned into wood, it becomes feminine," he begins."

A bizarre story...

[Tellos Athenaios]

What we find attractive must be pretty deep rooted

http://cogprints.org/5272/1/ghirland...nquist2002.pdf

After all chickens rate humans beauty almost the same as humans rank human beauty.

No, that study doesn't show anything of the sort. All it shows is that you can train chickens to distinguish between male & female humans by giving them food if they peck correctly. This, the authors claim, supports the hypothesis that preferences for how a member of a particular sex should look like in animals may be due to internalised method/patterns of distinguishing between the sexes -- which can be taught, and could for instance be due to what tasks are associated with males or females. In other words: wearing of ties might be associated with dad, therefore a kid learns that if it wears ties it's probably a man...

Then it goes on to show that chickens get better at pecking correctly the more humans would find the subject an attractive date, based on nothing more than a picture of their face.

What it doesn't show is that chickens in their natural habitat have somehow even vaguely similar sexual preferences as humans. Or anything of much significance, really. (Especially considering the staggering sample size of 14 people... How impressive! )

[CountArach]

Although they seem almost like more hardline feminists in wanting to change language and everything:

"Mr Pariat cites numerous examples of how his fellow brethren are being demoralised. These include a fascinating theory involving the way that gender in the local Khasi language reflects these basic cultural assumptions.

"A tree is masculine, but when it is turned into wood, it becomes feminine," he begins."

A bizarre story...

Masculine and feminine in linguistic terms have nothing to do with masculine and feminine as deined by social norms. That is to say, gender in language is not the same as a gendered language.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Masculine and feminine in linguistic terms have nothing to do with masculine and feminine as deined by social norms. That is to say, gender in language is not the same as a gendered language.

Oh, I think it is, there's a reason "sword" is always masculine, for example. Gendered language is about understanding the world, just like gender among people.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I held a door open for a girl when I was in the gym yesterday. She said thanks. We went through another set of doors and I did it a second time. She said thanks. Then when I was a few steps ahead by the final set of doors, I had this thread in mind and quite rudely did not hold the door open and I heard her push it open right after it banged shut on her.

Damn it .org!

[Viking]

Oh, I think it is, there's a reason "sword" is always masculine, for example. Gendered language is about understanding the world, just like gender among people.

In modern Norwegian (as in Old Norwegian aka Viking language), a sword is of neuter gender. An axe is of feminine gender (for the Vikings, too). A knife, on the other hand, is of masculine gender. As is a bow. The word for giant is also of feminine gender (the actual ON word is kempa, where the -a is characteristic for what is probably the largest feminine word class, also containing words like kona ('woman') and genta ('girl'). Masculine words often end on -r in comparison, such as maðr ('man').)

The word for eagle is of feminine gender (masculine for the Vikings), while hawk is of masculine gender. A stone is of masculine gender, but a mountain is of neuter gender.

If there is a pattern, I think it could have been stronger.

[rory_20_uk]

The Thors as a rule through the ages have been better at rape, pillage and getting blind drunk rather than grammatical cogence.

[Subotan]

Meh, etymological debates are pretty much irrelevant to identity politics. What matters is the context of the word, and how it is used.

As much as I hate racism, I always laugh at racist jokes. Same goes for sexist jokes. It's merely poking fun at the issue in general. I find it humourous. Although, it would probably violate forum rules, if I posted some of my favourites.

Most of those kinds of jokes just aren't inherently funny. They're largely repeats of old jokes or not-jokes that have grown well out of context. Think of any French joke you've heard in the last decade or so. I've heard French jokes that cracked me up, but the bulk of them are just some dude going, "Ha, the French are cowards!" The same with jokes based on ethnicity, or gender or sexual orientation or whatever. It's not about the joke, it's about reaffirming that you're with the "in" group.

Feminism implies activism, and is thus full of stupidities.

Huh, well I guess the civil rights movement, abolitionism and the Founding Fathers were all full of stupidities then.

You can't be honest about what's known and what isn't, or about what the uncertainties are, or all the other things you have to do to truly think about something philosophically, when you have a pressing political stake.

Feminists go into activism and politics because they care about women. It really isn't the case that they seem to care about women for power - for one, "feminism" is a dirty word.

I never understood the trend where keeping the door open when you walk through it is offensive to self-proclaimed "feminists".

I always have the habit of looking behind me to see if anyone is there before I let go of the door, male or female, I hold it till they have grab it themselves and move on. However, on some occassions, I had females magically "stop" there, and it leaves me confused then they start the tirade about how evil I am because I am keeping open the door, so I simply let go on quite a few occasions, the door has smacked back in their face and they go "You *"$%^" and then I reply "There is the reason the door is held open, to prevent that."

Then there was this argent feminist who I was friends with who ended up doing this. As the corridors were big enough to go side by side, we made her go to the front of the "group-line" so she opens the door first. She goes "Why do you do that?" and I replied "Because if we keep the door open, you find it demeaning and offensive, so we put you at the front, so you can open it for the rest of us.", then started being silly between us (the males) going "Thank you good sir, how sporting of you to open the door" in silly posh English accents. After that occasion she accepted to allow us to hold open the door so if we was behind us, she doesn't get smacked in the face or even up standing there for a minute for the door to shut close on its own.


There are equality issues but it is these challenges where 'feminists' are sexist towards males in the "fight for feminism" severely undermines support for the cause.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Meh, etymological debates are pretty much irrelevant to identity politics. What matters is the context of the word, and how it is used.

So you don't find it at all interesting that the Latin word for a woman's intimates is "Vagina" which is where you put your "Gladies".

Proving not only that etymology is facinating, but that soldiers are the same throughout time.

[Subotan]

Interesting sure, but irrelevant to politics and the actual issue.