Radical Feminism

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Aug 30, 2012 9:18 pm UTC

engr wrote:Yeah, and they kind of ruin it for the other 5%.

Note that I didn't say that all, or even the majority
Last I checked, 95% was a majority. But if the true half of that quote is the second one, and you admit that maybe only a *minority* of third-wave feminists believe that crap, then I stand by my criticism of your assertion that those beliefs characterize third-wave feminism.

And again, because HungryHobo seems unable to grasp the distinction: I am not denying that the person quoted in the OP is a third-wave feminist, and I am not denying that some third-wave feminists believe that crap, so my argument doesn't even look like No True Scotsman even if you squint at it really hard. You have to have your eyes all the way closed to make that kind of mistake, or you at least have to have skipped the words I actually used.

setzer777 wrote:Okay, this is SB - how is the hypocrisy of forum members on-topic?
Unnamed forum members who aren't in this thread, discussing a topic that isn't the one in this thread, to boot.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby omgryebread » Thu Aug 30, 2012 9:39 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:But you strongly object to the idea that all people should take a gender studies course. Which is fine, because I'm betting that's not what she was saying.
For the record, I don't think this is any more horrible than requiring say, Latin. That is to say, I don't think either should be required, but if you're requiring less useful subjects, then there's nothing particular about gender studies that makes it worse than any other.


Anyway, more on topic, I think it might be useful to separate "radical" feminism from "extremist" feminism. Enuja's post earlier in the thread illustrated how one can be a radical feminist without projecting hate or imposing problematic judgments. The article from the OP was of a substantially different character, one that was intensely problematic in a lot of ways. I disagree with both Enuja and the article (though I also agree with both at points), yet only one of the two is offensive to me.


It's also a matter of perspective. I wish to greatly redefine the social concept of gender. To some, that would make me a radical feminist, while I don't think I am, and I'm guessing I don't seem very radical to those who believe gender is an inherently flawed concept that should be destroyed.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby Ormurinn » Tue Sep 11, 2012 9:18 am UTC

omgryebread wrote:It's also a matter of perspective. I wish to greatly redefine the social concept of gender. To some, that would make me a radical feminist, while I don't think I am, and I'm guessing I don't seem very radical to those who believe gender is an inherently flawed concept that should be destroyed.


When you're discussing in general terms though, wouldn't it make sense to use the average person as your baseline perspective to achieve greater clarity?
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

HungryHobo
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am UTC

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby HungryHobo » Tue Sep 11, 2012 9:31 am UTC

He does have a point.
very few people really think of their own views as radical or extreme because they view their own own beliefs as the most correct and logical.

If you then surround yourself with people who hold similarly radical or extreme views then of course they're going to share a similar position.

probably the only people with radical or extreme views who don't view them as such would be those who don't surround themselves with like minded people or as so nuts that they litterally cannot find a peer group or the occasional person who gets off on believing themselves "extreme" or "radical".

the internet allows people with a lot more off the wall views to believe they're not extreme because it's so easy to find a peer group for just about anything.
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby omgryebread » Tue Sep 11, 2012 2:51 pm UTC

Ormurinn wrote:
omgryebread wrote:It's also a matter of perspective. I wish to greatly redefine the social concept of gender. To some, that would make me a radical feminist, while I don't think I am, and I'm guessing I don't seem very radical to those who believe gender is an inherently flawed concept that should be destroyed.


When you're discussing in general terms though, wouldn't it make sense to use the average person as your baseline perspective to achieve greater clarity?
Do you use the average person or the average feminist?

What's an average person?

Do you ignore outliers? The whole "legitimate rape" crowd is going to skew your "average".

Do you use the average person for your geographic area? An average American is probably going to have a different perspective than an average human. If so, what geographic area? Country, region, state, city, building?

Once we're past the selection criteria for "average" we have to wonder how we determine what average actually is. Is there some questionnaire we can apply to everyone, determine their views on feminism, then select from them the median? Or perhaps the mean.

Given that's not feasible, do we use an estimate of public opinion and views to grab "average?" Who's estimate? Mine? Yours? Todd Akin's? Andrea Dworkin's? Do we assemble a representative panel? Maybe a random panel? Perhaps we choose trained sociologists. But do we take a representative sample of sociologists?


"Average" is so non-descriptive a word that I think its useless when you're actually trying to use it for anything other than rhetorical arguments or casual conversation.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby Ormurinn » Tue Sep 11, 2012 3:12 pm UTC

omgryebread wrote:
Ormurinn wrote:
omgryebread wrote:It's also a matter of perspective. I wish to greatly redefine the social concept of gender. To some, that would make me a radical feminist, while I don't think I am, and I'm guessing I don't seem very radical to those who believe gender is an inherently flawed concept that should be destroyed.


When you're discussing in general terms though, wouldn't it make sense to use the average person as your baseline perspective to achieve greater clarity?
Do you use the average person or the average feminist?

What's an average person?

Do you ignore outliers? The whole "legitimate rape" crowd is going to skew your "average".

Do you use the average person for your geographic area? An average American is probably going to have a different perspective than an average human. If so, what geographic area? Country, region, state, city, building?

Once we're past the selection criteria for "average" we have to wonder how we determine what average actually is. Is there some questionnaire we can apply to everyone, determine their views on feminism, then select from them the median? Or perhaps the mean.

Given that's not feasible, do we use an estimate of public opinion and views to grab "average?" Who's estimate? Mine? Yours? Todd Akin's? Andrea Dworkin's? Do we assemble a representative panel? Maybe a random panel? Perhaps we choose trained sociologists. But do we take a representative sample of sociologists?


"Average" is so non-descriptive a word that I think its useless when you're actually trying to use it for anything other than rhetorical arguments or casual conversation.


Defining yourself with reference to an extreme group isn't any better for the purposes of discussion. You're moderate compared to a radical feminist, but wanting to "redefine the social concept of gender" Is radical to the average person* and likely radical to an appreciable cross-section of feminists**.

From a different angle - you're talking about radically changing a societal concept formed over millions of years of social and genetic evolution, at the behest of a movement that rose to prominence barely two generations ago. That you consider that a moderate position is a sign of just how extreme the people you're comparing yourself to are.

*cross-section - everyone in the majority Indian, formerly white working class community I live in who has ever mentioned feminism in any capacity.

** everyone I've spoken to outside this forum who has self identified as feminist
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5532
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby doogly » Tue Sep 11, 2012 3:35 pm UTC

Dear Ormurinn:

Your right to use the word "evolution" has been revoked.

Kisses,
Science.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

HungryHobo
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am UTC

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby HungryHobo » Tue Sep 11, 2012 3:52 pm UTC

omgryebread wrote:"Average" is so non-descriptive a word that I think its useless when you're actually trying to use it for anything other than rhetorical arguments or casual conversation.


there's no need to try to define it to the extent where you can say you're within 3.12121 standard deviations of the average.

it can be average, normal or reasonable person like if you grabbed a handful of people like they do for jury duty.

if you picked 10 semi random people, not certifiable but also not selected for the sake of being like you or having read the same books and attended the same meetings you have.

would they think your views extreme or radical? would they edge away slowly trying not to make eye contact? Say you're not tough enough on the matter? would they roll their eyes? would they nod and say it makes total sense?

lets say it wasn't about feminists.

if you were talking about extremists religious groups.
what standard would you use to judge who is an extremist?

random people?

religious people?

religious people of the same religion?

religious people of the same religion and the same sect?

religious people of the same religion and the same sect in the same compound?

if you choose the latter nobody is the an extremist
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby Ormurinn » Tue Sep 11, 2012 4:45 pm UTC

doogly wrote:Dear Ormurinn:

Your right to use the word "evolution" has been revoked.

Kisses,
Science.


ev·o·lu·tion (v-lshn, v-)
n.
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
2.
a. The process of developing.
b. Gradual development.
3. Biology
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.


Are you arguing that the current societal perception of gender hasn't changed in a "gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form"? Or are you arguing that the biological differences between genders aren't responsible for corresponding differences in the attitude of society towards them?
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5532
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby doogly » Tue Sep 11, 2012 5:25 pm UTC

Both of those things!
But more generally than that, we just can't allow demonstrated racists to appeal to such concepts. It's quite troublesome, and science is trying to use them, and is not required to share.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby Ormurinn » Tue Sep 11, 2012 5:36 pm UTC

doogly wrote:Both of those things!
But more generally than that, we just can't allow demonstrated racists to appeal to such concepts. It's quite troublesome, and science is trying to use them, and is not required to share.


Well, if you're arguing both of those things, contrary to all the available evidence, then you're an idiot - or at least willing to ignore history and biology.
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Sep 11, 2012 5:47 pm UTC

Ormurinn wrote:Well, if you're arguing both of those things, contrary to all the available evidence, then you're an idiot - or at least willing to ignore history and biology.
I don't think it's idiocy to believe that the reasons for gender roles are far, far more complex and tangled than 'biology', and I don't think it's idiocy to say that the movement of gender roles throughout history is not best summed up with the word 'evolution'. However, I also don't think that this is a constructive dialogue, and doesn't really get to the heart of what's being discussed--'radical feminism'.

To that point, I think it's already been explained several times that the 'radical' in 'radical feminism' has a very specific meaning outside the scope of the word's usual implication. It refers to a type of feminism that is concerned first with patriarchy and women's roles in relation to patriarchal society.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Sep 11, 2012 8:14 pm UTC

Ormurinn wrote:you're talking about radically changing a societal concept formed over millions of years of social and genetic evolution
Even if that were true, which it so clearly isn't (modern gender roles are older than feminism, but not by much if you're taking the long view going back to the first hominid ancestors that aren't also chimp ancestors), it's also completely irrelevant.

*Every* significant change that technology ever caused has "radically changed a societal concept" which had previously held since the beginning of time. I would argue that the Internet has changed society more than loosening up on gender role expectations would. And before that, planes, trains, and automobiles wreaked similar havoc on things previously held to be true, such as how far one's influence could spread in a lifetime.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby Ormurinn » Tue Sep 11, 2012 8:21 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Ormurinn wrote:you're talking about radically changing a societal concept formed over millions of years of social and genetic evolution
Even if that were true, which it so clearly isn't (modern gender roles are older than feminism, but not by much if you're taking the long view going back to the first hominid ancestors that aren't also chimp ancestors), it's also completely irrelevant.

Gender is more complex than the nuclear family. Maybe I read too far into omgryebread's comment, but differences due to gender like women being pickier about their partners, or more concerned with appearance, or men tending to be older than their wives, are certainly the product of a long line of biological and cultural factors. At it's most basic, the woman as caregiver paradigm that feminists rail against so often has its foundations in biology.

gmalivuk wrote:*Every* significant change that technology ever caused has "radically changed a societal concept" which had previously held since the beginning of time. I would argue that the Internet has changed society more than loosening up on gender role expectations would. And before that, planes, trains, and automobiles wreaked similar havoc on things previously held to be true, such as how far one's influence could spread in a lifetime.


Those changes rarely co-incided with a special interest group demanding state power be used to advance their interests. I've got no issue with feminists who want a voluntary, bottom up change in society - even if I think they're wrong and misguided. Its the ones who demand the hammer of the state bashes its way into private businesses and private families who earn my ire.

The internet and mass transport led to organic changes in society. Pro-state feminists want to force an artificial one onto an unwilling populace.
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

User avatar
Enuja
Posts: 1576
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:40 pm UTC
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby Enuja » Tue Sep 11, 2012 8:36 pm UTC

I don't think it's radical feminists who demand state power to advance their interests. Suffrage, legal remedies for rape and sexual harassment, equal pay for equal work: this is very mainstream feminist stuff. And it's all stuff that you'd be a sexist asshole for arguing against, but that's not relevant to this thread.

When you talk about using the same names for boys and girls, getting rid of gender distinctions in clothing and fashion, focusing on gender expectations in consensual sex, ect., you aren't asking for state power. You're working bottom up.

User avatar
bantler
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:23 pm UTC

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby bantler » Tue Sep 11, 2012 9:12 pm UTC

Enuja wrote:When you talk about using the same names for boys and girls, getting rid of gender distinctions in clothing and fashion, focusing on gender expectations in consensual sex, ect., you aren't asking for state power. You're working bottom up.


Blurring the lines of sexual identity is not a terribly noble goal.
Androgyny For The WIn?

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby omgryebread » Tue Sep 11, 2012 9:49 pm UTC

bantler wrote:
Enuja wrote:When you talk about using the same names for boys and girls, getting rid of gender distinctions in clothing and fashion, focusing on gender expectations in consensual sex, ect., you aren't asking for state power. You're working bottom up.


Blurring the lines of sexual identity is not a terribly noble goal.
Androgyny For The WIn?
Why not? Are you so invested in men wearing suits and women wearing dresses that a threat to that enforced dichotomy is a threat to you? What isn't noble about freeing gender nonconformists from the yoke of a society that insists they match some arbitrary definition of gender?
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Sep 11, 2012 9:57 pm UTC

omgryebread wrote:Why not? Are you so invested in men wearing suits and women wearing dresses that a threat to that enforced dichotomy is a threat to you? What isn't noble about freeing gender nonconformists from the yoke of a society that insists they match some arbitrary definition of gender?
I, for one, welcome our new genderless overlords. I can be helpful rounding up others to toil in their underground sex-caves.

(But yes, challenging and deconstructing gender roles strikes me as a very noble goal)

User avatar
bantler
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:23 pm UTC

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby bantler » Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:17 pm UTC

omgryebread wrote:Why not? Are you so invested in men wearing suits and women wearing dresses that a threat to that enforced dichotomy is a threat to you? What isn't noble about freeing gender nonconformists from the yoke of a society that insists they match some arbitrary definition of gender?


Because I like my ladies pretty.

User avatar
firechicago
Posts: 621
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 12:27 pm UTC
Location: One time, I put a snowglobe in the microwave and pushed "Hot Dog"

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby firechicago » Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:22 pm UTC

bantler wrote:
omgryebread wrote:Why not? Are you so invested in men wearing suits and women wearing dresses that a threat to that enforced dichotomy is a threat to you? What isn't noble about freeing gender nonconformists from the yoke of a society that insists they match some arbitrary definition of gender?


Because I like my ladies pretty.

Because your preferences should dictate the dress, appearance and behavior of a whole half of humanity.

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5532
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby doogly » Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:28 pm UTC

bantler wrote:
omgryebread wrote:Why not? Are you so invested in men wearing suits and women wearing dresses that a threat to that enforced dichotomy is a threat to you? What isn't noble about freeing gender nonconformists from the yoke of a society that insists they match some arbitrary definition of gender?


Because I like my ladies pretty.


This is just so perfect. Thank you.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby omgryebread » Tue Sep 11, 2012 11:36 pm UTC

I like my guys to not be misogynist. Sucks, I guess.

Look, basically, you're welcome to whatever preferences you want. You're welcome to like women with large breasts and golden blond hair who will stay in the kitchen and make you sandwiches. What you aren't welcome to do is lament how not enough women fit your preferences, or to promote that women should be your ideal, or to malign those who work to overthrow the system that enforces your ideal on all women.

At least, not here you aren't. Sadly in society at large, you're quite welcome to do all those things and much more. At least until the Genderless Overlords begin their reign.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

Spambot5546
Posts: 1466
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 7:34 pm UTC

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby Spambot5546 » Tue Sep 11, 2012 11:50 pm UTC

doogly wrote:
bantler wrote:
omgryebread wrote:Why not? Are you so invested in men wearing suits and women wearing dresses that a threat to that enforced dichotomy is a threat to you? What isn't noble about freeing gender nonconformists from the yoke of a society that insists they match some arbitrary definition of gender?


Because I like my ladies pretty.


This is just so perfect. Thank you.

This is why I could never justify calling myself a feminist. I know it's wrong, but I'm always going to be more attracted to a "feminine" woman than otherwise.
"It is bitter – bitter", he answered,
"But I like it
Because it is bitter,
And because it is my heart."

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby Ormurinn » Tue Sep 11, 2012 11:51 pm UTC

anti-omgryebread wrote:I like my guys to not be misogynist. Sucks, I guess.

Look, basically, you're welcome to whatever preferences you want. You're welcome to like women with large breasts and golden blond hair Mohawks, facial piercings and hairy legs who will stay in the kitchen and make you sandwiches fight the "patriarchy" and try to eliminate gender. What you aren't welcome to do is lament how not enough women people fit your preferences, or to promote that women should be your ideal society should abandon gender, or to malign those who work to overthrow the system that(attempts to) enforces your ideal on all women people.

At least, not here you aren't. Sadly in society at large, you're quite welcome to do all those things and much more. At least until the Genderless Overlords begin their reign.


Why are you allowed to advance feminist causes, but he isn't allowed to argue in favour of anti-feminist ones? This is a discussion on feminism, not a safespace for those who don't like their feelings hurt.
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Sep 11, 2012 11:52 pm UTC

Spambot5546 wrote:This is why I could never justify calling myself a feminist. I know it's wrong, but I'm always going to be more attracted to a "feminine" woman than otherwise.
There is nothing wrong with that. Anyone who tells you otherwise is being an ass.
Ormurinn wrote:Why are you allowed to advance feminist causes, but he isn't allowed to argue in favour of anti-feminist ones? This is a discussion on feminism, not a safespace for those who don't like their feelings hurt.
No, it's a thread for discussing radical feminism. There are other threads to argue the case against feminism; this isn't one of them.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby Azrael » Wed Sep 12, 2012 12:37 am UTC

bantler wrote:
omgryebread wrote:Why not? Are you so invested in men wearing suits and women wearing dresses that a threat to that enforced dichotomy is a threat to you? What isn't noble about freeing gender nonconformists from the yoke of a society that insists they match some arbitrary definition of gender?


Because I like my ladies pretty.


And I like posters not to troll.

Although, to that end: You're ejected from the thread.

sigsfried
Posts: 580
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:28 am UTC

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby sigsfried » Wed Sep 12, 2012 12:44 am UTC


No, it's a thread for discussing radical feminism. There are other threads to argue the case against feminism; this isn't one of them.



Surely though the abolition of gender concepts is usually regarded as a radical feminist position. That said it is a position I, to some extent at least, agree with. There are, I believe though I understand some doubt it, clear differences but ultimately it shouldn't matter, at least for employment rights. Lets take something reasonably unarguably, a job where strength is very important. Say fire(wo)man/fire-fighter whatever you want to call that job. Clearly there are other factors but lets say all other things are equal but in choosing between two candidates we have one who is male and one who is female. The thing to do is choose the strongest, not to choose the man because men are more likely to be stronger. Now there is a problem that we may naturally end up with a strong gender imbalance which may dissuade the best person wanting the job, whether this should be taken into account is something I am undecided on.

So then we should be able to move outside employment aspects without needing to totally disregard the possibility of gender concepts. It is here that I personally think most change is needed. Girls are just not expected to be interested in how the world works or how to make things. The result is that girls toys are rubbish. This may be enough to explain the disparity in "hard sciences" though I suspect the fact that they are easier also has something to do with it (women are better academically so it seems natural that they would be attracted to harder subjects, in the UK for example the subject with the highest percentage of men is the one with the highest percentage of As at A-level, though women outperform men in that subject).

EDIT: I just realised I spent two paragraphs trying to say that I both consider the desire for a gender-less state to be a reality both part of radical feminism and something I agree with. I will review this in the morning when I can think more coherently and probably get rid of my overly long justification.

. It's quite troublesome, and science is trying to use them, and is not required to share.


Don't see why. Scientific terms are often misused by the general public. Don't see why biology should expect to be immune to this.

User avatar
firechicago
Posts: 621
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 12:27 pm UTC
Location: One time, I put a snowglobe in the microwave and pushed "Hot Dog"

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby firechicago » Wed Sep 12, 2012 12:47 am UTC

Spambot5546 wrote:This is why I could never justify calling myself a feminist. I know it's wrong, but I'm always going to be more attracted to a "feminine" woman than otherwise.

There's a difference between "I am attracted to women who act/dress/appear stereotypically feminine" and "women who aren't stereotypically feminine are awful! they ought to all conform to my standard of beauty!"

One can be compatible with the mast majority of strains of feminism (and, imho, the strains it's not compatible with are stupid). The other is directly antithetical to just about any strain of feminism.

sigsfried
Posts: 580
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:28 am UTC

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby sigsfried » Wed Sep 12, 2012 12:50 am UTC


There's a difference between "I am attracted to women who act/dress/appear stereotypically feminine" and "women who aren't stereotypically feminine are awful! they ought to all conform to my standard of beauty!"

One can be compatible with the mast majority of strains of feminism (and, imho, the strains it's not compatible with are stupid). The other is directly antithetical to just about any strain of feminism.


But if most men are more attracted to women who are stereotypically feminine and if most women are heterosexual then the net result of lots of individual male preferences is women being under tremendous pressure to behave in a certain way. It is certainly part of the problem, even if it isn't a readily avoidable one.

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby omgryebread » Wed Sep 12, 2012 1:12 am UTC

Ormurinn wrote:Why are you allowed to advance feminist causes, but he isn't allowed to argue in favour of anti-feminist ones? This is a discussion on feminism, not a safespace for those who don't like their feelings hurt.
Oh for fuck's sake.

Asking someone not to be oppressive is not oppression. This is the same tired argument that those in power have always used to defend themselves. "X harms people and you're trying to remove it? But I like X, why are you oppressing me?!?!?"

It's the same argument that European puritans used. "We just want freedom of religion." So they came to Massachusetts so they could oppress the fuck out of people. (Seriously, the Pilgrims came to America because the Europeans just weren't letting them be oppressive enough.)

It's the same argument that slave owners used before the civil war. "It's about states rights! The government is trying to take away our rights!" Yeah, your rights to own another person. Fuck that right.

You're welcome all you want to desire traditional feminine traits in a women. I like it too! Both my girlfriend and myself present as female, and we're pretty feminine (though, much to my chagrin, if I cut my hair I could easily pass for a rather young boy.)

What you're not welcome to do is say that traditional feminine traits are superior. If you don't like that... sorry. I don't really care about your right to be oppressive. Thankfully, people on these forums tend to agree.


sigsfried wrote:But if most men are more attracted to women who are stereotypically feminine and if most women are heterosexual then the net result of lots of individual male preferences is women being under tremendous pressure to behave in a certain way. It is certainly part of the problem, even if it isn't a readily avoidable one.
I guess it's part of the problem in a superficial sense, because I think preferences are shaped in large part by society: we like feminine women because society promotes that as an ideal and it seeps into us. But an important part of feminism, especially third wave, is not invalidating choices, even if those choices conform to these arbitrary societal ideals. There's nothing wrong with masculine men or feminine women, nor is there anything inherently wrong with liking them.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

sigsfried
Posts: 580
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:28 am UTC

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby sigsfried » Wed Sep 12, 2012 1:26 am UTC

I guess it's part of the problem in a superficial sense, because I think preferences are shaped in large part by society: we like feminine women because society promotes that as an ideal and it seeps into us. But an important part of feminism, especially third wave, is not invalidating choices, even if those choices conform to these arbitrary societal ideals. There's nothing wrong with masculine men or feminine women, nor is there anything inherently wrong with liking them.


Society is made up of lots of individuals. So yes while we shouldn't dismiss individuals (though I don't like the word choice in this I didn't choose to be hetrosexual I am, I didn't choose to find my partner attractive I just do), we can't just ignore the damage done by lots of people making similar choices. True there are actions, such as criticising the worst offenders (e.g. the Page 3 girls in The Sun EDIT: That is to say the Sun for publishing it not the girls for wanting to be in it.) as shaping those attitudes that could aim to change society and thereby change individuals or make individual choice less of an issue because of increased diversity of opinion. Anyway something can be a problem without being necessarily wrong. For example in areas where bicycle thefts are common people not locking their bike might be consider part of the problem, but nobody considers it morally wrong to not lock your bike up.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:34 am UTC

sigsfried wrote:But if most men are more attracted to women who are stereotypically feminine and if most women are heterosexual then the net result of lots of individual male preferences is women being under tremendous pressure to behave in a certain way. It is certainly part of the problem, even if it isn't a readily avoidable one.
It may be part of the reason we have a problem, and it might be a symptom of the problem--or even more likely, it's both. But it isn't, itself, the problem. And that's the important distinction.

The problem isn't that people have certain preferences when it comes to their partners. The problem is that we enforce gender roles--through violence, through pressure, through ostracization, through shame, through guilt, through culture. The problem isn't that we like it when women act demure; the problem is that we punish women for not being demure.

There are ways to break down this enforcement while simultaneously respecting the fact that people's preferences are what they are. I can say that women shouldn't be expected to work in the kitchen while simultaneously respecting all women who prefer to work in the kitchen. I can say that men shouldn't be expected to be attracted to 'feminine' women even as I respect those men who are attracted to 'feminine' women.

Destroy all gender roles, yes--absolutely--but don't do it by dismissing or demeaning the people who exist within them.

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby Ormurinn » Wed Sep 12, 2012 9:27 am UTC

omgryebread wrote:
Ormurinn wrote:Why are you allowed to advance feminist causes, but he isn't allowed to argue in favour of anti-feminist ones? This is a discussion on feminism, not a safespace for those who don't like their feelings hurt.
Oh for fuck's sake.

Asking someone not to be oppressive is not oppression. This is the same tired argument that those in power have always used to defend themselves. "X harms people and you're trying to remove it? But I like X, why are you oppressing me?!?!?"


You've just called someone stating a preference for feminine women "oppressive". You are not being oppressed when someone decides they have different preferences to you. You're not even oppressed when they try to spread their values.

omgryebread wrote:What you're not welcome to do is say that traditional feminine traits are superior. If you don't like that... sorry. I don't really care about your right to be oppressive. Thankfully, people on these forums tend to agree.


Paper beats rock. Shit, was I just oppressive?

Traditional feminine traits are generally positive when expressed in women, and generally negative when expressed in men. It's not "oppressive" to point that out, it's common sense.
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby yurell » Wed Sep 12, 2012 9:38 am UTC

So it's negative to be an effeminate man / masculine woman?
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

User avatar
RoberII
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 9:27 pm UTC

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby RoberII » Wed Sep 12, 2012 10:29 am UTC

Haha, yeah, gender stereotypes never hurt nobody, and arguing explicitly for gender stereotypes is a completely innocent pursuit. Just ask all the homosexuals or transsexuals, none of those guys have ever been physically hurt for not conforming to them.

Seriously though, that was sarcasm.

And yurell, yes that is of course the implication of defending 'traditional gender roles', and it is of course utter bullshit.
IcedT wrote:Also, this raises the important question of whether or not dinosaurs were delicious.


I write poetry!

sigsfried
Posts: 580
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:28 am UTC

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby sigsfried » Wed Sep 12, 2012 10:29 am UTC

Firstly I just want to make an apology for my earler comments. Reading them back they were exceedingly hetronormative, which I can understand many people find greatly homophobic, while nobody has yet commented that does not mean people reading it have not been offended. If so I apologise, I do not wish to change the earlier posts though I feel it is reasonable to let people judge me on my words even if they would rightly come to the conclusion that I am a bigoted individual. I do try not to be but that is hardly an excuse.

The Great Hippo wrote:
sigsfried wrote:But if most men are more attracted to women who are stereotypically feminine and if most women are heterosexual then the net result of lots of individual male preferences is women being under tremendous pressure to behave in a certain way. It is certainly part of the problem, even if it isn't a readily avoidable one.
It may be part of the reason we have a problem, and it might be a symptom of the problem--or even more likely, it's both. But it isn't, itself, the problem. And that's the important distinction.

The problem isn't that people have certain preferences when it comes to their partners. The problem is that we enforce gender roles--through violence, through pressure, through ostracization, through shame, through guilt, through culture. The problem isn't that we like it when women act demure; the problem is that we punish women for not being demure.

There are ways to break down this enforcement while simultaneously respecting the fact that people's preferences are what they are. I can say that women shouldn't be expected to work in the kitchen while simultaneously respecting all women who prefer to work in the kitchen. I can say that men shouldn't be expected to be attracted to 'feminine' women even as I respect those men who are attracted to 'feminine' women.

Destroy all gender roles, yes--absolutely--but don't do it by dismissing or demeaning the people who exist within them.


Lets for a moment step away from the more difficult area of sexual preferences. Similar things happen elsewhere for example it is normally argued that too few women study the so called hard sciences (I am sure I could use the example of men studying some courses such as gender studies or nursing but I have no experience with those subjects so I do not know if the same bursaries and outreach activities targeted at men exist, though I have no reason to assume they don't). Now there are certainly a variety of reasons for this some of which may be biological though personally I am not convinced. I am sure nobody would consider it dismissing or demeaning to aim to change this, yet it is in its way dismissing the choices of many women who choose not to study those subjects. That is similar to what I would like to see change. This is a problem due to gender roles but to go through the ones you mentioned I doubt this is due to violence, ostracization, shame or guilt.

So I am not saying any individual is wrong to choose certain things, but that the net result of many similar choices is highly damaging and aiming to change those things is not unreasonable. Finally I feel that given the current male dominated nature of society if men are asked to make some minor changes to make things better for women then I would not have any great objection. Indeed I went to a talk yesterday when someone was arguing for a slightly (~1%) higher tax rate on men and while I can't say I would support it I certainly would oppose it, provided it was as suggested invested in getting more women into things like further education and in providing for better women's crisis shelters which are chronically underfunded.
Last edited by sigsfried on Wed Sep 12, 2012 10:47 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby Ormurinn » Wed Sep 12, 2012 10:32 am UTC

yurell wrote:So it's negative to be an effeminate man / masculine woman?


Yes. Fortunately, people aren't born masculine or feminine. They might be born with greater or lesser predilections towards one or the other (and obviously men are more inclined to be masculine and women to be feminine), but that doesn't mean a society where men strive to be masculine and women strive to be feminine isn't superior to one where both strive to be androgynous.
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

User avatar
RoberII
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 9:27 pm UTC

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby RoberII » Wed Sep 12, 2012 10:55 am UTC

Going by the usual ideas of what masculinity entails, namely strength, dominance, assertiveness, I'm pretty sure you just said that all women should be weak, submissive and demure. (Now, you could mean something else, but I would be shocked, surprised and bewildered)

Now, I am a 25-year old white dude, and I don't usually presume to talk on behalf of women, but I'm pretty sure that I speak on behalf of the women here when I say to you: Go fuck yourself.

(In fact, I'm also sure I speak on behalf of most of the guys.)
IcedT wrote:Also, this raises the important question of whether or not dinosaurs were delicious.


I write poetry!

HungryHobo
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am UTC

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby HungryHobo » Wed Sep 12, 2012 11:14 am UTC

sigsfried wrote: extra being-a-man tax


I think this is kind of "fuck men" stuff is what people justifiably have a problem with.

Not everything can be justified by starting a sentence with "given the male dominated society/ patriarchy/ similar"

when someone starts calling for taking an extra 200 dollars from a male janitor on 20k vs a female janitor on 20k because "fuck men"(dressed up nicely of course) you cross the line from equality into simple misandry.
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby Ormurinn » Wed Sep 12, 2012 11:29 am UTC

RoberII wrote:Going by the usual ideas of what masculinity entails, namely strength, dominance, assertiveness, I'm pretty sure you just said that all women should be weak, submissive and demure. (Now, you could mean something else, but I would be shocked, surprised and bewildered)

Now, I am a 25-year old white dude, and I don't usually presume to talk on behalf of women, but I'm pretty sure that I speak on behalf of the women here when I say to you: Go fuck yourself.

(In fact, I'm also sure I speak on behalf of most of the guys.)


You're assuming that femininity is necessarily the polar opposite of masculinity. Why are you assuming that?

Masculinity to me is the exercise of the Noble Virtues through the prism of male experience and capability.

Femininity is the exercise of the Noble Virtues through the prism of female experience and capability.

For instance, bearing a child is an exercise of the virtue of fidelity through the prism of female capability. Men can't express fidelity in this way because they can't bear children. bearing children can therefore be an act of femininity.

Avenging a wrongdoing is the exercise of the virtue of honour. Men are generally more likely to want revenge than women, so this is through the prism of male experience. Generally, therefore, seeking revenge is a masculine act.

I want both men and women to be strong and assertive - but (average) men and (average) women are fundamentally different - so they will be strong and assertive (and since we're speaking of ideals, steadfast, honourable, self reliant) in different ways based on their different biology and different experience - self reliance for a man is more likely to include household repairs, for instance because men are more drawn to engineering tasks than women. Men are more prone to physical violence than women, so are more likely to express honour by joining the military.

There are going to be people outside the norms of society - there are plenty of women who can't bear children, men who cant seek revenge et cetera. There will be women who express some virtues in masculine ways, and men who express some in feminine ways. Many of these people will still conform to expectations of masculinity and femininity in other ways. Some wont.

I've no problem with these people, but throwing out ideals like masculinity and femininity because a minority finds them unreachable is unfair to the majority of society who are benefited by them. The message of a fair feminism shouldn't be that masculinity and femininity are bad concepts - it should be that the minority outside them aren't any less worthy for not being able to reach them in some way.

Dont "radically alter the societal concept of gender." Just say "some people don't conform. treat them nicely too, ok?"

(treating them badly would be un-feminine and un-masculine incidentally, because it violates Hospitality)

HungryHobo wrote:
sigsfried wrote: extra being-a-man tax


I think this is kind of "fuck men" stuff is what people justifiably have a problem with.

Not everything can be justified by starting a sentence with "given the male dominated society/ patriarchy/ similar"

when someone starts calling for taking an extra 200 dollars from a male janitor on 20k vs a female janitor on 20k because "fuck men"(dressed up nicely of course) you cross the line from equality into simple misandry.


A little sexism in society is required because men and women are different. I'd be broadly OK with a higher marginal rate of tax for being a man, with the proceeds used in a woman-exclusive way. Paying for maternity leave might be a good use of it - if companies themselves didn't have to stump up for employees who aren't working, some of the reticence to hire women in some field might disappear.
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests