|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 22 2013 07:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2013 04:18 sam!zdat wrote:lol I love everyone telling me I have no idea what I'm talking about and that I'm a bad person for suggesting that not all feminism is perfect. quick! sam is impure! GET HIM! On December 21 2013 21:40 KwarK wrote:
5) You're literally attacking being supportive to people here as a threat on intellectual culture. no i'm not idiot. i'm attacking the mindless chanting of slogans and the ingroup-outgroup waving of flags and political purity contests, which is what all of you are doing to me right now for example, did you know that it is taboo in the humanities to talk about biology? like, if you bring up the world biology, you are automatically a fascist. that is not critical thought. there is a useless anti-essentialist dogma that everybody goes around shouting to make themselves feel like they are on the Good Guys but just prevents any actually interesting discussion. feminism in the academy today is 95 percent litmus testing, I don't mean actual feminists who are real scholars and have more nuanced views, I mean grad students and mediocre academics who make their careers off regurgitating half-digested slogans. i'm attacking the idea, demonstrated BY ALL OF YOU HERE AND NOW, that there are two positions available in the entire discursive field 1) pro feminism! go women! we r fighting oppression! and 2) bad women! get in the kitchen! let us oppress you!. it's stupid. you are all so terrified of being the number 2 that you trip over yourselves to babble inanities about how you are number 1. it's embarrassing. On December 21 2013 21:40 KwarK wrote:
You're a rich white kid who spends all his time bitching about rich white kids whining about how people being pro things is ruining the world. News flash for you here, everyone everywhere has always been pro you, you were born into that, you don't know what the alternative is like. You have literally no fucking clue about what you're talking about. oh YEAH! well... you're BRITISH. and, like, british people did a lot of bad stuff and things were good for them. so you have literally no fucking clue what you're talking about. so THERE asshole. this is what I'm TALKING ABOUT, is that identity political discourse gives assholes like kwark the idea that they are sooooo smart for attacking the impure subject positions of people who might have ideas that are not the orthodoxy. If I don't agree with you, the problem is obviously that I am a kulak straight white man and am therefore an objective enemy. what a smug prick On December 21 2013 19:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 21 2013 14:58 sam!zdat wrote:
the original point is that you guys should stop feeling so smug in your PC belongingness because actually, it's true, 1) what most people walk around talking about as feminism is lazy, boring, stupid, and useless at best 2) many academic feminists say extreme, ridiculous stuff, because academics are paid to say extreme, ridiculous stuff, that's what we do 3) a lot of feminism is mostly about the problems of wealthy white women
Oh, please.... Let me have a good laugh: which academic feminist have you read, again? idk man I've spent too much time listening to academic feminists to want to read more academic feminism than I've already had to. what should I read? most of them just accept deconstruction/poststructuralist theses and run with them, I think deconstruction is a bunch of crap, so it's hard for me to care very much about what feminists say if they go around grounding stuff in deconstruction. "well derrida says that these binary things are very very bad, so there's a binary, that's bad! did i do good?" also the problem with these identity politics academic discourses is that even when there is real critical discussion going on among the highest levels, it trickles down into this bowdlerized litmus test doctrines which aren't actually what the real feminists talk about. It's the same with queer theory, my queer theory friends complain about the way that everyone misuses queer theory in order to play their PC games. On December 22 2013 01:54 stuhowell wrote:On December 21 2013 15:10 sam!zdat wrote:
1) that's a stupid, vague generalization that doesn't actually contribute to any meaningful analysis, it's just part of the "bludgeon you with statistics" discourse like liberal humanitarian philanthropy and stuff.
2) then you're in denial
3) trickle down liberation? please
4) NO. that is NOT what taking something seriously is. taking something seriously DOES NOT MEAN EVALUATING IT "FAIRLY" TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT YOU THINK IT IS RIGHT. taking something seriously means trying to understand why somebody thinks that and what you can learn from using an attempt to understand their beliefs in order to estrange your own. The goal is for YOU to LEARN SOMETHING USEFUL and THINK DIFFICULT QUESTIONS that you might otherwise dismiss because you are chanting slogans and not trying to challenge yourself
5) bullshit, nobody bothers to read what those motherfuckers even said. take your intellectual purification scrubdown back to the inquisition, that is NOT the goal of critical thought
this is why i hate the academy
the point is, nothing that any asshole in any university can say is going to help the "one half of mankind" that is suffering under the cruel oppression of the patriarchy. all the cheerleading in the world and jumping over one another to come up with the fanciest-sounding obscurantist screeds and declare our allegiance to the forces of Light doesn't do jack shit, you have to actually try to think about questions that you don't already know the answer to and try to solve them. a crazy idea i know Nothing like a philosophy degree to embolden you to patronize people who have ideas just as valid as yours. you registered just for this bullshit line? go away PBU On December 22 2013 00:22 WhiteDog wrote:
while a logical approach would lead them to deconstruct the idea of "woman" (since there are diverse ways to be a woman) and thus instantly put an end to "feminism". this is the goal of queer theory, more or less On December 22 2013 00:22 WhiteDog wrote:
Now feminism is more attractive than class struggle for young rich white kids who cannot accept how the world is because they can show a bright face before the inacceptable (it's a revolution against your education, your parents, a revolution in which you are the victim) while acknowledging class struggle, when you come from a favored social background, cannot come without some kind of guilt. bingbingbingbingbingbingbingbingbing take home message: women suck just as much as any other kind of person, and feminists suck just as much as every other kind of academic. every kind of person sucks equally, but they suck in distinctive ways. how's that for a radical egalitarianism bitchez oh and: camille paglia has a good point in pretty much everything she says, like any provocateur, the hysterical reaction against her is proof that she is needling something crucial. also, like any provocateur, the point is not to accept what she says at face value. You're not the enemy, you're just completely clueless. When you question why it's worth being pro gay rights you don't know what the fuck because you've never been denied basic social rights due to your sexuality. When you're bitching about how they're just pro things and get mad when people aren't pro things all you're really doing is displaying a massive ignorance towards the real problems due to never having to deal with that shit because of your privilege. Going "you're British" shows you've completely missed the point, my nationality has zero clue with my ability to recognise this issue. Your dismissal of being pro things as mindless while living in a society built by people just like you to be pro people just like you could not be more relevant. Your base setting is pro you, what you're doing in this topic is chanting "pro upper class white boys" and you're doing it with a hundred times the mindlessness of the feminists you whine about. It's so automatic you don't even realise you're chanting and yet it's far more poisonous than the demands for basic safety and equal rights you're opposed to. Feminism isn't mindless, they're people who have reached a conclusion different to yours and for some reason you think it's clever to be against them. Your argument is, at its core, if a group are chanting slogans then I'm opposed to what they're chanting.
Damn, Kwark..,
|
I like how sam has become the servant of the status quo who wants to preserve a society built to the advantage of people like him. my objection to identity politics is not that identity politics is too radical and wants to shake up the order of things, my objection to identity politics is that IT IS NOT RADICAL ENOUGH
it is this fantasy that if only you could remove discrimination and bigotry, then the liberal democratic order would function just fine and everything would be nice and happy. the point is not to integrate marginalized people into the liberal democratic order (the goal of identity politics), the point is to smash the liberal democratic order
|
United States42866 Posts
On December 22 2013 08:05 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2013 07:44 KwarK wrote:
Your base setting is pro you, what you're doing in this topic is chanting "pro upper class white boys" and you're doing it with a hundred times the mindlessness of the feminists you whine about. bah you're the one attacking people based on their subject positions, not me. but clearly, i am just a servant of the patriarchy. it must be so, because I dare to challenge "feminism." what a nice, a priori defense of any possible objection feminism has built into it. i wish I had some objective enemies I could go purge, also I wonder what specifically you think I think that you object to? like, what actual concrete thing do I advocate that is involved in oppressing women? If anything, I am trying to do some good by criticizing an echo-chamber ideology. unless you think that it is our duty never to criticize feminism because maybe somebody's feelings will get hurt. i bet that's going to help a lot Show nested quote +On December 22 2013 07:44 KwarK wrote:
When you question why it's worth being pro gay rights wtf you tool when did I ever say anything remotely like this. what gay rights am I opposed to? jesus christ all of you are a bunch of fucking manichees
You've been banging on about how they're all just picking some collective issues to care about because it makes them feel cool and ideologically correct when all they really want to do is be pro some shit whereas you, the hipster who just happens to be straight, white and rich as fuck, thinks they're mindless by doing so.
i'm attacking the mindless chanting of slogans and the ingroup-outgroup waving of flags and political purity contests, which is what all of you are doing to me right now
|
my point is that their fantasy that systemic injustice can be rectified through the purification of discourse and the integration of different identity categories into the liberal democratic order is a fantasy which distracts from the need for actual, radical social change.
and, yes, a lot of people have a very shallow involvement in this sort of "activist politics" because they are riding a bandwagon. you can think that's me too, whatever, I don't give a fuck. I should probably have picked a bandwagon that didn't alienate me from so many of my peers, though, how stupid of me
|
United States42866 Posts
On December 22 2013 08:26 sam!zdat wrote:
I like how sam has become the servant of the status quo who wants to preserve a society built to the advantage of people like him. my objection to identity politics is not that identity politics is too radical and wants to shake up the order of things, my objection to identity politics is that IT IS NOT RADICAL ENOUGH
it is this fantasy that if only you could remove discrimination and bigotry, then the liberal democratic order would function just fine and everything would be nice and happy. the point is not to integrate marginalized people into the liberal democratic order (the goal of identity politics), the point is to smash the liberal democratic order
Votes for women, check. Women in the workplace, check. Gay marriage, check. Personal safety, working on it but good progress. Men getting custody of kids, needs far more work. Reproductive rights, under siege but still here.
THE REVOLUTION!!!!!111 no progress since Cuba.
So you just sit there in your privileged bubble making zero progress while we go about making the world a far better place for the people in it. After all, it's not like they're your problems, they're just mindlessly chanting about stuff that doesn't concern you.
|
do you think that rights discourse is the panacea of all oppression?
do you think also that I somehow object to those things? or do you think I am saying that feminism has never done any good ever and was always a bad bad thing? because that's stupid, I obviously don't think that
On December 22 2013 08:32 KwarK wrote:
while we go about making the world a far better place for the people in it. .
too bad about the global capitalism tumor and looming environmental catastrophe, then. but good job mr enlightened liberal. let's just keep riding the progress train into the happy liberal future
|
On December 22 2013 08:31 sam!zdat wrote:
my point is that their fantasy that systemic injustice can be rectified through the purification of discourse and the integration of different identity categories into the liberal democratic order is a fantasy which distracts from the need for actual, radical social change.
So you are upset that the identity movement is not on your side when it comes to critiquing power? It sounds like to me that you are more concerned about your own political goal rather than the minority group itself. For example the ultimate goal of the LGBT movement is not to encourage people to vote a specific ideology (although I see that enough even with Democratic Party) but rather to fight bigotry and create equality which means that we will see LGBT people vote for all ideologies in the future.
|
yes, the identity movement is a liberal movement, not a radical movement. that's my objection. it seeks to maintain the current (catastrophically unsustainable) order and to integrate oppressed people into it. I think this is a stupid fantasy (not least because the capitalist order GENERATES OPPRESSED PEOPLE AS A STRUCTURAL FUNCTION). We need to enact radical change to create a society in which everyone is emancipated. it's not that I don't care about whatever rights, it's that I think all of those things need to be united in a radical collective politics which sees that it is utterly pointless to worry about your rights when the world is being torn apart by capitalism, and that it doesn't matter if you can get gay married when the environmental catastrophe hits.
|
United States42866 Posts
It must make things so much easier to pick an ideological enemy that is beyond any possible opposition by the individual, consider it, give up and then be condescending whenever anyone else bothers fighting smaller battles. Especially when the smaller battles only concern other people who you can sneer at for being so small minded as to care about shit which directly impacts them on a daily basis whereas you, above it all, can see (but ignore) the real enemy.
Also how are you simultaneously making the argument that feminism is mindless chanting while attempting to pit massively different feminist ideologies against each other. It's a hugely disparate movement precisely because it's not mindless, equality means something very different to the womanism feminists than the middle class white feminists who preceded them. This started by people arguing that Paglia, who claims to be a feminist for some godforsaken reason, is a moron and not a real feminist.
|
On December 22 2013 08:37 sam!zdat wrote:
yes, the identity movement is a liberal movement, not a radical movement. that's my objection. it seeks to maintain the current (catastrophically unsustainable) order and to integrate oppressed people into it. I think this is a stupid fantasy. We need to enact radical change to create a society in which everyone is emancipated. it's not that I don't care about whatever rights, it's that I think all of those things need to be united in a radical collective politics which sees that it is utterly pointless to worry about your rights when the world is being torn apart by capitalism, and that it doesn't matter if you can get gay married when the environmental catastrophe hits.
Boo hoo, get over it, most Americans are liberal, and probably will remain liberal when they actually become more informed to what is going on.
Here is a good Norman Finkelstein quote on politics
“I don’t personally advocate anything and I do not think politics is anything to do with what a person, personally advocates. That was one of the many useful things I got from Gandhi. Politics is not personal, politics is you want to build a mass movement for change, and if you want to build a mass movement for change, you got to begin where the people are. If you are not going where the people are, you are no longer talking to the people, you are talking to yourself.”
Personally, I am against marriage as a whole. I wish that the queer liberation movement was more about abolishing the institutions of marriage which is connected to the state, but most Americans want marriage and we should naturally respect that and work towards it and not to restrict the liberty of others for my own personal political gains.
|
yes, we know kwark, you are a closet thatcherite and you don't think that it's possible to fight capitalism so we shouldn't try. I'll make you a deal. you start caring about fighting capitalism, and I'll start caring about gay rights. how does that sound?
I've stated explicitly, several times, that what I am objecting to is a vulgarized ideology (that pervades campus life) and not actual feminist writers, many of whom are useless ideologues, but many of whom are serious thinkers and not what I am complaining about. I'm complaining about the "spot the binary" games which I have suffered through during the last quarter, and have become an effort-free substitute for critical thought in the humanities.
On December 22 2013 08:41 Shiragaku wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2013 08:37 sam!zdat wrote:
yes, the identity movement is a liberal movement, not a radical movement. that's my objection. it seeks to maintain the current (catastrophically unsustainable) order and to integrate oppressed people into it. I think this is a stupid fantasy. We need to enact radical change to create a society in which everyone is emancipated. it's not that I don't care about whatever rights, it's that I think all of those things need to be united in a radical collective politics which sees that it is utterly pointless to worry about your rights when the world is being torn apart by capitalism, and that it doesn't matter if you can get gay married when the environmental catastrophe hits. Boo hoo, get over it, most Americans are liberal, and probably will remain liberal when they actually become more informed to what is going on.
LOL and you call yourself a radical.
"most Americans are sexist assholes, and probably will remain sexist assholes when they actually become more informed to what is going on"
|
On December 22 2013 07:57 Poffel wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2013 07:39 Nyxisto wrote:On December 22 2013 05:58 Poffel wrote:On December 22 2013 05:26 Nyxisto wrote:
That's exactly the kind of reasoning that has always been used and was always wrong. "Hey the role of women really has changed in the last two decades, but now they finally reached their biological barrier!". History has proven this wrong dozens of times, and who says that it's true know? I wouldn't be surprised if we see equal amounts of female and male engineers in fifty years, and women will be represented equally in nearly every field of work.
Ridiculous. If "equal representation in nearly every field" was the goal, then we must model our ideas of women rights after the vanguard of equality that is the Islamic world - given that evidence clearly shows that the percentile of women in science per country (worldwide) is by far the highest in Turkey (~865 or 39% of BAs in physics are female in Turkey, compared to e.g. ~792 or 21% in the USA). But you do know that Turkey is not the Iran right? In fact you're not even allowed to wear a head rag in public buildings. First, you should get your facts straight - especially if you claim something like "in fact", you might want to take a look at wikipedia to verify that the law you're jabbering about has not been changed in the past decade - which it, in factual fact, has. But even if we neglect that you pulled this "fact" out of your ass as well, do you really think that Turkey, which you may or may not find to deserve the label "Islamic" with its population of 99.8% Muslims ( source), is the hallmark of feminist justice?
The headscarf ban is still active, as the law to remove it by Erdogan was repealed in 08 by the high court. (Source )
And i don't even need to visit Wikipedia for that, because instead of you, I've actually been to the country often enough to know that basically no one wears head scarfs in public institutions. The country has been secular since it's founding by Attatürk, and although Erdogan opposes it relatively little has changed. I don't know why we're talking about the country anyway as i never said the world should become Turkey, lol.
@sam
You keep on going with your rants about capitalism, but at least propose some kind of working alternative. Maybe that will draw this discussion away from feminism because i'm getting headaches and i don't want KwarK or you to kill someone.
|
On December 22 2013 08:46 sam!zdat wrote:yes, we know kwark, you are a closet thatcherite and you don't think that it's possible to fight capitalism so we shouldn't try. I'll make you a deal. you start caring about fighting capitalism, and I'll start caring about gay rights. how does that sound? I've stated explicitly, several times, that what I am objecting to is a vulgarized ideology (that pervades campus life) and not actual feminist writers, many of whom are useless ideologues, but many of whom are serious thinkers and not what I am complaining about. I'm complaining about the "spot the binary" games which I have suffered through during the last quarter, and have become an effort-free substitute for critical thought in the humanities. Show nested quote +On December 22 2013 08:41 Shiragaku wrote:On December 22 2013 08:37 sam!zdat wrote:
yes, the identity movement is a liberal movement, not a radical movement. that's my objection. it seeks to maintain the current (catastrophically unsustainable) order and to integrate oppressed people into it. I think this is a stupid fantasy. We need to enact radical change to create a society in which everyone is emancipated. it's not that I don't care about whatever rights, it's that I think all of those things need to be united in a radical collective politics which sees that it is utterly pointless to worry about your rights when the world is being torn apart by capitalism, and that it doesn't matter if you can get gay married when the environmental catastrophe hits. Boo hoo, get over it, most Americans are liberal, and probably will remain liberal when they actually become more informed to what is going on. LOL and you call yourself a radical. "most Americans are sexist assholes, and probably will remain sexist assholes when they actually become more informed to what is going on"
What a lazy analogy
|
On December 22 2013 08:50 Nyxisto wrote:
@sam
You keep on going with your rants about capitalism, but at least propose some kind of working alternative.
what do you think I am, the fucking Law Giver?? the Lenin on the Mount who hands down the perfect order? I don't have to have a solution in order to point out that capitalism is some seriously fucked shit.
we need to think about local, regionalized economies. we need to rethink the entire relationship to work and consumption that pervades our culture. But first we have to recognize that capitalism is a horrible hostile AI driving our civilization into catastrophe, and for that you do not need to have some magic solution
On December 22 2013 08:53 Shiragaku wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2013 08:46 sam!zdat wrote:yes, we know kwark, you are a closet thatcherite and you don't think that it's possible to fight capitalism so we shouldn't try. I'll make you a deal. you start caring about fighting capitalism, and I'll start caring about gay rights. how does that sound? I've stated explicitly, several times, that what I am objecting to is a vulgarized ideology (that pervades campus life) and not actual feminist writers, many of whom are useless ideologues, but many of whom are serious thinkers and not what I am complaining about. I'm complaining about the "spot the binary" games which I have suffered through during the last quarter, and have become an effort-free substitute for critical thought in the humanities. On December 22 2013 08:41 Shiragaku wrote:On December 22 2013 08:37 sam!zdat wrote:
yes, the identity movement is a liberal movement, not a radical movement. that's my objection. it seeks to maintain the current (catastrophically unsustainable) order and to integrate oppressed people into it. I think this is a stupid fantasy. We need to enact radical change to create a society in which everyone is emancipated. it's not that I don't care about whatever rights, it's that I think all of those things need to be united in a radical collective politics which sees that it is utterly pointless to worry about your rights when the world is being torn apart by capitalism, and that it doesn't matter if you can get gay married when the environmental catastrophe hits. Boo hoo, get over it, most Americans are liberal, and probably will remain liberal when they actually become more informed to what is going on. LOL and you call yourself a radical. "most Americans are sexist assholes, and probably will remain sexist assholes when they actually become more informed to what is going on" What a lazy comparison
no it isn't. you claim, most people aren't (a), therefore it's pointless to believe that people should be (a). it's directly analogous.
just don't claim to be a radical if you don't actually think that people should advocate radicalism
On December 22 2013 08:41 Shiragaku wrote:
Personally, I am against marriage as a whole. I wish that the queer liberation movement was more about abolishing the institutions of marriage which is connected to the state, but most Americans want marriage and we should naturally respect that and work towards it and not to restrict the liberty of others for my own personal political gains.
i think marriage should be a contract about raising children together and we shouldn't give tax breaks to DINKs, gay or straight
religious ceremonies are a different issue, should have no interaction with the state, and I am a passionate advocate of religious freedom.
|
On December 22 2013 08:53 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2013 08:50 Nyxisto wrote:
@sam
You keep on going with your rants about capitalism, but at least propose some kind of working alternative. what do you think I am, the fucking Law Giver?? the Lenin on the Mount who hands down the perfect order? I don't have to have a solution in order to point out that capitalism is some seriously fucked shit. we need to think about local, regionalized economies. we need to rethink the entire relationship to work and consumption that pervades our culture. But first we have to recognize that capitalism is a horrible hostile AI driving our civilization into catastrophe, and for that you do not need to have some magic solution Show nested quote +On December 22 2013 08:53 Shiragaku wrote:On December 22 2013 08:46 sam!zdat wrote:yes, we know kwark, you are a closet thatcherite and you don't think that it's possible to fight capitalism so we shouldn't try. I'll make you a deal. you start caring about fighting capitalism, and I'll start caring about gay rights. how does that sound? I've stated explicitly, several times, that what I am objecting to is a vulgarized ideology (that pervades campus life) and not actual feminist writers, many of whom are useless ideologues, but many of whom are serious thinkers and not what I am complaining about. I'm complaining about the "spot the binary" games which I have suffered through during the last quarter, and have become an effort-free substitute for critical thought in the humanities. On December 22 2013 08:41 Shiragaku wrote:On December 22 2013 08:37 sam!zdat wrote:
yes, the identity movement is a liberal movement, not a radical movement. that's my objection. it seeks to maintain the current (catastrophically unsustainable) order and to integrate oppressed people into it. I think this is a stupid fantasy. We need to enact radical change to create a society in which everyone is emancipated. it's not that I don't care about whatever rights, it's that I think all of those things need to be united in a radical collective politics which sees that it is utterly pointless to worry about your rights when the world is being torn apart by capitalism, and that it doesn't matter if you can get gay married when the environmental catastrophe hits. Boo hoo, get over it, most Americans are liberal, and probably will remain liberal when they actually become more informed to what is going on. LOL and you call yourself a radical. "most Americans are sexist assholes, and probably will remain sexist assholes when they actually become more informed to what is going on" What a lazy comparison no it isn't. you claim, most people aren't (a), therefore it's pointless to believe that people should be (a). it's directly analogous. just don't claim to be a radical if you don't actually think that people should advocate radicalism
Of course people should be more radical, but Jesus Christ, do not cultivate yourself, but of course it is easier to do so if you are in academia.
|
you can't criticize me for being a cloistered academic at the same time as you are attacking me for attacking the pretensions of other cloistered academics
|
On December 22 2013 09:01 sam!zdat wrote:
you can't criticize me for being a cloistered academic at the same time as you are attacking me for attacking the pretensions of other cloistered academics
No, you are pretty much doing what most academics do which is to state that they are against academia in general which is to wear the hipster cap. Chomsky does it, Zizek does it, Cornel West does it, Thomas Sowell does it, everyone does it. I cannot help but sigh when I see another cardboard cut out.
|
bah what do you want from me
|
On December 22 2013 09:01 sam!zdat wrote:
you can't criticize me for being a cloistered academic at the same time as you are attacking me for attacking the pretensions of other cloistered academics
Shame on you!
|
On December 22 2013 08:50 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2013 07:57 Poffel wrote:On December 22 2013 07:39 Nyxisto wrote:On December 22 2013 05:58 Poffel wrote:On December 22 2013 05:26 Nyxisto wrote:
That's exactly the kind of reasoning that has always been used and was always wrong. "Hey the role of women really has changed in the last two decades, but now they finally reached their biological barrier!". History has proven this wrong dozens of times, and who says that it's true know? I wouldn't be surprised if we see equal amounts of female and male engineers in fifty years, and women will be represented equally in nearly every field of work.
Ridiculous. If "equal representation in nearly every field" was the goal, then we must model our ideas of women rights after the vanguard of equality that is the Islamic world - given that evidence clearly shows that the percentile of women in science per country (worldwide) is by far the highest in Turkey (~865 or 39% of BAs in physics are female in Turkey, compared to e.g. ~792 or 21% in the USA). But you do know that Turkey is not the Iran right? In fact you're not even allowed to wear a head rag in public buildings. First, you should get your facts straight - especially if you claim something like "in fact", you might want to take a look at wikipedia to verify that the law you're jabbering about has not been changed in the past decade - which it, in factual fact, has. But even if we neglect that you pulled this "fact" out of your ass as well, do you really think that Turkey, which you may or may not find to deserve the label "Islamic" with its population of 99.8% Muslims ( source), is the hallmark of feminist justice? The headscarf ban is still active, as the law to remove it by Erdogan was repealed in 08 by the high court. ( Source ) And i don't even need to visit Wikipedia for that, because instead of you, I've actually been to the country often enough to know that basically no one wears head scarfs in public institutions. The country has been secular since it's founding by Attatürk, and although Erdogan opposes it relatively little has changed. I don't know why we're talking about the country anyway as i never said the world should become Turkey, lol. @sam You keep on going with your rants about capitalism, but at least propose some kind of working alternative. Maybe that will draw this discussion away from feminism because i'm getting headaches and i don't want KwarK or you to kill someone.
Your source says, and I quote from the section you lined, "This section requires expansion. (April 2009)" to indicate that it has fallen behind on new developments in 2010. And we've been debating this off topic bullshit only because you contested my use of the word "Islamic" in reference to a society of 99.8% Muslims to hide that your 'equal representation in nearly every field' is a very very very bad indicator of gender equality and makes for an even worse goal of the feminist cause - because if it was a good indicator, the world indeed should be more like Turkey when it comes to women's rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
