|
On April 27 2016 06:35 JimmiC wrote:
I would say feminism has been very successful in the western world and in some cases to the point where the extremists have pushed the pendulum past equal. In the rest of the world it has a long ways to go.
I think it's an odd thing but often the most extreme people of any movement tend to do harm to that movement. Where as the person most skilled or talented and something tends to the most for it.
I believe the west is very very misogynistic and is only slightly better than most of the world--and I'm not even certain about that.
|
On April 27 2016 06:35 JimmiC wrote:
I would say feminism has been very successful in the western world and in some cases to the point where the extremists have pushed the pendulum past equal. In the rest of the world it has a long ways to go.
I think it's an odd thing but often the most extreme people of any movement tend to do harm to that movement. Where as the person most skilled or talented and something tends to the most for it.
I don't think it's odd. That's what extremists do. Using the fact that a lot of people are in said movement to back up their stupid claims (while in fact all these people don't support the extremists) will trigger two things : first, people not in that movement will regard everyone in that movement as extremists or potential extremists (ie, they'll extremize themselves), second, as a consequence, people in the movement, being looked at like extremists, will have the tendency to join the extremists as a result of being unnecessarily diabolized. Then repeat the process. That's the Self-feeding Circle of Extremism, a.k.a. "hate breeds hate ; extremism is born from extremism".
|
Will this question be asked again?
|
On April 27 2016 08:35 Epishade wrote:
Will this question be asked again?
Hasn't it been already?
|
|
|
|
|
On April 27 2016 09:16 JimmiC wrote:
Yes over and over
But in this context?
|
On April 27 2016 09:17 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 06:54 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 27 2016 06:35 JimmiC wrote:
I would say feminism has been very successful in the western world and in some cases to the point where the extremists have pushed the pendulum past equal. In the rest of the world it has a long ways to go.
I think it's an odd thing but often the most extreme people of any movement tend to do harm to that movement. Where as the person most skilled or talented and something tends to the most for it. I believe the west is very very misogynistic and is only slightly better than most of the world--and I'm not even certain about that. Agree to disagree on this.
I think it depends. Sometimes women are favoured (our school system) sometimrs men are favoured(senior management/ financial sector). Although I think in a lot of cases it'll simply take some years before women are equal or surpass men.
|
|
|
On April 27 2016 11:48 JimmiC wrote:
Since gay men are into men how come a hyper masculine ideal is not what they are after and how they act. Most gay men are more feminine with some being hyper feminine does this not some what go against what they "should" be attracted too. Same thing for lesbians.
Cart before the horse.
First, the phrase "most gay men are more feminine" is false. The gay men who are feminine are ones you are able to more easily perceive as gay--but that does not mean that being gay and being feminine are causative. There are men and women who embody what we have deemed as "feminine" traits. When gay men do this, society finds it more acceptable because they are already outsiders anyway. Straight men who are like this are shunned and are usually accused of being gay, or treated as such.
The truth is that there isn't really such a thing as "feminine traits" and "masculine traits" but simply human traits wherein we project whether that trait is masculine or feminine (pitch of voice for example). Men in western societies are super policed and super controlled to perform to gender norms, but since we praise those gender norms no one bats an eye. No looks at a body builder who eats lots of meat and goes "isn't it weird that he likes being strong?" because it is assumed that those types of traits are what we should naturally strive for. In a truly gender equal society, men acting "feminine" would be considered as straight as men acting "masculine" because the concept of masculine and feminine outside of biology would be weird to that society. We are a long way from there, mainly because the west is super misogynist, but mainly because we are only just starting to really explore what that means from societal identity perspective.
|
On April 27 2016 05:08 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 04:45 xM(Z wrote:On April 27 2016 03:42 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 27 2016 03:30 xM(Z wrote:
i said nothing about sex(ism). i can do a discussion about that but it'll end the same:
- what drives sexism?
- stupid people.
then fix stupid. A.) Its not mutually exclusive. Feminists are people who see things wrong in society that is targeting the female identity. This does not mean they don't care for blacks or the poor. This means that, amongst their many opinions, one of them is an awareness that the female identity is mistreated in society (By "stupid people" in your words), and hence they want to "fix stupid" (your words). B.) A woman who is a feminist that beats up a man because he is not treating her the way she wants him to treat her, is still a feminist even if the actions she is projecting is not relevant to feminism. People have many layers and many different ways they act and respond to stimuli. Someone who is or perceives themselves to be feminists will, at times, do stupid things. Take you for example, you feel that you somehow are a decent human being despite evidence to the contrary. Its evident by little things such as your inability to see the actions of a man opening a door as simply the actions of that individual, but the actions of a woman responding to that man are the actions of all women or a subset of women. Your inability to see the hypocrisy and overly limited way you see the world does not hinder your ability to think of yourself as a good person. This doesn't mean that you shouldn't think yourself a decent human being--how you perceive yourself to be is your own business. How you are perceived by others is the business of others. for god sake man, you're not getting it. what the man feels or doesn't feel, what happens to him or doesn't happen to him is and always will be a secondary/tangential point here. the main point is that the same gesture, opening a door(you can have the door opened by a robot for all i care), triggers two totally different responses from two feminist women based on their (own)different definitions of feminism. unless your whole point is that feminism means different things to different feminists and i should respect that because <ihavenoideawhy> then all i can say is ... "lol?" (i'd rather accept the biblical definition of God). feminism caring about racism/other causes for the less privileged ones is a different discussion/topic. i never said they don't care about others but implied that if the root of all evil is stupid, then why do you need churches and cults and sects?. + Show Spoiler +else - what is female identity?, what is society?(whom does it include?, aliens?, the amazonian tribes?), why fixing stupid doesn't fix everything?; delimitate current discussions, create different ones if you want but don't mix them if you give me generalizations i'll stop replaying because i do not see them useful. what i want from you is an applied form of feminism(e.g. - theoretical physics vs applied physics); if you don't have one, then gl with life and stuff; i will not back up feminism, ever. @OtherWorld - yes, it's what i want and i wish luck to whomever invented the word or to whomever needs to define it because all i want is to have something to apply irl. Not all women act the same, hence why some act one way and others act another way. I know its hard for you to think that women are not simply a hive mind--but it is possible that they have individual thoughts and feelings. As for your questions, let me try to explain it using small words so that you can better grasp it. Female Identity - Society has roles that it determines as female and male. As an example, in modern day america, it is understood that women wear dresses, and that men wearing dresses is not normal. There are other roles of course (things like Husband/Bride dichotomies, or Dating Scene Etiquette, etc... Women are not the only gender that follows these tropes, men do it as well. Feminism places focus on predefined expectations of what women should or shouldn't do, or what women should or shouldn't feel. Returning back to your example: The reason some feminists are okay with doors being opened and some feminists are not okay with doors being opened is the whole goal of feminism. That women not be predetermined automatons that all respond the same exact way to stimulus. I know this is hard for someone like you to understand, so let me repeat it. You do not get to decide whether someone is upset or not about something. And just because you would personally not be upset about it, does not mean others are not allowed to. This is called treating other human beings as human beings, and more importantly, to remember that women are also human beings. "Applied Form of Feminism": People act differently from one another and you shouldn't expect all people to react or act the same way to the same stimulus. Some men/women will be slutty, some will be prude, some will like having doors opened, some will not. Treat them all as equals despite they're reactions. This is really not hard, I don't understand why its so difficult for you.
well, if there's a reason for you believe that "the west is very very misogynistic and is only slightly better than most of the world" it has to be that you don't get what i'm talking about; and because you see me as a (at least)fairly stupid misogynistic man, you never will.
so, what you did there in your post was to use the definition of a human being, human with different behavioral moods/reactions, slapped the word feminism around then assumed your whole point has feministic value. i can remove the word feminism from there and the meaning of your post would remain exactly the same; nothing will change so as a conclusion - feminism is irrelevant/useless, a non-issue to the behavior of human beings, so why even bring it up?.
society has no deterministic value on human beings; meaning, it doesn't force new behaviors on humans(it can enforce some behaviors(based on oppression or w/e) but it will never trigger new ones because+ Show Spoiler +it's a damn theoretical concept
~600 BC both women and men were wearing trousers; during early roman times the trousers were considered effeminate and men were wearing short dresses.
clothing started as a practicality and it changed based on one's asshole fashion sense and another one's need to separate men and women aesthetically(because they were physically different). the society didn't changed it, it only folded in line when things were imposed onto it.
(everything else fits into my first paragraph)
closing, there is no way i will "treat them all as equals" if i'm not treated equally because that's not the way equality works.+ Show Spoiler +individuality is a fad of first world countries. i want bee hives and ant mounds, all equals, all slaves to their queens and the queens stuck in perpetual suffering; i figure that's a fair tradeoff(communist upbringing).
@OtherWorld: i expect two communists to behave exactly the same in matters involving communism when following communist agendas. you will never have one communist agree with common ownership and another one disagreeing; the later would not be a communist.
i demand a practical feminism because i'm and asshole and i know that no one will ever be able to define such a thing because the concept of feminism has no practicality what so ever; it's just a theoretical, abstract, divisive guilt trip that can be milked for <gains>.
Edit: for http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/23825-ask-and-answer-stupid-questions-here?page=436#8702 what you fail to see there is that you create both extremes when you prop up a concept, an ideology.
they don't exist in a vacuum and you only label them(well they do but that's a very small minority), you literally create more extremists. feminism created more misogynists by virtue of it coming to be(classical mechanics applies to humans because studies say so).
|
Well you don't have many experience with -isms then. For example, on the question of nuclear plants, two ecologists can have different postures : for some it's unacceptable to go out of nuclear power plants if it means more coal plants on the short-term, for others it's better to have coal plants than nuclear plants on the short-term. Just like there are a lot of disagreements among communists on matters involving communism, that's for example why there are so many different "communist" (at least, far-left) parties in France. And yes, feminism as a concept is abstract, much like any concept.
And yes, feminists being vocal led to the creation of more vocal misogynists, which in turn led to more vocal feminists, etc. That's what I said.
|
On April 26 2016 21:01 iloveav wrote:
If Feminists want women to be equal to men and all men are bad according to feminism, can we assume feminists want good people to turn bad?
On April 26 2016 21:52 Sent. wrote:
That question is a minefield
[4 pages latter]
Explosions. Explosions everywhere!
|
Whats the best proleague team and why is it SKT
|
On April 27 2016 19:38 Zambrah wrote:
Whats the best proleague team and why is it SKT
That's the worst misspelling of JinAir I have ever seen
|
On April 27 2016 09:17 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 06:54 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 27 2016 06:35 JimmiC wrote:
I would say feminism has been very successful in the western world and in some cases to the point where the extremists have pushed the pendulum past equal. In the rest of the world it has a long ways to go.
I think it's an odd thing but often the most extreme people of any movement tend to do harm to that movement. Where as the person most skilled or talented and something tends to the most for it. I believe the west is very very misogynistic and is only slightly better than most of the world--and I'm not even certain about that. Agree to disagree on this.
There's a wealth of data showing how women are discriminated against in western society. It's not a matter of opinion unfortunately.
I'm in science, so I know the examples from science. Some of the most striking studies are applications for positions that were sent to different places with male and female names, otherwise identical. And of course, the applications with male names got a lot more invitations for interviews than the applications with female names.
I know the same has been done by (fiction book) authors, sent the same book to several places under male and female names, and the male names got like 2x the callbacks, and the declined books got much harsher criticism if you had a female name on it.
|
On April 27 2016 22:37 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 09:17 JimmiC wrote:On April 27 2016 06:54 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 27 2016 06:35 JimmiC wrote:
I would say feminism has been very successful in the western world and in some cases to the point where the extremists have pushed the pendulum past equal. In the rest of the world it has a long ways to go.
I think it's an odd thing but often the most extreme people of any movement tend to do harm to that movement. Where as the person most skilled or talented and something tends to the most for it. I believe the west is very very misogynistic and is only slightly better than most of the world--and I'm not even certain about that. Agree to disagree on this. There's a wealth of data showing how women are discriminated against in western society. It's not a matter of opinion unfortunately. I'm in science, so I know the examples from science. Some of the most striking studies are applications for positions that were sent to different places with male and female names, otherwise identical. And of course, the applications with male names got a lot more invitations for interviews than the applications with female names. I know the same has been done by (fiction book) authors, sent the same book to several places under male and female names, and the male names got like 2x the callbacks, and the declined books got much harsher criticism if you had a female name on it.
That's actually why Joanne Rowling used the pen name/ abbreviation J. K. Rowling when writing the Harry Potter books. She was worried she wouldn't be taken seriously as a woman.
|
On April 27 2016 06:54 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 06:35 JimmiC wrote:
I would say feminism has been very successful in the western world and in some cases to the point where the extremists have pushed the pendulum past equal. In the rest of the world it has a long ways to go.
I think it's an odd thing but often the most extreme people of any movement tend to do harm to that movement. Where as the person most skilled or talented and something tends to the most for it. I believe the west is very very misogynistic and is only slightly better than most of the world--and I'm not even certain about that.
I had to cringe at this one. You need to calm down.
Women in the Western World are so discriminated against. The president of the most powerful country in Europe is a woman, the director of the IMF is a woman and probably the most important role in western politics will belong to a woman in November.
Meanwhile in middle-east...how can you even believe something like that?
|
My president is black and yet black people routinely face discrimination in nearly every area of public society in my country.
Try again, and no, playing the relativism card by pointing at the Middle East doesn't work.
|
On April 27 2016 23:15 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 06:54 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 27 2016 06:35 JimmiC wrote:
I would say feminism has been very successful in the western world and in some cases to the point where the extremists have pushed the pendulum past equal. In the rest of the world it has a long ways to go.
I think it's an odd thing but often the most extreme people of any movement tend to do harm to that movement. Where as the person most skilled or talented and something tends to the most for it. I believe the west is very very misogynistic and is only slightly better than most of the world--and I'm not even certain about that. I had to cringe at this one. You need to calm down. Women in the Western World are so discriminated against. The president of the most powerful country in Europe is a woman, the director of the IMF is a woman and probably the most important role in western politics will belong to a woman in November. Meanwhile in middle-east...how can you even believe something like that?
There is no doubt that there is discrimination going on in the western world, but yes, other parts of the world have it much worse.
A quick google found me this heatmap of some gender equality index. Western world indeed ranked highest, india, middle east and northern africa ranked lowest.
interactive heatmap (dark is more equal)
ranking
screenshot of the heatmap for those that are lazy (US ranked 20):
+ Show Spoiler +
There seem to be a couple other indexes around as well if you don't trust this specific one, which just happened to be the first hit for me. I'm sure they'll tell the same story. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wiY6Rqb.png)
