EPTInteresting series of documentaries about feminism - Page 20
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
| ||
|
ComaDose
Canada10357 Posts
| ||
|
Sokrates
738 Posts
On February 25 2014 05:22 ComaDose wrote: Yeah I guess he just really wants somewhere to complain, poor guy. Isnt that what you do when you blame the patriarchy? | ||
|
farvacola
United States18825 Posts
| ||
|
ComaDose
Canada10357 Posts
On February 25 2014 05:23 Sokrates wrote: Funny that this comes from people that believe in nearly unnoticable microaggressions that are the main force that shapes the society we live in right now. Isnt that what you do when you blame the patriarchy? no i don't bump an old thread with a misguided individuals opinions, that has nothing to do with the OP, as an attack on a movement, when i blame the patriarchy. | ||
|
Sokrates
738 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18825 Posts
| ||
|
ComaDose
Canada10357 Posts
why not bump some random asian hating thread instead of the feminist hating thread, shes asian too. | ||
|
Sokrates
738 Posts
| ||
|
ComaDose
Canada10357 Posts
On February 25 2014 05:45 Sokrates wrote: "Opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism" isnt that specifically what feminists are against? And she is not asian. Oh oops i read Y.L as YU somehow. sorry bout the Asian comment. My point is still that you could have picked on her heritage as easily as the fact shes a feminist based on relevancy. I'm not sure how far off topic you wanna go / I want to go but we can talk about what feminists are if you want. Of course you have to understand that there is no panel of feminists or some kind of feminist church / pope where ideals are approved of and officially endorsed. So i think the only good defninition would be the original one plus any modifications. It started as a purely anti-oppression against women movement and i often refer to this picture: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8RSOC.jpg) imo feminism is still the movement against oppression against women. it has succeeded in removing institutionalized oppression in a relatively small part of the world but I believe there is still work to be done, obviously in other parts of the world but also more subtly cleaning up the literally thousands of years of shitting on women. I don't believe it has anything to do with LGBT or racism other than that most well informed people are against oppression of anybody. of course i am just one feminist so what i say means as much as what any other person says. But this article primarily relates to a potentially racist research paper and i think the onus is on you to say what it has to do with the OP or what makes it bump worthy. | ||
|
Sokrates
738 Posts
Why i posted it? Because i think many people following this ideology think the same why and try to silence people that dont agree with them. She just speaks out what many people in her deparment think. They are also very quick at spewing out buzzwords like "homophobe" "sexist" "misogynoist" etc. "Sandra Y.L. Korn ’14, a Crimson editorial writer, is a joint history of science and studies of women, gender and sexuality concentrator in Eliot House." | ||
|
ComaDose
Canada10357 Posts
| ||
|
Sokrates
738 Posts
Isnt the whole feminism discussion in this thread about that? | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On February 25 2014 06:39 Sokrates wrote: My point is that you shouldnt blindly trust things that sound good. Many people fall for that trap thinking they are on the right side by blindly following an ideology. If that is your point, then the stance taken by that professor is almost completely irrelevant to your point. It seems to me, instead, that you are trying to discredit feminism by looking at a few individual cases in which a feminist said/did something you disagree with. The problem is that even if that professor thought that the individuals that hold views which differ from hers should be crucified and set on fire, it would say nothing about feminism. | ||
|
Sokrates
738 Posts
I mean all your arguments are just not refuteable because you make them unrefutable. Gender is a social construct = not falsifiable. Patriarchy = not falsifiable. People having malicious intents (or unknowingly) = not refutable. So tell me a way to acutally convince you that modern day feminism is nothing else than an ideology that is malicious. If i argue your way that isnt possible. Once you are trapped in this beliefs there is no way out it is circular logic. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18825 Posts
Larger sample sizes generally lead to increased precision when estimating unknown parameters. For example, if we wish to know the proportion of a certain species of fish that is infected with a pathogen, we would generally have a more accurate estimate of this proportion if we sampled and examined 200 rather than 100 fish. Several fundamental facts of mathematical statistics describe this phenomenon, including the law of large numbers and the central limit theorem. In some situations, the increase in accuracy for larger sample sizes is minimal, or even non-existent. This can result from the presence of systematic errors or strong dependence in the data, or if the data follow a heavy-tailed distribution. Sample sizes are judged based on the quality of the resulting estimates. For example, if a proportion is being estimated, one may wish to have the 95% confidence interval be less than 0.06 units wide. Alternatively, sample size may be assessed based on the power of a hypothesis test. For example, if we are comparing the support for a certain political candidate among women with the support for that candidate among men, we may wish to have 80% power to detect a difference in the support levels of 0.04 units. That last bit is rather important; I'm sure you can see how it relates to the matter at hand. And as an aside, in sociology and the other "softer" sciences, falsifiability, while certainly nice, is not a luxury afforded to many of the most interesting and complex topics in their fields, gender politics being one of them. | ||
|
Sokrates
738 Posts
And then your other argument: No way of refuting it. Just blind belief. You believe in a unfalsifiable theory. You dont understand my argumentation: If i believe in something that is wrong i might, even with a benevolent intend, draw the wrong conclusions from it with vile consequences. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On February 25 2014 09:15 Sokrates wrote: So tell me a way to acutally convince you that modern day feminism is nothing else than an ideology that is malicious. If i argue your way that isnt possible. Once you are trapped in this beliefs there is no way out it is circular logic. Take major/very influential feminist authors and organizations and look at what they do/write in the name of feminism. Take major academic works on feminism and see how it has been studied. Alternatively, open a dictionary, notice that the definition of feminism is "a doctrine or movement that advocates equal rights for women" (Collins), and realize that you are fighting a strawman that you constructed yourself out of individual cases which were hardly representative of the aims of feminism. | ||
|
Sokrates
738 Posts
I mean how hard is it for you to understand that just because you stand for nice things doesnt automatically include doing good. There are countless examples in history where people had good intends with vile consquences. How blind can you be? Women already have equal rights but the outcome isnt equal. So how do we change it? Well we push certain agendas that are there to "correct" things. And if they dont make things the way we like it then we push more agendas etc. If someone publically says something that women and men are not the same the person will get eaten alive by the media. Again you give me no concrete answer you just rotate in your logical construct. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
Of course, if you're more interested in entertaining that strawman of yours by cherry-picking individual stories in which a single feminist did/said something you disapprove of, there's not much anyone can do for you. | ||
| ||
