EPTAnyway I am totally, utterly sick of this kind of discussion as it oft occurs on the internet, anyone recommend me some good books on genderisation and that kind of thing? Lighthearted pop philosophy or weighty academic tomes, just would like to educate myself a bit further without having to deal with the shouting and the pissing contests.
Interesting series of documentaries about feminism - Page 29
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27346 Posts
Anyway I am totally, utterly sick of this kind of discussion as it oft occurs on the internet, anyone recommend me some good books on genderisation and that kind of thing? Lighthearted pop philosophy or weighty academic tomes, just would like to educate myself a bit further without having to deal with the shouting and the pissing contests. | ||
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
On April 09 2014 04:17 Wombat_NI wrote: I find myself agreeing on a few points with Jumperer actually to my eternal shame, albeit much of it is nonsense to me. Anyway I am totally, utterly sick of this kind of discussion as it oft occurs on the internet, anyone recommend me some good books on genderisation and that kind of thing? Lighthearted pop philosophy or weighty academic tomes, just would like to educate myself a bit further without having to deal with the shouting and the pissing contests. Martha Nussbaum's book, Sex and Social Justice is pretty good and her essay "Objectification" is also excellent. | ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
On April 09 2014 02:55 Yoav wrote: I usually avoid feminism threads on TL because it saddens me to see how commonplace sexism still is even among internet-literates smart enough to at least pretend to be interested in esports. But it's encouraging to see people jumping hard on Jumperer, even if its only because all the casual sexists have already checked out of the thread. Jumperer: Might makes right is not an argument that will get you very far in life. I know there are philosophical schools that believe it... but no one likes them. You don't make a lot of friends by speaking praises of the Will to Power or Atlas Shrugged. Most folks in our society are governed by some version of the Hebrew monotheist ethical system, where you "do unto other as you would want them to do unto you." Sure, some disagreement exists between those who prefer an active rule of that form, and those who prefer a passive version (don't be a dick), and others add a few ritual prohibitions (usually on diet or sexual activity) but the principle is the same. In such a worldview, you cannot say that it's "fair" for societies to be patriarchal and deny various rights (explicitly or implicitly) to women. And if you do not share this worldview, then you need to back up and try to convince everyone that we must regress to our animal natures, unhindered by developed systems of morality. You are making a huge train of assumptions if you think the natural conclusion of believing in the Hebrew monotheist ethical system implies we have to accept the concept of "patriarchy" and that women are denied their rights in the western civilization (which I do not agree, on muslim countries I would agree) If we are going to systematically discriminate in favor of one half of the population and against the other, we need mountains of unquestionable proof that this the right thing to do. On the other hand, I believe in equality against the law all for all human beings, and as such consider my duty to oppose feminism or any other form of disguised discrimination against sub groups within society, however big they might be. | ||
|
Cam Connor
Canada786 Posts
| ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
On April 09 2014 12:49 cam connor wrote: if you believe in equality you're literally a feminist "There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal. While the first is the condition of a free society, the second means as De Tocqueville describes it, 'a new form of servitude." - F,A, Hayek | ||
|
pajoondies
United States316 Posts
 | ||
|
RockIronrod
Australia1369 Posts
On April 09 2014 12:49 cam connor wrote: if you believe in equality you're literally a feminist No, that's egalitarianism. | ||
|
mdb
Bulgaria4059 Posts
| ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
On April 09 2014 16:47 mdb wrote: Two unequal things cant be equal. i don't know man, maybe evolution is heading us into unisex, in which case, this egalitarianism would be a start i guess | ||
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
Feminism is a means of reaching equality just like gay rights is a means of reaching equality for LGBT people. They both fit under the banner of egalitarianism. | ||
|
puppykiller
United States3137 Posts
| ||
|
RockIronrod
Australia1369 Posts
On April 09 2014 19:19 Shiragaku wrote: Feminism is a means of reaching equality just like gay rights is a means of reaching equality for LGBT people. They both fit under the banner of egalitarianism. Try speaking to a feminist about the issues any of the groups they consider "privileged" face. | ||
|
puppykiller
United States3137 Posts
| ||
|
Kleinmuuhg
Vanuatu4091 Posts
Isnt that fighting the symptoms (some would say with bad side effects) rather than trying to create a society where chances are equal. | ||
|
Arevall
Sweden1133 Posts
On April 09 2014 20:39 puppykiller wrote: Currently I am taking a course in women's studies and there are 2 out of 25~ students who probably wouldn't be able to hold a decent conversation with someone who had differing views. Unfortunately these two are the most vocal but unfortunately this sort of thing just goes with the territory. That being said everyone else I have met in the class could probably discuss the issues. Often it's those kinds of people that opponents use for their feminist stereotype. Most groups in society have some percent of people I just can't stand. One has to look past that  The sentence "Try speaking to a feminist about the issues any of the groups they consider "privileged" face." contains generalizations as to which individuals that would call themselves or are feminists for example. Edit: On April 09 2014 16:47 mdb wrote: Two unequal things cant be equal. I didn't write this to troll or be silly, albeit it might seem this way. Two things that are not the same can still be considered equal in some sense. For example, consider a red circle and a red rectangle. They are equal in color but not in shape. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27346 Posts
| ||
|
RockIronrod
Australia1369 Posts
Seriously guys I used to consider myself a hard left leaning progressive and I'm slowly becoming a centrist, despite changing none of my beliefs, because the spectrum seems to be moving under my feet. Like, this [nsfw] shit, it's completely unfathomable to me how people can do this and expect not to be seen as the bad guys. I don't see how people can be comfortable being under the same banner as these people. Even on a lesser level, whenever I hear about feminists these days it's never about activism to stop the horrific shit happening in India or the Middle-East, it's American universities campaigning against "micro aggressions", or twitter activists not understanding satire or gender studies professors attacking kids over abortion. Do you blame me for just not believing it's just a vocal minority any more? | ||
|
ComaDose
Canada10357 Posts
| ||
|
RockIronrod
Australia1369 Posts
| ||
|
Darkwhite
Norway355 Posts
On April 05 2014 08:49 kwizach wrote: You seem to be a big fan of the stone age. Damn those laws and technologies! There's not much to say here, except that we do not live in the stone age, so there's no reason to have the principles which governed human behavior during the stone age apply to us now. This is such an amazingly obvious statement that I'm baffled I'm even having to argue this point. I don't think you could be more confused about the argument if you tried. We were not talking about small matriarchal/egalitarian societies to compare them to world empires in terms of power. You brought up the idea of studying small egalitarian societies because, as you said yourself - and I quote your own post: "The only way to settle this debate is to artificially create an island full of population where gender roles are not defined or reversed and see what happens. [...] If men starts acting like stereotypical men and women start acting like stereotypical women. Then I am correct in believing that biology plays more role than culture. If the reverse is true, then you are right." Turns out "the reverse is true" - the studies I mentioned showed that men and women scored equally in several cognitive tests in egalitarian societies, while men had an advantage over women in those tests in patriarchal societies. You were wrong. Too bad. It's not about women, men or gender: individuals perform less effectively at given tasks when they have internalized a belief about not being good at that task. If they belong to a group and believe that this group is not good at a particular exercise, they will statistically perform less well at the exercise than if they did not believe that. Psychologists have referred to this as "stereotype threat". It impacts both men and women (and humans in general, regardless of the divide taken into account), and is well documented by scientific research. See for example Angelica Moè, Francesca Pazzaglia (2006), "Following the instructions!: Effects of gender beliefs in mental rotation", Learning and Individual Differences (Journal of Psychology and Education), Vol. 16, No. 4, p. 375: Here is a list of the current top 47 chess players. Note that all of the following 23 countries are all represented: Norway, Armenia, India, Russia, Italy, Bulgaria, the United States, Azerbaijan, Cuba, France, Israel, Ukraine, England, the Netherlands, Hungary, China, the Philippines, Poland, Vietnam, Georgia, Czech Republic, Germany and Latvia. Somehow, all of these countries are represented, despite the vast differences in culture, prosperity and interest in chess between them. Somehow, cultural effects are powerless to prevent this astonishing diversity. Yet, somehow, the best women currently occupy ranks 58 and 176. One might think the cultural barriers to becoming a world class chess player would be more formidable for some kid from the Phillipines than a woman right in the midst of the chess paradise that is Eastern Europe. | ||
| ||
