On April 13 2012 07:54 Liquid`Drone wrote: Norwegian males who apply for jobs in fields dominated by women will generally find that they are absolutely favourized. The difference is that generally jobs dominated by women won't have that many male applicants, because they generally pay significantly less.
That's my point though. No one minds disporortionate representation at low-status opportunities; feminists don't really complain that there are too few women coal miners, and men don't complain there are too few male babysitters. But when it comes to actually desirable things (e.g. higher pay and better opportunities) that are dominated by women, feminists oppose or at least don't support anything to fix it.
For example, women are now disproportionately represented at the undergraduate level in the United States and some other first world nations. However, feminists regard this as proof that women are better students, and suggesting affirmative action to help men get into college (implicitly, at the expense of women) would never be tolerated by feminsts. By contrast, wherever men dominate, feminists view this as proof of discrimination, rather than evidence of superiority or preferences. There's a sexist double standard going on there.
There aren't any desireable jobs dominated by women because women have never been in a position where they could assign themselves more prestigeous or desireable jobs.. This is the entire reason why feminism (equality for both genders) has almost exclusively consisted of providing benefits for females; females have historically been, for lack of a better term, shafted by society.
And in norway, following the realization that girls have been doing better at all levels of the educational system for the past 10-20 years, there has been a lot of political focus on how to make boys perform better. It doesn't only go one way.
Feminism deals with equality between both genders. In norway, we're pretty close to achieving it, and we have actually largely moved away from the word "feminist", and we instead use the word "likestilling", which literally means equality. From my perception of american society, you are not yet in a position where changing feminism to equality makes sense, because the historical imbalances between the genders have yet to be erased.
This is very much true, what you say about "likestilling". But it doesn't touch on all the issues where "likestilling" is counter productive, which there are plenty off. So while you, good sir, are not incorrect; "likestilling" is far from perfect in practice.
Basically, what you say does not go against what you replied to. It is informative, but you're both quite right in what you write.
On April 13 2012 08:40 Cutlery wrote: I can come with an example actually, of how things work in practice. I had my very own 8th grade in science (I'm not an educated teacher, just educated. Nor employed as a teacher), and taking my class to go see Star Trek (2009) was... well, a hazzle. I got a great deal at the local movie-theatre, where we were to pay about 5 bucks per head (which is cheap compared to the typical 18 bucks for a typical ticket). Now collecting 5 bucks per 8th grader, in one of the richest coutnries in the world, is actually illegal. Because we should all be equal, no one is allowed to do anything.
So what we did was, basically, that we had a bakesale at school, so school-children with 1 dollar can buy a slice of cake! Amazing. I bought all the remaining cake-scraps as I figured I'd be the one to pay the remainder anyway, which I was completely fine with. And the remainder, well, I bent the rules. Basically I paid the remainder. Told all my pupils that I'd take care of the rest, but if they wanted they could slip me 2 bucks each so that I potentially wouldn't lose any money on it (I'm just a poor student, but I gladly paid 100 bucks so my class could go see star-trek). I'm not sure if that was actually allowed or not; if the 2 bucks can be viewed as a bribe in our rich and modern society. But atleast no one was excluded. Everyone had equal opportunity to see star-trek for free (read: on my dime). And this has been the trend.
When I went to school this rule did not exist. Yes, school should be free, but activities without school funding were allowed and encouraged if parents stepped in to take the bill. But that was 8 years ago. Now it simply isn't allowed. Collecting money for activities, even 2 bucks for those who would rather see star trek than do school-tasks, creates social differences, where people who can't afford 2 bucks have to stay at school, while the rest go see star-trek. So, norwegian politics decided it be best if no one ever did anything.. My voice in this was that I could fund it. Or we could collectively work to fund things (quite impractical when I only have 2-3 hours every week to teach them science). So for such a rich country, we sure lack basic freedoms to do what we want. All in the name of equality. If not EVERYONE can do it, no one should be allowed to.
That's a surprising lack of freedom for such a developed country. But who am I to talk? Here in America you can't attend a public school outside of your district even if you provide your own transportation.
i still think that the whole feminism-thing is wrong. Sure, in theory equal chances for everyone does sound neat, but what about the following problem:
Women tend to group up and stick together, whereas men fight individually and for themselves (general speaking, yeah there are lots of cases where this does not apply). For example, last week i was in a train, listening on a girls conversation. They just had their second day in their class for becoming occupational therapist (sorry if translated wrong), and it had a distribution of like 30 girls and 3 boys. And they couldn't explain themselves why the boys would not immediately form a group and hang out together, because if it was the opposite (30 boys, 3 girls) the girls would almost certainly do so. Throughout my school education, i got really depressed by how most girls just got better grades for being female. Every female teacher bonded with the girls and gave them better grades, and male teachers went for the girls as well. It's not that they got always better grades than they boys, but the reward-for-performance was definately much higher. On a side note, at least 3 out of 4 girls failed in maths in the final exam, because they didn't want to understand math and kept themselves alive for years by just learning formulae and exercises (not doing them, but remembering them).
Furthermore, there is a debate in my country whether big companies should be forced to have at least a certain ratio of women in their highest ranks. Some companies already do (although i guess for PR purposes mostly, lol). But i honestly think that if a women wants to be up there and is made of chief material she can do so already. It's just like our country has a huge lack of male basic school teacher; is that because it is impossible for a man to become a basic school teacher? In fact, it is not. And no ratio that would force an amount of male basic school teachers can fix this problem; certain jobs just do not appeal to men, others do not appeal to women (or they are not able to fulfill the role of that job).
And finally, i am really confused about how to handle women. I try to be as knightly as possible, but with different results. Some women really love and enjoy it, other call me sexist for it. Then there are women who had a sex change and became men, others just want to be treated like i treat men. But i don't think they really get the implications of being treated like a man. And is it okay to get into fistfights with feminists? Or hit them? Because if i do, i'm suddenly the bad guy. But if i don't, i don't treat them like equals? So many problems, so little answers. Yeah, i never had a GF and most probably never will, because i would not want to hurt a girl i like by being with her. But lets not make this personal. Also i don't think someone will read this part, because i am always confused and therefore write confusing things, and my grammar is not on par with what could be expected from a post on TL. Nvm then, i watched one of those videos halfway through and found them really really boring. Don't need some random guy to paint me a picture where i clearly already have my own strong feelings on a topic that is as old as mankind.
On April 12 2012 02:22 Cybren wrote: I appreciate that Liquid`Drone dropped knowledge bombs in this thread.
But I see a lot of people attacking straw feminists in the thread:
I actually dislike most of the videos on FF but this one is relevant.
I watched the youtube video and it would have a point if non radical feminism is most common and most importantly, if it has a different agenda. So, how common is non radical feminism and what does it stand for?
a non-radical feminist is pretty much exactly like everyone else, except they want equal rights for both genders. A feminist literally means; a person advocating social, political, legal, and economic rights for women equal to those of men.
A thought occurs: that's hopefully an accurate description for every poster on this entire forum. The problem is that the term "feminist" has been mislabeled to such a degree that to many, it is now synonymous with "radical, insane man-hater", but you really shouldn't blame feminists for that, you should blame the ones guilty of the mislabeling.
This is interesting.
For those that don't understand why I asked what non radical feminists want to achieve, if people call themselves feminists without supporting anything special, without having any agendas and so on the label doesn't mean anything.
Part of the reason feminism got hijacked is probably simply because in some countries most of the traditional goals were reached. I was born in the 70's and my mom was an active feminist. In many ways what they stood for is the opposite of modern feminism. Central issues back then were things like abortion rights, sexual freedoms, same pay for same job, nudity taboos etc. For example their efforts for more relaxed views on sex is arguably being destroyed by modern feminism, by the amplification of sexual fears.
How common "radical" feminism is depends on where you look, which is why I asked. You wont find many organized so called non radical feminist where I live. And "advocating social, political, legal, and economic rights for women equal to those of men" is a rarity for sure.
Hm. the norwegian scientists really don't like biology. I get the sense that they feel that accepting biology = defeat. Because if it, say violence, is already inherently biological, then the battle is already lost. Biology can't be changed and so they have nothing they can do to reduce violence to begin with. So they work under the premise that violence isn't biological, because then there is possibility for improvement.
However, there can be no improved conditions if the assumptions are wrong, save for dumb luck. Which is what the norwegian scientists, that he asked, hold on to. So maybe he just chose those on purpose, to create a contrast, maybe even seek out someone who is talking slightly outside of their field, just because their job isn't to change biology but rather learned patterns.
Yet, not much can change if you deny much of the actual cause of things. It is like working with a limited toolset.
Clearly more could be achieved if one knew the whole story, and worked with the totality of things. The reply "how does this affect me", and "this does not interest me", were too common responses, that either they are not qualified to answer the questions asked, or they systematically reject the battles they think they cannot win, because for isntance, they feel they can't control biology and nature.
(Trying to bring things back on topic, rather than letting feminism take the grand spot :p)
Oh, look, sexist patriarchy theory (males = oppressors) in action. Your assumption is that there's no such thing as discrimination against males. Fail.
Strawman fallacy. What you are doing here is basically deflating the term "oppression" so that it applies to everyone. Everyone is oppressed. Therefore, the word no longer has any meaning. If anyone is being honest though, sure, males can be discriminated against. But are they oppressed as a group? To even suggest this is a complete joke. In order to do so one must deflate the definition of oppression to such a degree that it is universal.
You keep using the expression, 'naturalistic fallacy', but it doesn't seem like you mean the same thing by it as G.E. Moore did. What are you talking about?
On April 13 2012 07:54 shinosai wrote: I really hope that you guys aren't suggesting that we engage in naturalistic fallacy.
Oh, look, sexist patriarchy theory (males = oppressors) in action. Your assumption is that there's no such thing as discrimination against males. Fail.
Strawman fallacy. What you are doing here is basically deflating the term "oppression" so that it applies to everyone. Everyone is oppressed. Therefore, the word no longer has any meaning. If anyone is being honest though, sure, males can be discriminated against. But are they oppressed as a group? To even suggest this is a complete joke. In order to do so one must deflate the definition of oppression to such a degree that it is universal.
You keep using the expression, 'naturalistic fallacy', but it doesn't seem like you mean the same thing by it as G.E. Moore did. What are you talking about?
No, I'm not using Moore's definition. I'm referring to the appeal of nature. Specifically where someone uses biology as a reason for why things should continue to be the way they are. It is more "natural" for women to choose jobs that involve less power, therefore it is not discrimination but "natural" biology which has led to current imbalances, and therefore, ought not to be fixed, since natural=right.
Problem being is that just b/c things happen to be a particular way does not mean they ought to, or must be, that way. It may be that human beings have naturally evolved to be violent, but this does not mean we have to be violent, or that being violent is right. Likewise, women might have naturally evolved to seek males who have a great deal of power/influence, probably because they lacked power and resources of their own. But that doesn't mean it ought to be this way, or that we cannot change it.
On April 12 2012 14:50 BluePanther wrote: Sigh, you're still being intellectually dishonest. I guess I can't debate you if you're just going to pretend your argument is infallible and ignore the obvious flaws in it. It's a self-identified group.
You're arguing that I can't judge a group by the actions and words of its members. By that logic, no group can ever be criticized.
Your position is the one that's intellectually dishonest.
I said you cannot judge an individual based on the actions of a minority within a group they identify with. YOU said that you can judge a group based on the actions or words of a minority within that group.
On April 13 2012 07:54 shinosai wrote: I really hope that you guys aren't suggesting that we engage in naturalistic fallacy.
Oh, look, sexist patriarchy theory (males = oppressors) in action. Your assumption is that there's no such thing as discrimination against males. Fail.
Strawman fallacy. What you are doing here is basically deflating the term "oppression" so that it applies to everyone. Everyone is oppressed. Therefore, the word no longer has any meaning. If anyone is being honest though, sure, males can be discriminated against. But are they oppressed as a group? To even suggest this is a complete joke. In order to do so one must deflate the definition of oppression to such a degree that it is universal.
You keep using the expression, 'naturalistic fallacy', but it doesn't seem like you mean the same thing by it as G.E. Moore did. What are you talking about?
No, I'm not using Moore's definition. I'm referring to the appeal of nature. Specifically where someone uses biology as a reason for why things should continue to be the way they are. It is more "natural" for women to choose jobs that involve less power, therefore it is not discrimination but "natural" biology which has led to current imbalances, and therefore, ought not to be fixed, since natural=right.
Problem being is that just b/c things happen to be a particular way does not mean they ought to, or must be, that way. It may be that human beings have naturally evolved to be violent, but this does not mean we have to be violent, or that being violent is right. Likewise, women might have naturally evolved to seek males who have a great deal of power/influence, probably because they lacked power and resources of their own. But that doesn't mean it ought to be this way, or that we cannot change it.
EPT
