On April 12 2012 00:33 GGTeMpLaR wrote: There are different "levels" of feminism.
Some of you are talking about the early levels which merely push for a bare minimum of equality. Others are criticizing higher levels of feminism which are more reminiscent of hardcore affirmative action. Clarify what you mean by feminism before you start arguing about it and it will save everyone a lot of time.
I call BS. When you have a "big tent" social movement where the members accept each other, including extremists, then it's fair to characterize them and their ideologies as a group.
To use an analogy, Republicans allow both moderates and extremists within a certain spectrum to identify as Republicans. Consequently, it's fair to characterize all of these members and their ideologies as a group. There's nothing wrong with criticizing Republicans for representing the wealthy, the religious, or the elderly, because these are all accepted as part of the Republican Party by other Republicans. Likewise, Republicans bear responsibility for including members such as Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and George W. As a political group, the Republican Party also works to advance the policies of its entire membership.
Similarly, feminism as a social movement accepts radical feminists (including those who advocate the elimination of men) as part of their group. And as a political entity, feminism has accomplished and continues to accomplish some terrible things throughout the world, such as the erasure of male rape/DV victims, the criminalization of paternity testing, and establishment of sexist quotas. The most powerful and institutionally entrenched feminists (politicians, women's studies professors, etc) also tend to be the most extreme. Put simply, feminism as a group is morally bankrupt, and individual feminists who are more moderate don't make that characterization a strawman.
On April 12 2012 02:22 Cybren wrote: But I see a lot of people attacking straw feminists in the thread:
No one is attacking a straw feminist. All of the things being criticized are actual criticisms of feminists as a group.
To use an analogy, the Tea Party members are not straw Republicans, because they are accepted as Republicans. Until the Republican Party disowns/disavows them, attacking their ideas as representative of Republicans is perfectly fair game.
Likewise, feminists do not excommunicate members/factions who are misandrist, and some of the core aspects of feminist ideology such as patriarchy theory are misandrist. Accordingly, it's not a strawman to say that feminists are misandrist. If feminists don't want to be seen as misandrist, statistically challenged pathological liars, then they better start condemning all the members who act that way.
This is intellectually dishonest to the highest degree. You cannot extend a blanket statement from extremists to cover moderates in any.movement.
It's the equivalent to saying "All Muslims are terrorists because some Muslims are terrorists and they share a tag so therefore must all fall into the same category of beliefs."
On April 11 2012 20:30 sunprince wrote: Because feminism ≠ equality. How does requiring companies to have 40% female board members (when there's a smaller number of women with the prerequisite experience) work out to equality in your book? How about maintaining that women cannot rape men, and then including that in the definition of rape under the Violence Against Women Act? Or insisting that sexism against men and female privilege don't exist? Supporting the extremely slanted family court system which completely ignores father's rights? Banning paternity tests to protect women who engage in paternity fraud? Advocating the elimination of the male sex? Refusing to acknowledge that nearly half of domestic violence victims are men? Perpetuating the ridiculously sexist notion that women are agency-less objects that are acted upon, while men are responsible for everything? Calling everyone who disagrees with them a misogynist, like you are?
Feminism is nothing more than an ideological special interest group that often promotes misandry, elevates women's interests above men's, and engages in statistically challenged "scholarship" and pathological lying to promote an agenda.
I don't support feminism because I'm an egalitarian.
On April 12 2012 06:31 sunprince wrote:
I call BS. When you have a "big tent" social movement where the members accept each other, including extremists, then it's fair to characterize them and their ideologies as a group.
To use an analogy, Republicans allow both moderates and extremists within a certain spectrum to identify as Republicans. Consequently, it's fair to characterize all of these members and their ideologies as a group. There's nothing wrong with criticizing Republicans for representing the wealthy, the religious, or the elderly, because these are all accepted as part of the Republican Party by other Republicans. Likewise, Republicans bear responsibility for including members such as Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and George W. As a political group, the Republican Party also works to advance the policies of its entire membership.
Similarly, feminism as a social movement accepts radical feminists (including those who advocate the elimination of men) as part of their group. And as a political entity, feminism has accomplished and continues to accomplish some terrible things throughout the world, such as the erasure of male rape/DV victims, the criminalization of paternity testing, and establishment of sexist quotas. The most powerful and institutionally entrenched feminists (politicians, women's studies professors, etc) also tend to be the most extreme. Put simply, feminism as a group is morally bankrupt, and individual feminists who are more moderate don't make that characterization a strawman.
You are arguing that, because people claiming to be feminists do things that create inequality among the sexes, feminism does not promote equality. This is fallacious logic. Declaring that, because a statement is true, the converse of that statement is also true is completely irrational.
If I told you that because apples, oranges, and bananas are fruit, all fruit are either apples, oranges, or bananas, you would think my logic ridiculous. Yet you claim that, because groups of people who claim to be feminist are practicing what you believe to be sexist policies, feminism as a whole is inherently sexist.
Your argument is not only illogical, but it also makes a rather large assumption: that people who claim to be feminist in fact represent feminism. I don't think that it is reasonable to assume that women advocating deliberately sexist policies who claim to be feminists are in fact feminist. Feminism is usually defined as a movement that attempts to achieve equal rights for men and women. In my personal experience, the majority of people I meet who label themselves feminists support equal rights for both sexes. These individuals are as egalitarian as you are.
To address your Republican party analogy, I would argue that members of the Republican Party do not necessarily represent Republican beliefs. For example, many of Ron Paul's beliefs differ from those of the Republican Party but he is still running as a Republican candidate. Many Republicans do not accept Ron Paul as a "true Republican," but they do not protest his self-identification as Republican because there is no legal basis for removing him from the Republican Party. I would not argue that Republicans are "morally bankrupt" because they do not actively attempt to discredit party members whose beliefs do not coincide with the official positions of the party.
On April 12 2012 10:04 BluePanther wrote: This is intellectually dishonest to the highest degree. You cannot extend a blanket statement from extremists to cover moderates in any.movement.
You can if the extremists are accepted as members of the movement. I used "extremist" in the general sense, not within the context of the movement. Radical feminists might be regarded as extremists by the general population, but are accepted as part of the movement by other feminists.
On April 12 2012 10:04 BluePanther wrote: It's the equivalent to saying "All Muslims are terrorists because some Muslims are terrorists and they share a tag so therefore must all fall into the same category of beliefs."
When Muslims engage in terrorist acts, most other Muslims condemn them for it and call their actions un-Islamic. Furthermore, you can examine the ideological texts and teachings of Muslims to find that terrorism actually is incompatible with the Muslim faith.
The same cannot be said of feminists. When feminists act in ways that are misandrist, statistically challenged, or deceptive, they are not condemned by other feminists.
For example, the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) was created/pushed for by feminists, applauded by virtually all feminsts, and continues to be defended by feminists today in the midst of its renewal, despite the fact that it erases male victims of rape/domestic violence, establishes funding only for female victims, and infringes on the rights of accused in a way that even the ACLU (traditionally allies of feminists) called "repugnant". Feminsts perpetuate the wage gap myth, fought for the banning of paternity tests and sexist quotas, and support the ridiculously sexist family courts. Feminsts applauded and supported Lorena Bobbitt when she mutilated the gentials of her husband 19 years ago, and rallied behind Catherine Kieu Becker when she did the same last year. Likewise, feminist ideological text includes radical feminist Valerie Solanas's SCUM Manifesto, which advocates genocide.
On April 12 2012 10:46 Rainling wrote: If I told you that because apples, oranges, and bananas are fruit, all fruit are either apples, oranges, or bananas, you would think my logic ridiculous. Yet you claim that, because groups of people who claim to be feminist are practicing what you believe to be sexist policies, feminism as a whole is inherently sexist.
Try reading more carefully. I am not saying that sexist women claim to be feminist. I'm saying that feminists accept sexist women among their ranks, and also that feminist ideology is inherently sexist.
On April 12 2012 10:46 Rainling wrote: Your argument is not only illogical, but it also makes a rather large assumption: that people who claim to be feminist in fact represent feminism. I don't think that it is reasonable to assume that women advocating deliberately sexist policies who claim to be feminists are in fact feminist.
It's reasonable when other feminists consider them feminist, and when their actions are completely in line with feminist ideology and assumptions.
On April 12 2012 10:46 Rainling wrote: Feminism is usually defined as a movement that attempts to achieve equal rights for men and women.
No, it's not. It's usually defined as a movement that attempts to achieve equal rights for women. Can you name even one feminist campaign for men's rights?
On April 12 2012 10:46 Rainling wrote: In my personal experience, the majority of people I meet who label themselves feminists support equal rights for both sexes. These individuals are as egalitarian as you are.
I don't actually disagree completely with you here, as my experience with many feminist friends (despite our differences) both on the gendersphere and IRL suggests that the majority of feminists consider themselves egalitarian.
However, I will say that most feminists are blind (willfully or not) to the sexism that pervades feminist ideology, the fact that institutionally powerful feminists (writers, politicians, professors, etc.) tend to be extermist, and the fact that feminism has caused grievous harms to both men and women. Additionally, most feminists are hesistant to call out other feminists for their sexism (a huge blind spot perpetuated at least in part by the fact that the existence of sexism against men is not held in consensus).
On April 12 2012 10:46 Rainling wrote: To address your Republican party analogy, I would argue that members of the Republican Party do not necessarily represent Republican beliefs. For example, many of Ron Paul's beliefs differ from those of the Republican Party but he is still running as a Republican candidate. Many Republicans do not accept Ron Paul as a "true Republican," but they do not protest his self-identification as Republican because there is no legal basis for removing him from the Republican Party. I would not argue that Republicans are "morally bankrupt" because they do not actively attempt to discredit party members whose beliefs do not coincide with the official positions of the party.
What's key there is that many Republicans don't accept Ron Paul as a "true Republican". The same cannot be said about feminists, as they don't label people like Valerie Solanas, Catherine MacKinnon, or Andrea Dworkin as "not true feminists".
On April 12 2012 02:04 EienShinwa wrote: Men and women are not the same is my honest opinion. We are not the same, and as a result there are different things expected of us, such as females giving birth and males giving the life. It's interesting to see it from the documentary point of view that we are brainwashed into having boy and girl gender roles. I always thought that since both of our genders were given the opportunity to do what we want, we are equal, but I guess it isn't the case if we are raised "brainwashed" by cultural influences.
I don't think you watched the whole documentary. It only shows that part at the beginning to show both sides of the argument, in the end biology prevailed.
It is heavily in favour of biological reasons rather than cultural reasons. You see the first interviewees being proved completely wrong and they get really uncomfortable when shown solid proof that boys act completely different and have completely different interests to girls as soon as they are born.
That's why even with perfect "gender equality" we will still only have 10% ratio of girls as engineers, and 10% ratio of boys as nurses.
Your responses are well thought out, and I probably was too harsh in my response because I didn't understand the logic behind your statements. However, I don't understand one point that you made.
I do not understand why you believe that feminist ideology is inherently sexist because it attempts to achieve equal rights for women and does not typically concern itself with achieving equal rights for men. Another example of this type of ideology is the African-American Civil Rights Movement. This movement had the goal of achieving equal rights for African Americans. It addressed real and unjust discrimination against African Americans. You could make the argument that this movement was inherently racist, because it only furthered the rights of one racial group. However, I would argue that the movement was created to address an unjust situation and was not intended to further the rights of African Americans past an equal balance with those of other racial groups.
I think that feminism is indistinguishable from this movement excepting the particular group whose rights it is furthering. Although there are people who call themselves feminists who are sexist, the movement by definition is intended to equalize rights. Even today women are discriminated against, just as men are also discriminated against. Feminism is intended to address a particular type of discrimination that is a real and current problem, and I see no problem with that. Even if sexist people are accepted as feminists in today's society, that does not change what feminism actually is. I think that feminism is an egalitarian movement, just like the African-American Civil Rights Movement. They both focus on a specific aspect of equality (women's rights, African American rights) but do not seek to impede the rights of other groups.
The episode about IQ and race was the best so far, brings some light to the subject. The theory about the jews doing only accounting in the middle ages slowly making them superior in mathematical skills does hold some weight, that could be the reason why now they are better at math, the same goes with dark latinos like myself, some 100 years ago most likely 100% of my 'race' were doing hard labour in farms where mathematical skills were not needed, it's obvious my ancestors weren't going to develop such a skill, therefore it's no surprise the average jew does better than the average latino in math,we could probably whip them in a boxing ring though lol.
You can if the extremists are accepted as members of the movement. I used "extremist" in the general sense, not within the context of the movement. Radical feminists might be regarded as extremists by the general population, but are accepted as part of the movement by other feminists.
On April 12 2012 10:04 BluePanther wrote: It's the equivalent to saying "All Muslims are terrorists because some Muslims are terrorists and they share a tag so therefore must all fall into the same category of beliefs."
When Muslims engage in terrorist acts, most other Muslims condemn them for it and call their actions un-Islamic. Furthermore, you can examine the ideological texts and teachings of Muslims to find that terrorism actually is incompatible with the Muslim faith.
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.
On April 09 2012 00:49 Rainling wrote: the purpose of feminism is to establish equal rights for men and women.
If that was true it would be called equalism, no?
Very interesting videos.
You're right, feminism isn't necessarily about attempting to establish equal rights for both sexes. That wasn't a reasonable statement. Some people consider feminism's purpose to be establishing equal rights for both sexes, but the prevailing interpretation of its purpose is establishing equal rights for women.
Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women.[1][2] In addition, feminism seeks to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist is a "person whose beliefs and behavior are based on feminism.
Equal rights for one half = equal rights for both halves. Meh.
On April 12 2012 14:12 Nevermind86 wrote: The episode about IQ and race was the best so far, brings some light to the subject. The theory about the jews doing only accounting in the middle ages slowly making them superior in mathematical skills does hold some weight, that could be the reason why now they are better at math, the same goes with dark latinos like myself, some 100 years ago most likely 100% of my 'race' were doing hard labour in farms where mathematical skills were not needed, it's obvious my ancestors weren't going to develop such a skill, therefore it's no surprise the average jew does better than the average latino in math,we could probably whip them in a boxing ring though lol.
I remembe when this episode aired, and there was a gigantic hulabaloo about how racist Harald Eia was. I applaud him for being brave enough to talk about issues that are generally taboo in Norway (yes we have free speech, but i.e. being far right or talking about "races"* is extremely frowned upon and most people won't even listen). Accepting simple things like "races" exist and that our DNAs are different would be very nice for fields like the medical sciences, not having to use primitive treatments like defaulting to the same types of medicines and dosages for people, instead of doing a genetest to determine what would be most efficient for that person. Like someone already mentioned, he is definitely some sort of national hero, if not for this, then for all his previous shows.
What you say about developing mathematical skills over such a short time sounds strange, though. Can't remember the videos any longer, does it get implied? Wouldn't evolving into a group of people whose brains adapted to being more efficient in math and accounting would take millions and millions of years, even with such a forced path. On the other hand, the nurture side would probably weigh heavily, teaching their kids the crafts from a young age, and refining their way of teaching it.
*I write races in "" because it's used differently in humans. We are all homo sapiens sapiens, but our DNA can vary to an amount that would equate to different races in animals. Iirc africans and northen europeans can be as much as 3% different?
On April 09 2012 00:49 Rainling wrote: the purpose of feminism is to establish equal rights for men and women.
If that was true it would be called equalism, no?
Very interesting videos.
that's just silly. the nametag feminism was given to the movement at a time where genders were absolutely unequal in terms of rights. trying to invalidate the movement by stating that the name is slightly archaic.. I don't really see the merit of this. The purpose of feminism is, has been, and will always be to establish equal rights for men and women, not to establish superior rights for women compared to men.
Allow me to elaborate: It's very possible to argue that feminism has gone "far enough" and that there's not much, if any need, for official policing anymore. It's very possible to find valid arguments against all types of affermative action - among these that you consider "the best man for the job", or "employer's freedom in choosing who to hire" as overriding principles, or "it invalidates the efforts of females who actually qualified by their own merits because it adds suspicion that they only got the job because the employer was forced to fulfill some quota". There are more, but I'm content with listing these. And while this doesn't apply specificly to you mrtoasty, what really irks me, is when people invent some type of grander, man-hating motive to this whole process.
Gender-related quota schemes have the intention of reducing/eliminating historical imbalances between genders. They're considered important because people have a strong tendency to hire/favour those similar to themselves, thus this historical imbalance is considered something that would never be eliminated without official policing. Further, there were logical reasons why different societies evolved into patriarchies in the past. These reasons are no longer relevant, thus attempting to make society move away from the patriarchy of the past is also a logical course of action. Stating that you think it has gone far enough, that you feel genders have equal opportunities in today's society, is valid (although it is also less correct the further you move from scandinavia). Stating that the methods used to reach this goal are counter-productive, or that they're harmful in other ways, is absolutely valid. But don't question the motives: the goal of feminism is still to give equal rights to both genders.
(and don't quote me some irrelevant militant feminist to prove me wrong, those are not responsible for policy making.)
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?
On April 12 2012 14:12 Nevermind86 wrote: The episode about IQ and race was the best so far, brings some light to the subject. The theory about the jews doing only accounting in the middle ages slowly making them superior in mathematical skills does hold some weight, that could be the reason why now they are better at math, the same goes with dark latinos like myself, some 100 years ago most likely 100% of my 'race' were doing hard labour in farms where mathematical skills were not needed, it's obvious my ancestors weren't going to develop such a skill, therefore it's no surprise the average jew does better than the average latino in math,we could probably whip them in a boxing ring though lol.
I remembe when this episode aired, and there was a gigantic hulabaloo about how racist Harald Eia was. I applaud him for being brave enough to talk about issues that are generally taboo in Norway (yes we have free speech, but i.e. being far right or talking about "races"* is extremely frowned upon and most people won't even listen). Accepting simple things like "races" exist and that our DNAs are different would be very nice for fields like the medical sciences, not having to use primitive treatments like defaulting to the same types of medicines and dosages for people, instead of doing a genetest to determine what would be most efficient for that person. Like someone already mentioned, he is definitely some sort of national hero, if not for this, then for all his previous shows.
What you say about developing mathematical skills over such a short time sounds strange, though. Can't remember the videos any longer, does it get implied? Wouldn't evolving into a group of people whose brains adapted to being more efficient in math and accounting would take millions and millions of years, even with such a forced path. On the other hand, the nurture side would probably weigh heavily, teaching their kids the crafts from a young age, and refining their way of teaching it.
*I write races in "" because it's used differently in humans. We are all homo sapiens sapiens, but our DNA can vary to an amount that would equate to different races in animals. Iirc africans and northen europeans can be as much as 3% different?
I could see inbreeding playing a part maybe... but yeah that sounds pretty far fetched.
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.
On April 12 2012 14:12 Nevermind86 wrote: The episode about IQ and race was the best so far, brings some light to the subject. The theory about the jews doing only accounting in the middle ages slowly making them superior in mathematical skills does hold some weight, that could be the reason why now they are better at math, the same goes with dark latinos like myself, some 100 years ago most likely 100% of my 'race' were doing hard labour in farms where mathematical skills were not needed, it's obvious my ancestors weren't going to develop such a skill, therefore it's no surprise the average jew does better than the average latino in math,we could probably whip them in a boxing ring though lol.
I remembe when this episode aired, and there was a gigantic hulabaloo about how racist Harald Eia was. I applaud him for being brave enough to talk about issues that are generally taboo in Norway (yes we have free speech, but i.e. being far right or talking about "races"* is extremely frowned upon and most people won't even listen). Accepting simple things like "races" exist and that our DNAs are different would be very nice for fields like the medical sciences, not having to use primitive treatments like defaulting to the same types of medicines and dosages for people, instead of doing a genetest to determine what would be most efficient for that person. Like someone already mentioned, he is definitely some sort of national hero, if not for this, then for all his previous shows.
What you say about developing mathematical skills over such a short time sounds strange, though. Can't remember the videos any longer, does it get implied? Wouldn't evolving into a group of people whose brains adapted to being more efficient in math and accounting would take millions and millions of years, even with such a forced path. On the other hand, the nurture side would probably weigh heavily, teaching their kids the crafts from a young age, and refining their way of teaching it.
*I write races in "" because it's used differentlyit in humans. We are all homo sapiens sapiens, but our DNA can vary to an amount that would equate to different races in animals. Iirc africans and northen europeans can be as much as 3% different?
I've practiced martial arts a lot and love watching boxing, there are clear differences between the races, you 'figure them out' while practicing with different people... Look at boxing, the lightest divisions are dominated by champions of japan, the philipines, some africans, etc, from like 122 pounds to 140 pounds mexicans and some other latin americans bring it, also african americans, then in the middleweight divisions the african americans rule supreme, then in the heavyweight division east europeans rule.
Why is that, well my explanation it's hard to put in scientific terms but it goes something like this: The japanese/philipines peoples are naturally shorter and leaner, their natural self is at about 5'6"-5'8" at that height their muscles are fully developed, a person from Holland where the average man is much taller, if he were 5'6" his muscles wouldn't look good, they would look like the ones of a teenager, hell even his face, a bellow average man "genetically"; in the 122 to 140 pound divisions latin americans rule, they are a little taller but their muscles at 5'7"-5'9" look fully developed, all good mexican champions are from those weights; at middleweight african americans rule supreme because they are tall, fast and strong but lean enough to make weight; then in the heavyweight division nordic and eastern europeans rule because they are 6'5"-6'7" but at that weight they are still lean and big muscles. The heavyweight division is the most interesting one, 'back in the days' where Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Tyson, Hollyfield ruled, these african americans were naturally shorter and lighter than these days heavyweights, Ali of all those was the tallest one at 6'3" and around 215 pounds... compare that to Vitali Klichko at 6'7" 245 pounds... it's very hard to find an african american with Klitchko's size and that still does good, the same can be said about japenese middleweights, even though they can be tall at 6'1" or 6'2" they are noticeably slower, weaker than african americans, before the fight happends you kinda now that genetically they don't stand a chance, the physical differences are too noticeable, also you cannot find a mexican heavyweight that is top level in boxing history, also you cannot find an eastern european in the lower weight classes, and in the cases you do find a mexican heavyweight or a flyweight eastern european they probably don't have talent at all, compared to their country men in the 'right' weight classes.
On April 09 2012 02:47 giesecke wrote: watched the first 3 episodes, i think its quite funny how much the shown social researchers focus only on their "field" and pretty much don't care about other parts of science.
Watched different documentaries about science, basically if they admit that their study/field is a pile of bullshit instead of trying to make it work, many of them won't have a job......
No, they should just change their rhetoric and stop denying obvious statistical truths because they aren't in line with their world view and also aren't judged appropriate to accept due to ideological and sometimes ethical reasons. I am constantly amazed how people can be personally offended by objective numbers being presented. It's not an opinion it's simple fact -.-
"Yes, there could be a biological component here, but the observations made could also be explained by <wage gaps, education levels, w/e> which we can see in studies X, Y, Z...".
Yes, of course they should. I'm not defending them in anyway, I'm just explaining the sad truth. A sociologist/psycholgist giving up on the nature vs nurture debate can't simply do research on genes. They don't have the knowledge.
Another thing about IQ and race is that there are not that many 'pure races' anymore, a lot of african americans have white blood too, same with latinos, etc, it's hard to say then that african americans do worse at IQ tests because of race if they have white blood in their veins too. http://www.skepdic.com/iqrace.html This is a good read, maybe there are differences in IQ between races but as much as 20 points doubt it, that is too big, but small differences of few points could really be there, the same way that mexicans are naturally shorter than eastern europeans.
EPT
