First that Anita chick trying to get people to buy her video games so she can do a tropes thing, then steals 150k from fundraising and never releases her project that people paid for.
Then that dumb bitch who got herself and two other guys fired for making private jokes about "forking big dongles" to each other.
Now this. Honestly feminism is being hurt more than anything with these last couple months, they are putting women back more than helping right now by perpetuating these stereotypes.
You are just making up these things nobody ever said. If you cant keep up a serious discussion without making up things one never said then just leave the thread and watch game of thrones.
Nobody ever said women cant be CEOs or whatever, there are just less of them and that MAYBE due to the fact that they are less interested in this or whatever other reason. It could also be because of the "patriarchy" or just a mixture of all variables. But you cannot sit there and say "has to be the patriarchy" because you dont fucking know it. Lets say we have a perfect society with no sexism etc. there might be still a gap in the career choices. I
please point to where I said that anybody said women can't be CEOs. the discussion is far, far more oriented around whether any woman should want to in a society apparently perfectly balanced around the biological imperatives of mankind. please point to where I claimed empirically that it can only be the patriarchy and no biological imperative or brain chemistry or complex social ritual could ever count in the discussion. let me help you, with my own response to you previously:
I'm not averse to well-presented generalizations that women might be somewhat biased towards professions built around person-to-person interaction, because I know that sort of research exists, but...you're not presenting it well.
why are you unable to argue from the premises I offer you? why do you call me speculative when the bolded statement exists? I don't want to ignore anyone's contribution, but jesus.
What? Generations of conditioning has nothing to do with females being more geared towards jobs that are related to empathy. It also has nothing to do with women wanting to have a family and raise children, all which are biological factors. Being an engineer, a corporate CEO, or any other high stress job is typically incompatible with some of the biological goals/wants/needs of a woman. As such, they tend not to be in those jobs. It's not rocket science at all.
"biological goals" rofl "biological needs" rofl
i don't know how much longer i can be in this thread for
i really dont understand why it's absurd to suggest that men and women could be greatly affected and differentiated by biological (and the resulting chemical) means
probably because there is absolutely no consensus on what those differentiations amount to. it is unbelievably patronizing to insinuate that only men can handle tech jobs and positions of authority, and more importantly based on this argument that biology = social necessity, only men should want to.
Yes, because over 10,000 years of civilization saying males tend to be hunter/gatherers/protectors and women being caretakers isn't good evidence that men tend to take higher stress jobs and women tend to choose to stay at home/raise families. Because who cares about biology and 10,000+ years of human history.
So, being physically stronger and better suited for hunting is now argument for being a better physicist. Being with children would make you more vulnerable to predators - something that's not really an issue in this day and age.
But hey, you're welcome to keep your caveman mentality.
No, men are biologically driven to bring the food home, as such will do what it takes to bring that food home. Women biologically tend to be more empathetic, better communicators, blah blah blah, as such tend to be caretakers/nurturers. There's a fucking reason why men have for the past 10,000 years tended to take jobs that require risk (hunting, being a king/leader, being a soldier, blah blah blah), and it isn't because the evil patriarchal society has always told women they suck at everything but staying at home.
Bill Gates would have been one of the the best hunter/gatherers is he was alive 10,000 years ago, cuz biology, hurr durr.
/edit
Who are you kidding? Most of us nerds would never survive in hunter/gatherer conditions, and for good reason. We are better than we were thousands of years ago.
Risk is a factor in every job. You don't think women had hierarchies when they were in caves? That it took risk to move up the ranks within their social structure?
The biggest failure of feminism in my mind is it's incredible lack of ability to comprehend that men and women might be very different from one another.
You are just making up these things nobody ever said. If you cant keep up a serious discussion without making up things one never said then just leave the thread and watch game of thrones.
Nobody ever said women cant be CEOs or whatever, there are just less of them and that MAYBE due to the fact that they are less interested in this or whatever other reason. It could also be because of the "patriarchy" or just a mixture of all variables. But you cannot sit there and say "has to be the patriarchy" because you dont fucking know it. Lets say we have a perfect society with no sexism etc. there might be still a gap in the career choices. I
please point to where I said that anybody said women can't be CEOs. the discussion is far, far more oriented around whether any woman should want to in a society apparently perfectly balanced around the biological imperatives of mankind. please point to where I claimed empirically that it can only be the patriarchy and no biological imperative or brain chemistry or complex social ritual could ever count in the discussion. let me help you, with my own response to you previously:
I'm not averse to well-presented generalizations that women might be somewhat biased towards professions built around person-to-person interaction, because I know that sort of research exists, but...you're not presenting it well.
why are you unable to argue from the premises I offer you? why do you call me speculative when the bolded statement exists? I don't want to ignore anyone's contribution, but jesus.
You're arguing that society/environmental conditions play a bigger role than biological factors. That's simply not fucking true. What is the #1 thing a woman looks for in a man? It certainly isn't how fucking good looking he is.
It's whether or not he can provide for her, her child, and can he protect them. For a woman, her biological tendency is to look for safety. And guess fucking what. You don't become a CEO, a highly paid engineer, a computer scientist, a doctor, etc. etc. etc. without taking some serious risk.
Men on the other hand, due to their natural hunter/gatherer role, tend to be high risk-high reward, because you have to take risks in order to provide. That's how it's been for thousands of years, and that shit hasn't changed one bit. So please stop with this bullshit nonsense that the patriarchal society is ruining women or some shit like that.
What? Generations of conditioning has nothing to do with females being more geared towards jobs that are related to empathy. It also has nothing to do with women wanting to have a family and raise children, all which are biological factors. Being an engineer, a corporate CEO, or any other high stress job is typically incompatible with some of the biological goals/wants/needs of a woman. As such, they tend not to be in those jobs. It's not rocket science at all.
"biological goals" rofl "biological needs" rofl
i don't know how much longer i can be in this thread for
i really dont understand why it's absurd to suggest that men and women could be greatly affected and differentiated by biological (and the resulting chemical) means
probably because there is absolutely no consensus on what those differentiations amount to. it is unbelievably patronizing to insinuate that only men can handle tech jobs and positions of authority, and more importantly based on this argument that biology = social necessity, only men should want to.
Yes, because over 10,000 years of civilization saying males tend to be hunter/gatherers/protectors and women being caretakers isn't good evidence that men tend to take higher stress jobs and women tend to choose to stay at home/raise families. Because who cares about biology and 10,000+ years of human history.
So, being physically stronger and better suited for hunting is now argument for being a better physicist. Being with children would make you more vulnerable to predators - something that's not really an issue in this day and age.
But hey, you're welcome to keep your caveman mentality.
No, men are biologically driven to bring the food home, as such will do what it takes to bring that food home. Women biologically tend to be more empathetic, better communicators, blah blah blah, as such tend to be caretakers/nurturers. There's a fucking reason why men have for the past 10,000 years tended to take jobs that require risk (hunting, being a king/leader, being a soldier, blah blah blah), and it isn't because the evil patriarchal society has always told women they suck at everything but staying at home.
Bill Gates would have been one of the the best hunter/gatherers is he was alive 10,000 years ago, cuz biology, hurr durr.
/edit
Who are you kidding? Most of us nerds would never survive in hunter/gatherer conditions, and for good reason. We are better than we were thousands of years ago.
Risk is a factor in every job. You don't think women had hierarchies when they were in caves? That it took risk to move up the ranks within their social structure?
Name the #1 biological factor that drives women's choice in men. It certainly isn't looks. It's whether or not the man can provide safety to her and her child. Safety includes protection and secure food supply. Guess what; that means she biologically tends to make choices that are RELATED to protection/safety, and not risk taking, because that's not the nature of a caretaker/nurturer. Seriously, stop. Biology says you are wrong.
On May 03 2013 13:51 Talack wrote: First that Anita chick trying to get people to buy her video games so she can do a tropes thing, then steals 150k from fundraising and never releases her project that people paid for.
Then that dumb bitch who got herself and two other guys fired for making private jokes about "forking big dongles" to each other.
Now this. Honestly feminism is being hurt more than anything with these last couple months, they are putting women back more than helping right now by perpetuating these stereotypes.
That's a strange topic because there are many types of views, many of which are offensive to women. Some feminists adopt the point of view that all women should now be career-oriented and being a mother is somehow viewed as inferior.
there's an important context for that though, in that feminism also has inescapable reactionary qualities based around an admittedly huge concept i.e. the all-encompassing patriarchy, and the somewhat absolutist claim that being a mother is inherently inferior is based around rejection of a social function that pins women down to families, essentially to others and not to themselves.
On May 03 2013 13:34 TheExile19 wrote: you could just go watch game of thrones, it's much more fun and male gaze-oriented than proving that you have no conception of why a movement, based around eliminating practices that keep women who want to achieve positions of equality and power in society at a disadvantage, would hate a biological and social practice/stereotype that is not only patronizing and obnoxious but represents that same sort of disadvantage that people just think they should subject themselves to?
Holy run-on sentence batman.
because when a man is career-oriented, it's noble and self-sacrificing, and when a woman is career-oriented, she's wasting all that time to be a mommy and nurture the next generation of men, and moms.
That's a strange topic because there are many types of views, many of which are offensive to women. Some feminists adopt the point of view that all women should now be career-oriented and being a mother is somehow viewed as inferior.
And there's the crux of the matter, being x makes you inferior.
Strangely enough, part of the feminist movement is actually about having women taking the "gender roles" of men which even they internally view as being superior. It's a sad thing that being the nurturing parent, the "mother", was viewed as inferior to being the person who puts food on the table. So many feminists outright "admit" that it's less important, and chuck it aside - instead, women should behave like men.
They're capable, it's true. They're just as good at everything except on average they have less physical strength. But it seems patronizing to the women who are comfortable with the "role" that they've been attributed by "the patriarchy".
It's a very "artificial" way to go about it. Anyway I don't know if I make myself clear.
On May 03 2013 13:51 Talack wrote: First that Anita chick trying to get people to buy her video games so she can do a tropes thing, then steals 150k from fundraising and never releases her project that people paid for.
Then that dumb bitch who got herself and two other guys fired for making private jokes about "forking big dongles" to each other.
Now this. Honestly feminism is being hurt more than anything with these last couple months, they are putting women back more than helping right now by perpetuating these stereotypes.
What? Generations of conditioning has nothing to do with females being more geared towards jobs that are related to empathy. It also has nothing to do with women wanting to have a family and raise children, all which are biological factors. Being an engineer, a corporate CEO, or any other high stress job is typically incompatible with some of the biological goals/wants/needs of a woman. As such, they tend not to be in those jobs. It's not rocket science at all.
"biological goals" rofl "biological needs" rofl
i don't know how much longer i can be in this thread for
i really dont understand why it's absurd to suggest that men and women could be greatly affected and differentiated by biological (and the resulting chemical) means
probably because there is absolutely no consensus on what those differentiations amount to. it is unbelievably patronizing to insinuate that only men can handle tech jobs and positions of authority, and more importantly based on this argument that biology = social necessity, only men should want to.
Yes, because over 10,000 years of civilization saying males tend to be hunter/gatherers/protectors and women being caretakers isn't good evidence that men tend to take higher stress jobs and women tend to choose to stay at home/raise families. Because who cares about biology and 10,000+ years of human history.
And no one said that's how it is/should be. I said that biologically males/females tend to be attracted to those roles based on their biological make-ups. That's it. Not that you can't change that.
Your last paragraph is exceedingly confused. If you can change it, it's not biology. "Biology" in this context means "pre-programmed". It means that the firmware is hard-wired to do X. You can't hack the firmware to make it not do X. You can try to do an end-run around the firmware with software, but that still means there's a proclivity to do X, and that the hacked version will never be as good at Y than someone with firmware that naturally wants to do Y.
So what is it: is it something that can be changed (and therefore sociological in nature)? Or is it something biological and thus can't be changed?
On May 03 2013 13:29 xDaunt wrote: What's so disgusting about it? Motherhood is a wonderful thing. I watched my wife change literally overnight when our first was born.
The hostile attitude of feminists towards childbearing is why I don't take them seriously. It's completely ridiculous.
What's disgusting about it? Let's count the ways:
1) The implicit assumption that all women behave the same way when confronted with a particular stimulus, as though they weren't really sentient beings possessed of free will.
2) The explicit assumption that, if a woman were to behave differently when confronted with this stimulus, they would be wrong, or worse still broken in some way.
3) The implicit assumption that men are unchanged by the experience of becoming a father. That is, you focus on the idea that women magically become different people when they give birth, and thus men do not change when they become a parent. Thus men remain sentient, rational beings capable of free will, and women do not.
This isn't a "hostile attitude" towards childbearing. It's a hostile attitude towards the fetishization of childbearing. This idea that motherhood is what makes you a woman, that being a woman should be centered around becoming a mother, and if you don't want that, then you are wrong.
On May 03 2013 13:34 TheExile19 wrote: you could just go watch game of thrones, it's much more fun and male gaze-oriented than proving that you have no conception of why a movement, based around eliminating practices that keep women who want to achieve positions of equality and power in society at a disadvantage, would hate a biological and social practice/stereotype that is not only patronizing and obnoxious but represents that same sort of disadvantage that people just think they should subject themselves to?
Holy run-on sentence batman.
because when a man is career-oriented, it's noble and self-sacrificing, and when a woman is career-oriented, she's wasting all that time to be a mommy and nurture the next generation of men, and moms.
That's a strange topic because there are many types of views, many of which are offensive to women. Some feminists adopt the point of view that all women should now be career-oriented and being a mother is somehow viewed as inferior.
And there's the crux of the matter, being x makes you inferior.
Strangely enough, part of the feminist movement is actually about having women taking the "gender roles" of men which even they internally view as being superior. It's a sad thing that being the nurturing parent, the "mother", was viewed as inferior to being the person who puts food on the table. So many feminists outright "admit" that it's less important, and chuck it aside - instead, women should behave like men.
They're capable, it's true. They're just as good at everything except on average they have less physical strength. But it seems patronizing to the women who are comfortable with the "role" that they've been attributed by "the patriarchy".
It's a very "artificial" way to go about it. Anyway I don't know if I make myself clear.
no, it's pretty clear and not a bad point to make. being an anything-ist on the internet is essentially a race to the top via extremism; by that, I mean the few feminist critics I've read in my undergrad studies are far more allowing for specialization and niches allowed by society than, well, jezebel or tumblr or whatever, where any deviance from that extremist norm leads to witch hunts and generally demoralizing depictions of what should be activism.
superstar, your evolutionary psych garbage is without a doubt the least supported interpretation here and also garbage. it's essentially begging the question as an entire field of "study".
On May 03 2013 05:42 Thieving Magpie wrote: [quote]
A woman doing what she chooses to do is not objectification. A woman being used as an object is objectification--because she's being used as an object.
You wanting to call women who act sexual immoral is sexist. For much the same reason that if a woman is told she has to strip in front of a camera to increase ratings is sexist.
Women's rights is not about putting clothes on women who are naked. Women's rights is about giving women the power to act the way they want to act.
You can treat yourself as an object. That's all I have to say about this nonsense. People who sell their sexuality aren't "acting sexual"; they're treating themselves as objects.
And my statement applies to male prostitutes as well as women. It has nothing to do with sexism at all.
You're grasping at straws. Face it: you've got nothing to stand on here.
I think you're misunderstanding his point. It's that other people don't get to decide how it's okay for an individual to express themselves (assuming they're not harming anyone). It's not just about you adding things to your list of acceptable ways to be a woman, it's about you not defining the acceptable ways to be a woman.
Implicit presumption of utilitarian ethics. I abide by the Kantian dictum that one should never treat any human being as anything other than an end i.e. not as a means to an end. Selling oneself is treating oneself as a means ergo it is as morally flawed as viewing prostitutes as objects. It is utterly detestable to assign an arbitrary price to one's sexuality or self-worth. I am against such behaviour for the same reason that I'd be against selling oneself into slavery.
I feel that I should reiterate that this has nothing to do with women specifically. I am equally not a fan of male prostitutes.
You do not understand Kant. Kant's categorical imperative is that one ought to never treat any person merely as a means. This means using them as a means without their consent. When you purchase something at the grocery store and have the clerk check it out for you, you are using his labor as a means to facilitate your purchase, but in no way is this immoral. Your argument is flawed if it is based on this fundamental misunderstanding of the basic premise of Kantian ethics.
Thank you for the clarification; it doesn't really affect my argument though because Kant states that one must always treat another person as an end.
Interestingly, there are some socialist interpretations which actually turn your labor example into a condemnation of capitalism
Yes, and if a person consents, you are treating them as an end because there is the recognition of their autonomy. That is what it means to be an end as a human, to be a rational, autonomous person.
As for your latter statement, you would be incorrect because socialism avoids questions of morality and consent. Marx, specifically, would see debates over proper morality and proper consent as red herrings, since those very frameworks of evaluation presume a particular system of values constructed by the bourgeoisie. Rather, Marx is concerned with the natural progression of humanity through history, and how dialectical materialism will manifest itself in human society.
And yet Kant himself forbade prostitution because he thought it was like offering oneself up as a steak/object and because it demeans/does not respect one's humanity.
You are only somewhat correct here - Kant was somewhat puritanical in his views towards sexuality, and indeed viewed all sexual intercourse as degrading. However, liberals argue that his ethics justify prostitution and the like, when, of course, there is consent. This interpretive dispute is a simple matter to resolve, as it seems hard to justify the claim that all sexual intercourse or all sexuality is immoral - hell, you're going to have problems when even groups like the Catholic Church justify sexuality in certain forms. I simply think Kant is wrong in how he applies his categorical imperative to Christianity, and there are certainly feminists that would fight back against the claim that prostitution is degrading, as an imposition of victorian male/classist standards.
I more or less agree that Kant's view of sexuality is too puritanical (though I'd argue that certain radical sex-positive stances are similarly confused) but I certainly don't think prostitution in general is liberation rather than degradation.
I don't really think my point of view has anything to do with Victorian male/classist standards, mostly because it's equally applicable to men.
Broadly, though, I essentially agree with your interpretation of Kant.
Fair enough that your position isn't necessarily patriarchal if applied to both genders, although it still may be classist (if a person enjoys and may otherwise be significantly financially disadvantaged otherwise without that profession).
But yeah, there's lots of discussion over the nature of consent, rational consent, and autonomy that is involved in consent, and it's a matter of much debate.
On May 03 2013 13:29 xDaunt wrote: What's so disgusting about it? Motherhood is a wonderful thing. I watched my wife change literally overnight when our first was born.
The hostile attitude of feminists towards childbearing is why I don't take them seriously. It's completely ridiculous.
stop generalizing people man. feminism has nothing to do with hostility toward childbearing :/
In theory, it really doesn't and shouldn't. However, in practice, feminism in its more militant form is a rebellion against female gender identity -- a very curious form of gender-based self-loathing. Exile19 seems to fit into this more militant feminist box. Hostility towards childbearing is very common among these people. They don't want the role of motherhood "forced" upon them. They see it as a trap and a prison, which is quite sad.
What? Generations of conditioning has nothing to do with females being more geared towards jobs that are related to empathy. It also has nothing to do with women wanting to have a family and raise children, all which are biological factors. Being an engineer, a corporate CEO, or any other high stress job is typically incompatible with some of the biological goals/wants/needs of a woman. As such, they tend not to be in those jobs. It's not rocket science at all.
"biological goals" rofl "biological needs" rofl
i don't know how much longer i can be in this thread for
i really dont understand why it's absurd to suggest that men and women could be greatly affected and differentiated by biological (and the resulting chemical) means
probably because there is absolutely no consensus on what those differentiations amount to. it is unbelievably patronizing to insinuate that only men can handle tech jobs and positions of authority, and more importantly based on this argument that biology = social necessity, only men should want to.
Yes, because over 10,000 years of civilization saying males tend to be hunter/gatherers/protectors and women being caretakers isn't good evidence that men tend to take higher stress jobs and women tend to choose to stay at home/raise families. Because who cares about biology and 10,000+ years of human history.
And no one said that's how it is/should be. I said that biologically males/females tend to be attracted to those roles based on their biological make-ups. That's it. Not that you can't change that.
Your last paragraph is exceedingly confused. If you can change it, it's not biology. "Biology" in this context means "pre-programmed". It means that the firmware is hard-wired to do X. You can't hack the firmware to make it not do X. You can try to do an end-run around the firmware with software, but that still means there's a proclivity to do X, and that the hacked version will never be as good at Y than someone with firmware that naturally wants to do Y.
So what is it: is it something that can be changed (and therefore sociological in nature)? Or is it something biological and thus can't be changed?
You fundamentally misunderstand. Biology can mean a tendency as well. For example, we have a biological tendency to like sweet food as children, even though this is not universal and can certainly be changed.
On May 02 2013 19:36 nttea wrote: Oh my god you guys are unbearable... Seriously a girl gets upset over trolls and you all get a stick up your ass over it, for every girl complaining about sexism there's like 20 dudes complaining about girls complaining over sexism. How about man up? Why is girls complaining about sexism so incredibly important an issue to you that you constantly have to point out how ridiculous you think they are?
The replies to this topic so far have been pretty demoralising. Whenever a topic like this comes along I like teamliquid a little less.
I could not agree with both of these statements more.
In the first page of responses alone, there are so many of the standard sexist trope responses: * She is attention seeking. * I have it just as bad being a man, but I can't complain about it. * Names don't bother me or some other random female I make up, therefore she should not be bothered either. * Sexism doesn't exist. etc etc etc
It's impressive to me that she has the passion for games and such that she is willing to put up with all the bullshit and still produce content.
What people do not also realize is that feminism is not about THREATENING MEN. It's about asking for gender not being a valid basis for prejudice, may it be for men and women. Feminism is also realizing men do not have to "man up" all the time, and have the right to display interest in things that are not "manly". Do you feel comfortable being around jocks constantly reminding you that you are not a real man because you do not watch sports, or workout, or that videogames are for sissies? Then congratulation, you are in some way a feminist. Stop pretending these things do not exist.
Last I checked feminism is about empowering women. Hence femin-ism. "Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women." The dictionary even uses a nearly identical definition. Feminism is not non-sexism and therefore focuses more on women and what men and other women do negatively to women and what can be done to stop that.
I don't appreciate being told to "man up," but I also don't appreciate automatically being labeled a feminist. I would argue that labels are a big part of the issue. Labels put people into a box. A person with a mental illness is "crazy," someone with developmental delays is "retarded," A person who picks on someone else (often because of his/her own insecurities) is a "bully," someone really smart is a "nerd," someone that spends a lot of time online is a "no-lifer," hell even the label of "troll" reduces a person to a simplistic notion that in no way adequately describes what all makes up that individual.
The problem is you cannot make everyone on the earth stop using labels. You can only control yourself; however, you can be an example to others. Nothing is going to be accomplished by simply complaining about it online.
...I'm not sure what definition you just read, but the one you cited stated that it was specifically aimed at "defining, establishing, and defending equal...rights for women." Yes, it is about empowering women - empowering them to be equal, not inferior.
As for labels, the human mind inevitably uses labels - it's embedded in our psychology, it's how we conceptualize ideas, there are discrete entities of signifiers labeling some sort of signified, and they will always be shaped by knowledge. We can never get rid of labels, even ones that we ourselves employ, so the next best thing is to increase our awareness of those labels, to maximize our self-consciousness as human beings, and articles like the one in the OP help do that.
So yes, you are a feminist, just as you are probably a humanist, just as you are probably a rational being. These are all labels. They are all inevitable. They are ones that you either will or will not recognize, but if you do not recognize these labels you will see yourself in other labels, other descriptors that build a paradigm for yourself. And if you better understand what it means to be a "feminist" then you will better understand what ideas you are talking about.
While you have a well reasoned argument I think you missed my point. I will try to break it down in a way that is less likely to be misinterpreted.
1. Feminism focuses on women and improving conditions for women. It does not focus on things that need to be improved for men. A subset of feminists realize that simply improving things for women is not enough and things need to be improved for men as well. There are also people that are not associated with feminism rather who are associated with masculinism that also believe this.
2. On the point of labels, I am getting at that labels are used as ways to judge people as inferior in some way. The emphasis is put on the label and not on the person. I do not see ADHD people, I see people dealing with the issues associated with having ADHD. This seemingly subtle distinction is the difference between viewing the person as the problem and viewing the person as dealing with a problem.
The definition of feminism isn't strictly focused on women at the exclusion of men - the definition refers to an equal relationship between women and men, and the very nature of this relationship inevitably entails that men be involved. Remember that some of the earliest American feminists were also abolitionists, whose cause entailed the liberation of black men.
As for labels, I see what you're getting at, and perhaps this is just a semantic issue - perhaps you would rather be understood as a "person who supports feminism" rather than a feminist? Regardless, there's still an issue with the analogy you draw because your view of labels is strictly looking at judgment of inferiority. The reason why psychologists/psychiatrists would prefer to discuss people in terms of "individuals with ADHD" rather than "ADHD persons" is that there is a clear stigma attached to ADHD/mental illness. But that's exactly the root problem - the stigma, not the labels. The label is simply the medical professionals' tool for dealing with a bad situation as is. If you want to rectify the underlying situation, however, you have to challenge that stigma. And your hesitance to be "labeled a feminist" is borne out of your concession to the stigma attached to feminism, when it seems like you, as a reasonable person, would agree that feminism isn't on whole a bad thing.
I never said at the exclusion of men. I would also agree that the definition entails that men be involved. Where I draw issue is how the involvement works out and how sometimes responsibilities that go with the rights are ignored, which is why I do not consider myself a feminist. In my opinion, feminism falls short of seeking equality in some areas.
Equality to me means that you take the responsibilities that come with the privileges. This means if both genders want to serve equally in the armed forces then both are eligible for the draft. If a woman has custody and gets child support then a man that has custody gets child support. Women should not be favored in custody battles based on the gender role notion that women are "caregivers and nurturers." Men should not be favored in a custody battle based on the gender role notion that they can "provide better." Racial quotas, gender quotas, et cetera are still discrimination. If we want to make sure that everyone has equal opportunity in education (and later in employment), then we can't have schools funded based on standardized test scores and property taxes. Adoption and visitation rights should not be based on sexual orientation. I could go on and on, but I hope my point is obvious now.
I don't think we're in disagreement here. The only question I have is how you see the definition of feminism: ultimately, the pursuit of equal rights, as somehow equating to "women are favored in custody battles." Perhaps there may be extreme feminists that do so, but what you espouse seems to be fairness and equality, which is precisely the definition of feminism.
On May 03 2013 13:34 TheExile19 wrote: you could just go watch game of thrones, it's much more fun and male gaze-oriented than proving that you have no conception of why a movement, based around eliminating practices that keep women who want to achieve positions of equality and power in society at a disadvantage, would hate a biological and social practice/stereotype that is not only patronizing and obnoxious but represents that same sort of disadvantage that people just think they should subject themselves to?
Holy run-on sentence batman.
because when a man is career-oriented, it's noble and self-sacrificing, and when a woman is career-oriented, she's wasting all that time to be a mommy and nurture the next generation of men, and moms.
That's a strange topic because there are many types of views, many of which are offensive to women. Some feminists adopt the point of view that all women should now be career-oriented and being a mother is somehow viewed as inferior.
And there's the crux of the matter, being x makes you inferior.
Strangely enough, part of the feminist movement is actually about having women taking the "gender roles" of men which even they internally view as being superior. It's a sad thing that being the nurturing parent, the "mother", was viewed as inferior to being the person who puts food on the table. So many feminists outright "admit" that it's less important, and chuck it aside - instead, women should behave like men.
Well... what do you expect? When you live in a society that values "being the person who puts food on the table" more than "being the nurturing parent", what is the alternative? You either stay in the de-valued roles that society boxes you into, or you break out of them into "men's work".
Furthermore, you assume that everyone wants to be in that role. Has it occurred to you that maybe some of those women just really want to do these things? Who are you or the rest of society to say that they're wrong to do so?
The feminist movement, at it's core, is about choices. Staying boxed into one role is not a choice.
On May 03 2013 13:58 Djzapz wrote: They're capable, it's true. They're just as good at everything except on average they have less physical strength. But it seems patronizing to the women who are comfortable with the "role" that they've been attributed by "the patriarchy".
I admit that some feminists do take things too far, where they attack women who choose to be stay-at-home mothers as traitors to the cause or some such. But that doesn't invalidate the idea; it only shows that it can sometimes be taken too far.
That's a strange topic because there are many types of views, many of which are offensive to women. Some feminists adopt the point of view that all women should now be career-oriented and being a mother is somehow viewed as inferior.
there's an important context for that though, in that feminism also has inescapable reactionary qualities based around an admittedly huge concept i.e. the all-encompassing patriarchy, and the somewhat absolutist claim that being a mother is inherently inferior is based around rejection of a social function that pins women down to families, essentially to others and not to themselves.
i do love my run-ons, 'tis true
It's my second language and I'm tired, so I have a hard time with it :p
That said, you're right, but what they've done is further stigmatize the family functions as not only the work of the "typical housewife", but now it's the work of "weak women" who aren't good enough to do the work which was the work of men in the past.
That said at the risk of sounding like a dick or a hypocrite or something, I personally prefer career-orientated women, like my ex. I just like their drive or something, I believe this to be a personal preference (and I don't want kids, for now anyway). Still, I respect women who choose to stay at home to take care of the kids, but how could they now? It used to be that women were stuck at home because women HAD to take care of the children and cook and clean, now they have to take a pretty short parental leave from work otherwise they'll be called lazy. Gotta get back to work and send the little shit to the child-farm from 9 to 5:30 because that's how we roll now in this better world where women shouldn't be excessively loving parents.
On May 02 2013 19:36 nttea wrote: Oh my god you guys are unbearable... Seriously a girl gets upset over trolls and you all get a stick up your ass over it, for every girl complaining about sexism there's like 20 dudes complaining about girls complaining over sexism. How about man up? Why is girls complaining about sexism so incredibly important an issue to you that you constantly have to point out how ridiculous you think they are?
The replies to this topic so far have been pretty demoralising. Whenever a topic like this comes along I like teamliquid a little less.
I could not agree with both of these statements more.
In the first page of responses alone, there are so many of the standard sexist trope responses: * She is attention seeking. * I have it just as bad being a man, but I can't complain about it. * Names don't bother me or some other random female I make up, therefore she should not be bothered either. * Sexism doesn't exist. etc etc etc
It's impressive to me that she has the passion for games and such that she is willing to put up with all the bullshit and still produce content.
What people do not also realize is that feminism is not about THREATENING MEN. It's about asking for gender not being a valid basis for prejudice, may it be for men and women. Feminism is also realizing men do not have to "man up" all the time, and have the right to display interest in things that are not "manly". Do you feel comfortable being around jocks constantly reminding you that you are not a real man because you do not watch sports, or workout, or that videogames are for sissies? Then congratulation, you are in some way a feminist. Stop pretending these things do not exist.
Last I checked feminism is about empowering women. Hence femin-ism. "Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women." The dictionary even uses a nearly identical definition. Feminism is not non-sexism and therefore focuses more on women and what men and other women do negatively to women and what can be done to stop that.
I don't appreciate being told to "man up," but I also don't appreciate automatically being labeled a feminist. I would argue that labels are a big part of the issue. Labels put people into a box. A person with a mental illness is "crazy," someone with developmental delays is "retarded," A person who picks on someone else (often because of his/her own insecurities) is a "bully," someone really smart is a "nerd," someone that spends a lot of time online is a "no-lifer," hell even the label of "troll" reduces a person to a simplistic notion that in no way adequately describes what all makes up that individual.
The problem is you cannot make everyone on the earth stop using labels. You can only control yourself; however, you can be an example to others. Nothing is going to be accomplished by simply complaining about it online.
...I'm not sure what definition you just read, but the one you cited stated that it was specifically aimed at "defining, establishing, and defending equal...rights for women." Yes, it is about empowering women - empowering them to be equal, not inferior.
As for labels, the human mind inevitably uses labels - it's embedded in our psychology, it's how we conceptualize ideas, there are discrete entities of signifiers labeling some sort of signified, and they will always be shaped by knowledge. We can never get rid of labels, even ones that we ourselves employ, so the next best thing is to increase our awareness of those labels, to maximize our self-consciousness as human beings, and articles like the one in the OP help do that.
So yes, you are a feminist, just as you are probably a humanist, just as you are probably a rational being. These are all labels. They are all inevitable. They are ones that you either will or will not recognize, but if you do not recognize these labels you will see yourself in other labels, other descriptors that build a paradigm for yourself. And if you better understand what it means to be a "feminist" then you will better understand what ideas you are talking about.
While you have a well reasoned argument I think you missed my point. I will try to break it down in a way that is less likely to be misinterpreted.
1. Feminism focuses on women and improving conditions for women. It does not focus on things that need to be improved for men. A subset of feminists realize that simply improving things for women is not enough and things need to be improved for men as well. There are also people that are not associated with feminism rather who are associated with masculinism that also believe this.
2. On the point of labels, I am getting at that labels are used as ways to judge people as inferior in some way. The emphasis is put on the label and not on the person. I do not see ADHD people, I see people dealing with the issues associated with having ADHD. This seemingly subtle distinction is the difference between viewing the person as the problem and viewing the person as dealing with a problem.
The definition of feminism isn't strictly focused on women at the exclusion of men - the definition refers to an equal relationship between women and men, and the very nature of this relationship inevitably entails that men be involved. Remember that some of the earliest American feminists were also abolitionists, whose cause entailed the liberation of black men.
As for labels, I see what you're getting at, and perhaps this is just a semantic issue - perhaps you would rather be understood as a "person who supports feminism" rather than a feminist? Regardless, there's still an issue with the analogy you draw because your view of labels is strictly looking at judgment of inferiority. The reason why psychologists/psychiatrists would prefer to discuss people in terms of "individuals with ADHD" rather than "ADHD persons" is that there is a clear stigma attached to ADHD/mental illness. But that's exactly the root problem - the stigma, not the labels. The label is simply the medical professionals' tool for dealing with a bad situation as is. If you want to rectify the underlying situation, however, you have to challenge that stigma. And your hesitance to be "labeled a feminist" is borne out of your concession to the stigma attached to feminism, when it seems like you, as a reasonable person, would agree that feminism isn't on whole a bad thing.
I never said at the exclusion of men. I would also agree that the definition entails that men be involved. Where I draw issue is how the involvement works out and how sometimes responsibilities that go with the rights are ignored, which is why I do not consider myself a feminist. In my opinion, feminism falls short of seeking equality in some areas.
Equality to me means that you take the responsibilities that come with the privileges. This means if both genders want to serve equally in the armed forces then both are eligible for the draft. If a woman has custody and gets child support then a man that has custody gets child support. Women should not be favored in custody battles based on the gender role notion that women are "caregivers and nurturers." Men should not be favored in a custody battle based on the gender role notion that they can "provide better." Racial quotas, gender quotas, et cetera are still discrimination. If we want to make sure that everyone has equal opportunity in education (and later in employment), then we can't have schools funded based on standardized test scores and property taxes. Adoption and visitation rights should not be based on sexual orientation. I could go on and on, but I hope my point is obvious now.
I don't think we're in disagreement here. The only question I have is how you see the definition of feminism: ultimately, the pursuit of equal rights, as somehow equating to "women are favored in custody battles." Perhaps there may be extreme feminists that do so, but what you espouse seems to be fairness and equality, which is precisely the definition of feminism.
The KKK may claim to be the definition of "fairness" and "equality" as well, but that doesn't mean they are.
Actions speak louder than words, and if you look at feminist advocacy and lobbying, their actions contradict their supposed definition.
I refuse to read anything by that nerd-baiting, shit tabloid website Kotaku. They write shitty, terrible articles for the sole purpose of getting people to go comment on how retarded it is for ad-money.
On May 03 2013 13:29 xDaunt wrote: What's so disgusting about it? Motherhood is a wonderful thing. I watched my wife change literally overnight when our first was born.
The hostile attitude of feminists towards childbearing is why I don't take them seriously. It's completely ridiculous.
stop generalizing people man. feminism has nothing to do with hostility toward childbearing :/
In theory, it really doesn't and shouldn't. However, in practice, feminism in its more militant form is a rebellion against female gender identity -- a very curious form of gender-based self-loathing. Exile19 seems to fit into this more militant feminist box. Hostility towards childbearing is very common among these people. They don't want the role of motherhood "forced" upon them. They see it as a trap and a prison, which is quite sad.
1) i'm a dude who is not diametrically opposed to fatherhood
2) self-loathing? try self-actualization, like most worthwhile movements/philosophies, except without maslow and with the assumption that you're working against a patriarchal society.
3) do you really not understand that many women have no desire for children or even conscious enjoyment of children? why is that sad to you? help me understand why you feel the need to paint an entire gender with presupposed ideals, and this is very much a (platonic?) ideal.
EPT
