Yıkes! Are all phılösöphers chauvınıst pıgs? Thıs ıs as ‘bad’ as the threads about Black people. Is no one gonna stand up for the ladıes?
I was wondering along those lines myself. I would have thought a philosophy forum would attract progressive-minded types. I thought this thread would draw some elaborations on the various avenues feminism has taken, some critiques of the radical varieties, but not knee jerk opposition to the modest demands of equity feminism. BTW, are there any women in this forum? Sorry if you’re one, ariellowen. If you are, rally your sisters
I’m a sexual egalitarian. I would call myself a feminist, but these days that means being pro-female, rather than egalitarian. I believe that equality, as they say, goes both ways. On the other hand, biologically there are a few pretty fundamental differences between them that, short of some pretty radical evolution in human physicality, remain problematic to any program or ideal of equality.
It doesn’t help calling anyone who either makes a joke or doesn’t come out explicitly firing ‘for the ladies’ a ‘chauvinist pig’. Just a suggestion.
I could take up the side of the ladies if that’d make for a better thread. How about this,
You guys are all sexist! Your arguments are illogical and unfounded in anything observable. I’ve yet to see any substantial evidence for a single claim here of any relevant difference between the sexes! You’re all a bunch of man-ists!
Well, feminism is an ill defined concept. There aren’t just two types of feminism there are multiple feminisms. If one then assumes a single, unitary framework, it becomes sophomorically easy to ridicule.
To a large extent, liberal feminism has won the war but is still waging many battles.
Part of the problem, perhaps, is identity politics as a whole. Like any society, ideology, government, or movement that claims collectivism as a goal, it immediately confuses individual reactions with collectivist reactions. I can’t think of an example where this doesn’t happen.
The problem then is not feminism as such, but the inability to differentiate between one’s own needs and the needs of the whole.
And that brings us back to Classical Liberalism.
Well, I put up 8 minutes of video that shows a balanced look at feminism. But If I have to post more, here more is:
“But, when it comes to changing the language, I think they make some good points, because we do think in language and so the quality of our thoughts and ideas could only be as good as the quality of our language.
So maybe some of this patriarchal shit ought to go away.
I think spokesman ought to be spokesperson.
I think chairman ought to be chairperson.
I think mankind ought to be human kind, but they take it too far, they take themselves too seriously, they exaggerate.
They want me to call that thing in the street a personhole cover.
I think that’s taking it a little bit too far.
What would you call a lady’s man, a person’s person?
That would make a He-man an It-person.
Little kids would be afraid of the boogieperson.
They’d look up in the sky and see the person in the moon.
Guys would say come back here and fight like a person.
And we’d all sing “for it’s a jolly good person.”
That’s the kind of thing you would hear on late-night with David Letterperson.
You know what I mean? So…so I think it’s an exaggeration and I like to piss off any group that take’s itself a little bit too seriously.
An it does not take a lot of imagination to piss off a feminist.”
Funny and true.
I’ve heard that most hardcore feminists tend to have small nipples and a very large clitoris.
Well, as sirEbrum has so aptly demonstrated to us, one reason is that this forum, while it is dedicated to philosophy, is also over-populated by college-aged boys (and perhaps a few older men who never quite grew beyond that stage…) whose immaturity and lack of life experience makes their opinions about feminism pretty much useless. They’re still figuring out how you get girls for sex, you see. The problem is that even the bright ones don’t realize this – the immaturity factor – and so a thread that could go somewhere worthwhile continues to suffer from their verbal flatulence.
Just watch and see, it never fails.
Actually it was factual.
I am going to get a thread of individual pissed off men so that we may create a manism against women bitching about how evil men are. 
It is going to be cool.
( It is only fair if manism is recognized with feminism for that would be true equality.)
Really? I heard they were lesbians.
Impressive political correctness speech.
If you really want a debate of why I view feminism to be bad just give me a reply some time.
One of my problems with feminism is that it feels females should be overly represented instead with no representation of men and at the same time it specifically targets men for fraudulent wrong doings.
Feminism also tends to ignore biology is just about every way.
This entire post is ad hominem. If that’s the best argument feminism has to offer then so be it.
Machines / Labour Saving Devices :
The first Domestic Labour Saving Devices were expensive, and as such were only purchased by the wealthy?; the kind of people who would have had servants doing all their housework. The introduction of these devices did little to alter the husband/wife status quo and simply gave one the ability to employ less servants.
And what happened when these machines became available to those with less monetary wealth ?
There are no prizes on offer here . . . the answer is obvious.
Some one here said that someone should stand up for females in this disscussion. LOL. Why? I am a female. I have no problems with anything being said here. If a man is negative about women, so what, why should I care? I find it amusing not insulting. If a man wishes a subservient female well there are plenty out there. I am sure he will get what he deserves and wants. Just remember that not all wishes turn out well.
Have you ever noticed that it is the subservient women that flip out and kill or castrate their men? LOL I have always found that amusing. So keep on with your amusing quips about females. LOL I am sure one will get the last laugh. ROFL
Nothing wrong with gender bashing either. it is generally done tongue in cheek with good humor and is as old as any society.
Aw, come on Brad; 거짓말! If you’re on 제주 there is no way you can believe this. I’ve been to the ROK several times, and 아저씨s are very sexist --but no more so than most of the rest of the world. I mean, how can you sit there and type that from a country where women can’t even smoke in public, where it’s traditional for rural men to buy their wives in Việt Nam!?
How about an example where it does; I’m not exactly sure what you mean.
This thread makes a good case for the need for militant feminism. What Ric has termed “gender feminism” illuminates the division of power in society along the gender line. Feminist analysis virtually has to emerge with the breakdown of traditional gender roles. Obviously the need for consciousness raising is great. The struggle for gender equality has just begun.
You leave for one week. . .
Is the argument about ‘feminism’, or gender equality? The two terms seem to be confused in this thread. Some seem to reject the idea of gender equality because people who call themselves feminists aren’t engaging in battles for equality where men come up short. That’s ridiculous. Criticise the -ism, that’s all right, but the goal still stands as valid and desireable.
Kris, I disagree adamantly with almost everything you’ve said. There are a lot of reasons why gender-bashing shouldn’t be laughed off. You say you love when submissive women haul off and kill their dominant male partners, and that’s sort of sick. Wouldn’t it be better if those dominant males were discouraged from dominating, and those submissive women didn’t feel like they needed to kill or mutilate anyone? Unless you are simply giving up from the get-go on the possibility of preventing these situations, why should we allow that behavior to persist?
I further take issue with the assertion that women should be “treated like [ladies]”. The cultural practice is a relic of a time when women were considerd weak, stupid, and generally unable to help themselves. Ladies were meant to be seen and not heard. Doors were opened for them because they either couldn’t manage themselves, or because as little more than eye candy they shouldn’t be expected to exert themselves to act on their environment in any way. Chivalry is a sexist institution.
And that’s just the woman’s side. Men in such a system or oppressed in their turn. They are the sole bearers of responsibility for supporting their family, and if they are unable to do so they are worthless (they can’t even shop, for chrissake!). It is unfair to deny to men the ability to rear children (clearly there a physical limitations, but there are no such emotional or mental limitations).
Essentially, you cannot maintain that women and men should be treated as unequal in some arbitrary areas while desiring that on a societal level they should be equal. There are connotations and implications for any such treatment, and they will be carried over to other areas and result in rape, murder, and other nastiness which I condemn you for celebrating.
Joker, make an argument and stop trolling.