Feminism: internet vs. reality

[he_who_is_nobody]

Whenever i hear the term "Combat", i think of fighting and the next thing i think is "who or what are you fighting?", "what are you fighting for, what is you goal?". These questions, in my opinion, are not answered.

In this case we are combating the implicit bias of the courts to default to the mother because of the underlying assumption that women are more caring. The reason courts default to the mother is because of this assumption based on gender. If that assumption were removed, courts would not be able to default to women. Seems obvious to me.

Thank you for the clarification.
And i actually agree with the solution your gave, which is most in line with option C.
but i understand your rejection.

I just want to point one thing out in that even though my solution is in line with your option C, your option C honestly does not solve anything. Case in point, how would your option C handle same sex couples? My solution, since gender is not a factor, would handle a same sex couple the same as any other couple. In fact, your option C would have to default to my solution in that case. Thus, if that is the case, than why not just make that the standard.

I am in agreement that rejecting gender roles, with the example giving, is indeed a good thing.

Okay, so what issue do you think addressing the underlying biases in gender roles would not address? Honestly, I think it covers the vast majority, but I would be interested in hearing any that you believe it will not help with.

However, not everyone would agree with you.
You can find feminists who would agree with you, partially or in total disagreement.
this is probably also true for those who called themselves MRA's, and those who reject both labels.

This is where I think the criticism of feminism exposes its double standard. Why am I wed to everyone that calls him or herself a feminist? Am I wed to every statement Dawkins or Myers makes about atheism? Am I wed to Penn and Teller because they are skeptics like me, but they deny anthropogenic climate change? Why is it that I can call myself a skeptic or an atheist without having someone pointing out the obvious that not all skeptics/atheists would agree with every position I hold? I already came out and said I believe Steve Shives is not doing a fantastic job promoting feminism, do I have to go through everyone with that label and give him or her a thumbs up or thumbs down? Feminism is a large and diverse group and you are right, you are not going to get two people that agree on everything. However, that is true of every group. Why is it that feminism and feminists are the only secular label/people that are held up to a standard that no other label/person in the secular movement could meet?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Another recent example of feminism-gone-wrong:

In misguided attempt to achieve gender equity, kindergarten teacher prohibits boys from using Legos

Note Coyne's comment regarding the possibility that "perhaps there are real biological (i.e., genetic) differences in those preferences which don't result from cultural indoctrination".

This is an example of why I regard the first criterion of the definition of anti-feminism given earlier to be a fallacy.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Note Coyne's comment regarding the possibility that "perhaps there are real biological (i.e., genetic) differences in those preferences which don't result from cultural indoctrination".

This is an example of why I regard the first criterion of the definition of anti-feminism given earlier to be a fallacy.

You will have to refresh my memory on what the "first criterion of the definition of anti-feminism" is. However, I will say that there is a real genetic difference between the genders (and ethnicities), there is always variation in a population after all. My point is that I doubt those differences are as pointed and demarcated as most believe them to be.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Note Coyne's comment regarding the possibility that "perhaps there are real biological (i.e., genetic) differences in those preferences which don't result from cultural indoctrination".

This is an example of why I regard the first criterion of the definition of anti-feminism given earlier to be a fallacy.

You will have to refresh my memory on what the "first criterion of the definition of anti-feminism" is. However, I will say that there is a real genetic difference between the genders (and ethnicities), there is always variation in a population after all. My point is that I doubt those differences are as pointed and demarcated as most believe them to be.

I had intended to include the link (I thought I had...)

nemesiss[/url]"]As for the argument of being anti feminist...
Antifeminism

Feminist sociologist Michael Flood argues that an antifeminist ideology rejects at least one of what he identifies as the three general principles of feminism:
1.That social arrangements among men and women are neither natural nor divinely determined.
2.That social arrangements among men and women favor men
3.That there are collective actions that can and should be taken to transform these arrangements into more just and equitable arrangements, such as those in the timelines of woman's suffrage and other rights.

In other words, they're purely "social constructs".

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

A interesting update on the gendered brains debate:

Male vs. female brain? Not a valid distinction, study says

Kindest regards,

James

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Greetings,

A interesting update on the gendered brains debate:

Male vs. female brain? Not a valid distinction, study says

Kindest regards,

James

As I already said,

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]However, I will say that there is a real genetic difference between the genders (and ethnicities), there is always variation in a population after all. My point is that I doubt those differences are as pointed and demarcated as most believe them to be.

[Emphasis added.]

 

[AronRa]

As I mentioned here before, antifeminists have trolled absolutely every single video I have ever uploaded since posting 'Reconsidering Norms' years ago. They just gotta start that fight every time I post anything, and it does not matter what the subject of the video is. In this case, it was a classroom supplement biology video meant to teach children the difference between sexual and asexual reproduction. I will not allow the comments in any of my educational videos to be dominated by any discussion of feminism. Nor will I even address most of them. But the one I saw today is summary to this situation. So I'm going to mention it here, in a more appropriate venue.

I am not - by any stretch - a feminist,

While 'feminISM' may refer to a body of different movements, most of which sharing the common goal of gender equality, the only definition 'feminIST' ever had refers to anyone who believes that women should have social, economic, and political equality with men. If the definition describes you, then it applies to you; meaning that if you believe in gender equality, you are feminist by definition, regardless whether you like that label or not. It's exactly the same as with atheism. I've heard people say that "just because I don't believe in gods doesn't make me an atheist". But yeah, it kinda does, even if you don't want to admit it.

If the one-and-only definition of feminist does NOT apply to you "by any stretch", that means you do NOT believe that women should have this equality with men. Belief in gender INequality would be the definition of sexism. So why do you hold a sexist position?

Alternately you may be confused, as is typically the case. Your choices then are (1) that you are a feminist by some stretch at least, but do not identify with any particular feminist organization, advocates, or movement. Or (2) you will assert that you believe in gender equality, perhaps under some other label, but will reveal otherwise by also systematically rejecting, dismissing, or minimizing every issue of import to all feminists. Which of these best describes you?

If you'd like to plead for a third option, that would require that you should acknowledge your awareness of at least one unfair double standard applied on the grounds of gender. If you would rather insist that women have already achieved equality, then you should realize that even if that were true, that wouldn't have any effect on whether you believe they should be equal. Meaning you would still be feminist if you think they should. Likewise, it you want to specify that western women have already achieved equality where some other group has not, then you should understand that even if that were true, that would still make you feminist with regard to women of more sexist societies, again IF you believe in their equal rights. If you would rather dodge both of these options by saying that the word 'feminist' actually means something other than what I say it does, then you should cite a number of feminist advocates or organizations who all define themselves the way you do. Remember they have to represent the collective as a whole. Otherwise the only situation in which you are not feminist "by any stretch" is when the definition does NOT apply to you because you believe that one or the other gender should NOT be treated as socially, politically, or economically equal.

 

[Laurens]

As I mentioned here before, antifeminists have trolled absolutely every single video I have ever uploaded since posting 'Reconsidering Norms' years ago. They just gotta start that fight every time I post anything, and it does not matter what the subject of the video is. In this case, it was a classroom supplement biology video meant to teach children the difference between sexual and asexual reproduction. I will not allow the comments in any of my educational videos to be dominated by any discussion of feminism. Nor will I even address most of them. But the one I saw today is summary to this situation. So I'm going to mention it here, in a more appropriate venue.

I am not - by any stretch - a feminist,

While 'feminISM' may refer to a body of different movements, most of which sharing the common goal of gender equality, the only definition 'feminIST' ever had refers to anyone who believes that women should have social, economic, and political equality with men. If the definition describes you, then it applies to you; meaning that if you believe in gender equality, you are feminist by definition, regardless whether you like that label or not. It's exactly the same as with atheism. I've heard people say that "just because I don't believe in gods doesn't make me an atheist". But yeah, it kinda does, even if you don't want to admit it.

If the one-and-only definition of feminist does NOT apply to you "by any stretch", that means you do NOT believe that women should have this equality with men. Belief in gender INequality would be the definition of sexism. So why do you hold a sexist position?

Alternately you may be confused, as is typically the case. Your choices then are (1) that you are a feminist by some stretch at least, but do not identify with any particular feminist organization, advocates, or movement. Or (2) you will assert that you believe in gender equality, perhaps under some other label, but will reveal otherwise by also systematically rejecting, dismissing, or minimizing every issue of import to all feminists. Which of these best describes you?

If you'd like to plead for a third option, that would require that you should acknowledge your awareness of at least one unfair double standard applied on the grounds of gender. If you would rather insist that women have already achieved equality, then you should realize that even if that were true, that wouldn't have any effect on whether you believe they should be equal. Meaning you would still be feminist if you think they should. Likewise, it you want to specify that western women have already achieved equality where some other group has not, then you should understand that even if that were true, that would still make you feminist with regard to women of more sexist societies, again IF you believe in their equal rights. If you would rather dodge both of these options by saying that the word 'feminist' actually means something other than what I say it does, then you should cite a number of feminist advocates or organizations who all define themselves the way you do. Remember they have to represent the collective as a whole. Otherwise the only situation in which you are not feminist "by any stretch" is when the definition does NOT apply to you because you believe that one or the other gender should NOT be treated as socially, politically, or economically equal.

Hi Aron,

I totally agree with much of what you say. On your terms I am definitely a feminist, however the reason I don't officially label myself as one is because I have met a couple of feminists who state that men can't really be feminists. Out of respect for that I don't use the term to describe myself. Do you think that's valid, or am I putting too much emphasis on what a couple of people have said to me?

 

[AronRa]

Hi Aron,

I totally agree with much of what you say. On your terms I am definitely a feminist, however the reason I don't officially label myself as one is because I have met a couple of feminists who state that men can't really be feminists. Out of respect for that I don't use the term to describe myself. Do you think that's valid, or am I putting too much emphasis on what a couple of people have said to me?

I don't know how someone could justify such a comment. Anyone looking this word up will see the same definition I use and no other, certainly not one that implies that it could only include women.

 

[Laurens]

Hi Aron,

I totally agree with much of what you say. On your terms I am definitely a feminist, however the reason I don't officially label myself as one is because I have met a couple of feminists who state that men can't really be feminists. Out of respect for that I don't use the term to describe myself. Do you think that's valid, or am I putting too much emphasis on what a couple of people have said to me?

I don't know how someone could justify such a comment. Anyone looking this word up will see the same definition I use and no other, certainly not one that implies that it could only include women.

The argument was that men cannot see the kinds of problems that face women so therefore cannot 100 percent identify with them.

They may have been wrong in their definition. Perhaps what I should take on board from them is the notion that I am privileged in a lot of ways because I'm a man, but not necessarily their views on whether or not I can be a feminist as a man.

I feel I should edit for clarity (note to self don't post when you're half cut): when I say men cannot see the problems that face women I mean obviously we are capable of intellectually understanding and empathising, but we will never experience these things for ourselves. I think you have a point though, this doesn't preclude me from being a feminist.