Why so much hatred for feminism?

[KingMerv00]

A very small quibble. I agree that every person who wants to join the military should be allowed to take any role within that military. If a woman wants to be a soldier, let her.

However, I am completely opposed to the draft and selective service. I believe that it is a human rights violation and should not be required of anyone, ever. (For the same reason I am opposed to forced birth. It's your body, you get to decide when to risk it.) So I do not believe that anyone should be drafted or that anyone should have to register for selective service. At this point, only men are required. That is wrong and should be changed. It should not be changed by forcing women to register. A "more equal" human rights violation is merely a larger one and I can not support that.

Hmm...

Here is NOW's position on the draft:

BE IT RESOLVED, that NOW opposes the reinstatement of registration and draft for both men and women. NOW's primary focus on this issue is on opposition to registration and draft. However, if we cannot stop the return to registration and draft, we also cannot choose between sisters and brothers. We oppose any registration or draft that excludes women as an unconstitutional denial of rights to both young men and women. And we continue to oppose all sex discrimination by the volunteer armed services.

Their position on the military is here. I won't quote it since it kind of long and rambling. It basically says the military should treat women just like men. I agree with the general concept behind both resolutions. IF the draft cannot be stopped, there is no reason for men to suffer in greater numbers than women.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
I could take every statement made "from a feminist perspective" and substitute "from a humanist perspective" and all the valid points would remain valid.

And this is an argument against feminism, how?

 

[truethat]

it's an argument against feminism because there are so many ways you could slot people into different categories that it is disingenous to continually segregate the stats by gender. So many different things that come into play, divide the story, a being a woman is the least of the issues in Western culture. Yes there are issues in third world nations and nations of extreme poverty. But it is outright whinging and dishonest to sit around and complain that there is imparity that has a deep impact in the lives of women in Western culture. At best it is a shallow influence motivated by the woman herself and her choices rather than anyone else.

Piggy was saying, that at the end of the day it's about being a HUMAN being, with the same struggles, challenges and dreams as anyone else.

 

[Francesca R]

Which neither had to swing democratic votes in their favor.

True, but as a study of monarchy succession in England/UK (and probably anywhere) shows--you still need a power base--Elizabeth I, and her elder sister Mary, are cases in point.

"Only got into power because a male relative died" seems to be too simple an answer.

I agree, and even that shows a shifting of patriarchal mores to some extent--and England didn't have a queen regnant until the C16th which I believe says something along those lines too (and the accession law was only changed in 2011 to no longer skip the next in line if she's female). But the elevation of each of India's, Pakistan's and Bangladesh's leading women into office the first place bears too much resemblance to royal accession patterns to not explain most of it IMO.

Once in power, they can/do lead and evince competence and garner support in their own right. Same for England's pioneering queens (see Spanish Armada)

 

[Piggy]

And this is an argument against feminism, how?

Uh, not... that's how.

It's not an argument against feminism.

Was never intended to be.

 

[Dipayan]

More Gender Equality = More women in parliament in Western countries
Less Gender Equality = Less women in parliament in Western countries

1. What does 'Western Country' mean?
2. Why are you making this distinction?
3. Are you saying that there are countries where less gender equality results in more women in parliament?
4. Or are you are simply carving away examples that are counter to your claim?

The logic problem: One key indicator can prove gender inequality exists. (Proving the positive one only needs a single example.)

Are you thinking this through? Your 'one key indicator' can mean multiple things - women don't want to be in politics, women voters prefer to vote for men, men are pushed into politics by women etc. What makes you assertion correct, and my assertions wrong?

When you address the logic problem your straw man includes, it turns out India and the US, UK, Canada, etc are simply not comparable on dozens of other measures of gender inequality.

Don't say 'straw man' unless you can support it. I've already called you out twice for an explanation, and not having one, you've ignored it both times.

Now please explain why I need to compare other measures of gender inequality to make the observation that rights-deprived women in India form a larger per I entered this conversation with the statement that India has much worse gender rights than all the developed countries. But what does that have to do with women in parliament?

 

[Dipayan]

KingMERV,

Some very interesting points. Appreciate your efforts.

I will go through everything and get back!

 

[KingMerv00]

KingMERV,

Some very interesting points. Appreciate your efforts.

I will go through everything and get back!

You could just agree with me and save yourself the time.

 

[KingMerv00]

Are you thinking this through? Your 'one key indicator' can mean multiple things - women don't want to be in politics, women voters prefer to vote for men, men are pushed into politics by women etc. What makes you assertion correct, and my assertions wrong?

The last two are examples of explicit sexism. The first makes me want to ask "why not?" If women don't want to go into politics, there has to be a reason. If that reason is not biology, then sexist socialization is the only option left.

Not all sexism targets women or comes from men. Even if your assertions are right, the inequality is still there. You are just disagreeing on the cause.

 

[Dipayan]

(Just for the record):

India:
Indira Gandhi: Only child of Jawaharlal Nehru (first PM)
Sonia Gandhi (not PM but Congress leader): Widow of Rajiv Gandhi (predecessor PM)

Pakistan:
Benazir Bhutto: Eldest child of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (predecessor PM)

Bangladesh:
Khaleda Zia: Widow of Ziaur Rahman (predecessor president and party leader)
Sheikh Hasina: Eldest child of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman (first president)

So bumping off ol' Billy should result in the first female US President, correct? Or do you think that maybe democracies aren't that simple?

By the way, some more high profile women politicians who do not come from famous families.

Pratibha Patil: President of India
Mayawati: Chief Minister, Uttar Pradesh, India
Sheila Dixit: Chief Minister, Delhi, India
Sushma Swaraj: Cabinet Member
Mamta Bannerjee: Chief Minister, West Bengal, India
Brinda Karat: Cabinet Member
Mehbooba Mufti: Chief Minister, Jammu & Kashmir, India
Uma Bharti: Chief Minister, Madhya Pradesh

What does this prove? Absolutely nothing, I would say, except that both these groups have held power in the government.

 

[cyborg]

We could but we don't. I know what you are trying to say but you aren't really doing a good job proving your point.

It's really a very simple point - the demographics of a statistically unrepresentative group of people do not say very much about gender equality in general. Premiers are about the least representative group one could choose. And it has I believe has been adequately demonstrated the fact that Britain and India have had female premiers and the US has not does not mean that the US is inherently more sexist than Britain or India. But that is the idea that has been presented - or at least one is supposed to get the "impression" - but then one can get impressions from anything and pick and choose to suit the desired impression.

It is a tabloid headline and since the topic of the conversation is "why hatred for feminists" I would put reliance on tabloid headline scaremongering into that category.

How many pieces of evidence does it take to find a person guilty of a crime in the court of law?

None - it takes a jury reaching a guilty verdict.

 

[Dipayan]

The last two are examples of explicit sexism.

Not all sexism targets women or comes from men.

The last two need not be sexism, unless you see it through that lens.

If the majority of women prefer male politicians, then saying that they are wrong and need to be taught better is in itself sexism, or massively condescending at the very least.

And if women push men into politics, preferring to cook and clean in the house, and if both are fine with this trade-off, again, saying that they are wrong and need to be taught better is in itself sexism, or massively condescending at the very least.

Point being, you cannot look at the disparity and blanket claim that it is because of sexism any more than you can look at it and claim any of the above.

The first makes me want to ask "why not?" If women don't want to go into politics, there has to be a reason. If that reason is not biology, then sexist socialization is the only option left.

Maybe it IS biology. Maybe it is the way god wanted it to be. Maybe the years of gender specific functions have moulded our preferences inrreversibly. The point being, I don't know. But the fact that we are not looking at any other possibility is confusing me a bit.

 

[KingMerv00]

...I believe has been adequately demonstrated the fact that Britain and India have had female premiers and the US has not does not mean that the US is inherently more sexist than Britain or India.

Uh...yes? I've been agreeing with you about that all along. The presidential statistics alone are not enough.

It is a tabloid headline and since the topic of the conversation is "why hatred for feminists" I would put reliance on tabloid headline scaremongering into that category.

Probably a fair criticism. My recent personal experience exposed me to a lot of hatred but when trying to talk to a different audience, it comes across as insulting.

None - it takes a jury reaching a guilty verdict.

I'm not sure I get you. Are you addressing the point the point behind the analogy or just attacking the analogy itself?

Don't think it matters. We agree that the presidental stats alone aren't enough to conclude anything. Care to discuss any of the factors I suggested or bring up some of your own?

 

[KingMerv00]

If the majority of women prefer male politicians, then saying that they are wrong and need to be taught better is in itself sexism, or massively condescending at the very least.

And if women push men into politics, preferring to cook and clean in the house, and if both are fine with this trade-off, again, saying that they are wrong and need to be taught better is in itself sexism, or massively condescending at the very least.

Point being, you cannot look at the disparity and blanket claim that it is because of sexism any more than you can look at it and claim any of the above.

Woah. That caught me off guard. You are implying that a majority vote can make something not sexist and that so called benevolent sexism doesn't exist. That's like saying it wouldn't have been racist if the majority of non-Asians belived Asians were inherently better at martial arts, wall building, and noodle cooking and then pushed them into appropriate jobs.

Are you sure we are using the same definition of sexism? To me it is the irrational attribution of qualities as inherent to one gender over the other and the actions based on those attributions.

Maybe it IS biology. Maybe it is the way god wanted it to be. Maybe the years of gender specific functions have moulded our preferences inrreversibly. The point being, I don't know. But the fact that we are not looking at any other possibility is confusing me a bit.

Not looking? I've asked several times for people to present alternative ideas. I specifically said I'm willing to hear evidence that biology makes one gender into objectively better politicians/parents/breadwinners.

I'm pretty sure you are kidding but if you want to talk god, your first step is to go to the religion forum and prove he/she/it exists.

As for our preferences being irreversible, that's provably wrong. For hundreds (thousands?) of years, women were de facto housewives and baby-factories. In the blink of an eye, those attitudes suddenly found themselves unfashionable. Irreversible indeed.

 

[cyborg]

Uh...yes? I've been agreeing with you about that all along. The presidential statistics alone are not enough.

Yes, although this conversation comes more from what Skeptic Ginger said than anything you did.

I'm not sure I get you. Are you addressing the point the point behind the analogy or just attacking the analogy itself?

Well I'm not sure what the point behind the analogy was. What was I supposed to answer? My answer happens to be correct so I'm a little bemused by the analogy.

Don't think it matters. We agree that the presidental stats alone aren't enough to conclude anything.

Good.

Care to discuss any of the factors I suggested or bring up some of your own?

Not at this time - other than to reiterate the point that unequal use of opportunity is not the same as unequal opportunity and that whilst any gender based statistical factor may be indicative of systematic discrimination it does not have to be so - as others have been arguing here.

 

[cyborg]

For hundreds (thousands?) of years, women were de facto housewives and baby-factories. In the blink of an eye, those attitudes suddenly found themselves unfashionable. Irreversible indeed.

I don't see men becoming the baby-making factories any time soon.

 

[KingMerv00]

I don't see men becoming the baby-making factories any time soon.

Pretty sure you know what I meant; Women's ability to carry (preferably male) children was considered their purpose rather than one option of many.

 

[KingMerv00]

Yes, although this conversation comes more from what Skeptic Ginger said than anything you did.

Probably. I friggin' hate message boards sometimes.

Well I'm not sure what the point behind the analogy was. What was I supposed to answer?

My answer happens to be correct so I'm a little bemused by the analogy.

Technically, you didn't answer the question. You did imply it was unfair and that was the whole point.

When you asked "How many presidents would be indicative of equality?" it implied that context is not needed. Obviously, it is. When I said "How many pieces of evidence are indicative of guilt?", the correct answer is "It depends on the crime committed and the evidence in question."

Context context context.

Not at this time - other than to reiterate the point that unequal use of opportunity is not the same as unequal opportunity and that whilst any gender based statistical factor may be indicative of systematic discrimination it does not have to be so - as others have been arguing here.

I understand the argument but I haven't seen any convincing evidence that equal opportunity exists on legal AND social levels. In fact, the pie chart from a few posts ago suggests women are discriminated against.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Uh, not... that's how.

It's not an argument against feminism.

Was never intended to be.

Or it is an argument for both humanism and feminism.

Regardless of your gut reaction to the terminology or whatever else comes to mind for you with feminism, there are some valid issues regarding women's rights, especially if you look worldwide. But even if you just look at women in the US, there are wrongs that affect women directly which need to be addressed. Do you propose those wrongs do not exist, are not worth changing, need a new approach, or simply need a new label? (Feel free to state your own reason if it is not listed here.)

Some in this thread suggest a women who is subject to a law requiring unnecessary medical procedures when she seeks an abortion, even a medically necessary abortion mind you, is wrong to complain because complaining is saying one has been victimized.

I'm all for taking the proactive route when it is available. For example I thought it was absurd to blame elevator guy in the elevatorgate incident for making a pass at a woman in an elevator, and instead thought the claim the said woman was somehow 'vulnerable' in a hotel elevator in a foreign country did more to harm women than the pass did.

But that doesn't mean there aren't other issues like the current religious right's insane attack on women's rights in which the perpetrators are indeed the group that needs to be addressed.

 

[truethat]