Why so much hatred for feminism?

[Dipayan]

So you're aware of the abortion and infanticide of females, the wide-spread sexual harassment/molestation known as eve teasing, the tradition of dowries, and all the other examples of gender inequality in India. But you can't understand why looking at one simple area doesn't give the whole picture?

Hi Bookitty!

Would you like to maybe put down what you think my position is? Because as you are actually just strengthening my position with responses such as the above, I think there might be some disconnect.

 

[Dipayan]

Nope. That would be a false conclusion that a coincidence or a simple correlation had causality, and there is no evidence of causality there.

You said that More Equality = More women in Parliament is true (implying causality) but only only for western countries. So what about the others? Logic dictates two possible answer - 1) No effect, or 2) Less women in parliament. Which one are you saying it is?

No, and this has been addressed ad nauseum.

You continue to argue this straw man, it has been addressed.

This has been answered ad nauseum.

This has been answered ad nauseum.

Saying this does not automatically make it a fact.

There's comes a point when talking to the child who keeps repeating, "but why?", that a parent needs to stop answering.

When a person asks 'but why' again and again to me, I assume that I'm either misunderstanding her or I'm not being able to explain myself properly. I find that to be a better option than condescension.

 

[Dipayan]

When trying to figure out a correlation, it's generally best to have the categories broken out as far as possible.

For example, let's say you were trying to figure out the correlates with foot pain, and all you had were data on long-distance walkers and runners who were also diabetic, compared to the rest of the population. You wouldn't be able to figure out whether the walking or the diabetes were correlated with the foot pain from those statistics. With the statistics broken out for diabetics versus non-diabetics, and separately for long-distance walkers/runners and the more sedentary, you could say more, more clearly. Ideally, if you had unified statistics for all four combinations, you could say even more. For example, there's a plausible hypothesis that, while long-distance walking/running might generally be correlated with more foot pain, long-distance walking might reduce diabetic foot pain, and you'd be able to test this one.

With separate categories for age, marital status, and children, you could more easily and clearly figure out what's going on from the evidence.

Thanks, that was remarkably lucid and helpful!

 

[Piggy]

Once again, I identify as a feminist. I use that qualifier when writing to congress or the senate.

Good God, why?

Rhetorically, it sounds like a bad strategy. I don't see how it could gain you any leverage.

 

[Piggy]

No one is asking you to. But if I choose to address certain issues I think matter categorically more to women, why should that annoy you?

Oh, it doesn't.

But when I pick up a "feminist reading of the gospels", for example, I think "hoo boy, here we go". If we want to examine the role of women in the gospels, or use the gospels in conjunction with archaeology etc. to discuss the role of women in the Ancient Near East, then how about "the role of women in the gospels"?

Let's face it, feminism has tons of baggage.

I remember when Annie Proulx was asked by a feminist scholar after a reading why she didn't feature women characters more prominently, her answer was "I write whatever the **** I want to write".

Which was, of course, the only honest answer.

Like I said, it gets tiresome to view the world always through one lens, whether that be feminist theory, queer theory, or what have you.

Not to discount your personal experience but I find you adopting the typical stereotype of what feminism is about rather than more carefully evaluating the issues.

But the issues are not what I dislike.

It is precisely the "stereotypical" aspects of it that turn me off. Keep in mind that just because something is stereotypical doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I find, for example, that the "stereotypical" complaints about education courses are spot on.

Do you think such things as human sex trafficking, the risk of dying in childbirth in Afghanistan, or something as simple as unequal pay for equal work (note I said equal work there, not gender based wage statistics) are both feminist issues and humanist issues or only the latter?

They are in part the first, entirely the latter. Boys, after all, are trafficked as well, and having a wife and child (or daughter and grandchild, or mother and sibling) die during childbirth is a tragedy for husbands and fathers and sons as well.

 

[Piggy]

Seriously? Academically, you see no need to go back and do the research on heart attack epidemiology using female test subjects, instead of just settling for the old conclusion that only men should take precautions?

Seriously??

Because once again, that sort of work is about as 'feminist' as it gets.

Why would that be "feminist"?

The same could be said about other groups who have been largely excluded... do we need separate "isms" to describe the need to include them, too? Or would it not be more accurate and economical to say that testing on too narrow a group of subjects is simply less-than-optimal science?

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Pfffft..... women!

 

[Complexity]

Hi Bookitty!

Would you like to maybe put down what you think my position is? Because as you are actually just strengthening my position with responses such as the above, I think there might be some disconnect.

Dipayan - I don't find you at all persuasive, either.

 

[Joey McGee]

The idea that the empowerment of women is the solution for poverty is the most inspiring idea in the world right now

 

[Piggy]

The idea that the empowerment of women is the solution for poverty is the most inspiring idea in the world right now

You know, I think that might be right.

 

[curi0us]

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.

Then do you think the following is sexist?

A straight cisgendered male American, because of who he is and the culture he lives in, does not and cannot feel the stress, creepiness, and outright threat behind a catcall the way a woman can. His upbringing has given him fur and paws big enough to turn the dials and plopped him down in temperate Ohio. When she says “you don’t have to put up with being leered at,” what she means is, “you don’t ever have to be wary of sexual interest.” That’s male privilege. Not so much that something doesn’t happen to men, but that it will never carry the same weight, even if it does.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Then do you think the following is sexist?

A straight cisgendered male American, because of who he is and the culture he lives in, does not and cannot feel the stress, creepiness, and outright threat behind a catcall the way a woman can. His upbringing has given him fur and paws big enough to turn the dials and plopped him down in temperate Ohio. When she says “you don’t have to put up with being leered at,” what she means is, “you don’t ever have to be wary of sexual interest.” That’s male privilege. Not so much that something doesn’t happen to men, but that it will never carry the same weight, even if it does.

Yes, very much so.
It's also insensitive and ignorant, as well as contrary to the important principle that you don't get to question the validity of others' experiences.

 

[Vortigern99]

Men do sometimes have to be wary of sexual interest. I've felt threatened by aggressive sexual interest from both men and women.

I suspect that the instances are far fewer among men, and are less likely to lead to rape when directed towards men. But threatening sexual aggression against men does happen.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The drive by poster completes another cycle around the block.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
They are in part the first, entirely the latter. Boys, after all, are trafficked as well, and having a wife and child (or daughter and grandchild, or mother and sibling) die during childbirth is a tragedy for husbands and fathers and sons as well.

Boys are not "trafficked as well" in any significant way except maybe some of the youngest victims. And if men died in childbirth you can bet you would see more medical care and research applied to the problem.

But anyway, ....

 

[JJM 777]

The idea that the empowerment of women is the solution for poverty is the most inspiring idea in the world right now

It is among the key issues, but other hugely important issues exist, such as:
- the poorest countries still have no free market access to Europe and North America, which protect their own agriculture with import taxes, while the other side of their double tongue talks of free trade
- most countries have no minimum salary law, or then the legal minimum salary is not even above poverty line
- technically illegal immigrants are widely taken advantage of at sub minimum salary and sub poverty line salaries
- economical polarisation of individuals is constantly worsening in most countries, people´s incomes are getting less equal

 

[crimresearch]

Why would that be "feminist"?

The same could be said about other groups who have been largely excluded... do we need separate "isms" to describe the need to include them, too? Or would it not be more accurate and economical to say that testing on too narrow a group of subjects is simply less-than-optimal science?

Why would research to bring medical science for women up to the same level as for men be feminist?

Feminism: 2-"organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests". http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism

Once you start flinging the broad brush around, complaining about lack of parsimony is unconvincing.

 

[Dipayan]

Dipayan - I don't find you at all persuasive, either.

I'll keep that in mind.

 

[cyborg]

There's comes a point when talking to the child who keeps repeating, "but why?", that a parent needs to stop answering.

Yes, and there comes a point when arguing with a tabloid hack that you realise they just don't care whether or not their headlines are misleading as long as they get the desired effect.

 

[Wildy]

Boys are not "trafficked as well" in any significant way except maybe some of the youngest victims.

So [rule 10] them? And do you have any actual evidence for this claim?

And if men died in childbirth you can bet you would see more medical care and research applied to the problem.

Because men don't care about women at all?