axel Posted February 12, 2004 Report Share Posted February 12, 2004 Really - frankly i have no idea what he is talking about Well I guess there is at least one "feminine feminist" in this thread who is intelligent enough to relate to this view but, of course, she will not admit it. at least, not in public Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellthecat Posted February 12, 2004 Report Share Posted February 12, 2004 If I were a woman, I would despise you. If I were a feminist, not only would I try to hide my contempt but I would pretend to be appreciative of your opinions inasmuch as they would suit my ends. Not only women would, I also despise him. But I have very good reasons to. Maybe if this forum had less despising, and throwing about of insults for trivial reasons, and banning people for trivial reasons, then things would be better here. Anileve, to say that political correctness goes hand in hand with nationalism and patriotism is a jaw droppingly inaccurate statement to make. The cult of "political correctness" is a mortal enemy of both nationalism and patriotism - they cannot co-exist. Political correctness is actually a form of genocide, since it seeks to destroy the values and culture of a society. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 12, 2004 Report Share Posted February 12, 2004 Maybe if this forum had less despising, and throwing about of insults for trivial reasons, and banning people for trivial reasons, then things would be better here. I agree. People take things too seriously on here. I must say I've never seen a bulletin board that has this much anger. Anyhow, I'm not aware of who was banned and why, and how trivial matters were, but if posts can be removed that quickly then I'm assuming so could members. None of my business anyway, I guess!!! I couldn't have said it any better, Steve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted February 13, 2004 Report Share Posted February 13, 2004 I couldn't have said it any better, Steve. Whats that - that you despise me? LOL And just who is expressing anger here eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted February 13, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2004 Feminism is inverted sexism. It professes that of which it denounces the negative effects: gender polarization. Instead of working towards mutual understanding and emphasizing complementarity, it fosters division and breeds hatred. So-called "Positive discrimination" is inept. It is insulting for someone to be recognized because of political correctness instead of his/her own abilities. I don't understand people who lament the lack of meritocracy and then argue for the establishment of anti-meritocratic policies. I guess I was wrong about you all along. Lucid post. We should play poker sometime if you gamble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gevo27 Posted February 13, 2004 Report Share Posted February 13, 2004 I agree. People take things too seriously on here. I must say I've never seen a bulletin board that has this much anger. Anyhow, I'm not aware of who was banned and why, and how trivial matters were, but if posts can be removed that quickly then I'm assuming so could members. None of my business anyway, I guess!!! I couldn't have said it any better, Steve. Den, i would suggest for you to stop accusing people of stuff, and then say that other people are full of anger. LOL.. kinda contradictory if u ask me.. ... Some of us have our distinct difference and we might not be afraid to list em once in a while, but you keep on saying this forum this this forum that.. calm down.. .. lol.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 13, 2004 Report Share Posted February 13, 2004 Den, i would suggest for you to stop accusing people of stuff, and then say that other people are full of anger. LOL.. kinda contradictory if u ask me.. ... Accusing people of what? I never accused anyone of anything. I simply stated an observable truth, that people take things too seriously. Even your reply proves it. you keep on saying this forum this this forum that.. calm down.. .. lol.. When did I say this forum this this forum that? I suggest you take a deep breath and stop trying to sound like a smart*ss, because you're making a complete fool of yourself. I didn't even compare this forum to any other named forums. I simply said that there's too much anger on here. And if I'm not allowed to voice my view on what the reality of the situation is, then why the hell have a forum in the first place? Meeting of like minds? I don't see the point. Whats that - that you despise me? LOL That I despise you!?!??! Whoever said I despise you? I don't even know you enough to despise you. I am not angry at you or anyone else. I am simply stating that there's too much anger and hatred, and if saying that automatically implies that I'm angry and hateful, then I suggest you get your head checked. I think you're being paranoid. Stop playing the part of the victim. Grow up! That goes to everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted February 13, 2004 Report Share Posted February 13, 2004 Well Den..speaking of taking things too seriously...LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gevo27 Posted February 13, 2004 Report Share Posted February 13, 2004 Well Den..speaking of taking things too seriously...LOL G1 thot,,, But Den, i will now pull out of all your posts how many times you have criticises this place, and people (in general) who post here... then we'll see whos making complete full of himself Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gevo27 Posted February 13, 2004 Report Share Posted February 13, 2004 Then again, i dont feel like it anymore.. LOl.. ill let people use there own intuiton on this one. im sure we all see all the posts.. so no need to repeat them.. just please den, dont go back and say u havent said something to that affect, when u really have.. its all there, i am not making it up.. If it is being misinterpreted, then i apologize, its the way it sounds from the letters and emotions used... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 13, 2004 Report Share Posted February 13, 2004 You know, the right phrase to describe some members on this forum would be "ganging up on others." It is very annoying to see a bunch of 15 year olds or even 20 year olds who are immature, post 2 worders in threads that are supposed to be analytical, intelligent, and thoughtful. Frankly, my take on this is that if you have nothing to say about a certain cause or issue, don't dip your nose in it. If you like chit-chatting and threads that do not take so much of your time to post or read, by all means, feel free to confine yourself to those, but to force trash on other members just because you can, is, well, beyond my ability to comprehend. Feel free to further argue with me about this, but you are off-topic, and I will not reply to any of your statements directed at me. Feel free to continue talking about feminism, and if you have something to contribute, I will gladly read it and comment on it. Otherwise, this discussion has gone way out of hand, and I have no intentions of wasting my time with gibberish, because I've seen all too many childish people. And note that age is not necessarily a marker of maturity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gevo27 Posted February 13, 2004 Report Share Posted February 13, 2004 You know, the right phrase to describe some members on this forum would be "ganging up on others." It is very annoying to see a bunch of 15 year olds or even 20 year olds who are immature, post 2 worders in threads that are supposed to be analytical, intelligent, and thoughtful. Frankly, my take on this is that if you have nothing to say about a certain cause or issue, don't dip your nose in it. If you like chit-chatting and threads that do not take so much of your time to post or read, by all means, feel free to confine yourself to those, but to force trash on other members just because you can, is, well, beyond my ability to comprehend. Feel free to further argue with me about this, but you are off-topic, and I will not reply to any of your statements directed at me. Feel free to continue talking about feminism, and if you have something to contribute, I will gladly read it and comment on it. Otherwise, this discussion has gone way out of hand, and I have no intentions of wasting my time with gibberish, because I've seen all too many childish people. And note that age is not necessarily a marker of maturity. Everything you said here contradicts everything you said on the last post... I can see this is out of context btw... Well, to contribute on feminism..: Here we go Feminism is theory that men and women should be equal politically, economically and socially. This is the core of all feminism theories. Sometimes this definition is also referred to as "core feminism" or "core feminist theory." Notice that this theory does not subscribe to differences between men and women or similarities between men and women, nor does it refer to excluding men or only furthering women's causes. Most other branches of feminism do. Why you believe in feminism and what your ideas are to make feminism a reality is what causes arguments within the feminism movement. You may find that you believe in the theory of feminism, but do not see yourself fitting into the branches of feminism below, that is common. You can believe that women and men should be politically, economically and socially equal for your own reasons and hold your own ideas pertaining how you can make that happen. If that is the case, then generally you can consider yourself a feminist. The theory that there are fundamental personality differences between men and women, and that women's differences are special and should be celebrated. This theory of feminism supports the notion that there are biological differences between men and women. For example, "women are kinder and more gentle then men," leading to the mentality that if women ruled the world there would be no wars. Cultural feminism is the theory that wants to overcome sexism by celebrating women's special qualities, women's ways, and women's experiences, often believing that the "woman's way" is the better way. There is feminism from my perspective nothing to argue is there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gevo27 Posted February 13, 2004 Report Share Posted February 13, 2004 and why not elaborate on "echofeminism" while we at it.. I went through most this stuff while in philosophy, and this is part of research/essay and so was the top one Its helpful, mostly factual not disputable.. but im sure there can be something found to dispute.. Ecofeminism is a theory that rests on the basic principal that patriarchial philosophies are harmful to women, children, and other living things. Parallels are drawn between society's treatment of the environment, animals, or resources and its treatment of women. In resisting patriarchial culture, eco-feminists believe they are also resisting plundering and destroying of the Earth. They feel that the patriarchial philosophy emphasizes the need to dominate and control unruly females and the unruly wilderness. Ecofeminism states that the patriarchial society is relatively new, something developed over the last 5,000 years or so and that the matriarchial society was the first society. In the matriarchial society, women were the center of society and people worshipped Goddesses. This is known as the Feminist Eden. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 13, 2004 Report Share Posted February 13, 2004 Feminism is theory that men and women should be equal politically, economically and socially. And why so? Are men and women equal physically? Even in the animal world, those who are more powerful rule. The rest obey. I am not saying that this is my view. I am simply trying to be objective. Just making sure that it's clear, I don't want people starting with the name-calling. Feminism is self-contradictory. It admits that there are biological differences yet fails to present good arguments as to why those biological differences should not determine the social, political, and economical differences. There can be no equality in difference. In fact, no two human beings are or can be equal, in all aspects, physical, social, political, and economical. That is why we tend to see races, classes, political groups, majority lobbies, minority lobbies, and so on. The premises of feminism might be correct, but the conclusions it arrives to are not related to the premises. I am yet to see an argument that correctly (without fallacies and jumping from premise to unrelated conclusion) defends the ethics of feminism. If you have one, or if you have read it somewhere, please do share. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted February 13, 2004 Report Share Posted February 13, 2004 And why so? Are men and women equal physically? Even in the animal world, those who are more powerful rule. The rest obey. I am not saying that this is my view. Again - any who take this view of things should have no complaints about the Turks. next. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gevo27 Posted February 13, 2004 Report Share Posted February 13, 2004 And why so? Are men and women equal physically? Even in the animal world, those who are more powerful rule. The rest obey. I am not saying that this is my view. I am simply trying to be objective. Just making sure that it's clear, I don't want people starting with the name-calling. Feminism is self-contradictory. It admits that there are biological differences yet fails to present good arguments as to why those biological differences should not determine the social, political, and economical differences. There can be no equality in difference. In fact, no two human beings are or can be equal, in all aspects, physical, social, political, and economical. That is why we tend to see races, classes, political groups, majority lobbies, minority lobbies, and so on. The premises of feminism might be correct, but the conclusions it arrives to are not related to the premises. I am yet to see an argument that correctly (without fallacies and jumping from premise to unrelated conclusion) defends the ethics of feminism. If you have one, or if you have read it somewhere, please do share. well, like i said most of that info was factual, and not really my "view" of the issue.. But the thing is i dont see feminism as an issue at all. Its not like racism, but i thik we might have become to prejudic towards feminism. But, the basic underlying principles are, that men and women are not that different in social status, or atleast should not be. But, it doesnt mean the physicla and biological realms are the same either.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 13, 2004 Report Share Posted February 13, 2004 the basic underlying principles are, that men and women are not that different in social status, or atleast should not be. Why should they be? Unless you can give good reasons for it, I am afraid we must all stick by the biological differences reason for having social differences between men and women. Again, back to point 0, point 0 being the basic biological differences between men and women. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted February 13, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2004 Again - any who take this view of things should have no complaints about the Turks. next. What does feminism and the natural inequalities between men and women have anything to do with the Turks? As den_wolf I'm sure would point out, that is non sequitur reasoning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gevo27 Posted February 13, 2004 Report Share Posted February 13, 2004 Why should they be? Unless you can give good reasons for it, I am afraid we must all stick by the biological differences reason for having social differences between men and women. Again, back to point 0, point 0 being the basic biological differences between men and women. Umm, im not clear on your question hear den, your asking why should the underlying principles of the feministic view be what they are? or r u asking why should men and women not be equal in social status? Please clarify Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted February 13, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2004 Umm, im not clear on your question hear den, your asking why should the underlying principles of the feministic view be what they are? or r u asking why should men and women not be equal in social status? Please clarify Basically, I think wolfs position is similar to mine. We aren't here to bash women or oppress them, and instead we treat them as we treat anybody. However, the basic underlying conclusions of feminism do not follow its premises. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gevo27 Posted February 13, 2004 Report Share Posted February 13, 2004 Basically, I think wolfs position is similar to mine. We aren't here to bash women or oppress them, and instead we treat them as we treat anybody. However, the basic underlying conclusions of feminism do not follow its premises. ic, and actually, i kinda agree, but i dont see what argument the feminists can even make, they get there way plenty, especially these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 13, 2004 Report Share Posted February 13, 2004 What does feminism and the natural inequalities between men and women have anything to do with the Turks? As den_wolf I'm sure would point out, that is non sequitur reasoning. I think he was more or less comparing, rather than saying that it implies anything. That's why I'd say it's a False Analogy fallacy. In fact, we could argue that it's a little bit of both, but I'd say on face value it's a false analogy. gevo, I was asking why women and men should be equal in social status. feminism claims that just because men and women are physically different (or that there is a superiority/inferiority binary working on that level) does not mean that they should not be equal socially, politically, and economically. I ask, why shouldn't they be? is there a process they follow to get to this conclusion, or is it simply that they BELIEVE in it because it's their heart's desire? Biological differences have played a huge role in the subjugation of women historically and cross-culturally. That there are exceptions to this (Levi-Strauss' anthropological demonstrations of matriarchal societies), however, does not prove the point feminists are trying to make. Exceptions are nothing but exceptions (i.e. something that goes out of its way, rather than the thing that it is an exception to, which is what makes IT an exception, rather than the thing that it is an exception to). So unless feminists can prove that biological differences are not related to social differences, their position is null and void. And by making use of the example of matriarchal societies, they are using the fallacy of exclusion, because they are excluding a whole host of societies that were patriarchal. This is also a case of hasty generalisation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted February 14, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 14, 2004 I think he was more or less comparing, rather than saying that it implies anything. That's why I'd say it's a False Analogy fallacy. In fact, we could argue that it's a little bit of both, but I'd say on face value it's a false analogy. gevo, I was asking why women and men should be equal in social status. feminism claims that just because men and women are physically different (or that there is a superiority/inferiority binary working on that level) does not mean that they should not be equal socially, politically, and economically. I ask, why shouldn't they be? is there a process they follow to get to this conclusion, or is it simply that they BELIEVE in it because it's their heart's desire? Biological differences have played a huge role in the subjugation of women historically and cross-culturally. That there are exceptions to this (Levi-Strauss' anthropological demonstrations of matriarchal societies), however, does not prove the point feminists are trying to make. Exceptions are nothing but exceptions (i.e. something that goes out of its way, rather than the thing that it is an exception to, which is what makes IT an exception, rather than the thing that it is an exception to). So unless feminists can prove that biological differences are not related to social differences, their position is null and void. And by making use of the example of matriarchal societies, they are using the fallacy of exclusion, because they are excluding a whole host of societies that were patriarchal. This is also a case of hasty generalisation. You do realize that this same argument can be made for races since the U.S. is pretty much in love with race and the concept of "equality". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 14, 2004 Report Share Posted February 14, 2004 Yes, I realise that it could be used for that. What about it, though? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted February 14, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 14, 2004 Yes, I realise that it could be used for that. What about it, though? The same thing, races, like women, have biological differences, and cultural is a veneer reflecting that given group of people or race. Of course in this day and age, to state this, is to veer off into the forbidden territory of racial differences, which is, politically incorrect at best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.