A wise man once said that when we move from talking about n issue to talking about how we talk about an issue, all opportunity for understanding has been lost.
A very wise man.
|
I don't know about other folks, but for myself, I just see enough of this political crap everywhere else. It's nice to try and have a safe zone somewhere.Please believe me when I say I completely agree with you. However at the same time, letting the half-truths and outright lies slide doesn't sit well either.
As it should not. But as they say the more you feed them the more they will come back.
Well there are certainly some half-wits around.Andrew, thanks for the qualifier, "quasi."I thought we were at least being semi-witty.
See above.
I got an idea. ;D
1. Can we agree that a lot of different people define the word "feminism" differently?
2. Rather than making a discussion out of trying to label individuals or groups of individuals, why not choose a specific topic and then actually discuss that topic without reference to specific groups of people or throwing assertions about general groups of people.
Note: I believe this is similar to what Dove Arrow suggested but I would not wish to put words in his mouth.
But as they say the more you feed them the more they will come back.
Food?
I fail to see how you can argue, in good faith, that a woman's freely made choice to pursue a career or a family can be counted as discrimination by men against her.
That isn't the point of the issue with gender-based pay discrimination. The issue is that women who dedicated their lives to their careers, did not have children, and accepted plenty of extra unpaid work time covering for family men who had to go to their kid's activities, *still* are paid on average 3/4 of what males with comparable education levels and job duties are paid. It's not a matter of actual choices impacting one's career, it's a matter of pervasive societal standards which have real impact both fiscally and psychologically.
That poster still confuses me.
I had to Google it myself. It says 'Iron' not 'Tron.'
|
A wise man once said that when we move from talking about n issue to talking about how we talk about an issue, all opportunity for understanding has been lost.What?
It didn't make sense to me at first either.
appear
I got an idea. ;D
1. Can we agree that a lot of different people define the word "feminism" differently?
2. Rather than making a discussion out of trying to label individuals or groups of individuals, why not choose a specific topic and then actually discuss that topic without reference to specific groups of people or throwing assertions about general groups of people.
Note: I believe this is similar to what Dove Arrow suggested but I would not wish to put words in his mouth.
I think you're pretty much spot on. Unfortunately, since the topic of the thread is about what feminism means today, and since I've already defined what I think it means, I'm pretty much out of subject matter.
So smurf! You're it!
Why you blamin' the manliest man here?
Jealousy.
David: it seems to me that the title of the thread indicates it is about language and the contention over language by competing ideologies. If it is about issues, then somehow the connection is going to have to be made clear. This is typical in the academy, by the way: spend the whole time arguing over language to the point of demonizing people, and avoid substance at all costs.
As it was explained to me by Rev. Jame Marcus in Selma, Alabam, who was told this by Martin Luther King, it's like this. Dr. King didn't care what language people used to talk about the Civil Rights movement so long as they were talking about the issue of Civil Rights. It did not matter how offenseive the language used by the opposition was because rational people would be driven away from them by this language and actions. However, if the discussion switched to what words were approapriate to use in discussing Civil Rights, then the central issue, which was equal rights for all rgardless of race, became lost in a cacophony of noise over what was and was not okay to say. Basically it was another way of saying keep your eye on the prize, or avoid getting lost in the weeds.
I can definitely respect that opinion. On the other hand, I do think there comes a time when you need to examine the language they use and address it in order to continue the dialogue. In this case, I liked a lot of Drachesturm's comments, and I think they showed an attempt to engage people in a thoughtful, productive conversation about the issues. However, I think the term feminazi just hit a soft spot, and I wanted to address that before getting further into the discussion. Perhaps I could have let it slide, or addressed it in a different manner.
Anyway, I appreciate the comments. It's certainly given me something to think about.
.....to the point of demonizing people.....
Demons! Where? SMITE EVIL!!!!!
|
|
David: it seems to me that the title of the thread indicates it is about language and the contention over language by competing ideologies.
True, the thread title does seem to indicate that, but then the OP asks us to get into what feminism is. When you ask this of a political scientist, you are asking me to define the underlying issues. An english teacher might see it differently. A math teacher most likely wouldn't care. Maybe the OP could come back and give us some clear guidelines as to where he would like the discussion to go.
David: it seems to me that the title of the thread indicates it is about language and the contention over language by competing ideologies.True, the thread title does seem to indicate that, but then the OP asks us to get into what feminism is. When you ask this of a political scientist, you are asking me to define the underlying issues. An english teacher might see it differently. A math teacher most likely wouldn't care. Maybe the OP could come back and give us some clear guidelines as to where he would like the discussion to go.
I hear you: my default response to such question is as a philosopher, so I'm looking for identity and coherent meaning. Also, I bring a mighty load of back issues with me from my run-ins in academia that have rendered me suspicious, if not skeptical.
David: it seems to me that the title of the thread indicates it is about language and the contention over language by competing ideologies.True, the thread title does seem to indicate that, but then the OP asks us to get into what feminism is. When you ask this of a political scientist, you are asking me to define the underlying issues. An english teacher might see it differently. A math teacher most likely wouldn't care. Maybe the OP could come back and give us some clear guidelines as to where he would like the discussion to go.
Both paths are completely relevent.
I was originally concerned that different people were using the same word to mean very different and sometime contradictory things.
But, it is also true that without looking at the underlying issues, any definitions would be meaningless.
Guys a girl once broke up with me.
*Shakes fist* DAMNED FEMINISTS!
BUZZWORD
It never occurred to me before, but "buzzword" is actually a buzzword.
Hmph.
|
|
I would love to see the abridged version of this and similar threads.
All of the stupid "funny" comments, the snark, personal insults and strawman arguments removed.
I wonder if the discussions would make sense then...
Probably not.
I should put more effort into them.
I did in fact do so at one time.
Then it turned into beating my head into the wall. Now though I do read them and from time to time actually put in a constructive input. I tend to go snarky fairly quickly. Also when idiocracy seems to rear its ugly head I tend to go fairly rapidly into our little blue hellions.
I should put more effort.
I really should.
It just seems more and more people want to belittle and argue over semantics as opposed to seeing and hearing another's view. I do however try to stay away from personal insults. Those worse then any tend to fade away from constructive and reasoned communication.
So for my part I am sorry. Maybe we can get Gary to install a Minimization link so we can just hide posts that don't constructively move the conversation along.
I fail to see how you can argue, in good faith, that a woman's freely made choice to pursue a career or a family can be counted as discrimination by men against her.That isn't the point of the issue with gender-based pay discrimination. The issue is that women who dedicated their lives to their careers, did not have children, and accepted plenty of extra unpaid work time covering for family men who had to go to their kid's activities, *still* are paid on average 3/4 of what males with comparable education levels and job duties are paid. It's not a matter of actual choices impacting one's career, it's a matter of pervasive societal standards which have real impact both fiscally and psychologically.
Except that they're not.
Ask yourself a simple question: if it was socially acceptable and legal to pay women less than a man to do the same work... why would any business owner ever hire a man?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male-female_income_disparity_in_the_USA
http://moneywatch.bnet.com/economic-news/article/salary-checkup-is-the-gend er-pay-gap-over/390638/
http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/censusstatistic/a/womenspay.htm
(On this one, don't just read the by line, read the reasons they give and make your own judgement about how women's choices impact their ability to compete in the market place. In spite of the by-line none of the listed reasons have anything to do with discrimination.)
http://www.warrenfarrell.net/TheBook/index.html
http://www.iwf.org/campus/show/18948.html
To deny that women's choices in profession and to take time off to have children don't impact their wages is intentionally blinding yourself for the sake of an ideology.
Here's a question: How do you think feminism should be defined? What do you think are worthy feminist causes- in general, or in gaming- and how would you like to see feminists go about fighting for them?
|
|
I think that the goal of feminism should be equal treatment under the law. Basically what was being pushed for at the Seneca Falls Convention when the movement first organized as a coherent entity. There has been a lot of progress in that regard, but there is still a ways to go. For example, according to the Department of Justice, a woman's murder or disappearance is five times more likely to become a cold case as a man's is. Women still struggle with pay issues and there are other problems as well. On the other hand a woman is more likely to be taken seriously if she alleges spousal abuse or rape than a man is, and many states have written rape shield laws so that they only protect woman victims.
As far as gaming goes, I think the goals are more vague. I would love to see more women in the hobby, but it has been stereotyped as a boy's hobby. In fact, it has been branded a hobby for social maladjusted teenage boys. At the treatment center I used to work at one of our patients was there because her parents decided that she must have identity issues due to her interest in Rps. So if anything, the goal should be to promote the idea that gaming is an acceptable hobby for girls, and adults as well.
I think that the goal of feminism should be equal treatment under the law.
What of the areas the law does not touch upon? I think this is where feminism has focused it's spotlight upon over the last decade or two.
|
|
I think that the goal of feminism should be equal treatment under the law.What of the areas the law does not touch upon? I think this is where feminism has focused it's spotlight upon over the last decade or two.
The problem with areas that the law does not touch on is that for you to successfully change things in those areas is to establish laws. Eventually you are legislating every aspect of life and that leads to tyranny. You can try all you want to win hearts and minds, but some people are always going to be haters, and unless you create a government powerful enough to legislate their behavior out of existence you will have to learn to live with that fact. The reason I support equal treatment under the law is that you can measure success in that area. With any other goals, you can never be successful so long as one sexist bigot is still able to spout hatred.
Edit: I am a strong believer in freedom. Unfortunately that, by nesecity, means the freedom to hate.
Here's a question: How do you think feminism should be defined?
Drop the term feminism entirely. If you beleive in equal treatment and opportunity for each gender then the word feminist makes as much sense as the word masculinist. It's like saying felinism is the love of dogs.
What do you think are worthy feminist causes-
Dealing with honor killings, providing education for women in 3rd world countries (but not at the expense of boys), encouraging women to pursue any career or valuable life path they choose to take, but understanding the sacrifices that may come with each. (Too many women have been told they can do it all... but rarely that they can do it all, just not at the same time.)
in general, or in gaming- and how would you like to see feminists go about fighting for them?
In gaming, there isn't any place for it. Just like there isn't any place for any particular political system, otherwise your escapism just becomes another form of propaganda. If you want to roleplay liberating women from the slavery of the kitchen, then you should also deal with cases of the queen beating her husband in private. (Look at Abe Lincoln's wife for a real world example.)
In general, I have no issue with elevating the status of women, but not at the expense of men. You don't advance by holding someone else back, even if at the end of the day you're closer to them. All that does is generate resentment. (And while that might be good for some special interest groups, it's not good for society as a whole.)
David: it seems to me that the title of the thread indicates it is about language and the contention over language by competing ideologies.True, the thread title does seem to indicate that, but then the OP asks us to get into what feminism is. When you ask this of a political scientist, you are asking me to define the underlying issues. An english teacher might see it differently. A math teacher most likely wouldn't care. Maybe the OP could come back and give us some clear guidelines as to where he would like the discussion to go.Both paths are completely relevent.
I was originally concerned that different people were using the same word to mean very different and sometime contradictory things.
But, it is also true that without looking at the underlying issues, any definitions would be meaningless.
I prefer to always go with what the dictionary definition is and not what the people want it to mean (like the Urban Dictionary for example).
Though the term I have always heard for the 'feminists' who were more concerned with attacking and lowering men instead of raising women as 'militant feminists'.
I think that the goal of feminism should be equal treatment under the law. Basically what was being pushed for at the Seneca Falls Convention when the movement first organized as a coherent entity. There has been a lot of progress in that regard, but there is still a ways to go. For example, according to the Department of Justice, a woman's murder or disappearance is five times more likely to become a cold case as a man's is. Women still struggle with pay issues and there are other problems as well. On the other hand a woman is more likely to be taken seriously if she alleges spousal abuse or rape than a man is, and many states have written rape shield laws so that they only protect woman victims.
As far as gaming goes, I think the goals are more vague. I would love to see more women in the hobby, but it has been stereotyped as a boy's hobby. In fact, it has been branded a hobby for social maladjusted teenage boys. At the treatment center I used to work at one of our patients was there because her parents decided that she must have identity issues due to her interest in Rps. So if anything, the goal should be to promote the idea that gaming is an acceptable hobby for girls, and adults as well.
I do like the word Equalitarian. I think it fits the feminist goals to remove gender bias. I think we have moved far enough ahead (in certain places) to remove the idea of focusing on one gender and instead compare all genders and ensure equal treatment over worrying exclusively on one genders treatment.
I think it is necessary to avoid anyone trying to swing the pendulum back as you put it.
I do like the word Equalitarian. I think it fits the feminist goals to remove gender bias. I think we have moved far enough ahead (in certain places) to remove the idea of focusing on one gender and instead compare all genders and ensure equal treatment over worrying exclusively on one genders treatment.
I think you mean 'egalitarian.' :) And, I would say that many feminists call themselves egalitarians as well. You have to remember that just because people support one cause does not mean that they don't support other causes as well. Personally, I devote a lot of my time and energy outside of gaming to support LGBTQI rights. However, it doesn't mean that I don't support other organizations and/or causes with both my time and money. People as individuals can only do so much with their time, and sometimes they need to focus the majority of their energies on one cause, with the knowledge that others are focusing their energies on other causes that they care about. I don't think that makes them any less of an egalitarian. On the contrary, I think it makes it more likely that they'll accomplish something meaningful for equality.
|
...providing education for women in 3rd world countries (but not at the expense of boys)....In general, I have no issue with elevating the status of women, but not at the expense of men. You don't advance by holding someone else back, even if at the end of the day you're closer to them.
Curious. Could you explain what you mean by "at the expense of boys/men"?
Because it sounds like this would mean "We can send girls to school, but if the classrooms are too crowded, kick the girls out first, we don't want to hold back those boys..."
|
|
...providing education for women in 3rd world countries (but not at the expense of boys)....In general, I have no issue with elevating the status of women, but not at the expense of men. You don't advance by holding someone else back, even if at the end of the day you're closer to them.Curious. Could you explain what you mean by "at the expense of boys/men"?
Because it sounds like this would mean "We can send girls to school, but if the classrooms are too crowded, kick the girls out first, we don't want to hold back those boys..."
+1. That does sound a bit hokey. Equality and freedom does not come "at the expense of" anyone.
@Petrus222: You provide interesting data about trends and groups, but unfortunately missed my point, which is that individual women who happen to fall into a particular group (i.e., married with no children) suffer pay discrimination because it is assumed that they will be taking time off work to raise children as if they were in the "married with children" group. This is the case even if they do not make the personal choice to raise a family. They are being penalized for the choices of others, not for their own choice.
Individuals should be hired based on qualifications and compensated for the amount and quality of the work they do, not for their demographics.
...providing education for women in 3rd world countries (but not at the expense of boys)....In general, I have no issue with elevating the status of women, but not at the expense of men. You don't advance by holding someone else back, even if at the end of the day you're closer to them.Curious. Could you explain what you mean by "at the expense of boys/men"?
Because it sounds like this would mean "We can send girls to school, but if the classrooms are too crowded, kick the girls out first, we don't want to hold back those boys..."
My apologies for not being clearer, I can see why you might think that.
What I mean is that it doesn't make any sense to me create a program that helps girls if there's no corresponding program for boys.
As an example, it's all well and good to build a girls only school in a village in a third world country, but if there's no corresponding school for boys, are you really helping the society as a whole or just disciminating against people with Y chromosomes?
Another example is in cases of single gender classrooms in public school systems. (North American public, not UK public) If you're going to ask for funding for a girls only school or classrooms, then shouldn't there be an equivalent amount of money for boys only classes and schools?
In terms of sports:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2006/09/22/hockey-decision.html
Note in this case the two girls wanted to play on the boys team in spite of the fact that the school had a girls team. The issue with the judicial decision was not only that the girls could play, but when boys tried the same thing in schools without a corresponding male team they were told no because it would affect female participation:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2006/09/26/pasternak-boys.html
Title IX in the US is another good example. Many universities have had to slash male sports teams not because there wasn't interest or money available, but because there wasn't enough female interest in female sports teams. What happened is that when the topic of federal funding for the schools came up they looked at the budjet for men and that for women and said you're spending too much on men and therefore don't meet federal funding guidelines. (So cut school funding or a sports team... the answer is obvious, but it was due to lack of female interest, not discrimination against women.)
Another example: in the 90's there was a giant push on how classrooms weren't female friendly that there was a massive imbalance in how girls were taught that led to big changes in how classrooms were run... but in doing so they ignored the boys and across the board male enrollement in post secondary university has dropped dramatically. (Google the boy crisis for more details. or look here http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=4566)
With regard to domesitic violence:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/boys-face-compulsory-feminism-programs-in- state-schools-across-victoria/story-e6frf7jo-1225803918910
Where's the corresponding program that teaches girls how to respectfully treat men and that hitting men isn't okay?
More on the topic of DV: women's shelters can provide a valuable service to battered women, but in many of those places boys above a certain age are not allowed entry because it might upset other clients who don't want a male around. Consider the implications of that. Mom leaves abusive dad and takes their daughter, unfortunately her son can't come and is forced to go back home to an abusive situation, or worse mom doesn't leave becaue she doesn't want her son in that situation without protection.
Take it a little further. Women are responsible for roughly half of all domesitic violence either by initiating it or by being the active abuser. How many men's shelters are there and why is it that women's shelters are allowed to refuse to take battered men? (This is changing but slowly. Also look at the implications of feminist organization refusing to share funding with men's DV shelters and their fears that such shelters will take money from programs for women. That's not about protecting victims, thats all about gender.)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/north_west/8495332.stm
(Check out this "gem":
Paula Hardy, chief executive officer of Welsh Women's Aid (WWA) said it was "disappointing" to lose De Gwynedd Women's Aid as a member group after many years of working together as part of the Women's Aid movement in Wales.
"However, all Women's Aid groups are autonomous organisations, and WWA recognise their right to move away from the feminist ethos of the movement, and make the decision to open their services up to men," she added.
Hopefully I've answered your question but if not, let me know and I'll see if I can't clarify it further.
That does sound a bit hokey. Equality and freedom does not come "at the expense of" anyone.
Equality and freedom? True enough, but equality on it's own?
A oldy but a goody. (It's a short story well worth reading if a little hyperbolic.)
http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html
Curious. Could you explain what you mean by "at the expense of boys/men"?
I think what he's referring to is a recent trend where more women than men are enrolling in, and graduating from college. The assumption is that the education system we currently have favors women over men. However, I think it has more to do with our society's values and prejudices as they relate to men. For example, society tends to look more favorably upon male athleticism than male academic success. There are also studies that show teachers are more likely to use adjectives like 'smart,' and 'well-behaved' to describe female students, while using adjectives like 'energetic' and 'difficult to handle' to describe male students. These prejudices, it is theorized, encourage men to to place little focus on education which, in turn, discourages college enrollment and academic success.
At the university I work for, I know they've recently developed a program on campus to help male students change their cultural perspectives about college. I don't know much about it, but as I understand it, they work with male students to help them focus more on schoolwork, and less on other activities that inhibit their academic success. I'm not sure how successful it's been, but I think it's encouraging to see them doing something to address the situation.
|
I would love to see the abridged version of this and similar threads.
All of the stupid "funny" comments, the snark, personal insults and strawman arguments removed.
I wonder if the discussions would make sense then...
I actually comb through these types of threads here (like the Civil Religious thread) and stitch together the cogent posts. You'd be surprised how well they read!
I actually comb through these types of threads here (like the Civil Religious thread) and stitch together the cogent posts. You'd be surprised how well they read!
There are cogent posts in this, and the Civil Religious Discussion thread? The hell, you say! :-P
I actually comb through these types of threads here (like the Civil Religious thread) and stitch together the cogent posts. You'd be surprised how well they read!I would love to see the abridged version of this and similar threads.
All of the stupid "funny" comments, the snark, personal insults and strawman arguments removed.
I wonder if the discussions would make sense then...
It's been said before, this is one of the most intelligent/well-read and polite messageboards in all of the intarwebs. Once the snark is removed, of course.