Total Posts:99|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Feminism

Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 10:51:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Recently one of my favorite people to disagree with, Geo, has remarked to me that he considers feminism to be corrupt, anti-women, and bad for society because it is a collectivist and egalitarian philosophy.

Of course, I am a feminist and I vehemently disagree.

I would like to debate the topic of feminism, particularly because I know a lot of people share the view that feminists are "destroying America," the nuclear family, and other aspects of society as evidenced by (what I deem to be ignorant albeit respectful) pundits and even some "intellects" on this site.

I have challenged Geo to a debate on feminism. In the opening round, I made a clear clarification that there is NOT a single feminist philosophy. I provided 10 descriptions of feminism that I have come across, some more official or scholarly than others. I invite my opponent OR another member on this site to comment here in this thread on what they think the best BROAD descriptor of feminism is in order to ensure a fair and healthy, fun debate. Thanks!

The challenge can be found here: http://www.debate.org...
President of DDO
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 11:19:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Although the least professional or official source, I have to say that I think UD provided the best definition in terms of balance between being too broad or to narrow. While it specifies intellectual and social equality as the ultimate goal, those categories are broad enough.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 3:15:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, this debate is open to anybody. I challenged Geo in particular but I know a lot of people feel similarly. If anyone opposes feminism, please check out the debate challenge and let me know if you are interested in debating the same thing (or something similar).
President of DDO
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 3:27:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
What objections I have to feminism both conceptually and practically are not anywhere in the same stadium as Geo's.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 3:56:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
My objection with feminism isn't the philosophy, but rather, the way that the radicals are going about it. Rather than raising themselves up, the majority of what I've seen is their attempt to bring men down.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 4:06:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
ClassicRobert and I may do a debate where I take a more extreme stance of Feminism. That men should be abolished.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 4:09:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 4:06:00 PM, FREEDO wrote:
ClassicRobert and I may do a debate where I take a more extreme stance of Feminism. That men should be abolished.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 4:37:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 3:27:01 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
What objections I have to feminism both conceptually and practically are not anywhere in the same stadium as Geo's.

In brief, what are your objections that differ from mine?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 5:25:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 4:37:09 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 6/10/2013 3:27:01 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
What objections I have to feminism both conceptually and practically are not anywhere in the same stadium as Geo's.

In brief, what are your objections that differ from mine?

Hopefully this is brief enough...

I'm wholly in favor of equality, and against sexism of all stripes. "Peoples is peoples" as a wise man said.

And I certainly think that the problems I have with the feminist movement weren't as significant fifty years ago, when society was wholly different; at that point, the lopsidedness I'm about to mention was considerably more understandable.

That said, I find feminism to be a generally hypocritical philosophy. While it doesn't necessarily have to be, it nonetheless generally and to my experience is. The claim that equality is the goal is belied by the nigh-utter lack of support for men's issues, few as they may arguably be. In general, as much lip service is paid to equality, I feel like it's a very one-sided movement. After all, feminist groups don't seem, to me, to be pushing much for women to have to register for selective service. Nor is there often any push to find the true reason for perceived gender imbalances; sometimes there are reasons for what looks like an unfair imbalance. A common defense against that charge is that there are much larger issues at stake...but that presumes that these organizations are spending ALL of their time on rape prevention and so one, which just "ain't so". And for all the support of Breast Cancer research, there's precious little relative support for Prostate Cancer (which follows fairly closely to BC, #3 to BCs #2).

Obviously, subsets of feminism also devolve into either ridiculous and actual misandry, or crazytown, which I don't indict the whole movement with, but at the same time think that it's, in part, intrinsic to a movement which is explicitly sexist in its name, regardless of whether the definition is claimed to be different (It's also hypocritical of a movement with an explicitly sexist name to take offense at words that appear to be gender-biased). I feel like SCUM could never have even pretended to be part of the movement, if it was the "equalist" movement, and not the "feminist" movement (though, of course, never underestimate the power of crazy), and I feel like, as many "waves" of the movement as there are, there are some fundamental flaws to the structure significant enough that I find it unlikely they'll be overcome.

I guess the TL;DR is that I feel it's one of those "semantics is important" situations.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 5:33:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't hate feminism per se, I just hate the completely incoherent and hypocritical views that many self-described feminists hold, and the whole 'goddess mentality'.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 6:08:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 5:25:53 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/10/2013 4:37:09 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 6/10/2013 3:27:01 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
What objections I have to feminism both conceptually and practically are not anywhere in the same stadium as Geo's.

In brief, what are your objections that differ from mine?

Hopefully this is brief enough...


I'm wholly in favor of equality, and against sexism of all stripes. "Peoples is peoples" as a wise man said.

And I certainly think that the problems I have with the feminist movement weren't as significant fifty years ago, when society was wholly different; at that point, the lopsidedness I'm about to mention was considerably more understandable.

That said, I find feminism to be a generally hypocritical philosophy. While it doesn't necessarily have to be, it nonetheless generally and to my experience is. The claim that equality is the goal is belied by the nigh-utter lack of support for men's issues, few as they may arguably be. In general, as much lip service is paid to equality, I feel like it's a very one-sided movement. After all, feminist groups don't seem, to me, to be pushing much for women to have to register for selective service. Nor is there often any push to find the true reason for perceived gender imbalances; sometimes there are reasons for what looks like an unfair imbalance. A common defense against that charge is that there are much larger issues at stake...but that presumes that these organizations are spending ALL of their time on rape prevention and so one, which just "ain't so". And for all the support of Breast Cancer research, there's precious little relative support for Prostate Cancer (which follows fairly closely to BC, #3 to BCs #2).

Feminism focuses on women, but not necessarily to the detriment of any and all other perspectives. I've never heard a feminist argue that men aren't disadvantaged in *some* situations (at the very least it's not a tenent representative of an overarching feminist philosophy), rather they just happen to focus on a specific issue. Geneticists don't primarily focus on anthropology, yet that dosen't mean that geneticists are against anthropology or don't think its object of study is worthwhile. Feminism, like many other social philosophies, is useful as a focused discourse i.e., one among many trains of thought specializing in a specific field. You know, pluralism and all that. Feminism proper doesn't argue that all men are necessarily advantaged at every existential level, rather that there are pervasive patterns of domination over and subjugation of women that deserve to be addressed in a way unique to that specific form of domination.

Obviously, subsets of feminism also devolve into either ridiculous and actual misandry, or crazytown, which I don't indict the whole movement with, but at the same time think that it's, in part, intrinsic to a movement which is explicitly sexist in its name, regardless of whether the definition is claimed to be different (It's also hypocritical of a movement with an explicitly sexist name to take offense at words that appear to be gender-biased). I feel like SCUM could never have even pretended to be part of the movement, if it was the "equalist" movement, and not the "feminist" movement (though, of course, never underestimate the power of crazy),

Inequality of focus doesn't necessitate inequality of outcome. Feminists focus on women's issues because they see those issues as worth pursuing. Focusing on only people (as an absurdly general level of focus) fails to recognize issues unique to the experience of women in society. The same is true of movements that seek to upgrade the status of blacks or homosexuals. Any subjugated minority will face difficulties unique to their own group. Gays didn't face slavery in the U.S. Likewise blacks (at least now) aren't subject to marriage inequality. Working towards egalitarianism on any level necessitates some sort of focused discourse, whether based on race, religion, socio-economic status, sexual orientation, or even gender. It doesn't mean that other issues are thrown out or tossed away (necessarily at least), only that those issues are what are being resolved at current.

and I feel like, as many "waves" of the movement as there are, there are some fundamental flaws to the structure significant enough that I find it unlikely they'll be overcome.

Elaborate?

I guess the TL;DR is that I feel it's one of those "semantics is important" situations.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 6:29:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 6:08:01 PM, Noumena wrote:

Feminism focuses on women, but not necessarily to the detriment of any and all other perspectives.

That may be true, but that it has a specific gender focus would make it inherently sexist.

I've never heard a feminist argue that men aren't disadvantaged in *some* situations (at the very least it's not a tenent representative of an overarching feminist philosophy), rather they just happen to focus on a specific issue.

That's not true, they're focusing on a specific gender.

Geneticists don't primarily focus on anthropology, yet that dosen't mean that geneticists are against anthropology or don't think its object of study is worthwhile.

They also don't call themselves anthropologists, either.

Feminism, like many other social philosophies, is useful as a focused discourse i.e., one among many trains of thought specializing in a specific field. You know, pluralism and all that. Feminism proper doesn't argue that all men are necessarily advantaged at every existential level, rather that there are pervasive patterns of domination over and subjugation of women that deserve to be addressed in a way unique to that specific form of domination.

But you can see how that would belie the claims that feminism is about making equality. Rather, it's about a specific gender's issues. And that's fine as far as it goes, but it's not something I support, as I support equality; thus, while I support many, many of the same things feminists do, I won't call myself a "feminist", because I believe in equality.


Obviously, subsets of feminism also devolve into either ridiculous and actual misandry, or crazytown, which I don't indict the whole movement with, but at the same time think that it's, in part, intrinsic to a movement which is explicitly sexist in its name, regardless of whether the definition is claimed to be different (It's also hypocritical of a movement with an explicitly sexist name to take offense at words that appear to be gender-biased). I feel like SCUM could never have even pretended to be part of the movement, if it was the "equalist" movement, and not the "feminist" movement (though, of course, never underestimate the power of crazy),

Inequality of focus doesn't necessitate inequality of outcome. Feminists focus on women's issues because they see those issues as worth pursuing. Focusing on only people (as an absurdly general level of focus) fails to recognize issues unique to the experience of women in society.

Equality of focus doesn't necessitate inequality of recognition. If there was an overarching equalist organization, that doesn't mean that issues unique to the experience of women in society would be unrecognized.

The same is true of movements that seek to upgrade the status of blacks or homosexuals.

And I think most "black" organizations have reached a point where, societally, they should be abandoning the racism that permeates their organization.

Homosexual rights, on the other hand, are actually at a disadvantage in this country. They're where women were at fifty years ago, and so I can forgive their lopsided focus.

And of course, this is all very Western-world-centric. Obviously, in third-world and Muslim countries, the landscape is different.

Any subjugated minority will face difficulties unique to their own group.

Women are far from "subjugated".

Gays didn't face slavery in the U.S. Likewise blacks (at least now) aren't subject to marriage inequality. Working towards egalitarianism on any level necessitates some sort of focused discourse, whether based on race, religion, socio-economic status, sexual orientation, or even gender. It doesn't mean that other issues are thrown out or tossed away (necessarily at least), only that those issues are what are being resolved at current.

And, like I said, I often agree with their points. But I won't identify with their movement, because of that lopsidedness. It doesn't mean I hate them, or the points they make. I simply prefer the broader approach, because I think the narrow approach all-too-often leads to hypocrisy; the discussion should never be framed in terms of "[Gender's] Rights!" and should be framed in terms of what's equal and what's right.


and I feel like, as many "waves" of the movement as there are, there are some fundamental flaws to the structure significant enough that I find it unlikely they'll be overcome.

Elaborate?

Well, the as-noted hypocrisy of the movement. The fact that the crazies garner so much support, and that some are considered respectable parts of the movement. The seemingly endemic victim-mentality. These are things that, when the movement was in its "first wave" and women were clearly oppressed, were far more forgivable than now, when the inequalities are within gray areas (for example, the oft touted wage gap, I think, has had far too little actual analysis, and far too much presumed victimhood. I also note that the "1-in-6 women" rape statistic is often bandied about, yet there is a similar statistic regarding male sexual abuse that is almost completely ignored).
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 6:31:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Expanding just a skosh on gay rights, I'm aware of no circumstances in which heterosexuals are in any way disadvantaged as compared to homosexuals. Which is why, if you're dealing with sexuality-in-culture, you have pretty much no option but to be talking about gay rights.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 1:54:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
There's a great deal to be done globally for women's rights, but in developed nations, especially the U.S., feminism is the epitome of "first-world problems".
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 8:27:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 3:56:06 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
My objection with feminism isn't the philosophy, but rather, the way that the radicals are going about it. Rather than raising themselves up, the majority of what I've seen is their attempt to bring men down.

Criticizing radicals is kind of obsolete. People tend to strongly dislike any kind of radical: political radicals, religious radicals, radicals about race, etc. If you only have a problem with the radicals then I don't even think it's worth mentioning.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 8:33:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 5:33:01 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
I don't hate feminism per se, I just hate the completely incoherent and hypocritical views that many self-described feminists hold, and the whole 'goddess mentality'.

A few individuals do not speak for an entire movement. That would be like me picking out some ignorant redneck who hates blacks, gays, denies evolution, wants to go to war with everyone in the Middle East, etc., and suggesting that they speak for the entire Republican party. Generalizations must be made, but that's why first defining feminism before you praise/condemn it is importance since there are a ton of ideas on feminism. The OP specifically asked the group to look at my proposed definitions, or pick one on their own that can be an accurate, general description. That way people can say whether or not they agree with the definition and not single out radicals to oppose.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 8:44:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 5:25:53 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:

Feminism...

- lacks support for men's issues
- is a very one sided movement
- doesn't push to find "true reasons" for gender inequality
- doesn't focus on men's issues like prostate cancer as much as breast cancer
- is explicitly sexist in name

Reply:

Feminism focuses on women/female issues, yes. However feminism looks to analyze and sometimes challenge assumptions about gender identity all-together. Inherent to that goal is looking at the way men/males are perceived in society and why, for better or worse. Throughout history there has been a pattern of dominant, patriarchal societies. There is also an undeniable disadvantage to being a women in those societies in most instances. That is practically a fact by most objective standards. Just because feminists focus on improving conditions for women/females doesn't mean that they ignore problems pertinent to males.

Groups that organize to fight for gay rights specifically focus on empowering gay people or for a specific goal pertinent to gay people. Are you really suggesting that those groups are inherently heterophobic or unjust because they don't focus on fighting for "heterosexual issues?" Obviously not.

Groups that organize to raise money for breast cancer don't deny that prostate cancer exists. Rather they focus on improving conditions for a particular demographic. The Civil Rights Movement focused on black rights. Was that an unjust, racist movement because those black people weren't fighting for white people too? By that logic EVERY movement that is non-egalitarian is biased and unfair.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 9:18:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 6:29:24 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
That may be true, but that it has a specific gender focus would make it inherently sexist.

Sexism refers to sex discrimination, usually in the form of oppression. How the hell are (non-radical) feminists oppressing men? Yes, feminists might discriminate on which gender to focus on the same way a cardiologist may discriminate on which organ of the body to work on. And similarly, MASCULINISTS focus on the rights, needs and discrimination of men.

That's not true, they're focusing on a specific gender.

No. See above. Also he said that he hasn't heard a feminist argue that men aren't disadvantaged in SOME ways (and that goes for me too). Even if you believe feminists are focused on a specific gender, that doesn't negate his point. And further, you're wrong because feminists absolutely do not single out one gender but rather examine gender as a WHOLE. They constantly talk about gender identity. Do you know how many feminists books have been written on sex, gender and the difference between the two?! And analyses about why both male and females are viewed in certain ways? While feminists choose to often highlight anti-female sentiments and fight for pro-female ideals, that doesn't at ALL discredit their efforts just because they don't equally promote pro-male ideals. That's like saying efforts to thwart juvenile diabetes are bad because they don't equally fight for juvenile cancer.

But you can see how that would belie the claims that feminism is about making equality. Rather, it's about a specific gender's issues. And that's fine as far as it goes, but it's not something I support, as I support equality; thus, while I support many, many of the same things feminists do, I won't call myself a "feminist", because I believe in equality.

That's a pretty dumb explanation. This is why defining feminism is an important starting point and what I specifically asked people to help with insofar as a debate in the OP. If you really supported equality as you claim, then you would support feminist efforts to equalize the treatment of males and females. Just because they focus on empowering females to level the playing field since men have been historically significantly advantaged in many ways (fact), you're harping on something irrelevant in order to shun the term for no reason.

Feminists don't say that men/ males/ people shouldn't focus on male inequality or prejudice, they just don't allocate a ton of resources to that plight. But don't be friggin naive and think that feminists don't acknowledge for example that it's still considered weird for a guy to be a stay-at-home dad. Feminists think that stigma is bogus. In fighting for women to be more accepted in the workforce/ Corporate America/ as bosses, etc., they are also simultaneously if not in the background fighting for that option so that gender stereotypes about men evolve as well.

I mean are you seriously THAT blind to this holistic picture? Also, by gender equality feminists don't necessarily mean that everyone is the exact same. That misnomer is something I plan on addressing in my debate with Geo as I'm sure he'll bring that up.

And I think most "black" organizations have reached a point where, societally, they should be abandoning the racism that permeates their organization.

Racism still permeates society and more importantly law enforcement. As such, there is still an incentive to combat anti-black racism considering blacks are still disadvantaged in certain ways. That doesn't mean that blacks can't also be racist (many are) or that even some of their proposed solutions aren't racist. But there is still a reason to focus on certain issues that pertain to black people in particular, and that's fine.

If feminists were suggesting that females are empowered by eradicating males (and some crazy bitches do), clearly that would be a faulty proposed solution. And likewise sometimes black rights activists suggest some pretty crappy resolutions. But that doesn't discount the fact that they still have reason to combat certain injustices.

Homosexual rights, on the other hand, are actually at a disadvantage in this country. They're where women were at fifty years ago, and so I can forgive their lopsided focus.

I agree that gays are worse off than blacks. But racism and racial profiling still exists.

Any subjugated minority will face difficulties unique to their own group.

Women are far from "subjugated".

You don't have to be subjugated to be disadvantaged, discriminated against unfairly, oppressed, or face negative or harmful double standards.

And, like I said, I often agree with their points. But I won't identify with their movement, because of that lopsidedness. It doesn't mean I hate them, or the points they make. I simply prefer the broader approach, because I think the narrow approach all-too-often leads to hypocrisy; the discussion should never be framed in terms of "[Gender's] Rights!" and should be framed in terms of what's equal and what's right.

The fact that people are hesitant to identify as feminists is literally what you learn in every Women and Gender Studies course on day 1. That's like someone saying they don't want to identify as Catholic because Catholic priests raped little boys. A few bad eggs don't speak for an entire movement or belief system. Feminism is super broad, and it's hypocritical to say you won't commit to being a feminist because of the fraction that is bad while simultaneously ignoring all of the good. Why not ignore the bad instead of the good? Why does the identify of feminism lie on that which you do not agree instead of all of that which you agree?

Well, the as-noted hypocrisy of the movement. The fact that the crazies garner so much support, and that some are considered respectable parts of the movement.

Bad argument.

The seemingly endemic victim-mentality. These are things that, when the movement was in its "first wave" and women were clearly oppressed, were far more forgivable than now, when the inequalities are within gray areas (for example, the oft touted wage gap, I think, has had far too little actual analysis, and far too much presumed victimhood. I also note that the "1-in-6 women" rape statistic is often bandied about, yet there is a similar statistic regarding male sexual abuse that is almost completely ignored).

So because some statistics are misstated that discredits everything feminism stands for? By that logic every movement would be discredited. Every belief system would be irrelevant. People inflate or misrepresent statistics all the time. But if you really think that just because women aren't AS disadvantaged today as in the past, that they should just be quiet, then you are seriously naive to the social constructs of your very own society.

Aren't there still discrepancies in the way male/female sexuality is viewed? Doesn't rape culture exist? Doesn't sexism in various forms exist? Aren't there issues particular to women that they want to fight for in a political or social context, eg. regarding laws on breast feeding in public, job discrimination, maternity leave, etc.? And even if you think the free market should sort itself out, attention to these issues have to be raised in order for the public to take a stance. What about the misogynistic vernacular that puts women down? What about the hypersexualization of women in the media? What about the lack of female presence or leadership in certain industries? Not all of these issues require or seek to changes in the law (some do), but feminists would like to highlight certain things and improve conditions for women and society overall.

That's what I would like to debate. If you disagree, DEBATE ME :) I'd rather debate formally with you and Geo. Let's just pick a definition of feminism. See the OP.
President of DDO
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 10:36:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I find the definitions of feminism quite favorable. In fact, under those definitions, I support feminism. The only problem comes when some feminists argue that women > men. This probably isn't even feminism (if feminism argues for equality), but an extreme form of radical feminism.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 12:14:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 10:36:25 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I find the definitions of feminism quite favorable. In fact, under those definitions, I support feminism. The only problem comes when some feminists argue that women > men. This probably isn't even feminism (if feminism argues for equality), but an extreme form of radical feminism.

I agree, and as you know, the vast majority of feminists advocate the egalitarian philosophy of equal moral worth regardless of sex or gender.

However, just for the sake of lulz debate, I'd argue that women > men ;)
President of DDO
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 12:46:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The problem w/ defining feminism is two-fold:
a) Any definition is often very vague. For example what constitutes "equality"?
b) What a group defines its goals and its actual actions are two entirely different actions. Public schools have a "mission statement", and while most people wouldn't disagree with the mission statement, a lot more would disagree with public schools, because their words and actual actions are completely too different things. Words are cheap signals, and an organization is always going to define their definition in a positive-light. However, it's best to look at what the real-actions that feminism has done, and judge feminism based on its actions and the effect of these actions.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 1:04:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 8:44:01 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 6/10/2013 5:25:53 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:

Feminism...

- lacks support for men's issues
- is a very one sided movement
- doesn't push to find "true reasons" for gender inequality
- doesn't focus on men's issues like prostate cancer as much as breast cancer
- is explicitly sexist in name

Reply:

Feminism focuses on women/female issues, yes. However feminism looks to analyze and sometimes challenge assumptions about gender identity all-together. Inherent to that goal is looking at the way men/males are perceived in society and why, for better or worse. Throughout history there has been a pattern of dominant, patriarchal societies. There is also an undeniable disadvantage to being a women in those societies in most instances. That is practically a fact by most objective standards. Just because feminists focus on improving conditions for women/females doesn't mean that they ignore problems pertinent to males.

Groups that organize to fight for gay rights specifically focus on empowering gay people or for a specific goal pertinent to gay people. Are you really suggesting that those groups are inherently heterophobic or unjust because they don't focus on fighting for "heterosexual issues?" Obviously not.

Groups that organize to raise money for breast cancer don't deny that prostate cancer exists. Rather they focus on improving conditions for a particular demographic. The Civil Rights Movement focused on black rights. Was that an unjust, racist movement because those black people weren't fighting for white people too? By that logic EVERY movement that is non-egalitarian is biased and unfair.

Perhaps you should read my entire post before commenting? I did note the differences between a movement regarding homosexuality and one for gender issues. You claim that feminists don't ignore the problems of males...yet honestly, can you think of any significant part of the movement that hasn't? In fact, I specifically addressed this. Please don't skim and reply. Actually read, because repeating myself when you haven't actually addressed the points I brought up is a bit tedious...
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 1:40:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm going to reply here, but at this juncture I wouldn't accept a debate from you on this subject for the reasons I outline below. In short: because your responses indicate dishonesty on your part. Or, at the very least, not-really-reading-the-post-before-replying.

If you're going to compose a long-winded response, the least you could do is actually read what I've written.

As regards to the points:

At 6/11/2013 9:18:00 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 6/10/2013 6:29:24 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
That may be true, but that it has a specific gender focus would make it inherently sexist.

Sexism refers to sex discrimination, usually in the form of oppression.

I disagree that it's "usually in the form of oppression". Sexism is sexism, it is the concern for one sex over another. There is sexism all over that doesn't actually rise to the level of "oppression".

How the hell are (non-radical) feminists oppressing men?

False equivalency. Even by YOUR OWN words, it's only "usually" in the form of oppression. But I NEVER claimed oppression, and I certainly don't believe it, and it's disingenuous of you to pretend I have.

Yes, feminists might discriminate on which gender to focus on the same way a cardiologist may discriminate on which organ of the body to work on. And similarly, MASCULINISTS focus on the rights, needs and discrimination of men.

I don't consider myself a masculinist, either, though I'm guesssing you assume I do from the fact you bothered to bring it up.

On the subject of cardiologists, that's true. Of course, "organ discrimination" isn't really a societal problem. And you wouldn't go to a cardiologist for your GP.

That's not true, they're focusing on a specific gender.

No. See above.

Where you agreed that they're focusing on a specific gender? You can't say "No", and refer me to where you agreed that that's what they do!

Also he said that he hasn't heard a feminist argue that men aren't disadvantaged in SOME ways (and that goes for me too). Even if you believe feminists are focused on a specific gender, that doesn't negate his point. And further, you're wrong because feminists absolutely do not single out one gender but rather examine gender as a WHOLE.

BS. I call BS. Because, just as you wouldn't let me indict the whole movement on the basis of the radicals, neither can you support the whole movement by purposefully excluding them. They're BOTH part of the movement.

They constantly talk about gender identity. Do you know how many feminists books have been written on sex, gender and the difference between the two?! And analyses about why both male and females are viewed in certain ways? While feminists choose to often highlight anti-female sentiments and fight for pro-female ideals, that doesn't at ALL discredit their efforts just because they don't equally promote pro-male ideals.

I never said it did! Please ACTUALLY READ WHAT I WRITE. I find issues with the movements, but on specific positions, I generally agree. I have an issue with the container, not the contents, and I never said their efforts were discredited.

That's like saying efforts to thwart juvenile diabetes are bad because they don't equally fight for juvenile cancer.

No, it isn't, at all. This is a gender-lines issue. And it was just an example. Feminist organizations are NOT centrally concerned with health. Yet they get involved in WOMEN'S health issues alone. That's one-sided of them.

But you can see how that would belie the claims that feminism is about making equality. Rather, it's about a specific gender's issues. And that's fine as far as it goes, but it's not something I support, as I support equality; thus, while I support many, many of the same things feminists do, I won't call myself a "feminist", because I believe in equality.

That's a pretty dumb explanation.

Ah, yes, Insults from people who aren't reading before they start typing. Thanks for that.

This is why defining feminism is an important starting point and what I specifically asked people to help with insofar as a debate in the OP.

I wasn't responding to your OP, I was responding to other posters. The problem with using the definition, instead of the actuality, of the movement is THAT IT IGNORES THE ACTUALITY. There are many groups out there that are quite racist, yet deny being racist. "We aren't racist, we just want the dirty Mexicans out of this country" and so on. That they've defined themselves as "not racist" doesn't change that they act in a racist way. And in case you only skim this reply I'M NOT EQUATING FEMINISM WITH THOSE GROUPS, IT'S JUST AN EXAMPLE OF THE POINT.

If you really supported equality as you claim, then you would support feminist efforts to equalize the treatment of males and females.

AS I SAID, I already do, when they have a valid point. However, feminist efforts generally are focused ONLY on "equalizing" females, that is, bringing them up in places they're deficient. I do not see them fighting equally for places where men are disadvantaged, even when they're talking about fundamentally similar issues (such as gender portrayal in the media).

Just because they focus on empowering females to level the playing field since men have been historically significantly advantaged in many ways (fact), you're harping on something irrelevant in order to shun the term for no reason.

The fact you mention is one I never denied.

At the same time, YOU feel it's irrelevant. I DO NOT, and I have given my reasons for why. Pretending there's "no reason" WHEN I HAVE EXPLICITLY DESCRIBED THE REASON is both disingenuous of you, and annoying.

Feminists don't say that men/ males/ people shouldn't focus on male inequality or prejudice, they just don't allocate a ton of resources to that plight.

And of course, by "a ton" read ANY.

But don't be friggin naive and think that feminists don't acknowledge for example that it's still considered weird for a guy to be a stay-at-home dad. Feminists think that stigma is bogus.

Oh do they? Then what are they doing about it? Oh, right, focusing SOLELY on the female side of the equation.

In fighting for women to be more accepted in the workforce/ Corporate America/ as bosses, etc., they are also simultaneously if not in the background fighting for that option so that gender stereotypes about men evolve as well.

How very patronizing. The stigma of women in the workforce is almost completely gone (although the bosses etc. part is arguably there). Yet the stigma of the stay at home dad is still present, as far as I can tell, just as much, which belies your claims that focusing only on one aspect is holistic.

I mean are you seriously THAT blind to this holistic picture?

Again with the insults. No, I'm not blind to the holistic picture, which is my entire point.

Also, by gender equality feminists don't necessarily mean that everyone is the exact same. That misnomer is something I plan on addressing in my debate with Geo as I'm sure he'll bring that up.

Yes, it is more nuanced. However, what has that got to do with anything regarding any of my points?

And I think most "black" organizations have reached a point where, societally, they should be abandoning the racism that permeates their organization.

Racism still permeates society and more importantly law enforcement. As such, there is still an incentive to combat anti-black racism considering blacks are still disadvantaged in certain ways. That doesn't mean that blacks can't also be racist (many are) or that even some of their proposed solutions aren't racist. But there is still a reason to focus on certain issues that pertain to black people in particular, and that's fine.

Very true. But we don't frame the debate as "black rights", we frame it as removing racism and/or as civil rights.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 1:41:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If feminists were suggesting that females are empowered by eradicating males (and some crazy bitches do), clearly that would be a faulty proposed solution. And likewise sometimes black rights activists suggest some pretty crappy resolutions. But that doesn't discount the fact that they still have reason to combat certain injustices.

Homosexual rights, on the other hand, are actually at a disadvantage in this country. They're where women were at fifty years ago, and so I can forgive their lopsided focus.

I agree that gays are worse off than blacks. But racism and racial profiling still exists.
I never said or implied that it didn't.

Any subjugated minority will face difficulties unique to their own group.

Women are far from "subjugated".

You don't have to be subjugated to be disadvantaged, discriminated against unfairly, oppressed, or face negative or harmful double standards.

No, you don't. But the word used was subjugated. I wouldn't have quibbled if the word used had been "disadvantaged". Again, parts like this make me feel like you aren't actually READING before replying. My comment was in DIRECT RESPONSE to Noumena lumping women in as a "subjugated minority", and all I did was point out that they are NOT subjugated. So you take it to mean that I think they aren't disadvantaged at all?

And, like I said, I often agree with their points. But I won't identify with their movement, because of that lopsidedness. It doesn't mean I hate them, or the points they make. I simply prefer the broader approach, because I think the narrow approach all-too-often leads to hypocrisy; the discussion should never be framed in terms of "[Gender's] Rights!" and should be framed in terms of what's equal and what's right.

The fact that people are hesitant to identify as feminists is literally what you learn in every Women and Gender Studies course on day 1. That's like someone saying they don't want to identify as Catholic because Catholic priests raped little boys.

No, it isn't, it's like not identifying as Catholic because you don't completely agree with their religion.

A few bad eggs don't speak for an entire movement or belief system.

Never said it did. Said the exact opposite.

Feminism is super broad, and it's hypocritical to say you won't commit to being a feminist because of the fraction that is bad while simultaneously ignoring all of the good.

No, it isn't. Do you even know what that word means? FIRST, that's not the reason I gave. SECOND, that wouldn't be hypocritical. I don't agree, and it's not my reason, but it wouldn't be HYPOCRITICAL. Words mean things. Which is, really part of my problem with the movement.

Why not ignore the bad instead of the good?

You mean like you've been doing when you make broad sweeping generalizations about "feminists"? Don't get me wrong, I did make some sweeping generalizations. However, I believe mine were simply about actions, and correct, while yours were about philosophy and, in my opinion, overbroad.

Why does the identify of feminism lie on that which you do not agree instead of all of that which you agree?

I didn't say it did! One can agree with PART of something, and find another part bothersome enough so as not to participate. The BSA is a bigoted organization. That doesn't mean that learning to tie knots and survive in the wilderness is stupid.

Well, the as-noted hypocrisy of the movement. The fact that the crazies garner so much support, and that some are considered respectable parts of the movement.

Bad argument.

In what way? The movement is identified by what it ACTUALLY is and supports, not by what you want it to be.

The seemingly endemic victim-mentality. These are things that, when the movement was in its "first wave" and women were clearly oppressed, were far more forgivable than now, when the inequalities are within gray areas (for example, the oft touted wage gap, I think, has had far too little actual analysis, and far too much presumed victimhood. I also note that the "1-in-6 women" rape statistic is often bandied about, yet there is a similar statistic regarding male sexual abuse that is almost completely ignored).

So because some statistics are misstated that discredits everything feminism stands for?

Seriously. NEVER SAID OR IMPLIED THAT. STOP MISREPRESENTING MY POINTS.

By that logic every movement would be discredited.

Well, if I'd said it in the way you're presenting, probably. But since I didn't, no.

Every belief system would be irrelevant. People inflate or misrepresent statistics all the time. But if you really think that just because women aren't AS disadvantaged today as in the past, that they should just be quiet, then you are seriously naive to the social constructs of your very own society.

I never said the bolded. Literally NOTHING in what I said implies the bolded. It is INCREDIBLY dishonest of you to keep doing this.

That's what I would like to debate. If you disagree, DEBATE ME :) I'd rather debate formally with you and Geo. Let's just pick a definition of feminism. See the OP.

No. Because you have shown here that you're perfectly willing to constantly straw-man in support of your IDEAL of what feminism is, while ignoring or downplaying all flaws that actually exist. If I KNOW you're going to purposefully misrepresent me, why the aitch-ee-dubble-hockey-sticks would I want to debate you?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 1:50:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The response from you, Danielle, is all too common. My complaints, really, are relatively minor, and I agree on all specific points that feminism supports; my only complaints is the lack of, to use your term, a truly "holistic" approach to gender issues.

It really shouldn't anger you this much that I say that I support equalism, and have some problems with feminism.

Yet it does, and I've noticed it as being quite common among folks who are deeply into feminism; why is that?

Is it because of an assumption that I must be lying when I say I support equality?
Or that I must think feminists are stupid or that they should "shut up", even if that's not at all what I said?

Is my rejection of the name and some of the baggage of that name so terrible, if I agree on all the points regarding "equality" that you think are so intrinsic to the movement?

I do have experience with gender studies classes, both from inside as taking them and from outside, seeing the course unfold through lecture notes, homework, reading assignments et al (Mrs. Bladerunner actually had it as one of her majors, which doesn't make ME an expert by proxy, but certainly gives me more familiarity than my own courses alone would provide). I note the tribal mentality is actually quite common within them, the idea that even if you hold all the same values, if you don't like one of the "sacred cows" (such as my quibbling about terminology and lopsidedness), you must actually be against EVERYTHING.

But I don't think that can be laid at feminism's feet, even if I do notice how common it is. I didn't mention it before, because I don't think it's a "feminism" issue per se, but having read your response, which I found fault with for the reasons I noted, I was reminded again. It bothers me that it's a subject where reasoned discourse is so difficult among people that agree so closely.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 3:10:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 1:04:49 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
You claim that feminists don't ignore the problems of males...yet honestly, can you think of any significant part of the movement that hasn't?

Are you really going to whine about me skipping portions of your post when you so blatantly skip (or rather ignore) aspects of mine? There is a difference between feminist MOVEMENTS and feminist IDEOLOGY. Feminist ideology focuses on gender roles (which apply to both men and women). Feminist movements refer to campaigns with specific goals. First-Wave Feminism was about Suffrage. Oh, I'm sorry - should women have been fighting for the right of men to vote WHEN THEY COULD ALREADY VOTE? Second Wave Feminism focused a lot on abortion rights, unequal pay for equal work, and sexual repression. Oh, I'm sorry, should women have been fighting for male control over their own body? Oh that's right... Men can't have babies, so abortion issues don't apply to them. Oh that's right, disparities in the workforce favored men over women, so they didn't need to fight for equal opportunity (recognition) because they were already favored.
President of DDO
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 3:23:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 3:10:29 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 6/11/2013 1:04:49 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
You claim that feminists don't ignore the problems of males...yet honestly, can you think of any significant part of the movement that hasn't?

Are you really going to whine about me skipping portions of your post when you so blatantly skip (or rather ignore) aspects of mine? There is a difference between feminist MOVEMENTS and feminist IDEOLOGY. Feminist ideology focuses on gender roles (which apply to both men and women). Feminist movements refer to campaigns with specific goals. First-Wave Feminism was about Suffrage. Oh, I'm sorry - should women have been fighting for the right of men to vote WHEN THEY COULD ALREADY VOTE? Second Wave Feminism focused a lot on abortion rights, unequal pay for equal work, and sexual repression. Oh, I'm sorry, should women have been fighting for male control over their own body? Oh that's right... Men can't have babies, so abortion issues don't apply to them. Oh that's right, disparities in the workforce favored men over women, so they didn't need to fight for equal opportunity (recognition) because they were already favored.

First off, that's the first time you've brought up the dichotomy in those terms, so to pretend I've "blatantly ignored" you is, again, a misrepresentation.

Search for "ideology" on this thread; the first time you'll find it is in your reply. You pointed out that the flaws of some extreme elements of feminism do not indict the whole, which was a moot point considering I said that in my very first post.

As regards to your point, however, Feminist IDEOLOGY is intrinsically tied to Feminist MOVEMENTS...my objections to feminism are not to the definition that you cling to, but to the reality of the situation, and how certain fundamental concepts within the movement seem to lead to those problems.

And considering I already agreed that, in the past, this situation was extremely different, your complaints here are, once again, utterly without merit. We aren't talking about feminism IN THE PAST, especially since I explicitly said I understood why it was what it was in that time.

We're talking about feminism TODAY, and how I feel it hasn't moved beyond the mindset of the past. That you seem to have utterly ignored that seems to underline my point.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 4:14:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 1:40:34 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
I'm going to reply here, but at this juncture I wouldn't accept a debate from you on this subject for the reasons I outline below. In short: because your responses indicate dishonesty on your part. Or, at the very least, not-really-reading-the-post-before-replying.

What a bogus excuse. If we debated formally then the audience would penalize me for skipping your points.

I disagree that it's "usually in the form of oppression". Sexism is sexism, it is the concern for one sex over another. There is sexism all over that doesn't actually rise to the level of "oppression".

That is from the OFFICIAL DEFINITION OF SEXISM according to the dictionary. Sexism doesn't have to be oppressive, but what's your point?

False equivalency. Even by YOUR OWN words, it's only "usually" in the form of oppression. But I NEVER claimed oppression, and I certainly don't believe it, and it's disingenuous of you to pretend I have.

Straw man. I never claimed you said that. I c/p the definition of sexism; sorry you were unfamiliar with it. But how are feminists sexist against men? AGAINST men implies standing in opposition to men.

I don't consider myself a masculinist, either, though I'm guesssing you assume I do from the fact you bothered to bring it up.

My point was that feminists highlight injustice against females; masculinists highlight injustice against males. This is to combat the stupid argument that feminists are bad/wrong because they are sexist and don't equally care about the male plight. Different groups just highlight different issues. You already conceded that.

Where you agreed that they're focusing on a specific gender? You can't say "No", and refer me to where you agreed that that's what they do!

I was referring to what I posted previously where I outlined that feminists analyze and challenge gender ALL-TOGETHER, so they do not just focus on females. They dissect all gender roles: male, female and everything in between.

BS. I call BS. Because, just as you wouldn't let me indict the whole movement on the basis of the radicals, neither can you support the whole movement by purposefully excluding them. They're BOTH part of the movement.

Wrong. Can I discredit capitalism by criticizing crony capitalism? "But they're both capitalism!" No. Crony capitalism is capitalism by name only. Similarly, radical feminists can call themselves feminists but they are feminist in name only. People can identify as anything they want; that doesn't make it true or speak for everyone else who identifies by the same descriptor.

Do terrorists represent Muslims? No. An argument against terrorism is not equivalent to an argument against Islam even if terrorists do something in the name of Islam. Do Mormon, child raping polygamists represent Christians because they call themselves Christian? No. Different Christians have different values. You would have to define feminism before attacking it. I've said that a bunch of times. If you oppose radical feminism, then you oppose just that - not ALL feminism.

Feminist organizations are NOT centrally concerned with health. Yet they get involved in WOMEN'S health issues alone. That's one-sided of them.

LOL Who cares? So because they promote women's health they are bad because they don't EQUALLY focus on men's health? So wait a second... is the NFL bad because they don't focus on employing women? Do you know the HISTORY of why they focus on women's health? No, probably not. The Reader's Digest version is that previously all studies focused on health from a male perspective. Male bodies were the default in terms of studying medicine which compromised women's health significantly. Tons of research has been done on this. Maybe you should read some of it.

Here's an article called The Patriarchal System: The Exclusion of Women in Medical Case Studies

http://www.public.asu.edu...

Once again, we see that feminists look for women to be included - NOT to exclude men. Why is it problematic to you that a movement or ideology focuses on empowering the disadvantaged class? What would be the point/need of focusing on the privileged class?

Males are not free from sexism but A) they are on balance more privileged and B) they have masculinists to do for males what feminists do for females. That doesn't make masculinists wrong just because they are not identical to feminists - duh! You're really going to knock feminism because masculinism hasn't been as mainstream? (Granted they don't have a heck of a lot to fight for...)

However, feminist efforts generally are focused ONLY on "equalizing" females, that is, bringing them up in places they're deficient. I do not see them fighting equally for places where men are disadvantaged, even when they're talking about fundamentally similar issues (such as gender portrayal in the media).

LOL @ you thinking there is a problem with helping the disadvantaged! I think it's pretty ridiculous that you do given the fact that women do not have an equal playing field by your own admission. If guys don't like the fact that they are portrayed as hypersexual retards in advertisements for example, then maybe they should team up with the feminists to help eradicate those gender stereotypes. Instead guys tend to find those associations funny or are apathetic about them, because they are not as harmful on balance. Also, give me an example of where males are disadvantaged and where you want feminists to fight on their behalf. I'm just curious.

And of course, by "a ton" read ANY [allocated resources to male plight].

WRONG. Do you really think feminists don't recognize gender roles including ones that are harmful against men at ALL? Really?! Here's one example to prove you wrong amongst many; it's an article called How Tackling the 'Crisis of Masculinity' Creates a Crisis for Feminism - http://www.guardian.co.uk...

Oh do they? Then what are they doing about it? Oh, right, focusing SOLELY on the female side of the equation.

Waaah. I've responded to this 20x already. You're still so wrong. Feminists challenge gender roles which includes advocating more involvement from male parents, etc. regarding stay at home dads. "When we break down the valid concerns about gender assumptions... it turns out that feminism"s focus on freeing everyone from traditional gender roles means that the feminist movement and the legitimate father"s rights advocates are working toward the same goal."

The stigma of women in the workforce is almost completely gone (although the bosses etc. part is arguably there). Yet the stigma of the stay at home dad is still present, as far as I can tell, just as much, which belies your claims that focusing only on one aspect is holistic.

First, FEMINISTS FIGHT AGAINST THE STIGMA OF THE STAY AT HOME DAD. I specifically brought that up. Second, the stigma of women in the workforce may be minimized, but that hasn't eliminated sexism in the workforce all together. Studies show that women are still discriminated against on the basis of employment (because of kids). Women make up more than half the labor force yet I believe there are only 12/500 CEOs of Fortune 500 Companies. Statistics alone show that there is something wrong with that picture. There's also the fact that women tend to avoid certain industries; feminists look to why (and research indicates that women have been specifically discouraged from certain fields).

No, I'm not blind to the holistic picture, which is my entire point.

Your point is that you should be able to criticize feminism as a whole because you disagree with radicals, and because they don't equally prioritize discrimination against guys. Yawn. Big deal; I've repeated why that's not a problem and also not entirely accurate
President of DDO
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 4:24:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think Bladerunner's problem can be traced almost solely to his lack of recognizing the validity of focused discourses I.e., he doesn't recognize that even if one seeks equality for all, certain groups will face unique problems which call for unique movements and points of focus. Of course he also thinks sexism is almost entirely eradicated in Westen democracies but that's too big an area for me to get into at current.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.