@Tara

I think any theory/doctrine/school of thought can become dogmatic and fundamentalist if its basic beliefs are not kept in mind during application. Once you start applying the conclusions indiscriminately, without considering where the actual premises may or may not be applicable, then you are being dogmatic. To that end, can you tell me what some of the basic beliefs of feminism are? I'd have thought that gender-equality is the only one, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

(September 17, 2012 at 9:42 am)genkaus Wrote: I think any theory/doctrine/school of thought can become dogmatic and fundamentalist if its basic beliefs are not kept in mind during application.

I think there is truth to that. Gender equality is an admirable goal and I don't think there are very many rational people who can make very much of a case against that. At best you could point out some general biological differences, such as men generally having upper body strength or women generally being able to have children, but it's rare that those differences have relevance.

However, any idea can be brought to an unhealthy extreme. The problems start happening within the whole movement when the extreme branch is the one that pushes them. For example, if Rush Limbaugh was just a fringe kook in the Republican party that nobody really listened to, I would think he's stupid but I wouldn't care that he's stupid because she's an inconsequential buffoon. However, this isn't the case. He's wildly popular within Republican circles and he's pushing agenda and influencing how the Republican party as a whole thinks. When your thinking becomes more and more aligned with a lunatic, you're in dangerous territory.

And part of gender equality is recognizing sexism when it happens to men. However, within feminism circles, it's common to get told "what about the menz" as an almost automatic response when men's issues are brought up. Others simply explain away those issues as "men only have issue x because women have issue y." Some will simply say men deserve any mistreatment they get because they're overly aggressive, overly entitled and too likely to rape or something. This is either offensive or dismissive to legitimate issues men have in the area of gender equality. I mean, try talking to a father who lost his children in a divorce, even though he's a better parent. Try telling it to a male victim of domestic violence who isn't even listened to. Try telling it to a guy who feels valued based entirely on how much money he makes.

Quote: To that end, can you tell me what some of the basic beliefs of feminism are? I'd have thought that gender-equality is the only one, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

The basic belief is usually about gender equality; however, some of the extreme branches push for feminine superiority and/or elimination of the concept of gender. The fact that I'm transsexual argues against the second; if gender wasn't important, I could simply live as an uber-femme dude (tried it, didn't work, I was miserable and wanted to kill people).

And, yes, there are feminists who specifically argue for feminine superiority. Most notable work in that department is The SCUM Manifesto. While I can forgive the author for her writing because she's probably paranoid schizophrenic, there are people who are otherwise reasonable and rational who will speak up in defense of it, using feminism as a defense. How insane must their extreme be if they're able to consider it acceptable to chop up and kill people because they happen to have a penis? But it doesn't end there. There's Andrea Dworkin who argues, basically, that all heterosexual sex is rape. Germain Greer wrote that "women have no idea how much men hate them." Betty Friedan compared men to nazi guards at concentration camps. Rosalind Miles called men "the death sex." Yes, there are some very big, influential names within feminism who make no attempt to cover the fact that they hate men.

I've seen how alienating this can be to men or people who care about men; how can I agree with people who compare my brother to Nazi's? How can I agree with people who call my boyfriend "the death sex?" My boyfriend came from an extremely misogynistic background and he knows now that it's wrong and he wants to explore that some, but how is he supposed to get involved with a movement that considers as one of it's matriarchs, someone who says women have no idea how much he hates them?

@Tara

I think, we more or less agree on almost all points, so I'll just make a few points on feminism.

- "All sex is rape" - yeah, that's a good one. I find such concepts to be more demeaning to women than what feminists would realize. Basically, what they are saying is that even if a women consents to sex, she is not really consenting but being overpowered by the male will. That would automatically put women in an inferior position, which, I should think, goes against the feminist agenda. Another example would be having special quotas for women in jobs or college admission. Even though it's done in name of social equality, I would think that most women would find it insulting to be told effectively that "you can't get in on your own merit, but since we care about social equality, we are letting you in anyway".

- Regarding the relevance of biological differences - they may not be as irrelevant as you may think. For example, not just upper body strength but the capacity for physical endurance is greater in men as well. While the obvious implications are preferential male selection in fields such as military and police, but the same concept is also applicable in many other blue collar jobs, such as construction work. Similarly, there are other jobs where women are more suitable. While this is often held up as an example of gender inequality, I don't see why gender equality should be necessarily attained in these situations.

(September 17, 2012 at 12:14 pm)genkaus Wrote: - "All sex is rape" - yeah, that's a good one. I find such concepts to be more demeaning to women than what feminists would realize. Basically, what they are saying is that even if a women consents to sex, she is not really consenting but being overpowered by the male will. That would automatically put women in an inferior position, which, I should think, goes against the feminist agenda. Another example would be having special quotas for women in jobs or college admission. Even though it's done in name of social equality, I would think that most women would find it insulting to be told effectively that "you can't get in on your own merit, but since we care about social equality, we are letting you in anyway".

I'm with you here. I don't like this victim based feminism that seems to be taking over. The kinds of feminist role models I like are people like Billy Jean King who, when someone said he can beat her because he's a man, she took him to school and beat him. I strongly appreciate tough girls who go out there and get done what they think is important, not the whiners who just sit there and moan about these first world problems they see as a sign of oppression. And, yes, as a woman, I resent being told I'm a victim whether I like it or not.

Quote:- Regarding the relevance of biological differences - they may not be as irrelevant as you may think. For example, not just upper body strength but the capacity for physical endurance is greater in men as well. While the obvious implications are preferential male selection in fields such as military and police, but the same concept is also applicable in many other blue collar jobs, such as construction work. Similarly, there are other jobs where women are more suitable. While this is often held up as an example of gender inequality, I don't see why gender equality should be necessarily attained in these situations.

You have a point. I think a better goal than gender equality would be a society with gender blindness: whether or not you get a certain job is based entirely on how good you are at performing the duties of the job and not on sex/race/sexual orientation. I mean, if I'm in a house fire and a firefighter is getting me out, I just want to make sure the firefighter is strong enough to do it without having to drag me over burning shrapnel; as long as they're able to do that, I don't care what their gender is. Dismissing an otherwise qualified candidate because of their gender is bad, but it's also bad to hire someone who would otherwise be unqualified just so you can fulfill a quota.

(September 17, 2012 at 12:33 am)genkaus Wrote:

(September 17, 2012 at 12:01 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: People are free to define their atheism in any terms they wish.

No, they are not. Words do have a meaning that you may not feel free to redefine.

(September 17, 2012 at 12:01 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: I don't think you are in any privileged position to tell anyone that your definition of atheism is any more valid than any other definition of atheism.

Actually, if his definition matches the one in the dictionary, then yes, he is exactly in that privileged position. That special privilege is given only to the people who are right.

Well, YOU say they are not. But I don't see any consensus with you. Sorry, but I don't think you get to define what atheism is for the rest of us.

You've turned atheism into the Catholic church if you begin to do that.

(September 17, 2012 at 6:12 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote:

(September 17, 2012 at 12:33 am)genkaus Wrote: No, they are not. Words do have a meaning that you may not feel free to redefine.


Actually, if his definition matches the one in the dictionary, then yes, he is exactly in that privileged position. That special privilege is given only to the people who are right.

Well, YOU say they are not. But I don't see any consensus with you. Sorry, but I don't think you get to define what atheism is for the rest of us.

You've turned atheism into the Catholic church if you begin to do that.

You see here we are again. You showing a disdain for the English language. Having definitions that words adhere to is how we are able to communicate. If I use the word car and we go by your logic car could be stretched to have any definition an individual thinks it should have. If all words had this rather ludicrous criteria applied to it then no-one would be able to communicate using any type of written or verbal communication because every words definition would be held hostage to the individuals whim. The fact there is a definition in a dictionary proves there is a consensus as the dictionary is a book containing the consensus reached over the uses of the English language.
Please stop with this ridiculous line of reasoning because it leads down a rabbit hole.

(September 17, 2012 at 6:20 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(September 17, 2012 at 6:12 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Well, YOU say they are not. But I don't see any consensus with you. Sorry, but I don't think you get to define what atheism is for the rest of us.

You've turned atheism into the Catholic church if you begin to do that.

You see here we are again. You showing a disdain for the English language. Having definitions that words adhere to is how we are able to communicate. If I use the word car and we go by your logic car could be stretched to have any definition an individual thinks it should have. If all words had this rather ludicrous criteria applied to it then no-one would be able to communicate using any type of written or verbal communication because every words definition would be held hostage to the individuals whim. The fact there is a definition in a dictionary proves there is a consensus as the dictionary is a book containing the consensus reached over the uses of the English language.
Please stop with this ridiculous line of reasoning because it leads down a rabbit hole.

Aren't you the person who said that mathematical proofs were derived by science?

(September 17, 2012 at 8:44 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote:

(September 17, 2012 at 6:20 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: You see here we are again. You showing a disdain for the English language. Having definitions that words adhere to is how we are able to communicate. If I use the word car and we go by your logic car could be stretched to have any definition an individual thinks it should have. If all words had this rather ludicrous criteria applied to it then no-one would be able to communicate using any type of written or verbal communication because every words definition would be held hostage to the individuals whim. The fact there is a definition in a dictionary proves there is a consensus as the dictionary is a book containing the consensus reached over the uses of the English language.
Please stop with this ridiculous line of reasoning because it leads down a rabbit hole.

Aren't you the person who said that mathematical proofs were derived by science?

No, I'm the person who systematically destroyed your rather ludicrous claims mathematical proofs are metaphysical and that intuition is more useful than rational thinking.
Claims atheists and theists alike here would be in hysterics over and consequently one of the reasons you are a laughing stock. Remember?
Would you like me to fetch the mad hatter now? Because you're obviously ready for another trip into Wonderland.

(September 17, 2012 at 6:12 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Well, YOU say they are not. But I don't see any consensus with you.

Because facts aren't determined by consensus.

(September 17, 2012 at 6:12 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Sorry, but I don't think you get to define what atheism is for the rest of us.

You've turned atheism into the Catholic church if you begin to do that.

Ofcourse I don't. That's what I just said. I don't get to define what atheism is and you don't either. The dictionary does.

You are aware that they're are atheists who believe in the supernatural, right? I've never really understood why they are doing so.....then again, I don't think they understood what they were talking about either....more content to just get high and think of themselves as enlightened than anything else.