Is Feminism the Answer to Female Problems?

[string_theory]

What u think of feminism? Is it a complete ideology? Can it be a solution to the female problems (if there are)?
hope to have a cool discussion...

 

[KaneOris]

I believe in all equal cival rights, between races, sexes, religious groups, etc... But I believe in equal rights, and now it seems like we are going past equal and giving more advantages to those that use to have lesser rights thus making it exactly the same as before except with a new repressed group. Now I am not saying this is always the case, and generally its not, but it does happen sometimes.
But one thing is true to say, is the only group you can insult without being racist, sexist, etc. Is middle aged White Males

 

[cogito]

What u think of feminism? Is it a complete ideology? Can it be a solution to the female problems (if there are)?
hope to have a cool discussion...

Feminism is not a complete ideology, as it doesn't apply to all questions of value. In fact, I'm not even sure what you mean by "feminism"? Are you talking about Marxist Feminism, Liberal Feminism, Radical Feminsim, Seperatism, etc. There are variety of positions labelled "Feminism" that substantially disagree on the causes of and solutions to the problem of patriarchy.

 

[pace]

I believe the Feminism Struggle have gone to phase two. Before it was a Fight, now it's rather Understanding. But that has also begun to go both ways.

 

[Kerrie]

Feminism is a general term. Are you referring to the feminism of economic equality in the professional world? Or the feminism that deals with equal rights among a male dominated society?

 

[misogynisticfeminist]

I think that a lot has been done for equal rights especially in the constituition (for developed countries in general) and in the workplace as a whole. But everything has become more sublime. Its almost as if you've chopped down the whole tree of patriarchalism but the roots still remain intact. And who knows? the tree may soon grow back.

I think the war has yet to be won on the cultural front, but some things which are that ambigious can hardly be protested over, like the potrayal of women in film, literature etc. Personally, I consider myself a pro-feminist, and I am a male. I think chilvary is one of the many cultural stuffs that make the fight for gender equality all the more difficult also. I just find it sick to see men acting like their some knight in shining armour.

 

[dekoi]

Feminists aim for equality (in general).

Equality is absolutely absurd in human civilization.

Males and females are not equal. Dogs and cats are not equal. They are two absolutely distinct genders.

 

[cogito]

Feminists aim for equality.

Equality is absolutely absurd in human civilization.

Males and females are not equal. Dogs and cats are not equal. They are two absolutely distinct genders.

\


Actually, it is your argument that is absurd. You are assuming that when feminists (and others) assert that all persons are equal, they are claiming that all persons are the same, or have the same capacities. But this assumption on your part is false. When feminists (and others) claim that all persons are equal, they mean that all persons ought to be treated with equal respect, and that one person's interests are not more important than anothers simply because that person is male (or white, or a U.S. citizen, or over 6' tall, etc.). The point is that moral considerability ought to be extended to all persons equally, and ought not be contingent on morally irrelevant properties such as sex, gender identity, ethnicity, race, religion, etc.

 

[dekoi]

Cogito:

My argument is not absurd. A majority of feminists (or a large amount) aim for the equality which i mentioned.

---

The equality you talk of, i fully agree with.

 

[cogito]

Cogito:

My argument is not absurd. A majority of feminists (or a large amount) aim for the equality which i mentioned.

---

The equality you talk of, i fully agree with.

You claimed this:

Males and females are not equal. Dogs and cats are not equal.

And you used this claim as an example of why the feminists' pushing for equality is abusrd. Your view, apparently, is that since women and men are different, just as cats and dogs are different, it makes no sense for women to ask for equality. Your mistake is in thinking that feminists are asking to be treated just like men. Feminists are asking to be extended the respect, the benefits, and the consideration they are due in virtue of being persons. When the feminist claims that all persons are equal, she means that men and women are not different in any morally relevant sense. She does not mean that men and women have exactly the same non-moral properties.

 

[dekoi]

Once again, i am telling you that the majority of feminists do not have such a clear view of what they mean by equality.

And once again, i state : The equality you talk of, i fully agree with.

 

[wuliheron]

I don't think of feminism as any particular ideology, just a movement. Historically, it has always been a rather anarchistic leftist movement, but then, so has every other civil rights movement. What many of my friends today prefer to call simply a "progressive" movement, in contrast to "conservative" movements.

Thus far feminism has given women the vote, substantially helped to close the wage gap, and successfully addressed violence against women. It may not be the ultimate solution to women's problems, but evidently it has a good track record thus far.

 

[physicsisphirst]

Once again, i am telling you that the majority of feminists do not have such a clear view of what they mean by equality.

i do not think a statement such as this contains validity or relevance considering

1) it is unlikely you know what the majority of feminists say
2) what the majority of feminists say doesn't necessarily determine what feminism says

i think what is being confused here, as cogito pointed out, is the equating of a bizarre idea like

men = women (which really doesn't make anymore sense than bush = reagan or your dog = cat)

with the concept of say

all people should have equal opportunities irrespective of race, colour, sex etc.

this latter idea is fundamentally sensible and 'moral'.
how it is actually applied may depend on the situation, but its application should in no way detract from the principle.

in friendship,
prad

 

[False Prophet]

When Thomas Jefferson stated "All men are created equal" he was wrong. I'd say someone with downs syndrome, or a conjoined twin, wasn't actually created equal, rather they were dealt a less favorable hand. I mean no disrespect to anyone in either group, but I take things literally. There are SO MANY words in English people need to say what they mean literally. He should have said, "All PEOPLE shall be treated equally." There could be a different title for each different classification of feminist, too. The title "feminist" kind of sounds arrogant to me like women who want to be superior to men. I know it's not their true agenda but it rhymes with prejudice and ends the same as sexist and racist, and for me it triggers the image of a 223 lb. female gym teacher with a buzz cut.
At this point, in the United States anyway, it seems there should be be no reason to be an "activist feminist" because females can do pretty much anything now (except certain military jobs) and so should pursue their dreams and become president of the U.S.A.
And all should realize that females have advantages too. I would list them off but you know them. And if a girl wants to snub me and shoot me a dirty look for politely holding open the door, fine, it's her loss, and I can sit down just to whiz if I want to. It's a way of saying, "hey, the doors open" plus a chance to scope out your tantalizing tender tush. If you have a man you can at least say thank you, but you can still get other freebies too.

 

[physicsisphirst]

When Thomas Jefferson stated "All men are created equal" he was wrong.

he wasn't wrong. if you consider the matter deontologically, for instance, the idea is that all men (humans) are equal not by virtue of what they can or can't do, but by virtue that all are men (human).

The title "feminist" kind of sounds arrogant to me like women who want to be superior to men. I know it's not their true agenda but it rhymes with prejudice and ends the same as sexist and racist

that is a rather strange conclusion to draw considering a feminist is someone who fights against sexism - which is far more prevalent against women than against men. a similar argument was also extended against martin luther king who fought racism, yet was thought by some to want superiority for black people or against gandhi who because he fought british domination was thought to want indians to be superior to the british.

At this point, in the United States anyway, it seems there should be be no reason to be an "activist feminist" because females can do pretty much anything now (except certain military jobs) and so should pursue their dreams and become president of the U.S.A.

it is a nice idea for sure, but there seems to be a lot of work that still needs to be done, so we really do need feminists and as active as possible :D

And if a girl wants to snub me and shoot me a dirty look for politely holding open the door

i don't think the essence of feminism is too concerned with holding doors, as much as just opening them. however, if it is a concern to you then you can always ask someone to hold the door open for you just to even things out

in friendship,
prad

 

[chronon]

For example "All mans are equal" was a possible Newspeak sentence, but only in the same sense in which "All man have the same weight" is a possible Oldspeak sentence. It did not contain a grammatical error, but it expressed a palpable untruth i.e. that all man have the same size, weight ...

1984 George Orwell

 

[pace]

Yes. You are correct. That is the book. Well done. An icecream for you!

 

[string_theory]

feminism is the most stupid thing women did...

 

[Kerrie]

feminism is the most stupid thing women did...

what a blatantly ignorant remark, especially after posting the "depression" thread. do you expect compassion with such a remark as this?

women voting in the United States was a form of feminism. perhaps in your culture women are not regarded as important.

considering that women make up 52% of the population, it is smart in utilizing their numbers when it comes to politics.

 

[physicsisphirst]

what a blatantly ignorant remark

unfortunately, there seems to be no mechanism for automatically ignoring string_theory's ignorant remark (but then this sort of thing shouldn't be ignored). personally, i think a statement such as his "feminism is the most stupid thing women did..." falls under wild and speculative theories and as such probably should be subjected to the same fate on physicsforums :D

if there is anything that is really stupid, it is that feminism is still needed in this day and age. if people respected each other as people there would be no further need for it. as things still are though, it is very necessary because feminism continues to fight bigotry as it legislates justice, promotes equal opportunity, encourages assertiveness in some and increases understanding in others.

in friendship,
prad

 

[jimmy p]

Just something to make you think. In England, it seems that any woman who believes in women's rights and girl power is a feminist. Any male that believes in male rights is a sexist male chauvanistic pig. c'est la vie.

I agree with the idea of feminism in the equality sense. However it seems more and more like a battle of the sexes with the emphasis of girl power. How many adverts do you see on tv with a man and a woman, and at the end of it, the woman gets the to make the last comment/the man looks stupid. It seems a lot like this is the way society is going. It may all be fun and games at the start and no-one takes it seriously, but think about it in 100 years or so...

Someone mentioned that chivalry makes them sick. Surely that is within reason, I mean it is ok for "ladies first", because some may be offended if you barge your way in front. But other things such as chucking you coat over a puddle or pulling their chair out for them... hmmm... that is lame. So I agree within reason, I suppose there is chivalry and courtesy.

 

[Kerrie]

Just something to make you think. In England, it seems that any woman who believes in women's rights and girl power is a feminist. Any male that believes in male rights is a sexist male chauvanistic pig. c'est la vie.

I agree with the idea of feminism in the equality sense. However it seems more and more like a battle of the sexes with the emphasis of girl power. How many adverts do you see on tv with a man and a woman, and at the end of it, the woman gets the to make the last comment/the man looks stupid. It seems a lot like this is the way society is going. It may all be fun and games at the start and no-one takes it seriously, but think about it in 100 years or so...

Someone mentioned that chivalry makes them sick. Surely that is within reason, I mean it is ok for "ladies first", because some may be offended if you barge your way in front. But other things such as chucking you coat over a puddle or pulling their chair out for them... hmmm... that is lame. So I agree within reason, I suppose there is chivalry and courtesy.

jimmy, you have posted a great post and a good example to a few of those attempting to post here

i certainly agree that society today is praising the whole "girl power" attitude. i see some of the cartoons on and the attitude of "girls kick a**" is loud and clear for my little girl to see. although i want her to be independent and strong, i certainly don't want her to grow up believing she is of a superior gender either.

male chauvenism certainly still exists. i work with many farmers and maintenance managers in my field, and i would say 1 out 5 of the men have that "good ol' boy" attitude towards me, and they are skeptical about my mechanical abilities. it is so much fun however when i am able to ramble off the problems with their machinery due to a very simple change of their parts (the parts my company makes) because i have a firm grasp of my knowledge. that usually wins their trust and their business back

 

[Fliption]

\


Actually, it is your argument that is absurd. You are assuming that when feminists (and others) assert that all persons are equal, they are claiming that all persons are the same, or have the same capacities.

I do understand the point being made in this quote above and by a few others about what the word equality really means. It isn't referring to capabilities or "sameness". It is referring to a moral right for respect and opportunity. Unfortunately, I think that Dekoi has a point in his usage of the word. Rather than claim that people are misusing the word, it seems to me the problem comes when we actually try to apply the word "equal" to a specific situation. Too many times it seems that when we try to apply the rule of equality to a specific situation it automatically comes down to an issue of capabilities and differences. The 'women in the military' issue is an example. There is no moral reason why a women cannot fight for her country and I've never heard anyone claim otherwise. The opponents of this issue fight it for reasons of "capabilty". To dekoi's point, I have seen some people think that a moral right implies that "women can do anything a man can do" in terms of capabilities. To deny the physical differences and competencies for the sake of a moral right is a bit "absurd", to use the popular word here.

How much money would you spend giving your cat the same opportunity to chase a stick as your dog? Perhaps a cat movement will correct your biased ways.

 

[fourier jr]

Feminists aim for equality (in general).

that's the definition i got in a sociology course i took a couple years ago. the prof came in, asked us if we think that women & men should be treated equally when applying for jobs, etc. of course everyone in the class put up their hands, and then the prof said "ok it looks like we're all feminists". real feminists aren't the castrating, man-hating type who blame guys for everything that goes wrong in the world, because i think that would be very hypocritical of them. if it's ok for them to treat guys that badly (& of course use the "liberated woman" excuse), it should be ok for guys to treat women like that. if it's wrong for guys to treat women like that, then it should be wrong for women to treat guys like that.

 

[cogito]

I do understand the point being made in this quote above and by a few others about what the word equality really means. It isn't referring to capabilities or "sameness". It is referring to a moral right for respect and opportunity. Unfortunately, I think that Dekoi has a point in his usage of the word. Rather than claim that people are misusing the word, it seems to me the problem comes when we actually try to apply the word "equal" to a specific situation. Too many times it seems that when we try to apply the rule of equality to a specific situation it automatically comes down to an issue of capabilities and differences. The 'women in the military' issue is an example. There is no moral reason why a women cannot fight for her country and I've never heard anyone claim otherwise. The opponents of this issue fight it for reasons of "capabilty". To dekoi's point, I have seen some people think that a moral right implies that "women can do anything a man can do" in terms of capabilities. To deny the physical differences and competencies for the sake of a moral right is a bit "absurd", to use the popular word here.

How much money would you spend giving your cat the same opportunity to chase a stick as your dog? Perhaps a cat movement will correct your biased ways.

Nobody is denying that, statistically speaking, there are disparities between the physical capabilities of men and women. So, your concern over usage seems a bit misplaced, especially when feminists themselve use the term 'equal' in the normative rather than the descriptive sense. Nobody is denying that there will be jobs that suit men better than women (heavy lifting, for instance). The vast majority of jobs out there, however, don't generally favor one sex or another. Yet, it is still the case that in the United States, women receive roughly 3/4 the pay of a man for doing the same job. I'm sure we all agree that such disparities in pay are unjust. I'm sure we all agree that agitating for equal pay for equal work is justified.

 

[Fliption]

Nobody is denying that, statistically speaking, there are disparities between the physical capabilities of men and women. So, your concern over usage seems a bit misplaced, especially when feminists themselve use the term 'equal' in the normative rather than the descriptive sense. Nobody is denying that there will be jobs that suit men better than women (heavy lifting, for instance). The vast majority of jobs out there, however, don't generally favor one sex or another. Yet, it is still the case that in the United States, women receive roughly 3/4 the pay of a man for doing the same job. I'm sure we all agree that such disparities in pay are unjust. I'm sure we all agree that agitating for equal pay for equal work is justified.

I won't disagree with anything you have said. I just felt that the criticisms of dekoi were a bit harsh given the complexity of the issue. My point is that it is easy to draw a semantic line and feel good about it but when we try to apply this to specific situations, things can get muddy. This fact has been more obvious to me in my observations and certainly explains why opinions differ in specific cases. As opposed to assuming that the opponent is an irrational sexist who wants to deny certain people their moral rights.

So your point is taken but I think dekoi is referring to cases where people muddy the semantic difference and deny the physical differences and capabilities. You claim that these differences wouldn't have an impact in most jobs/functions. But who decides things like this? I believe this is where much disagreement and debate exists. It almost always comes down to opinions on capabilities. No one in their right mind would justify their actions in the name of denying a moral right. I think this is what dekoi is referring to.

 

[Aquamarine]

Nobody is denying that, statistically speaking, there are disparities between the physical capabilities of men and women. So, your concern over usage seems a bit misplaced, especially when feminists themselve use the term 'equal' in the normative rather than the descriptive sense. Nobody is denying that there will be jobs that suit men better than women (heavy lifting, for instance). The vast majority of jobs out there, however, don't generally favor one sex or another. Yet, it is still the case that in the United States, women receive roughly 3/4 the pay of a man for doing the same job. I'm sure we all agree that such disparities in pay are unjust. I'm sure we all agree that agitating for equal pay for equal work is justified.

Does this mean that the state should force equal pay for the same work? If so, how is this decided and by whom? Should there be affirmative action for women?

A reference for claims of unjust differences in pay would be interesting.

 

[False Prophet]

That's what I was thinking, Aquamarine! If the figure of 3/4 pay is derived based on averages without considering vocation, then of course it makes sense. There's a much higher female percentage of child-care workers, receptionists, etc. as opposed to a higher male percentage of CEOs, athletes, pharoes, etc. Or does the statistic mean that warehouse picker/packer Andrea makes 3/4 of what warehouse picker/packer Bob makes in the same warehouse?

 

[Aquamarine]

Here is an interesting site:
http://www.equityfeminism.com/faq/

On the wage gap:
http://www.equityfeminism.com/faq/issues/wage_gap.html

In fact women and men in this study actually earned exactly the same amount until they reached their early 30s when women as a group began to lose ground to the men. Why? Almost certainly different patterns in child rearing. Women tend to take time off and look for less demanding jobs after having children, while men do not, on average.

Study after study finds that women with children work fewer hours, accumulate less experience, and take more extended leaves from the workplace -- all of which limit their advancement. While sometimes a necessity, these are often choices gladly made by women who consider being with their children more important than maximizing earnings.

 

[Philocrat]

"All People are Equal" is the correct way to put it and this is consistent with the Universalist moral principle or code of conduct. It's about time, more than well-overdue, for women to come out of that depressive and oppressive 'fictional world' invented by men for thousands of years. It's a disgrace that in the 21st century women are still being degraded and treated as the underdogs. That women must become equal with men and with every other groups is in itself a natural law. It must come to pass. However, femininism must never be construed as an Ideology designed to segregate and undermine inter-relationships and peaceful co-existence. Femininism must serve only as a fundamental vehicle for freedom and equilibrium!

Think Nature! May the 'Book of Nature' serve you well and bring you all that is good!