User Tag List

First 81617181920 Last

Results 171 to 180 of 235

  1. #171
    Geolectric teslashock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Posts
    1,690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Oh brother....okay, obviously you've gotten that my last post was sarcastic in many parts (TeslaSkewsFeminism was a blatant clue). It's because trying to get your concrete views had been riddled with contradictions and evasions until very recently, so I was kinda done playing this back and forth.
    There were only contradictions when you took my (what I thought were obvious) exaggerations and applied them to my actual beliefs or misinterpreted what I was trying to communicate.

    To explain.......

    You asked me to look at your initial posts, to specify what you meant by feminism. So, I took you literally, and did just exactly that. (yes, facetiously so). And, yes, I understood the exagerration in it, you blatantly called it, "over the top...."
    Yes I apologize for that miscommunication when I said to look at my initial posts; I had actually forgotten about that one post so pungently reeking of sarcasm/exaggeration. I meant for you to look at my earlier posts when the serious discussion actually started. My initial posts were definitely exaggeration, and they really don't outline my notions on feminism accurately.

    And, yes, it was pure sarcasm in my last post, and that's why I called that gross exaggeration of feminism, by you, TeslaSkewsFeminism. It's because, in a few posts back, I likened your view to a less exaggerated form of "man-hating, pmsing, butch-like, braburning, not leg shaving = feminism" (can't be bothered to look for where I said that, and quote, but I did use that comparison as a more extreme form of how your view the feminism that you bash, which is just bashing feminism as a whole because it's a misunderstanding of what it is...explained later, please read on). Hence, me taking a quote of yours that resembled that kind of exaggeration.
    I suppose it's fair for you to interpret my notions on feminism as a less exaggerated form of what you call "man-hating, pmsing, butch-like, braburning, not leg shaving", as I do have that perception of it. It's not my only perception, however. Why is it so hard for you to understand that I can interpret different areas of feminism in a different way? You and Orangey have adamantly argued against the notion that feminism is just one ideology (and I agree with you and understand that), so shouldn't we able to critique the different realms of it in different ways?

    No, not a contradiction, but a reading error on my part.
    The double negative threw me off, and I didn't catch that: "not"/"not"....whatever: agreed/not agreed. I still don't know the answer.
    That's fine. It's hard to keep things straight in an environment like this one. Now that you've (seemingly) made a contradiction (that of course you've cleared up and eliminated, thanks), it'd be cool if you could understand me when I try to clear up my "contradictions" and give me the benefit of the doubt when you think you see a contradiction by asking me to clarify what I mean, rather then engaging in some (rather desperate) attempt to make me look like a fool. I think it's pretty clear that both of us operate within the same realm of logic, whether or not our views align, and contradictions in my belief system are just as abhorrent to me as contradictions in your belief system probably are to you.


    Just follow the rest of the response to know my position. There's no contradiction there. It's apparent by the rest of my response where I point out the "disparity in equality". If I had not agreed (agreed? double negatives??) with your stance, I wouldn't have been talking about the disparity nor the explanation I gave following "not agreed". Official answer: Women are not equal with men when it comes to social status, and it is because society [some aspect of it] deems certain groups of these women inferior to men.
    Your opinion is duly noted, and I now engage in following the rest of your response as corollaries to and elaborations on your view:

    (were you trying to purposely trick me there?)
    Heh, no I wasn't trying to trick you there. I can be verbose some times, and this verbosity can cause confusion. I'm not really into tricking people when it comes to serious discussions. Making somebody look like an idiot doesn't really do that much to validate ones own pov. A position in an argument should be good regardless of how idiotic the opposing position appears (not that your position is idiotic...I'm just elaborating on why I wouldn't be trying to trick you).

    To clarify, your position is that women are not overtly oppressed because of gender, but that the 'bad feminists' believe it to be so. If this is your position, then I disagree with this part: women not being overtly opressed. I believe that they are overtly oppressed when it comes to certain segments of the N.American female population (minority groups, esp.).
    Yes, this is my position. I do not believe that the ideals backing American society and those who operate under the typical ideals of American society are oppressive to women. If American society is oppressive to a female in a minority group, then I don't believe it's because she's female; I believe it's because she is a part of some disrespected minority group. I believe the social stigma that females are inferior to males is no longer a part of fundamental American thought.

    However, I realize that America is a "melting pot" (oh how I love cliche terms) of other cultures as well, cultures that are not so assimilated with American society, and if you are talking about certain subcultures in America being oppressive to women within said subcultures, then sure, those women don't have it so well when it comes to how their subculture treats them (I've already referenced my belief in the fact that other societies treat women differently than American society treats them). A blatant example of this would be hispanic women not having as much knowledge of and access to birth control because birth control is taboo in many Latin cultures, and this is a pretty clear problem for hispanic women and should obviously be tackled.

    As for the "bad"/"good" feminism you speak of, I'm going to kindly bow out of that, cuz as we've seen, this is becoming a hot tangled mess. At this point I don't know exactly what this 'bad feminism' that you speak of entail, it's had many definitions (expanding, contracting) attached to it by you throughout the course of our discussion, so I'm done trying to untangle and pinpoint exactly what you mean. And, I was countering a very different point of yours than your 'bad'/'good' feminism, which was the outlook of feminism itself held by you.
    I only laid out the terms "bad" and "good" because of the discussion I was having with Orangey. Obviously I don't think this is a very elaborate distinction accepted by scholars.

    If I can try to sum up your position, and without sarcasm, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong:

    You do not support this feminism that aims to put at the troubles experienced by women to be based solely on their gender. You believe that there are 'more important' social factors that contribute to the disparity and female oppression that we see, and we should target those social factors, like poverty, etc. (even though previously you said it was all in her mind and her will to change her fate, and then after a few prodding, you agreed about the social factors, but, we'll let that confusion/contradiction be).
    I meant that if a female (in American society) feels oppressed merely for being a female, then this "oppression" is what's all in her head, and this oppression is what can be fought by an empowering shift in her frame of mind. Obviously a woman who works three jobs and still can hardly feed her 5 starving children has problems that go beyond an unenlightened perspective, but these problems are still not due to the fact that society deems women inferior, and said woman would hopefully not think the essence of her problems are due to a society where women are deemed inherently inferior. If you still see a contradiction in that, let me know, and I should be able to clear it up (or perhaps there is some contradiction there that I'm not aware of?).

    Again, it's not really about 'bad'/'good' feminism, it's about what I've been telling you for a while now, and got a bit fed up with you missing the point, and went to sarcasm. It's about your understanding of feminism, good, bad, whatever. The good/bad are the hows of feminism, I'm challenging the what (is feminism) stance of yours.


    I'll try once more to explain to you why I can't agree with this. Feminism is a lens of focus by which theorists study how gender influences/is influenced by social settings, and social, psychological and political factors.
    If feminism, by your definition, is a sociological study of women, then cool. That's a very broad statement that I can't really argue with, and a definition that I was clearly not using in my argument here. I obviously don't think that gender isn't influenced by external factors, and I have no problem with the pursuit of knowledge in any realm whatsoever, including the study of how external factors affect gender. However, somebody who calls herself a "feminist" is not necessarily one who merely studies gender.

    Independent variable/Dependent Variable
    Women/media
    Women/racism
    Women/domestic abuse
    Women/education
    Women/politics
    Women/workforce
    Women/health(care)
    Women/SES

    (there's of course interactions between the dependent variables, leading to confounding or interaction effects)

    Of course the way to tackle such things would be change the social, political and psychological aspects that affects how the gender's role is highlighted or diminished. We can't very well change their gender (independent variable), now can we?
    Now I'm confused. Is your definition of feminism the study of the female gender, or is it the study of the female gender backed by a belief that females are still treated as inferiors in today's society? If it's the latter, then sure, there are societies which treat women as inferiors. I even mentioned a few of those many posts back. I simply stand by the claim that American ideology is no longer founded on any beliefs or notions that women are inherently inferior.

    I also alluded to the fact that I understand that feminism is not just about fighting for female equality on the American home front. I said that I engage in feminist activities by working at a shelter for victims of domestic violence and by being part of an organization whose aims are to raise sexual health awareness in Cambodia. How can I engage in such actions yet still find all of feminism in its entirety completely moot? Oh, that's right...I don't find all of feminism completely moot.

    So, this whole argument of yours that 'it's cuz she's simply a woman is a weak argument', 'there's other more important issues to tackle these social barriers'...does, not, make, sense, if you understood what feminist theories as a whole is all about!
    When it comes to the American treatment of women, there are indeed other more relevant issues to tackle outside of the notion that women are inherently inferior. When it comes to the way women are treated in Latin American cultures, the notion that women are inferior is still quite prevalent, and I agree that in these kinds of cultures, this notion should be fought against and eliminated. It's already been eliminated within American society, though.

    Feminist theory is just about looking at one particular lens of the interplay of all these factors. WOMEN. I even tried to give the analogy of race, so I'll try once more.
    Yes, this is perhaps the broadest sense of "feminism", and I understand that. However, looking at this interplay can cause ill-conceived ideals in some [self-proclaimed] feminists, and those ideals are the ones with which I have a problem. I'm not sure how many times I have to type that kind of assertion in this discussion, but I'll do it as many times as necessary for you to understand where my views lie.

    So, your position of 'women not being overtly oppressed in society' is a sweeping blanket statement, cuz the natural question to ask is, 'women not being overly opressed in WHAT of society?' The what are the other social factors (dependent variables).
    I elaborated on it very very very early in this discussion so you'd understand that it wasn't a sweeping blanket statement. I said AMERICAN society! I said that over and over! How can you ask me WHAT society?

    So, for you to say that women are not overtly opressed in society, you'd have had to argue that for these likely social factors, women are not being overtly opressed, and I gave you examples, early on, of certain segments of population, where this is not the case (a bit more complicated, as we're introducing more than just 1 dependent variable).
    I also never said that no woman is overtly oppressed; I said that women in American society are not oppressed by American society simply for being female! Again, I even pointed out examples of women who are oppressed. How could I say that no women is oppressed while giving examples of women that are oppressed? Hopefully you don't think my Ti is that bad, for goodness sake...

    You separated the two things, women different than the social factors. X irrelevant to Y. This as an equation does not make sense. This as a relationship does not make sense. "Simply because she's a woman" would translate to X's relationship with X. What???
    Yeah I don't get what you mean by this. Sorry. Care to elaborate, or have I said enough to make the point you were trying to make here irrelevant?

    This, as an understanding of the core of feminist theory, good, bad, or downright, ugly does not make sense to most informed feminists. It does to those, like yourself, who are seeing 'gender' as this isolated thing, to either use as a crutch to bitch about (the stereotyped "feminists" that you've seen), or to use as a target to mock (like you).
    I understand that other societal factors, on top of gender, interact with and influence a woman's position. When did I say that they didn't? I don't see gender as an isolated thing; I see inaccuracy and detachment from reality in the notion that gender as an isolated thing is the reason women are oppressed (again, in American society).

    I'm not really even challenging your good/bad feminism (I hope now it makes sense why I quoted that exaggerated quote of yours as I did and called it TeslaSkewsFeminism) because you have a skewed idea of what feminism and feminist theory is, as a whole, at its core. And, when I tried to explain this (more than a few times before), you just glossed over in agreement and called it the 'good feminism'. (?!)
    It's the feminism in its purest of forms, before it's inflated and inflamed by unrealistic notions and ideals. That's what I meant by "good" feminism.

    And, I kept telling you, again and again, that feminist theory looks at how gender influences or is influenced by the social setting, and social, psychological, political factors. And, you keep agreeing with this, and calling it the "good feminism", and calling some host of other stuff "bad feminism".....when I can't even understand this distinction to begin with.
    You don't understand that a distinction should be made between feminism at its fundamental core and many self-proclaimed feminists that operate on twisted interpretations of feminism? Really? How can you be a well-informed feminist and not see the distinction? Let me make it clear to you what I mean by "bad" feminism (even though I already brushed upon this in my post to Orangey):

    "Feminists" who believe that American society treats women as inferiors, and that this treatment hinders them in pursuing and reaching their goals.

    "Feminists" who correlate female sexuality with female objectification.

    "Feminists" who claim that housewives are not living up to their full potential, and domesticity only serves to exacerbate a feminine stereotype.

    "Feminists" who believe the solution to the gender gap is to force notions of female merit down our throats, regardless of how deserving of merit a particular female is.

    "Feminists" who believe that porn should be illegal and rapists should face the death penalty.

    "Feminists" who believe that there are no inherent differences between the male and female psyche and that any existing differences are due merely to how society treats the two genders.

    "Feminists" who believe that most/all men, regardless of what's explicitly evident in a man's actions, are misogynistic assholes who will never view women as equals.

    "Feminists" who, as SW so well summed it up, have caused an aspect of "feminism" to become
    female supremacist misandry
    .

    These aspects of "feminism" are those which I attack. I am not under the ignorant assumption that these beliefs are the fundamental principles backing feminism in its entirety, but (once again) I do believe that there are a significant number of "feminists" out there who overtly yield to these beliefs, and I also think that (and this one is harder to prove, but we could discuss it, if you'd like) even many well-informed, prominent feminists are succumbing to these beliefs, perhaps unconsciously, inadvertently, or unknowingly.

    I am sorry that I was completely sarcastic and facetious to you in my last post, and it's probably on me that I'm not able to explain exactly what my point with you is, but, I think I've tried (before, and this post, ignoring the previous one). And, it keeps going over your head.
    Or you are just convinced that having an ill perception of some aspect of "feminism" (god I'm hesitant to even use that word now, as it may perpetuate your misunderstanding) precludes me from seeing the good things inherent in fundamental feminist principles? Or perhaps you think it precludes me from seeing the feminists who are doing good, who haven't inflated the theory in a negative way, and who have realistic perceptions of the female position in American society (and other societies/cultures)?

    But, what I keep saying is, the way you are understanding the overarching core of feminist theories is not what feminist theories is for the majority of people informed in it (all feminist theories, even before we get to parsing out good/bad in it).
    How do you know (especially prior to this post) how I see the "overarching core of feminist theories"? Have I ever laid those perceptions out on the table? I don't think I have, and if I did, then I didn't define my perception as exclusively aligning with my ill perceptions of some aspects of feminism.

    Maybe I should have stopped picking at the little points of yours in regards to your 'bad feminism' and kept it strictly about one point: that of understanding the core of feminist theories in the first place. Once that was agreed between us, then, we should have tackled your good/bad assertions. But, I've been responding to both of these points of yours (feminism as a whole, your good/bad stuff) which may have added to the confusion.
    Again, I don't really think I made any sweeping claims about feminism as a whole (at least not after we entered into a serious discussion on the matter). But yeah, you're right; perhaps we should have tackled those before moving on to the problems I have with some feminists and some aspects of feminism.

    My frustration at you not getting what I meant manifested the last post the way it did (and a few parts in previous posts).
    Well I do understand that much. It's pretty obnoxious when you feel like you're saying the same thing over and over and the receiver just doesn't register your meaning. I can't blame you for the sarcasm, as it's something I'm prone to do as well, but hopefully you realize that it got us no where and served simply to set us back a notch. I'm pretty frustrated with you, too, but I'm going to refrain from the sarcasm at this point, and I'd respect it if you did the same.

    Just so we are clear hopefully: Let it be known that I understand that feminism is fundamentally the study of how a woman's role in society is influenced by a variety of external factors, feminist theory uses this study to figure out where the female gender is placed within society and if there are problems with the female gender's placement in society, feminists and feminist "waves", "movements", or "actions" seek to eliminate such problems. My problem is not with the study of the female gender; I don't think sociological studies are ever irrelevant, and I definitely recognize that studies of such nature are valuable on a number of levels. My problem is with how feminist theory (some times) unrealistically interprets such studies and creates inaccurate causal relationships between female gender and certain problems that many females face. My problem is with the unproductive, redundant, futile, and otherwise absurd solutions/actions which (some) feminists deem appropriate for tackling the problems they perceive. Whenever I say the word "feminism", the latter is what I refer to.

  2. #172
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    There were only contradictions when you took my (what I thought were obvious) exaggerations and applied them to my actual beliefs or misinterpreted what I was trying to communicate.
    Can you explain why the bolded in these two responses of yours are not contradictions?

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    Feminists seem to think it's productive to beg for respect, pointedly remark on times when they are not treated with respect, and blame it on the fact that their lack of respect is due to deep-rooted societal notions on what a female ought to be. The only way for anybody, females included, to gain respect is to earn it, and if one earns respect, she'll get it, regardless of her gender.
    [...]An active feminist movement in America is outdated and redundant (regardless of where such movement falls on the radical scale), and until we let go of it, women will never realize that their problems have nothing to do with societal oppression and everything to do with their own frame of mind.
    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    I'd argue that such "barriers" in these communities are due to something other than just gender. Oppression may exist in certain ethnic, socio-economic, and minority subpopulations, but the driving force behind such oppression is not exclusively gender; it's because of race, economic standing, or cultural dissimilarities, or any of these things+gender, not exclusively gender.
    I suppose it's fair for you to interpret my notions on feminism as a less exaggerated form of what you call "man-hating, pmsing, butch-like, braburning, not leg shaving", as I do have that perception of it. It's not my only perception, however. Why is it so hard for you to understand that I can interpret different areas of feminism in a different way?
    Because it seems that your perception broadened the more our discussion progressed. So, it's hard to reconcile your views you've stated earlier with what you present now, and find what the common middle ground of your stance is, after amassing all your perceptions.

    For example, you agree later on in the discussion that there are different ("good" feminism") there, which are functional but, you said earlier:
    An active feminist movement in America is outdated and redundant (regardless of where such movement falls on the radical scale), and until we let go of it....
    One can hold many different perspective on things, but, when one makes a stance on an issue and clearly indicates a position, then, it must reconcile those perspectives held by them, or, they must indicate which (conflicting) perspectives of theirs they're negating to stand by the stance they do.
    Otherwise, a discourse is hard because there's no real position that can be pinpointed to you.

    I cannot understand yours, as you give broader and broader perceptions as our discussion continues, but your stance, initially outlined, seems to not account for the validity of all those subsequent perspectives you seem to hold.

    Please explain.



    Yes, this is my position. I do not believe that the ideals backing American society and those who operate under the typical ideals of American society are oppressive to women. If American society is oppressive to a female in a minority group, then I don't believe it's because she's female; I believe it's because she is a part of some disrespected minority group. I believe the social stigma that females are inferior to males is no longer a part of fundamental American thought.

    However, I realize that America is a "melting pot" (oh how I love cliche terms) of other cultures as well, cultures that are not so assimilated with American society, and if you are talking about certain subcultures in America being oppressive to women within said subcultures, then sure, those women don't have it so well when it comes to how their subculture treats them (I've already referenced my belief in the fact that other societies treat women differently than American society treats them). A blatant example of this would be hispanic women not having as much knowledge of and access to birth control because birth control is taboo in many Latin cultures, and this is a pretty clear problem for hispanic women and should obviously be tackled.
    How do you know that it's affecting hispanic women but not say, white-middle class women to the same degree? It's because we've looked at a woman's issue, birth control, and seen difference due to ethnic demographics.

    Programs to target this, would then, not only need to have a comprehensive understanding of hispanic culture, e.g., say their religious inclinations, but, ALSO, the role of women within this culture. Hence, gender is an important variable, just like ethnicity, in this example. Gender is not negligible.

    I meant that if a female (in American society) feels oppressed merely for being a female, then this "oppression" is what's all in her head, and this oppression is what can be fought by an empowering shift in her frame of mind.
    A woman feels opression only for being a female? This doesn't make sense. How does any woman have such a thought? She must have some examples of the opression she feels. Why/where does she feel the oppression, due to her gender?

    "I am oppressed in my job because I'm a female."
    "I am oppressed because my living conditions prevents me from gaining financial security and independence because I'm a female."
    ...and on and on...and with enough examples, such a woman may conclude, "I am oppressed because I'm female." [female being the factor common in all those scenarios - independent factor]

    There's always a manifestation sof the oppression, being a female and being oppressed is not measurable unless there's something/some factor (the dependent variables) that makes the person realize the oppression.

    If you still see a contradiction in that, let me know, and I should be able to clear it up (or perhaps there is some contradiction there that I'm not aware of?).
    So, this is why I see a contradiction because you seem to completely take out any social factors when you make a value judgement on the statement of women who say, "I am a woman and I am oppressed" to be that, it means she's oppressed simply because she's a woman. There must be a medium on which the oppression is felt. Gender is not a medium that can feel oppression, logically, social factors are. You, as I kept saying, separate the terms (independent variable and dependent variable), without looking at them as part of the one and the same phenomenon. Oppression of women.


    If feminism, by your definition, is a sociological study of women, then cool.
    This falls under feminist theory.

    I should have cleared this up from the start too, even before our discussion progressed this far, and in some parts not used them interchangeably. Two things: feminist theories and feminism.

    As I said earlier:
    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Feminist theory is just about looking at one particular lens of the interplay of all these factors. WOMEN.
    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    The only way to understand the role of women is if we have the other social factors to compare it to, otherwise, there is no commentary. This is feminist theories and what motivates feminism. Women. They choose the independent variable to be Women.
    Feminism is a movement, a call for action, arising out of inequalities outlined by feminist theories. So, yes, in order to make any commentary on feminism (the action we must take), we must first have an agreed understanding of what feminist theory (a study of where/what/how the disparities faced by women, are) encompasses. You still do not.


    That's a very broad statement that I can't really argue with, and a definition that I was clearly not using in my argument here.
    Yeah, I figured that out a while ago.

    I obviously don't think that gender isn't influenced by external factors, and I have no problem with the pursuit of knowledge in any realm whatsoever, including the study of how external factors affect gender. However, somebody who calls herself a "feminist" is not necessarily one who merely studies gender.
    No, she's one who calls for action to tackle the issues raised by feminist theories [gender studies whose focus is primarily on one of the 2 gender - women].


    Now I'm confused. Is your definition of feminism the study of the female gender, or is it the study of the female gender backed by a belief that females are still treated as inferiors in today's society?


    When it comes to the American treatment of women, there are indeed other more relevant issues to tackle outside of the notion that women are inherently inferior.
    Women are inherently inferior would be the opposite of the assumption held by feminist theories and feminism (action rising out of such theories). If, and how, women are being oppressed in different psychological, social and political milieu would be what feminist theories aim to tackle. Then, with this information, the feminist movement is motivated to call for action to tackle the issues outlined by the information.

    Yes, this is perhaps the broadest sense of "feminism", and I understand that. However, looking at this interplay can cause ill-conceived ideals in some [self-proclaimed] feminists, and those ideals are the ones with which I have a problem. I'm not sure how many times I have to type that kind of assertion in this discussion, but I'll do it as many times as necessary for you to understand where my views lie.
    I don't understand how else one can look at how women function in society unless they look at the interplay of women and the factors that are part of their lives, within society.

    I'd really like to know, how do you propose just studying women, in isolation, without any interplay of factors? What are you going to study? A woman just standing there, and the oppression she feels just.......standing? How is oppression then even relevant if you don't acknowledge the vehicle of oppression, the factors?

    This is what I'm trying to hammer in as my point from way ago, again, and again, and again, how do you seperate the social, political and psychological factors, and study women? There must be something about the women, you're studying!

    I elaborated on it very very very early in this discussion so you'd understand that it wasn't a sweeping blanket statement. I said AMERICAN society! I said that over and over! How can you ask me WHAT society?
    x 2. Not, WHAT SOCIETY as in N.America versus other societies. Please read carefully again:

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    So, your position of 'women not being overtly oppressed in society' is a sweeping blanket statement, cuz the natural question to ask is, 'women not being overly opressed in WHAT of society?' The what are the other social factors (dependent variables).

    [...]

    Women in soceity. What does that even mean? We have to bring in factors to understand women's role (manifestation) in society, there has to be an association we look at. Women's role in ___ in society.
    What as in the social factors! The "interplay" of factors (i.e., WHAT) that you believe are "ill-conceived".

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    You separated the two things, women different than the social factors. X irrelevant to Y. This as an equation does not make sense. This as a relationship does not make sense. "Simply because she's a woman" would translate to X's relationship with X. What???
    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock
    Yeah I don't get what you mean by this. Sorry. Care to elaborate, or have I said enough to make the point you were trying to make here irrelevant?
    I'm sorry but I don't know how else to explain to you what I meant, this is my 3rd time trying to do so.

    Logically, we cannot study the oppression women faces, unless we study the oppression by looking at the medium in which these oppression are manifested. The medium are the factors (dependent variables) I keep talking about.

    I understand that other societal factors, on top of gender, interact with and influence a woman's position. When did I say that they didn't? I don't see gender as an isolated thing; I see inaccuracy and detachment from reality in the notion that gender as an isolated thing is the reason women are oppressed (again, in American society).
    How can gender itself, logically, be manifested as an oppression? By what, not allowing women to be born as women? This makes no sense!

    Oppression has to manifested as SOMETHING in the women's lives, in some form. The forms, the something are the factors!

    So, first you say that looking at the 'inter-play of factors' is 'ill-conceived' and now you say that it's inaccurate to look at gender as an isolated thing. ???

    Women are oppressed in what? Which feminist theorist says that women are just oppressed......[this doesn't make sense, so no informed feminist theorist can say this]? Don't they then follow up with where and how they are oppressed? They're oppressed in the workforce, in accessing healthcare, if they are poor, if they belong to a minority group, etc., etc., etc.
    So, again, I'm saying that this attribute you are assigning to 'bad' feminism or whatever are ill-informed because they do not have a concept of feminist theory and what it entails, nor then, how such theories should manifest as actions (feminism).

    Oh, look, you're doing the interplay of factors, women x [something/some factor] = oppression........yet, you're confused with what I'm saying earlier.

    "Feminists" who believe that American society treats women as inferiors, and that this treatment hinders them in pursuing and reaching their goals.

    "Feminists" who correlate female sexuality with female objectification.

    "Feminists" who claim that housewives are not living up to their full potential, and domesticity only serves to exacerbate a feminine stereotype.

    "Feminists" who believe the solution to the gender gap is to force notions of female merit down our throats, regardless of how deserving of merit a particular female is.

    "Feminists" who believe that porn should be illegal and rapists should face the death penalty.

    "Feminists" who believe that there are no inherent differences between the male and female psyche and that any existing differences are due merely to how society treats the two genders. [Q: treat the two gender how? what are the treatments? The factors through which we see the differences in treatment?]

    "Feminists" who believe that most/all men, regardless of what's explicitly evident in a man's actions, are misogynistic assholes who will never view women as equals.

    "Feminists" who, as SW so well summed it up, have caused an aspect of "feminism" to become .
    The bolded - are the external factors [apart from gender], though which you're seeing the interplay which results in the stance of the feminism that you just pointed out. Why are you not just discussing gender? Why bring in the other factors? Because that's the only way to understand the complaints....how are the females feeling oppressed, in what ways? [to do this, we must correlate gender with the factors of interests]

    Well I do understand that much. It's pretty obnoxious when you feel like you're saying the same thing over and over and the receiver just doesn't register your meaning. I can't blame you for the sarcasm, as it's something I'm prone to do as well, but hopefully you realize that it got us no where and served simply to set us back a notch. I'm pretty frustrated with you, too, but I'm going to refrain from the sarcasm at this point, and I'd respect it if you did the same.
    I am, as I feel like you 'get it', as you use the concept I'm trying to clarify when you assert your position of which type of feminism you do not like, but, you cannot understand my point I'm trying to make about how I think you're understanding 'feminist theory' and feminism as a whole is lacking a fundamental component. That of the factors through which oppression is manifested, because you think that such 'interplay of factors' is 'ill-conceived' IN SOME or whatever, when without such interplay of factors, feminist theory is nothing, it cannot be logically studies.

    Sorry, but, I'm gonna bow out now. I feel like I'm going around in circles trying to explain the same thing over and over, and you seem to skim it, but then go right on past. Feel free to respond to me, but, I'm done.

  3. #173
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    "Feminists" who believe that American society treats women as inferiors, and that this treatment hinders them in pursuing and reaching their goals.
    Isn't it worth investigating whether or not this is the case, rather than rejecting the concept outright?

    "Feminists" who correlate female sexuality with female objectification.
    Isn't it worth investigating why many hold this perception? Isn't it worth investigating what "objectification" means in the first place?

    "Feminists" who claim that housewives are not living up to their full potential, and domesticity only serves to exacerbate a feminine stereotype.
    Isn't it worth investigating how and why homemaking would be seen as a stereotype, and what the trade-offs between being a housewife and working outside the home are?

    "Feminists" who believe the solution to the gender gap is to force notions of female merit down our throats, regardless of how deserving of merit a particular female is.
    Isn't it worth investigating what the merits of femininity are, and whether or not society recognizes those merits and maximizes their benefits?

    "Feminists" who believe that porn should be illegal and rapists should face the death penalty.
    Isn't it worth investigating why pornography evokes such a strong reaction in people, and how sexually-charged crimes differ from other types?

    "Feminists" who believe that there are no inherent differences between the male and female psyche and that any existing differences are due merely to how society treats the two genders.
    Isn't it worth investigating how those factors interplay with one another.

    "Feminists" who believe that most/all men, regardless of what's explicitly evident in a man's actions, are misogynistic assholes who will never view women as equals.
    Isn't it worth investigating the general attitude of men toward women, especially since you've never seen the full-blown male psyche when it comes to women? (and I'll admit it right now - most men are misogynistic to some extent, mostly because of how vulnerable we are around y'all)

  4. #174
    Geolectric teslashock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Posts
    1,690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post

    Sorry, but, I'm gonna bow out now. I feel like I'm going around in circles trying to explain the same thing over and over, and you seem to skim it, but then go right on past. Feel free to respond to me, but, I'm done.
    I was going to respond to your post in detail, but now I won't considering that you're bowing out.

    Sorry I didn't realize you said "What of society" rather than "what society." The sarcastic 2x is a little uncalled for though, don't you think? Especially considering that you misread something I said, and I was ready and willing to forgive you for it rather than use an emoticon that clearly implies you find something imbecilic.

    I think a fundamental miscommunication we had occurs whenever I say something along the lines of "Women are not oppressed merely for being women" and your response to that was "WELL DUH! THERE NEEDS TO BE A MANIFESTATION OF SUCH OPPRESSION!" That response has no legitimacy if you understood what I meant when I said that. I meant that I do not believe women in American society face manifestations of oppression by forces in society simply because such forces believe women to be inherently inferior. Women used to be viewed as inherently inferior, and they faced oppression because of this; in American society, they are not viewed in this light, and they do not face oppression due to this misogynistic thinking, as this misogynistic thinking has been (practically) eliminated. I was trying to make such an idea fit into a shorter sentence, but apparently it lost its meaning when I did so.

    My view seems to you to have widened because I defined what I meant by feminism when I was critiquing it, and I defined which sort of feminism I was bashing. Initially, you thought I was bashing all feminism, and that wasn't the case (though it did seem that way when I made a few exaggerated claims in the beginning), so I narrowed in on one aspect of feminism, and you see that as a widening in my beliefs. Take it as you will, but I was merely elaborating, not adjusting my beliefs.

    Your previous post is pretty ridiculous (at least to my perceptions), because you assert/imply that I've said several things, even when I haven't, and you interpret a lot of things in a way that doesn't really align with my true intent/meaning. It seems to me like you are still deadset on proving me wrong, like you're unyielding in your position, and such stubborn intentions are giving you a skewed lens through which you're viewing my claims. I'm glad that you're bowing out, as I'm pretty sick of dealing with the errors in your interpretation; I've laid out my claims several times and I've done so in a very clear way, yet you are still taking them in wrong (and perhaps I'm taking some of yours in wrong, too?). Either way, it seems to me like neither of us can get our ideas across to the other, and that's a shame, considering how intelligent we both are and how possible it should be for us to communicate effectively, but oh well...

  5. #175
    Geolectric teslashock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Posts
    1,690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Isn't it worth investigating whether or not this is the case, rather than rejecting the concept outright?

    Isn't it worth investigating why many hold this perception? Isn't it worth investigating what "objectification" means in the first place?

    Isn't it worth investigating how and why homemaking would be seen as a stereotype, and what the trade-offs between being a housewife and working outside the home are?

    Isn't it worth investigating what the merits of femininity are, and whether or not society recognizes those merits and maximizes their benefits?

    Isn't it worth investigating why pornography evokes such a strong reaction in people, and how sexually-charged crimes differ from other types?

    Isn't it worth investigating how those factors interplay with one another.

    Isn't it worth investigating the general attitude of men toward women, especially since you've never seen the full-blown male psyche when it comes to women? (and I'll admit it right now - most men are misogynistic to some extent, mostly because of how vulnerable we are around y'all)
    Yes to all. Investigation into all of the things mentioned is fine. I get fed up with the fact that some feminists believe those things, rather than with the investigation as to why those beliefs are held...

    Is there some other point you're trying to make that I'm missing? Feel free to elaborate...

  6. #176
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    Yes to all. Investigation into all of the things mentioned is fine. I get fed up when feminists believe those things, rather than the investigation as to why those beliefs are held...
    Isn't this a personality site? Wouldn't that help in understanding why people manifest their reactions to these issues in different ways?

    I got slapped with the "because 99% of the world believes differently, you're wrong" argument last night (argument over the causes of the Civil War). Doesn't mean I'm right, you know - but it does mean they're closed minded in not considering my perspective, and rather than looking at the nuances of the position, inventing broad motivations for my arguments that correlate in no way to what I was actually advancing.

    Come on, you're better than this. Open your mind to their position a little bit. Maybe it's not completely true on the surface, but there are bits of overlooked reality you can glean through discussion.

  7. #177
    Geolectric teslashock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Posts
    1,690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Isn't this a personality site? Wouldn't that help in understanding why people manifest their reactions to these issues in different ways?
    Sure, we can talk about that all we want here. I'm not closed-minded to that sort of discussion.


    Come on, you're better than this. Open your mind to their position a little bit. Maybe it's not completely true on the surface, but there are bits of overlooked reality you can glean through discussion.
    Well, I have opened my mind to that position. In fact, my mind was so open that I even believed some of those things at one point in my life. My mind is always open to hearing reasons for those positions; I've just yet to hear any good reasons for holding those positions, and without good reasons for holding those positions, we can't really be expected to act off of those positions.

    Feel free to offer some insight or justifications. I'm all ears.

  8. #178
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Good reasons? Here are a few theoretical ones.

    1. Men hold the physical power advantage. There's simply no getting around this. Women traditionally compensated through their use of soft power.

    2. After industrialization, women's power within their traditional spheres was diminished and marginalized, as their productive capacities (crafts) were replaced by mechanization, to a much greater extent than those traditionally held by men.

    3. Courtship and reproductive paradigms still persist regarding man as the pursuer and woman as the pursued, male reproductive success as gaining something and female reproductive success as losing something. Given the immense role sex has in our lives, it's very likely that this paradigm colors all intergender relationships.

    4. The education of women holds the highest correlation with several quality-of-life factors, such as infant mortality rate and political freedom.

    I'm sure you're aware of these, but they're something to think about. It's like negotiation; you don't ever start with a reasonable offer. You ask for everything and then meet somewhere in the middle.

  9. #179
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    K, one little thing....yes, there's a contradiction here, as I said, I'm out, but I came back....

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    That response has no legitimacy if you understood what I meant when I said that. I meant that I do not believe women in American society face manifestations of oppression by forces in society simply because such forces believe women to be inherently inferior.
    How do you know that the 'women are inherently inferior' outlook is the cause, not the effect, of such manifestations of oppression by forces in society?

    [Systematically] Treating them inferior, where the forces allow for this inferior treatment to deepen, until an idea arises, that, hey, they are truly inherently inferior.

    Versus,

    They are inherently inferior, so they can be treated so, in the face of such forces.

    How do you determine which it is?

    That is all. Thanks.

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    as I'm pretty sick of dealing with the errors in your interpretation; I've laid out my claims several times and I've done so in a very clear way, yet you are still taking them in wrong (and perhaps I'm taking some of yours in wrong, too?).
    Ditto, and, yes.

  10. #180
    Geolectric teslashock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Posts
    1,690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Good reasons? Here are a few theoretical ones.
    Wait, before I respond to this, can you clarify something? Are the theoretical reasons you listed supposed to be reasons for why women are/may be oppressed in society, are they reasons that women who feel oppressed have noticed/formulated to describe the cause of their [perceived] oppression, or are they theoretical reasons as to why it's possible/legitimate for women to feel oppressed (regardless of whether or not certain oppressions actually occur)?

Similar Threads

  1. [ENTP] Can loudness really be classified as a personality trait?
    By PalebloodHunter in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 05-11-2017, 06:53 PM
  2. Female ESTP and Male ENTP
    By Poki in forum Intertype Relations
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 11-11-2015, 04:47 PM
  3. [ISFJ] ISFJ Personality Traits - What does an unhealthy ISFJ look like?
    By chatoyer in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 103
    Last Post: 10-22-2015, 09:23 AM
  4. Female INTP's personality traits thought of as negative by American Society
    By latentorganization in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-15-2010, 12:09 PM
  5. Personality traits most valued in your country?
    By autumn in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 10-29-2008, 10:53 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO