• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[ENTP] ENTP Personality Traits - Female ENTPs v Male ENTPs

teslashock

Geolectric
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
1,690
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Oh my word, this post is so flagrantly imbecilic that I don't even know where to begin. I was literally flabbergasted into speechlessness for several minutes after my initial read. I think instead of trying to dissect this beast, as you'll likely fail to acknowledge it anyway (and I already have a fucking headache) I'll just say two things:

(1) I have suggested this before, but I'll spell it out more explicitly for you this time. You are largely ignorant on the subject of "feminism" and should therefore refrain from speaking as though you know what you're talking about. Or else read a Wikipedia page before you do for chrissakes.

Though I know you will refuse to listen, your perception of "feminism," even if you have modified it in light of criticisms not to encompass all feminisms (althought now it's apparently the one that "holds substantial weight in modern feminist ideology," lol), is so idiotic that I can't believe anyone could think such things without feeling the need to surreptitiously self-flaggelate. But not to worry, I will cure you of your ignorance, or at least this particular manifestation of it (because that's what a selfless person I am.)

You're right I have no idea what I'm talking about. I should have read a wiki page instead of taking those two women studies courses at my university.

But in all seriousness, I don't claim to be an expert on feminism; I have after all, only skimmed the surface of feminism and taken those two courses, experienced society as a female, and read a few things about it here and there (and no, this is not meant to be facetious; I legitimately do not believe myself to be an expert). However, I have noticed a trend in some feminist ideology (though it may not encompass all of feminism, and there may not be one all-encompassing view, I still see a trend in a certain way of feminist thinking), and that is what I was spelling out.

And as far as being "the" one that holds substantial weight; there is no "the" one. I never said "the." I just said it holds substantial weight; that doesn't logically imply that it holds the most weight.
Here we go...now répéter après moi: there is no such thing as a "substantial" feminist ideology holding that women should be treated with more respect than they are currently, even if they don't deserve it (lol what?), that women are viewed by the majority as inferior beings and treated as such (most feminist thought today is very far past issues of conscious discrimination), and that the problems that women face are due solely to their womanhood (lol, what?). Where are you getting this from? I don't even know how to go about theoretically placing these views, because they are so ridiculous as to be beyond identification even as malicious steretypes of feminism.

You're right; there is no overt claim to this belief, but I believe that it's an underlying premise in a significant portion of feminist theory. Obviously the feminists about which I speak don't claim this outright; that would just make them sound ridiculous and get them no where. In fact, the feminists to which I'm referring probably don't even realize for themselves that they are inadvertantly expressing this belief. I don't think that any rational and reasonable person would ever overtly make the affirmation "Respect me even though I don't deserve it." or think the claim "I want respect even where it's not deserved." in their own head. I'm referring to an underlying notion. Again, the underlying notion may not be the primary backing force behind all feminist theory, but it takes up a large enough portion to be worth mentioning.

The closest I can get is to suggest that they are MAYBE your own botched interpretation of certain second-wave feminist tenets mixed with a little radical or cultural feminism, and some of the hand-holding, "sob sister" stuff of liberal feminism (e.g., anti-porn, "take back the night," media campaigns to end eating disorders, feel-good stuff about body issues, the Dove campaign, "the patriarchy ruined my life" kind of stuff.) But even if that's the case, your interpretation is still way off and makes little sense, even as satire or humorous exaggeration.

Yes, along the lines of that. But I'd of course argue with the claim that my botched interpretation of the realm of feminism to which I refer is nonsensical. I never meant to imply that all feminism is backed by this though, and I've stated that several times in this thread.

Your other definition of feminism is not much better, though I think you were going less for accuracy and more for rhetorical effect.

You're right; it's not a completely accurate representation of all feminism. I don't know how you can possibly argue that it's not a representation of some, though.

I've had self-proclaimed feminists tell me that porn should be illegal because it objectifies women, rapists should face the death penalty, any man accused of rape should be locked up until all accusations are wiped clean, a woman who claims rape should never be argued with, men treat women like meat, men only treat women as equals because the government has set in place certain measures to force equality but men don't actually believe in equality, and the best yet: "If I were a man, I could have gone so much farther in society." I didn't hear these claims from completely ignorant "feminists" either. We had debates in one of my womens studies classes, and these notions were brought up by womens studies majors. My representation of feminism may be breaching on only a small part of "feminism" (and perhaps the part that you'd like to not take claim on as a more educated and intellectual feminist), but my representation is not a skewed version of reality.

"Good" feminism exists, but so does bad "feminism." That's to be expected with any ideology, though. Perhaps you think I've played up the "bad" feminism too much, and that's a fair judgment on your part. I have given hardly any credit to "good" feminism, and the reason for that is because I'm trying to make a point about bad feminism here. Hell, maybe I shouldn't even be calling "bad feminism" feminism at all. Maybe I should be calling it pseudo-feminism, and perhaps those self-proclaimed feminists who make claims like the above are wrongly labeling themselves as feminists. However, they are still claiming to be a part of the feminist culture, and regardless of how accurate their claim is, it's going to contribute to the ways in which I perceive the word "feminism."



"Begging for respect" is likely your interpretation of what these particular feminists you have in mind do, and the phrase choice was, as mentioned, probably rhetorical, so I'll leave this one.

Yes, thank you. I'm glad you see the rhetoric in that (and hopefully you see the rhetoric in other things I've said here?). Obviously I don't think feminists are down on their knees grovelling.

As to pointedly remarking on not being treated with respect, again, I don't know what specific feminist or feminists you are referring to here, but this has more to do with specific practices of feminism by individuals than feminist ideologies, or feminism generally. Are you talking about women complaining about sexual harassment in the workplace or something?

An example of this is some women believing that they are more entitled to certain jobs where female presence is lacking, simply because it adds "diversity" to the field. If a woman is as qualified as a man, she will get the respect that such man of equal standing receives. If not, she shouldn't expect to get special treatment just because hiring her may aid in closing a male/female gap. And before you go and say that feminists don't believe this, I'm just going to clear it up and say that some do. Maybe not the most prominent ones (as the prominent ones are likely to have a much better grasp on reality; the idiots are not the ones that become prominent), but again, some self-proclaimed feminists hold this view.


If I were to give your views a more generous interpretation, I might say that perhaps you read some Camille Paglia, or leafed through some of her writing, and proceeded to (badly) misunderstand what she was saying while still retaining all of her attitude and fervor against the anti-porn, Gloria Steinem feminists of the late 80s and 90s. But you would not even accept a Paglia view, because she advocates for full political and legal equality with men, which she is not naive enough to believe to be already accomplished.

I don't believe that women are completely equal with men. That's pretty apparent by the ratios in certain intellectual fields and positions of power, average salaries, SAT scores, etc. I simply do not believe that women are oppressed because society as a whole still deems them as inferior. Some interpretations of certain statistics may suggest that women appear to not be equal with men when it comes to caliber, at least not at this point, but I stand by my claim that their inequality is not due to an overt oppressive and discriminating force. Women in American society are faced with the same kinds of equal opportunities as men to pursue what they believe will make them happy, and again, if a woman finds herself in a situation where she is not faced with equality, it's not due explicitly and exclusively to her gender.


Do you really not see the incoherence here? How can you simultaneously explain current gender inequality as a carry-over of old notions that have not been fully "counteracted" yet (and are thus still causing gender inequality, though to a diluted degree when compared to history), and maintain the belief that there are no "gender biases" in operation today?

I don't see how it's logically inaccurate to claim that women are still in recovery but are not overtly oppressed by society. Sorry.

I still think there is ground to be made, but not in regards to fighting some societal belief that women are inferior or by fighting treatment of women as inferiors.

...which implicitly assume the existence of gender discrimination (though you claim, based on God-knows-what, that it has no power or effect), AND maintain that gender biases are "obsolete?" That is an explicit contradiction. You make no sense.

Discrimination can exist but be so negligible (or in other words obsolete, not in general use, old-fashioned, out-dated, what have you) that it has no relevant effect on a woman's position. Again, I don't see the contradiction.


Also, you have erroneously established a hierarchy in which discriminations based on color, ethnicity, SES, or anything else except gender are considered more fundamental than those based on gender (which, as I pointed out, you seem to hold contradictory views about.) This flies in the face of all contemporary theories of power and oppression, which suggest either that (a) the various "lines of oppression" (race, gender, class, sexuality), a term I take from Deleuze and Guattari's A Thousand Plateaus, interact in complex and unpredictable ways with one another and with the systems that enact their oppression, or (b) that the interaction of these "lines of oppression" can be identified only by careful investigation of the context in which any specific manifestation of oppression is thought to occur. Now, that is not to say that these theories are right (I tend to think most of them just manage to say obvious things in a complex way, or else they flat out don't make sense), but just that you, with your view of "blackness over femaleness," would have been seen as naive by theorists as far back as the 80s.

I agree that there is a complex relationship between our different distinguishable attributes; I just don't think being female plays nearly as large a role as the others, and the role it plays is not as a fundamental reason for the oppression that females may face.

And anyway, I don't even know why I'm telling you any of this, as the only basis you have for your "blackness over femaleness," or "third-world-ness over femaleness," is that you, at least part of the time, and despite the contradictions posed by your other stated beliefs, deny the existence of gender discrimination based on how you personally feel about the situation. And don't deny it...I have you redhanded here:

Yes, I did throw in a personal experience remark, and I can see how you might think that I am applying my narrow frame of reference to a larger whole, but I'm not. I threw that in as a rhetorical device; not as a substantial foundation for my view.

My view on feminism and the extent to which females are oppressed for being female is from the education I have received about it regarding statistics, philosophy, and just talking with "educated" feminists. I've stated enough times that the views to which I'm referring and critiquing are not how I see all of feminism in its entirety; it's merely a part of some (and again, a large enough portion to be mentioned) feminist ideology that I find really silly.

If you're finding contradictions in my beliefs, then maybe I haven't laid them out well enough. I see no contradictions, though, even the ones that you feel you've so clearly pointed out.

All you do is assert what you think is the reality of the situation. In neither of the above two paragraphs do you ever once provide any reasoning, evidence, or anything else of a justificatory nature (except the personal feelings remark.)

Well, I'm telling you what I think because on of the main points I'm trying to convey here is my perception of feminism.

I provided no evidence; you're right. I'm just too lazy to look up statistics and provide you guys with concrete data that supports my claims. I don't take my debates on this forum seriously enough to do that, and I'd just rather you think my argument completely unfounded than go find some numbers and/or philosophical excerpts (especially statistics/philosophies about which I've already read). Sorry.

As a closing remark, I'll just say that perhaps you might think about reflecting on why you have such a hostile attitude toward the word "feminism" when, even if it is ridiculous and outmoded as you say, it shouldn't bother you any more than, say, fringe religions or any other organization with an agenda. I don't see you ranting about Wiccans (but there might be a connection with feminism there, so bad example.) What's your specific beef with "feminism?"

As my closing remark, I'll just say that perhaps you might think about why somebody who is mildly informed on the topic has such a notion about some modes of feminism.

And no, I'm not ranting about fringe religions or any other ideologies that I find absurd right now, as that's not what this topic is. I brought up feminism as some tangent to some train of thought I (or maybe someone else?) on this thread was having. Just because I'm ranting about feminism doesn't preclude me from having any problems with other philosophies and ideologies as well. How does the former imply the latter in any way?

In short: I've noticed a trend in some realms of feminist ideology. I've noticed this trend by speaking with self-proclaimed feminists and through reading feminist theory by some prominent feminist writers. The trend I've noticed is an underlying notion implied by certain feminist ideals, not something that is overtly expressed by feminists, and not something that is implied by all feminist theories.
 

Qre:us

New member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,890
Q:
It might do us both some good in streamlining this discussion if you read my posts with Onemoretime on this thread regarding the issue. Maybe you'd have a better idea of my position then?

We can streamline, but, first I must point out that my initial reaction to your response is that you initially came into the topic, seemingly guns blazing, throwing opinions around on feminism that were grossly a misrepresentation. And, then, when we countered, now I see you back-peddaling on your original claims, trying to use rationalization to twist the claims you originally made, to show, 'Oh, that's not really what I meant, actually.'

You came in saying that truly rigorous thinkers would know that feminism is obsolete, or something like that. And, now it seems, you're the one finally doing the rigorous thinking, yet, you haven't retracted any of your previous statements as wrong or a misrepresentation.

Even though, what you're saying now stands in obvious contradiction to what you initially said.

One blatant example -

You before:
An active feminist movement in America is outdated and redundant (regardless of where such movement falls on the radical scale), ...

You now:
You're right when you say that I bash feminism in spite of its good qualities. The good qualities of feminism are not those which I bash, though.

I do possess a certain view on N. American feminism, and this is the view that I'm bashing. The term "feminist" has a seriously negative connotation in contemporary American thought, and it has this connotation because of a stereotype formed and backed by reality. This connotation is one that I admittedly associate with feminism, and the feminism that abides by this connotation is the one that I am bashing and find redundant, futile, and obsolete.

I do not have a skewed perception of what feminism is. I am merely focusing on one realm of feminism (a significant realm and one that holds substantial weight in modern feminist ideology) and laying out my problems with it.

....so now you're seeing differences in feminist theories, while before they were all bad, because you lumped them in all as one (regardless of where they lay on the radical scale). Orangey even told you that's what you were doing, initially. You ignored that, and continued on. And, now you are saying, 'well, okay, I meant only a segment of feminist thoughts, you guys are just confusing that I meant all.' :huh:

Okay. Which position are you truly supporting?

First and foremost, I'd like to express the view that I do not believe that discrimination against women never occurs in American society. I simply do not believe that this discrimination has a lasting impact on the woman's position. Discrimination is a remnant of the past (Come on guys, it's not even been a century since woman's suffrage was set in place), and while they may be hurtful and frustrating, discriminatory views hold no substantial power here. The reason that women are not in a completely equal position with men, from a numerical viewpoint, is simply due to the fact that they haven't been given enough time to counteract against the old-fashioned notions of the mid 20th century.

You're right when you say that I bash feminism in spite of its good qualities. The good qualities of feminism are not those which I bash, though. I am frustrated with the feminist views that women are still treated as inferiors, that women should be treated with more respect than they currently experience (regardless of whether or not individuals have earned such respect), and that the problems women face are due exclusively to their womanhood.

I do not believe a black women is oppressed by the expanses of American society simply because she is a women. I believe she is oppressed because she is black. Likewise, a hispanic women is not oppressed because she is a woman; she is oppressed because she is a hispanic. An immigrant woman is not oppressed because she is a woman; she is oppressed because she is an immigrant. An impoverished single mother is not oppressed because she is a woman; she is oppressed because she is an impoverished single mother.

I have nothing against movements and organizations that seek to close the gap among different races, ethnicities, and socioeconomic classes. I also have nothing against the movements and organizations that seek to specifically help women within oppressed races, ethnicities, and socioeconomic classes. I find the latter to be tackling a small part of a much larger problem, and some may argue this is a good approach, while others may see the limitations to it. That's beside the point, and not really something I'm prepared to argue for or against in terms of effectiveness. I simply stand by my claim that tackling the belief that women are inherently inferior is futile, as this belief is not widely held nor is it pervasive among modern Americans.

I do possess a certain view on N. American feminism, and this is the view that I'm bashing. The term "feminist" has a seriously negative connotation in contemporary American thought, and it has this connotation because of a stereotype formed and backed by reality. This connotation is one that I admittedly associate with feminism, and the feminism that abides by this connotation is the one that I am bashing and find redundant, futile, and obsolete. Again, though, I do not find movements that seek to help the downtrodden who are actually downtrodden to be redundant and futile. I just do not believe that it's fair to say that the downtrodden are downtrodden because they are women.

I do attest to the fact that differences among gender exist in American society. I never meant to imply that other factors also exist, so therefore gender must not be the cause. It wasn't supposed to be a logical corollary. I simply meant to imply that other factors exist, and these factors are the cause, not gender in and of itself (but again, if we want to help certain groups based on gender, then I can't really be opposed to that, as it's still productive in some way, regardless of whether or not it's the most expansive method out there). My overall belief is that if we want to fight oppression, fighting gender biases is hardly the way to go, as I believe gender biases in America are practically obsolete now.

I do not have a skewed perception of what feminism is. I am merely focusing on one realm of feminism (a significant realm and one that holds substantial weight in modern feminist ideology) and laying out my problems with it.

Bolded, yes, you do.

Most "feminists" simply wish to victimize themselves by finding ways that they are not equal rather than by indirectly tackling any such notions via working independently from them.

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.

You also believe that [all] feminism is about crying out about women facing injustice and opression simply because they're women.

As I pointed out, and so did Orangey, and maybe you misinterpreted what you were presented in those TWO classes of yours, and swallowed the words of those angst-ridden people you were speaking to, to be a representation of feminism, but, clearly, once, more, NO! This. is. not. the. position. of. most. of. modern. feminist. theories. Your statement is more the naive stereotype I hear of those that truly don't understand what most feminist theories are about. Yet, bash it. (reminds me of a less exaggerated position of those people who say, 'ew, I would never be a feminist, all those PMSing, man-hating butch women, burning bras and not shaving legs')

Sex is a biological construct, gender a sociological one. This inherently assumes that there's something about the construct of gender through social pressures. How gender influences/is influenced by, different social settings, and other social, psychological and political constructs, is more accurate a representation of feminism today. Not simply because she's a woman.

Until we can agree on that - or "streamline" so that we're on the same page of understanding about what feminism is - I don't think anything you or I say, would add to the progress of this discussion.

PS - I read your discussion with Onemoretime, and yours with SW, I am speaking to you, having understood the position you're holding (or, trying to reshape to not be quite what you previously said, because you got countered)........and, you're stuck on a very weird definition of what feminism is, and expecting us to respond to that, when we don't even agree with that premise in the first place.
 

teslashock

Geolectric
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
1,690
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
We can streamline, but, first I must point out that my initial reaction to your response is that you initially came into the topic, seemingly guns blazing, throwing opinions around on feminism that were grossly a misrepresentation. And, then, when we countered, now I see you back-peddaling on your original claims, trying to use rationalization to twist the claims you originally made, to show, 'Oh, that's not really what I meant, actually.'

You came in saying that truly rigorous thinkers would know that feminism is obsolete, or something like that. And, now it seems, you're the one finally doing the rigorous thinking, yet, you haven't retracted any of your previous statements as wrong or a misrepresentation.

I came in guns blazing because I just wanted to make a silly comment for humor value. I expected it would spur a reaction and that I'd end up having to elaborate on what I meant (which I did). You can take that elaboration as twisting my claim, but it's not. It's just me elaborating on what initially appears to be a flamingly dogmatic position.

I have not just started doing rigorous thinking, at least not about feminism. I have done a good bit of rigorous thinking about feminism, brought on by readings and discussions taken on prior to this thread. The only rigorous thinking I've been doing as a result of this thread is how to enter into a debate without seeming like an [ignorant] asshole.

....so now you're seeing differences in feminist theories, while before they were all bad, because you lumped them in all as one (regardless of where they lay on the radical scale). Orangey even told you that's what you were doing, initially. You ignored that, and continued on. And, now you are saying, 'well, okay, I meant only a segment of feminist thoughts, you guys are just confusing that I meant all.' :huh:

I started out very early on in this discussion with specifying what I meant when I said feminism. I restated and restated and restated, maintaining the same position, but no one seems to have heard me.

I also started out very early on in this discussion by saying that I do not refer to all modes of feminism when I bash it, and I also said very early on that I don't think the definition of feminism that I laid out applies to all feminism.

Okay. Which position are you truly supporting?

I'm supporting the position that females are not on an equal level with males when it comes to societal status. I'm supporting the position that the reason these females are not on an equal standing is not due to a notion that society deems women inherently inferior to men. I'm supporting the position that a significant portion of (but not all) "feminists" believe that society is overtly oppressive to the female gender because they deem the female gender inferior. I'm supporting the position that this notion is explicitly stated by so-called "bad" feminists (a term I laid out in my response to Orangey) and implicitly stated as an underlying notion in some (but again not all) prominent feminist theory. I'm supporting the position that feminism which seeks to close the gender gap by tackling some existing causal factor, one grounded in the soils of reality, (one that is not based upon the fact that society treats women as inferiors) is great.


You also believe that [all] feminism is about crying out about women facing injustice and opression simply because they're women.

No. I. don't. I find it really obnoxious and frustrating that despite no matter how many times I say that I don't think ALL feminism is about what I was referencing, I still get blamed for that. I realize that there are more grounded and accurate forms of feminism that seek to solve problems that actually exist, but I also recognize that not all feminism is this healthy.

As I pointed out, and so did Orangey, and maybe you misinterpreted what you were presented in those TWO classes of yours, and swallowed the words of those angst-ridden people you were speaking to, to be a representation of feminism, but, clearly, once, more, NO! This. is. not. the. position. of. most. of. modern. feminist. theories. Your statement is more the naive stereotype I hear of those that truly don't understand what most feminist theories are about. Yet, bash it. (reminds me of a less exaggerated position of those people who say, 'ew, I would never be a feminist, all those PMSing, man-hating butch women, burning bras and not shaving legs')

I even admitted to this in my last response to Orangey. I said that the bashing in which I'm engaging is pointed at these feminists. I said that this may not be a completely accurate representation of feminism, but it is a notion that a significant portion of "feminists" possess, so regardless of its alignment with the ideals of "modern feminism", it's going to contribute to my perception of the word "feminism", and I'm going to complain about it.

I understand what other feminist theories are about, and again, these are not the ones I'm bashing.

When I said that I don't see the need for a feminist movement, I clarified what I meant by that, and I did that soon after my original brash statement.

Sex is a biological construct, gender a sociological one. This inherently assumes that there's something about the construct of gender through social pressures. How gender influences/is influenced by, different social settings, and other social, psychological and political constructs, is more accurate a representation of feminism today. Not simply because she's a woman.

It's an accurate representation of healthy feminism and feminism preached by prominent feminists, but it's not an accurate representation of many self-proclaimed feminists. I even touched upon gender roles in my first post on this thread, in regards to female v. male ENTPs, before this discussion ensued...
.
Until we can agree on that - or "streamline" so that we're on the same page of understanding about what feminism is - I don't think anything you or I say, would add to the progress of this discussion.

PS - I read your discussion with Onemoretime, and yours with SW, I am speaking to you, having understood the position you're holding (or, trying to reshape to not be quite what you previously said, because you got countered)........and, you're stuck on a very weird definition of what feminism is, and expecting us to respond to that, when we don't even agree with that premise in the first place.

I'm not expecting you to defend the notions that the feminists I'm outlining possess/defend. I'm expecting you to admit that my perception is not completely flawed, though.
 

Qre:us

New member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,890
Arguing for female equality is the nice scale of feminism. When you say that the female ENTPs you know are feminists, do they argue for female equality insofar as females and males are completely equal (zero gender gap), or to the point that it appears these feminist views cause more of a split than a convergance?

Feminism has a really negative connotation to me, and if you mean it in the over the top "I'm a woman; watch my breasts roar with voluptuous triumph and my vagina give birth to a better world! Men should treat me with respect; I don't need men to hold open doors and lift heavy things for me, and God forbid I take a few years off from my career to spend them at home with my babies. Women are equal dammit and we must do everything that men do and not acknowledge the fact that we are biologically different than men!" way, then I'm going to argue with you on this claim. Feminism is way too irrational for real Ti.

Ok, yes it is. I just think that feminism has kind of a negative connotation nowadays, considering that females are practically equal as it is, so the "feminist movement" has become a bit redundant and kind of a moot point. I have the above views that you just elaborated on, but I don't consider myself a "feminist." I'm just arguing connotative shit now though, so don't worry about it. You're right.

These are your initial posts on the subject. Yes, you outlined the feminism you were talking about...the bolded.

This is how you see modern Feminism primarily. We'll call it TeslaSkewsFeminism (does it reflect reality? No, just your reality given the people you've interacted with. But it's your perspective so you can see it any way you like)

And, then you say:
The real "rigorous thinkers" understand that there's no point in pursuing a feminist movement anymore.

Pardon me, but TeslaSkewsFeminism does not take much amount of rigorous thinking to find it ludicrous and ridiculous. (joke? oh, haha)

But, then it gets kind of confusing because your subsequent thoughts muddles your initial assertion that you're only speaking of TeslaSkewsFeminism.

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.

Such as the bolded ^.

The only rigorous thinking I've been doing as a result of this thread is how to enter into a debate without seeming like an [ignorant] asshole.

It might help if you clear up the joke as soon as you see the person is not reading it as one, rather than adding more 'joke'(?) statements, or, sweeping generalizations, such as the bolded ^ above, which negates that you were still talking of ONLY TeslaSkewsFeminism but adds in the whole spectrum of feminist theories into the discussion.

***

You also believe that [all] feminism is about crying out about women facing injustice and opression simply because they're women.

No. I. don't. I find it really obnoxious and frustrating that despite no matter how many times I say that I don't think ALL feminism is about what I was referencing, I still get blamed for that. I realize that there are more grounded and accurate forms of feminism that seek to solve problems that actually exist, but I also recognize that not all feminism is this healthy.

See, below:

I mean can you seriously tell me that a woman in America is still treated as an inferior simply due to the fact that she's a woman?

Lemme guess, another brash statement that's really all just a silly joke? Or you were still just talking of TeslaSkewsFeminism? K.


I'm supporting the position that females are not on an equal level with males when it comes to societal status.

Agreed.

I'm supporting the position that the reason these females are not on an equal standing is not due to a notion that society deems women inherently inferior to men.

Not agreed. Depends on which segment of N.American society you are speaking for, and how this disparity in equality is manifested. Thus, I can't agree with such a broad blanket statement, as it doesn't match reality, nor is a comprehensive view of reality.

I'm supporting the position that a significant portion of (but not all) "feminists" believe that society is overtly oppressive to the female gender because they deem the female gender inferior.

Not really agreed, it seems it's more a significant portion of "feminists" that you've personally had experience with. Agreed in the sense that yes, again, for certain segments of our society, there are overt opression faced by the female gender because they are deemed inferior.

I'm supporting the position that this notion is explicitly stated by so-called "bad" feminists (a term I laid out in my response to Orangey) and implicitly stated as an underlying notion in some (but again not all) prominent feminist theory.

TeslaSkewsFeminism.

I'm supporting the position that feminism which seeks to close the gender gap by tackling some existing causal factor, one grounded in the soils of reality, (one that is not based upon the fact that society treats women as inferiors) is great.

Tesla's response for a solution to TeslaSkewsFeminism.



I even admitted to this in my last response to Orangey. I said that the bashing in which I'm engaging is pointed at these feminists. I said that this may not be a completely accurate representation of feminism, but it is a notion that a significant portion of "feminists" possess, so regardless of its alignment with the ideals of "modern feminism", it's going to contribute to my perception of the word "feminism", and I'm going to complain about it.

I understand what other feminist theories are about, and again, these are not the ones I'm bashing.

When I said that I don't see the need for a feminist movement, I clarified what I meant by that, and I did that soon after my original brash statement.



It's an accurate representation of healthy feminism and feminism preached by prominent feminists, but it's not an accurate representation of many self-proclaimed feminists. I even touched upon gender roles in my first post on this thread, in regards to female v. male ENTPs, before this discussion ensued...

Okay.

I'm not expecting you to defend the notions that the feminists I'm outlining possess/defend.

Yeah, there's no way I'm defending TeslaSkewsFeminism.

I'm expecting you to admit that my perception is not completely flawed, though.

They are not completely flawed as TeslaSkewsFeminism is a reality, not just for you, but a lot of these people that claim they have rigorously studied, or are informed on, feminist theories, and then, they decide to either chuck it out the window because they are only inclined to movement by the radical (and mostly outdated) feminist theories, or, they hold on to such ridiculous and radical viewpoints and then people think these are what most informed feminists are really like. However, these people are not the majority within modern feminist politics and thought.

We could have solved all this way ago, I guess, if we had agreed that the way you viewed Feminism (the "negative connotation") was the one in discussion, by simply agreeing with you and saying, 'yes, that's ridiculous'. But, I think we couldn't really believe that TeslaSkewsFeminism was a serious assertion of someone's views on Feminism, that they were then arguing against, as if it really needed to be countered (it's so ridiculous, it counters itself).......so this discussion became what it was.
 

teslashock

Geolectric
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
1,690
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Ok Q I'm getting pretty annoyed with how you seem to be continually blind and dense to the things I'm saying in my posts here. You seem to be particularly sensitive to the critiques of feminism and due to such sensitivity, care to completely invalidate them rather than accepting the fact that such critiques are fair judgments in regards to some areas of "feminism" (or some self-proclaimed "feminists").

I have yielded to your notions of feminism and said that they are valid. I would never dogmatically claim that ALL feminism falls under one of my perceptions of feminism. How can you so dogmatically claim that my perceptions are completely unrealistic and go so far as to label them as "TeslaSkewsFeminism"? You think that's going to get us anywhere in this discussion to facetiously poke fun at my perceptions? I've changed my tone to try and approach this issue courteously, but you seem no where near willing to do so. Luckily(?) I'm not particularly sensitive to sarcasm, so I'll still keep the ball rolling here...

Feminism has a really negative connotation to me, and if you mean it in the over the top "I'm a woman; watch my breasts roar with voluptuous triumph and my vagina give birth to a better world! Men should treat me with respect; I don't need men to hold open doors and lift heavy things for me, and God forbid I take a few years off from my career to spend them at home with my babies. Women are equal dammit and we must do everything that men do and not acknowledge the fact that we are biologically different than men!" way, then I'm going to argue with you on this claim. Feminism is way too irrational for real
Ti.

These are your initial posts on the subject. Yes, you outlined the feminism you were talking about...the bolded.

Q, if you think this is the definition of feminism that I'm operating under when I critique it, then you have clearly not been reading or accurately interpreting my posts here. Obviously the above is wrought with satirical hyperbole. This was before a serious discussion ensued, and before beginning a serious discussion on the matter (or as soon as a serious discussion ensued), I explicitly defined the kind of feminism I was talking about, and the above is not the definition I gave.

This is how you see modern Feminism primarily. We'll call it TeslaSkewsFeminism (does it reflect reality? No, just your reality given the people you've interacted with. But it's your perspective so you can see it any way you like)

This is how I see feminism primarily? Really? Did I ever say that? Where are you pulling this shit from?

I laid out one of my perceptions of feminism, and yes, I do believe that my perception is accurate and constitutes a significant portion of notions that self-proclaimed feminists possess. But my primary (and only?) view? No.

And, then you say:
"The real "rigorous thinkers" understand that there's no point in pursuing a feminist movement anymore."
Pardon me, but TeslaSkewsFeminism does not take much amount of rigorous thinking to find it ludicrous and ridiculous. (joke? oh, haha)

Again, I put that in there for humor value and to incite a reaction. It's a broad and unclarified assertion when I say "no point to pursuing a feminist movement." I wanted to use the term "rigorous thinking" in parallel with a previous post to briefly lay out one of my feelings on feminism. Again, I went on to clarify what I meant by this. If you want to argue with my claims, then argue with my more detailed elaboration, not my broad assertions.

But, then it gets kind of confusing because your subsequent thoughts muddles your initial assertion that you're only speaking of TeslaSkewsFeminism.

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.

I explicitly defined what I meant by feminism not long after (or maybe within the same post?). The above claim is not contradictory to the rest of my posts when you look at the term "feminism" according to how I explicitly defined it and the conditions under which I make such assertions about it being [insert negative adjective that I've used many times over, here].

You also believe that [all] feminism is about crying out about women facing injustice and opression simply because they're women.

Oh I do? Well that's news to me. Cool.

Again, (and hopefully this will be the last time?) I do not think that all feminist theory is based off of women crying about injustice and oppression simply because they are women. I merely think that this notion is held by a significant portion (not all, not the majority, but a significant portion) of feminists.


I mean can you seriously tell me that a woman in America is still treated as an inferior simply due to the fact that she's a woman?

Lemme guess, another brash statement that's really all just a silly joke? Or you were still just talking of TeslaSkewsFeminism? K.

No, actually that part wasn't a joke. Go look again at the context in which I put that statement. I was trying to make the point that I don't believe that women are treated as inherently inferior by American society, and you even agreed with me on that point, so it's essentially moot.


I'm supporting the position that the reason these females are not on an equal standing is not due to a notion that society deems women inherently inferior to men.

Not agreed. Depends on which segment of N.American society you are speaking for, and how this disparity in equality is manifested. Thus, I can't agree with such a broad blanket statement, as it doesn't match reality, nor is a comprehensive view of reality.

Do you not see your contradiction here, Q? You stated earlier that you don't believe that society deems women inherently inferior (by answering the aforementioned question that I posed to you), yet now you are stating that you do...

The next section of your post goes on to label every view that I claimed on feminism as what you define as "TeslaSkewsFeminism." You just briefly assert that my view is skewed and not backed by reality, and I'm going to disagree with that, and elaborate on the disagreement:

[Your perceptions] are not completely flawed as TeslaSkewsFeminism is a reality, not just for you, but a lot of these people that claim they have rigorously studied, or are informed on, feminist theories, and then, they decide to either chuck it out the window because they are only inclined to movement by the radical (and mostly outdated) feminist theories, or, they hold on to such ridiculous and radical viewpoints and then people think these are what most informed feminists are really like. However, these people are not the majority within modern feminist politics and thought.

My view on this area of feminism is not backed by overt claims in feminist theory. It is backed by some feminists who overtly express these claims. I do not believe that my evaluation of feminism represents all of feminism (oh, there I go again with restating that my evaluation does not pertain to all).

I actually have not chucked all of feminism out the window. Only the feminism that I clearly defined. I volunteer at a women's shelter where mothers and children come to seek refuge from domestic violence. This kind of assistance falls under the realm of feminism, and it's great. I'm also a part of an organization that is trying to raise funds to build an education center in Cambodia that informs women of sexual health. This kind of assistance also falls under the realm of feminism, and it's also great. I do not think all feminism is redundant, pointless, and irrational. I simply expressed my notions on one of my the realms/my perceptions of it.

And again, I do not think this is the majority or that's what most informed feminists are really like. Some are, but most of the feminists that are explicitly like that are the uninformed ones. Feminism is like any realm of philosophy in that it has some really great underlying concepts and is backed by some really great ideology, but some who engage in the philosophy misinterpret it or detach it from reality, thereby redefining its ideology based on pure garbage.

However, I still stand by the claim that even some/many informed feminists are inadvertantly, implicitly, and perhaps unknowingly acting under some kind of unrealistic premises, but I don't really even think we are talking about how I feel about informed feminist views at this point, so I'll refrain from elaborating on that.

We could have solved all this way ago, I guess, if we had agreed that the way you viewed Feminism (the "negative connotation") was the one in discussion, by simply agreeing with you and saying, 'yes, that's ridiculous'. But, I think we couldn't really believe that TeslaSkewsFeminism was a serious assertion of someone's views on Feminism, that they were then arguing against, as if it really needed to be countered (it's so ridiculous, it counters itself).......so this discussion became what it was.

But that was the one in discussion. The argument then became about whether my views are a fair one to possess, and you seem to still think that they aren't. You seem to think that I've formed a stereotype and will not yield to exceptions to that stereotype, and you're wrong. You're also wrong when you say that the stereotype I've laid out is unrealistic. Many self-proclaimed feminists do express the views that I have such a clear problem with; you think those who fall under the stereotype are really that rare, and that me and all the others who formed the stereotype just so happened to run into these rarities by chance? That's a rather unfortunate coincidence, isn't it? I could turn your argument around and say that your own perception and narrow reality is skewed because you hang around people who share the same rational views on feminism as you do, but I wouldn't dare invalidate your perceptions, as your perceptions (like mine) are shared by many (including me). Personal experience is not everything, but many different personal experiences that all find the same trend counts for something. Stereotypes are not everything, but they don't just appear out of thin air. They form due to reality (whether or not they are completely accurate representations is irrelevant...and I wouldn't go so far as to say that the majority of feminists fall under the stereotype; they are accurate representations of some realms of reality, otherwise they wouldn't have formed at all).

Whether or not my perceptions of feminism are backed by the purest forms of feminist theory is irrelevant. My perceptions of feminism are backed by enough "feminists" to cause my perceptions to be shared with many others as well, and that's what matters here. That's what helps to validate my perception.
 

Qre:us

New member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,890
I started out very early on in this discussion with specifying what I meant when I said feminism. I restated and restated and restated, maintaining the same position, but no one seems to have heard me.

I also started out very early on in this discussion by saying that I do not refer to all modes of feminism when I bash it, and I also said very early on that I don't think the definition of feminism that I laid out applies to all feminism.

These are your initial posts on the subject. Yes, you outlined the feminism you were talking about...the bolded.

This is how you see modern Feminism primarily. We'll call it TeslaSkewsFeminism (does it reflect reality? No, just your reality given the people you've interacted with. But it's your perspective so you can see it any way you like)

And, then you say:
Pardon me, but TeslaSkewsFeminism does not take much amount of rigorous thinking to find it ludicrous and ridiculous. (joke? oh, haha)

But, then it gets kind of confusing because your subsequent thoughts muddles your initial assertion that you're only speaking of TeslaSkewsFeminism.

Q, if you think this is the definition of feminism that I'm operating under when I critique it, then you have clearly not been reading or accurately interpreting my posts here. Obviously the above is wrought with satirical hyperbole. This was before a serious discussion ensued, and before beginning a serious discussion on the matter (or as soon as a serious discussion ensued), I explicitly defined the kind of feminism I was talking about, and the above is not the definition I gave.

This is how I see feminism primarily? Really? Did I ever say that? Where are you pulling this shit from?

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.

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...."

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.

teslashock said:
I'm supporting the position that the reason these females are not on an equal standing is not due to a notion that society deems women inherently inferior to men.

Qre:us said:
Not agreed. Depends on which segment of N.American society you are speaking for, and how this disparity in equality is manifested. Thus, I can't agree with such a broad blanket statement, as it doesn't match reality, nor is a comprehensive view of reality.

teslashock said:
Do you not see your contradiction here, Q? You stated earlier that you don't believe that society deems women inherently inferior (by answering the aforementioned question that I posed to you), yet now you are stating that you do...

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.

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.

(were you trying to purposely trick me there?)

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.).

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.

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).

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.

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?

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!

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.

Independent variable/Dependent variable

Race/media
Race/domestic abuse
Race/education
Race/politics
Race/workforce
Race/health(care)
Race/SES

Now, imagine if the same arguments of yours applied, 'saying that its simply cuz of race is weak', 'there's other important issues to tackle these social barriers'.

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. Otherwise, it's just X (women); we need a Y. And, this is why it's kind of ridiculous, your argument of marginalizing the role of women and saying to highlight on the other social factors. 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. Race theorists choose the independent variable to be race. Queer theory choose the independent variable to be sexual orientation&identity!

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).

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).

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???

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'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'. (?!)

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.


Whether or not my perceptions of feminism are backed by the purest forms of feminist theory is irrelevant. My perceptions of feminism are backed by enough "feminists" to cause my perceptions to be shared with many others as well, and that's what matters here. That's what helps to validate my perception.

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. 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). 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.
My frustration at you not getting what I meant manifested the last post the way it did (and a few parts in previous posts).
 

jenocyde

half mystic, half skeksis
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
6,387
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w8
Even though all of this is interesting, I really hope this thread gets split.
 

teslashock

Geolectric
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
1,690
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Even though all of this is interesting, I really hope this thread gets split.

Yeah me too. I don't like this being in the ENTP gender thread; it makes it look like ENTP gender roles/associations come down to feminist theory, and that's not really why this discussion was spurred. Can some mod make a new thread or something?
 

onemoretime

Dreaming the life
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
4,455
MBTI Type
3h50
Just so you know, I love the fact that I achieved an epic thread derail just by mentioning the word "feminism".
 

teslashock

Geolectric
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
1,690
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
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.
 

Qre:us

New member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,890
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?

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.
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:
Feminist theory is just about looking at one particular lens of the interplay of all these factors. WOMEN.
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?

:doh:

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?

:doh: x 2. Not, WHAT SOCIETY as in N.America versus other societies. Please read carefully again:

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".

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???

teslashock said:
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.
:doh:
"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.
 

onemoretime

Dreaming the life
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
4,455
MBTI Type
3h50
"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)
 

teslashock

Geolectric
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
1,690
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
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 :doh: 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...
 

teslashock

Geolectric
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
1,690
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
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...
 

onemoretime

Dreaming the life
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
4,455
MBTI Type
3h50
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.
 

teslashock

Geolectric
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
1,690
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
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.
 

onemoretime

Dreaming the life
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
4,455
MBTI Type
3h50
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.
 

Qre:us

New member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,890
K, one little thing....yes, there's a contradiction here, as I said, I'm out, but I came back....

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.

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.
 

teslashock

Geolectric
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
1,690
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
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)?
 
Top