Helios
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2008
- Messages
- 273
- MBTI Type
- INTP
Get the stick out of your hindquarters. Really. Your life will be so much more rewarding.
This doesn't address my response to you, though perhaps it isn't intended to!
Get the stick out of your hindquarters. Really. Your life will be so much more rewarding.
To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." - Genesis 3:16
I have no problem with a man worrying about his wife's safety because he cares about her. The sexist part of this commercial is that he's worried about her because the world is too overwhelming for her female brain and reflexes. And plays into stereotypes about women not being able to drive. Replace it with another stereotype and see if it's still sweet: "But when an Asian is at the wheel..." Patronizing? Offensive? Yep. You can care about the Asian person in question, but it still makes it a dumb and offensive stereotype. (Yes, PeaceBaby! Good observation about sliding over so the man can drive!)
Mkenya, I understand that the rules have changed, and lots of men are left confused. Heck, I'm confused sometimes because my dad was a mix of the protective, chivalric man, and a man who raised me to believe I could do anything a man could do. So it was weird to me to find out most guys seem to be either/or because of the mixed messages in society. There's nothing wrong with a man being a bit protective of a woman because he loves her, in my eyes. But if he's being protective because he thinks she's too weak and stupid to make it in the world, it becomes offensive. It's the intention.
They've got to deal with it like a man.I think Feminism is harmful because people who choose that lifestyle or are comfortable in it are immediately vilified,
I'm not "divorcing" a subject from any other, nor denying the value of inter-disciplinary research. This is not inconsistent with anything I've said above.
How can you say that "generic Feminism" doesn't exist when you're unaware of how your interlocutor is defining the term?
I'd define generic Feminism as something like the following:
The position that women ought to enjoy equality (principally legal, social and economic) with men + {miscellaneous propositions}.
It is the latter part of the definition which leads me to reject Feminism, and is usually populated with claims like "There ought to be women only spaces on university campuses", ""Rape culture" exists", "There would never have been any war had women had as much influence as men in the past", "20% of women on university campuses (in the United States) will be raped", etc.
Importantly, I believe that when someone identifies as a Feminist, they in fact assent to generic Feminism so defined.
I did not dodge the question. Your remark suggested that I had been misunderstood, and thus I sought to clarify my comment.
In other words, when someone says "I am a Feminist" they most likely mean "I am a generic Feminist", the definition of which has been provided above. Since these "miscellaneous propositions" are typically absurd-some examples were provided above- I am then justified in rejecting Feminism, where "Feminism" is synonymous with "generic Feminism" so defined.
I'm studying (ancient) history myself at university, and am really quite enamoured with it. Nevertheless, you appeared to recommend that I read history books in order to understand contemporary society. I'd sooner consult psychological and sociological literature, not to mention my eyes.
Your use of profanity and tone here suggest to me that you have become, somewhat ironically, emotionally invested in our exchange. I have so far been courteous. Note that I do believe in Feminism-I merely deny that it is correct.
That was hilarious to me. lol
Stereotypes are fun. We participate in this everyday on this forum.
Get the stick out of your hindquarters. Really. Your life will be so much more rewarding.
amen. all these women trying to act like men disgusts me. they're ruining the good, christian family values this nation was founded on.
You tried to suggest that "history" was less important to understanding contemporary society than sociology and/or psychology. In my response, I was suggesting that history, whether it is defined simply as research into the past or more specifically as an academic discipline with specific methodologies, cannot meaningfully be separated from either of those disciplines (or at least sociology, since there are still remnants of positivism in psychology.) And if history cannot be separated from sociology or psychology, it doesn't make any sense to say that history is less important to understanding contemporary society than sociology or psychology.
This is all on top of the fact that we have not specifically defined what is meant by "contemporary society" or what it means to understand it.
Because the term "generic feminism" is not widely accepted as being descriptive of any known type of feminism. If I see the color green, and I say, "hey, look at that color! It's greeb," then I will have made up a word that describes something real but is not itself an existing term that is widely used. I will have just invented the word, and (now take note here, Helios) I should not expect, if I go around saying "greeb!" that anyone else in the world will know what the fuck I'm talking about.
You had been misunderstood, but your response failed to clarify anything. Nice attempt at being a smartass, though.
P.S.- Goddamn you and your stupid fucking Palatino Linotype.
You're going wrong in assuming that "feminism" is synonymous with your "generic feminism." Some feminists might only believe in the antecedent part of your "generic feminism" formula, but they're still feminists.
In other words, when someone says "I am a Feminist" they most likely mean "I am a generic Feminist"
Moreover, you're not justified in rejecting generic feminism if you don't even know which propositions will go in the {miscellaneous propositions} container for any given type of feminism.
It is the latter part of the definition which leads me to reject Feminism, and is usually populated with claims like "There ought to be women only spaces on university campuses", ""Rape culture" exists", "There would never have been any war had women had as much influence as men in the past", "20% of women on university campuses (in the United States) will be raped", etc.
In other words, when someone says "I am a Feminist" they most likely mean "I am a generic Feminist", the definition of which has been provided above. Since these "miscellaneous propositions" are typically absurd-some examples were provided above- I am then justified in rejecting Feminism, where "Feminism" is synonymous with "generic Feminism" so defined.
:/ I didn't find that one offensive or funny.. The thought of men thinking they're turning into drones just because they're with a woman--.. it's sort of sad. Kind of destroys the romantic thoughts I have about relationships
Lol @ history not pertaining to modern society.
Also, Lol @ cussing being automatically taken as, somewhat ironically, emotional outbursts just because it came from a woman. Or are you going to try and salvage your "somewhat ironic" snide remark and try to say it wasn't hinting at the fact that you feel women cannot debate without emotional outbursts?
That's because feminism is dumb.
Regardless, know that swearing at me again will lead to the end of our exchange.
You had been misunderstood, but your response failed to clarify anything. Nice attempt at being a smartass, though.
P.S.- Goddamn you and your stupid fucking Palatino Linotype.
I had someone complain about that shortly after I joined.
Over two years ago.