Feminism and Sexual Equality page 10

353 posts

Flag Post

Personally, I despise modern “feminism”, based on what I’ve seen about it. And it’s only the misandric bullcrap that passes for feminism nowadays that I dislike. Y’know, the radical stuff. When a woman is arguing for rights that are actually the same as those of a man, that’s absolutely fine by my book, and good for her too. When she’s arguing for women getting yet more rights, I don’t like her on the grounds that I feel that she’s just trying to boost her own position in society. When she’s preaching libelous tales of the male scum, and how it should be wiped from the Earth for the sake of a utopian race of womyn, fuck her and her extreminism to oblivion. Sadly, the former of the three is just about vanished by this stage, granted that women and men already share plenty of rights in the Western world…
Which brings me to my main problem with feminism nowadays: it’s mostly prevalent in Western societies, where women, from what I can see, already have additional rights over those that Western society in general shares with itself, granted that some of those rights (but not, I should note, all of them) aren’t easily replicable to men, to the point that American and European mindsets seem inherently biased in favor of women over men. By contrast, the places that need a good dose of gender equality, particularly countries living under Sharia law, have just about nothing going for them. My point being, if you want to preach gender equality, do so in a country that oppresses women, not a country that almost exalts them.
So yes. My viewpoint.

 
Flag Post

Islamic Feminism

 
Flag Post

If I was a woman in an Islamic country, I’d get the hell outta there, or I’d try. There’s no point in attempting to create a political movement in such a religiously sexist society; it is pointless.

 
Flag Post

Pointless, yes. A very succint analysis. No doubt informed by the latest trendy bullshit about islam floating around Europe.

Hey, no worries bud. We all talk out of our ass sometimes. Hell, that was me yesterday.

 
Flag Post
No doubt informed by the latest trendy bullshit about islam floating around Europe.

I’m not in Europe, so I’m not sure what you’re on about.

And “pointless” is meant to be a hyperbole. Of course it will have some use, but I still personally believe that that use will be minimal. Mainly because of Sharia law and religious conservatism.

 
Flag Post

Sure. Hey, I personally believe in a God that created the universe. There’s absolutely no basis for thinking so but I believe in it anyway.

Of course there is a slight difference between that and making over-generalizations about an entire culture based on nothing more than ‘personal belief’ and vague suppositions about said culture.

 
Flag Post

Not sure what you consider “vague suppositions” out of what I had to say. So which one of the following out of what I said are you saying is a vague supposition about the Middle Eastern Islamic countries: sexism, religious conservatism, Sharia law?

And “religious conservatism” in this context refers to just Islamic religious conservatism. In those countries, it is illegal to be atheist, this is not bullshit (part of the Quran: Sahih Bukhari 9:84:57); furthermore, quite a few people can recite the entire Quran (Hafiz). Out of the three I said, I fail to see which one is a vague supposition. And while my dad worked as an English teacher in Saudi Arabia and the UAE and we lived with him, 1995–2002, I lived there. So this is not “out of my ass”. And again, which one is the “vague supposition”?

The only thing that I said was a personal belief was that Islamic feminism will struggle to rise.

 
Flag Post

it’s been around since the fifties, and gets more prominent every year. again, the link.

yeah, saudi arabia’s a conservative shithole. it doesn’t represent all of islam.

quite frankly, i don’t care how much of the qur’an you can rattle off, it’s irrelevant. it’s like condemning christianity with evilbible.

your argument is the vague supposition.

 
Flag Post

Yet the UAE is progressive and entrepreneurial, with similar results: sexism. Same goes for Qatar, and to a lesser extent Bahrain…

The Middle East, as you may know, was doing pretty damn well in the medieval era: in some ways they were the most advanced. Their agricultural technologies, their academia, their arithmetic (‘algebra’ being an etymologically Arabic word), were vastly superior.

Yet look at the Middle East now. Religious fundamentalism and Sharia law have risen, free speech is negligible, education is somewhat poor for the majority and appalling for the lower classes. Discrimination is rampant, whether it is racial or by gender.

In comparison to twenty years ago, yes, Islam is improving in terms of gender. However, in terms of sixty years ago or centuries ago, Islam has not improved in terms of gender.


From your article:
“According to currently existing traditional schools of Islam, a woman cannot lead a mixed gender congregation in salat (prayer). Some schools make exceptions for Tarawih (optional Ramadan prayers) or for a congregation consisting only of close relatives. Certain medieval scholars—including Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari (838–923), Abu Thawr (764–854), Isma’il Ibn Yahya al-Muzani (791–878), and Ibn Arabi (1165–1240) considered the practice permissible at least for optional (nafl) prayers; however, their views are not accepted by any major surviving group. Islamic feminists have begun to protest this.”

I’m glad they’ve “begun to protest this”, but again, in terms of centuries-long history, gender equality is not improving.

“A survey by the Council on American Islamic Relations showed that two of three mosques in 2000 required women to pray in a separate area, up from one of two in 1994.”

“In 2003, Asra Nomani challenged rules at her mosque in Morgantown, West Virginia, requiring that women enter through a back door and pray in a secluded balcony. She argued that since in the 7th century the Islamic prophet Muhammad didn’t put women behind partitions, that the barriers were just sexist man-made rules. The men at her mosque put her on trial to be banished.”

A woman thinking for herself? A woman observing that Islam was not as sexist in the 7th century? These are not appreciated by many male Muslims. Furthermore, that whole section of “Equality in the Mosque” from the Wikipedia article concerns merely the United States. Sexism is much more rampant, obviously, in the Middle East.

Your ad hominem only deviates the topic of discussion. My point was that feminism may be rising there, albeit only slightly, but women are not doing as well there as they used to. Whereas in the western world women are doing much better than 20, 50 years ago, or centuries ago. Now don’t get me wrong, I’d love for gender equality to improve there; however, I am merely stating the facts, all of the quotations originating from that article.

 
Flag Post

No, the genders not equal. Males are generally stronger and more capable of physical labor and tolerating higher thresholds of pain than women; however, women are generally more capable of a higher sensitivity to the emotional input of others. Males also predominantly use the left hemisphere of their brain, whereas females utilize both hemispheres equally. Males tend to think in more spatial parameters whereas females are more inclined to object location memory. Although some are highly disputed and even controversial, there are many differences between the sexes.

Despite the apparent physiological, neurological, and psychological differences between males and females, that in no way justifies unequal treatment. Regardless of one’s race, sex, ethnicity, genetic background, disabilities, or even species if it comes to it, all organisms deserve the equal opportunity to any and every available position. Just because all organisms are given equal opportunity, that in no way means they are all equally capable of achieving the same success. For example, women should be allowed to serve in the military and in any position they apply for; however, this does not necessarily mean they will pass. If an equal number of men and women applied to join the U.S. Military and, given no discrimination outside of physical fitness and aptitude, tested, a higher percentage of males will pass than females because the former are physically superior to perform such rigorous activities. This does not mean there probably isn’t a woman that can kick all their asses; rather, it simply implies that there is a greater chance of the available positions being filled by males when the discrimination is based on physical fitness. Similarly, a woman would be more capable of nurturing a child, being a nurse and perhaps a therapist, and helping others in a supportive environment.

Regarding feminism, it is a fallacy. The modern definition of feminism is so misconstrued and distorted due to the various differing ideologies within the feminist philosophy, any single and coherent synthesis is virtually impossible. Do I think the liberation of women was bad for society? Absolutely not. I would argue, however, that the liberation of women was bad for society in the form it took. (Reread the italicized part at the end of the previous sentence because that’s and important distinction.) The liberation of the female sex from a male-dominated society or culture is, in my opinion, a progressive step to a better society; however, the result of such liberation is appalling. The extremist, sexist ideologies of most feminists is offensive to say the least and the delusional victimization and over-dramatization of even the most minute of perceived injustices is absurd.

The “empowerment of women” has turned into the oppression of men and the exaltation of the female form over that of all others. The last good feminist was Mary Wollstonecraft and that’s because she was what modern egalitarians would call humanism. She advocated for equal rights between men and women, not the vengeance of women against the oppressive tyranny of men. She wanted men and women to be on equal grounds, not for the oppressed to become the oppressor. I am a humanist, not a feminist, and I despite the feminist philosophy with a passion akin to my abhorrence for the corruption and obstinacy of contemporary fundamentalism in religion and theology.

To answer your questions shortly:

1. No, the genders are not equal.

2. Both genders—as do all organisms—deserve the right of equal opportunity and freedom from unjustified or illegitimate oppression and discrimination.

3. Yes and no: Yes, more work needs to be done in order to give both genders equal opportunity and availability to the same positions. No, because neither sex will nor should be equal in ability or capability. Both sexes have distinct characteristics, some of one being superior to those of the other and contrariwise. The equality of the sexes should be of opportunity regardless of ability or intrinsic equality. Humans are not created equal. All organisms have instrumental equality, or equality of opportunity. To suggest that all have equal ability, however, is absurd.

4. The radical, extremist ideologies of feminism needs to be abolished entirely and filed as an outdated philosophical doctrine. Women are no longer oppressed by the male-dominated patriarchy that existed centuries ago. While feminist ideology may be needed in undeveloped or developing nations, where women are still oppressed, it is no longer a constructive or productive school of thought to entertain in contemporary developed society. Humanism and egalitarianism and equality of opportunity regardless of ability needs to replace the feminist regime because before long, feminist ideology will pacify the masculine form and render the male gender subordinate rather than equal to their female counterparts. You may think I am being extreme, but I am simply responding to the extremism of the radical feminists. Don’t believe me? Read some of their trash for yourself.

I’m a humanist, not a feminist or a masculinist. I support equal rights for all, not the favoring of the perceived oppressed over the alleged oppressor.

 
Flag Post

@Jaume

Just because not a lot of progress has been made – relatively speaking – doesn’t mean nothing’s happening, or that it doesn’t compare to the west. Sixty years ago wives and daughters were still being kept in harems in Morocco. The Arab peninsula, owing to a strong degree of islamic ultra-conservatism, has always been the last to keep up, hence laws against women driving and such. The UAE, while technically not a shari’a state, has many of the conservative, tribalist traits that the Saudis possess, making them almost as bad. As for the west, there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that conservative muslims who migrate over don’t get any less conservative – they emigrate because the money’s better, or because of in-fighting at home, but it doesn’t change their beliefs about women. That actually doesn’t help your argument though; one would think exposure to western culture would promote lessened patriarchy, but in many cases it just doesn’t happen.

Additionally, Europe – as I hinted at before – is extremely islamophobic at the moment; this actually contributes to the conservative attitudes. France, England, Netherlands, these are nation-states built on a ‘one-culture, one-people’ model that isn’t as easily accepting of non-conformist foreigners as in say, the colonies. For a north american or (I’d suppose) an Australian/NZer, it’s not as jarring to see a woman walking down the street in a niq’ab or a hijab, as it seems to be so in Western Europe. Of course, there are limits – a few years ago a community of muslims in Ontario tried to petition the government for permission to allow them to practice shari’a for family law. They failed because too much of islamic family law is acceptable under Canadian human rights law, but again, they were operating under a very conservative definition of shari’a, like in SA. It’s not all bad, it’s just that the hadiths, and to a lesser extent, the sunna (see the cartoon) tend to rely heavily on tribalism, that is, pre-islamic arab laws that percolated into mainstream islam, or conversely, modern interpretations that use salafi, so-called golden age teachings as their foundations, which are just as harsh as any of the tribal traditions. polygamy, FGM, even the veil itself, comes from these pre-islamic or salafi traditions.

I’ve alot of respect for IF exactly because they’re in a tough place, not so much geographically, but because of the religious architecture that seems biased against them, but they’ve been effective at demonstrating how islam actually justifies what we’d recognize as a feminist lifestyle. I DON’T think the solution is for them all to give up their religion and come over here; not just because, as I’ve pointed out, it probably won’t help much, but also because western feminism is in kind of rough shape currently. Posts like the one above show pretty clearly that a lot of people, men and women, don’t understand what feminists are trying to do right now, which frustrates them, and they’re getting flak from it by the radicals, which pisses them off, so they end up – unintentionally, perhaps – doing as much damage as the muslim patriarchal men do, by sidelining the debate to bitch and complain.

You know, many in IF wear veils, and can justify wearing them pretty well, at least according to their religious interpretations. I for one am convinced that they’re doing a pretty good job, under the circumstances, but like any grass-roots movement, it takes a big catalyst event to shake things up. There’s a reason IF has only been taking off in the last 50-60 years; up till then they’d been ruled by a monolithic bureaucracy deadset on keeping the status quo – the ottomans. After that? They’ve been stuck with autocrats who do pretty much the same thing. Now, possibly Arab Spring will eventually pay off, or maybe it’ll have to wait for something else, but it’ll happen soon enough, IMO.

kay speech done. As I said, I dislike lecturing, but as you seemed incapable of reading a wikipedia link without your biases getting in the way, there it is.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JaumeBG:

Darkscanner, when people are arguing a subject and all human-known facts point toward only one of the two sides being correct, it is inevitable that the side without facts backing it will resort to topic diversion and ultimately ad hominem.

Also, let’s remember all that gravity is “just a theory” as well. I can thus conclude for the creationist side that gravity is not real as the Bible doesn’t talk about it.

You’ll forgive me for putting this on the wrong thread, I’m sure.

 
Flag Post

Eh, you used ad hominem repetitively—since your very first reply and each once since—and are unwilling to have a civil discussion. What I quoted in quotation marks above was your article, yet you refuse to acknowledge that and claim that I failed to read the article.

And much of your post is off-topic. I simply said initially that Islam is sexist and that Islamic feminism will and is struggling to rise. That’s all I said.

Then you went on with, as an example, “Just because not a lot of progress has been made – relatively speaking – doesn’t mean nothing’s happening”. I never said nothing was happening. I reiterate, I merely said that Islam is sexist and feminism for them is struggling to rise. You essentially agreed with me there: not a lot of progress is being made. I never said nothing was happening. We agree on most things, but for some reason you seem to go off on a tangent.

Yes, Europe is extremely Islamophobic… that’s correct. I agree. But the thing is, you’re saying that as if I disagree. I don’t. You’re going off-topic from a post wherein I said Islam is sexist and feminism there will struggle to rise. Again, I’m a Spaniard living in New Zealand; ergo, when I lived in Spain, I witnessed the constant Islamophobia. So I agree with you. I’m not sure why you’re eager to continue an argument where there isn’t one and where we agree on most of what is being said; much of what you said is in no relation to what I have said at all, I have not even commented on much of what is not in relation to what I initially said (in your post with the diagram) yet you assume I am in disagreement with you.

 
Flag Post

I’m not sure why you’re eager to continue an argument where there isn’t one and where we agree on most of what is being said

oh my dear boy i had no idea how could i have misjudged

Originally posted by JaumeBG:

If I was a woman in an Islamic country, I’d get the hell outta there, or I’d try. There’s no point in attempting to create a political movement in such a religiously sexist society; it is pointless.

Oh right

 
Flag Post

Hah, I was scanning through this thread, when I suddenly saw my name name, and I was like “WHAAAA?”.

Anyway, back on topic, what bothers me about some feminists is that it’s less like they’re for equality for women, and more like they’re sexist against men. Not to say all feminists are that way; Just some.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Nokkenbuer:

No, the genders not equal. Males are generally stronger and more capable of physical labor and tolerating higher thresholds of pain than women; however, women are generally more capable of a higher sensitivity to the emotional input of others. Males also predominantly use the left hemisphere of their brain, whereas females utilize both hemispheres equally. Males tend to think in more spatial parameters whereas females are more inclined to object location memory. Although some are highly disputed and even controversial, there are many differences between the sexes.

Despite the apparent physiological, neurological, and psychological differences between males and females, that in no way justifies unequal treatment. Regardless of one’s race, sex, ethnicity, genetic background, disabilities, or even species if it comes to it, all organisms deserve the equal opportunity to any and every available position. Just because all organisms are given equal opportunity, that in no way means they are all equally capable of achieving the same success. For example, women should be allowed to serve in the military and in any position they apply for; however, this does not necessarily mean they will pass. If an equal number of men and women applied to join the U.S. Military and, given no discrimination outside of physical fitness and aptitude, tested, a higher percentage of males will pass than females because the former are physically superior to perform such rigorous activities. This does not mean there probably isn’t a woman that can kick all their asses; rather, it simply implies that there is a greater chance of the available positions being filled by males when the discrimination is based on physical fitness. Similarly, a woman would be more capable of nurturing a child, being a nurse and perhaps a therapist, and helping others in a supportive environment.

Regarding feminism, it is a fallacy. The modern definition of feminism is so misconstrued and distorted due to the various differing ideologies within the feminist philosophy, any single and coherent synthesis is virtually impossible. Do I think the liberation of women was bad for society? Absolutely not. I would argue, however, that the liberation of women was bad for society in the form it took. (Reread the italicized part at the end of the previous sentence because that’s and important distinction.) The liberation of the female sex from a male-dominated society or culture is, in my opinion, a progressive step to a better society; however, the result of such liberation is appalling. The extremist, sexist ideologies of most feminists is offensive to say the least and the delusional victimization and over-dramatization of even the most minute of perceived injustices is absurd.

The “empowerment of women” has turned into the oppression of men and the exaltation of the female form over that of all others. The last good feminist was Mary Wollstonecraft and that’s because she was what modern egalitarians would call humanism. She advocated for equal rights between men and women, not the vengeance of women against the oppressive tyranny of men. She wanted men and women to be on equal grounds, not for the oppressed to become the oppressor. I am a humanist, not a feminist, and I despite the feminist philosophy with a passion akin to my abhorrence for the corruption and obstinacy of contemporary fundamentalism in religion and theology.

To answer your questions shortly:

1. No, the genders are not equal.

2. Both genders—as do all organisms—deserve the right of equal opportunity and freedom from unjustified or illegitimate oppression and discrimination.

3. Yes and no: Yes, more work needs to be done in order to give both genders equal opportunity and availability to the same positions. No, because neither sex will nor should be equal in ability or capability. Both sexes have distinct characteristics, some of one being superior to those of the other and contrariwise. The equality of the sexes should be of opportunity regardless of ability or intrinsic equality. Humans are not created equal. All organisms have instrumental equality, or equality of opportunity. To suggest that all have equal ability, however, is absurd.

4. The radical, extremist ideologies of feminism needs to be abolished entirely and filed as an outdated philosophical doctrine. Women are no longer oppressed by the male-dominated patriarchy that existed centuries ago. While feminist ideology may be needed in undeveloped or developing nations, where women are still oppressed, it is no longer a constructive or productive school of thought to entertain in contemporary developed society. Humanism and egalitarianism and equality of opportunity regardless of ability needs to replace the feminist regime because before long, feminist ideology will pacify the masculine form and render the male gender subordinate rather than equal to their female counterparts. You may think I am being extreme, but I am simply responding to the extremism of the radical feminists. Don’t believe me? Read some of their trash for yourself.

I’m a humanist, not a feminist or a masculinist. I support equal rights for all, not the favoring of the perceived oppressed over the alleged oppressor.

actually women have a higher pain theshold, guys are just taught not to let their pain show.

 
Flag Post

though I don’t identify as a feminist, I don’t have a problem with feminists in general until you start looking at some of the academic stuff which can be full of shit and is rather horrible at times. I don’t like the new breed of radical feminism that excludes trans* people, advocates for the genocide of white heterosexual people who are not trans, they don’t like you if you’re not a lesbian and saying if you’re not a feminist you’re a bad person. those people should not be calling themselves feminists, it goes against everything feminists originally wanted.

 
Flag Post
if anyone's wondering about what the MRM has done or has influenced because I saw someone ask about it: http://dadsontheair.squarespace.com/storage/pdfs/Brazilian%20Law%20on%20PA%20Aug%202010.pdf http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/2010/10/19/f-f-passes-7-bills-in-2010-as-schwarzenegger-signs-3-more-f-f-bills/ http://mensrights.com.au/hot-topics/british-airways-compensates-man-humiliated-over-child-seat-policy/ http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/domestic-violence-against-men/MY00557 http://firsttoknow.com/husband-awarded-nearly-40k-after-dna-tests-prove-his-wifes-children-are-not-his/?utm_source=o_fo&utm_campaign=husband-awarded-nearly-4-19903 inb4 you call me an MRA, I'm not so cry to someone who cares.
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Aerilia:

actually women have a higher pain theshold, guys are just taught not to let their pain show.

Care to provide a citation for that?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Nokkenbuer:
Originally posted by Aerilia:

actually women have a higher pain threshold, guys are just taught not to let their pain show.

Care to provide a citation for that?

Simply Google: Women vs. Men on pain threshold
Since YOU want to challenge the statement,,,
why don’t ya simply AND EASILY go find something that does?
Here is one link

 
Flag Post

The feminism movement is dead.

It was murdered by those crazy “WOMEN R SUPERIOR, MEN R EVIL!!!” feminazis that gave feminism a bad name.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by ExemplaryReturns:

The feminism movement is dead.

It was murdered by those crazy “WOMEN R SUPERIOR, MEN R EVIL!!!” feminazis that gave feminism a bad name.

It’s more likely it was the assholes like Rash Limpballs who did it.

Any movement that advances the rights of minorities and/or oppressed groups will almost ALWAYS have to have the more “radical vanguard” that has to use very “cutting edge” methods in order for the movement to be able to advance through all the utter crap that has been holding them back.

If YOU knew any history at all along these lines, ya wouldn’t hold such an opinion.
AND, it is very obvious that YOU know damn little about the women’s movement.
Well, I guess one could say the ridiculous “conservative” approach of “barefoot-in-the-winter-&-pregnant-in-the-summer” is having some kind of perspective.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheAwsomeOpossum:

1. They are equal, but not the same. Genders don’t have the same rights, but they have similar rights.

2. In certain areas yes, in certain areas no. I try and keep a moderate approach to things; certain issues can use fixing all around, and yet, a bias must not be established.

3. Yes, this is the definition of feminism. Be careful though, perhaps even bolding that part of your text, because certain people will confuse regular feminism with the radical type.

equality comes with competency. western women are infants and thus have no competency.(we dont allow children to vote). once women start fixing their gender and start maturing and gaining intellect and wisdom, then they should be given the same rights of those that are competent.

this is what they should fight for, and not JUST for women, but for the idea of competence

 
Flag Post

Glados, methinks ye be confusing RIGHTS w/ privileges & responsibilities.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by DarkBaron:

Or women have gained while men stayed stagnant. I’m serious, just read the book if this if a difficult stance to understand.

men are evolving and women devolving.
theyre gaining power, but misuse it in their hate campaigns.
thats the reason why they are not usually put on boards.
they are reckless