Gender

[Paddy™]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57...tten-rule/

This is great in my opinion.

Agreed! And I do think things will change for the better there, incrementally I'm sure, but you can't put the freedom genie back in the bottle once it's out. The united front of both genders is even better; hopefully it will cause the government to ask themselves "for whose benefit is this stupid law anyway?"

Say what you like about theocracies, but you can't deny how funny their spokespeople tend to be when they're not busy lopping off limbs:

"What if they get a flat tire?"

They spontaneously combust, of course! Which has the added problem of burning off their burkas, making things so much worse.

One of them recently appeared on TV and claimed that driving would harm women's ovaries.

I've often wondered what it must have been like to live in the 17th century and receive one's entire knowledge of human anatomy from wizards. My curiosity has been satisfied.

[Paddy™]

You keep offering reasons for being a feminist which don't have anything to do with feminism. If you're being groped or harassed or discredited you don't need to adopt an ideology. Wanting to see justice and equality for women isn't the same as being a feminist, this is where we seem to diverge. I want to see an end to drug addiction, but that doesn't require me to sign up with Scientology and "go clear" in the process. I see feminism as much of the same thing; well-meaning people being funnelled into a cultish movement which proclaims itself to be the only solution.

Saying that a man is "privileged" is indeed an insult when you're rattling off soundbites like "check yo' privilege" in debates. Saying things like that is a way of undermining the position of the males you're talking to. When people say "check yo' privilege" they generally don't do it with a soft, kind voice and a sympathetic tone. They use it as an insult.

EDIT: the post to which I replied is now gone. That'll teach me to take a dump mid-post XD

[VaeVictis]

You keep offering reasons for being a feminist which don't have anything to do with feminism. If you're being groped or harassed or discredited you don't need to adopt an ideology. Wanting to see justice and equality for women isn't the same as being a feminist, this is where we seem to diverge. I want to see an end to drug addiction, but that doesn't require me to sign up with Scientology and "go clear" in the process. I see feminism as much of the same thing; well-meaning people being funnelled into a cultish movement which proclaims itself to be the only solution.

Saying that a man is "privileged" is indeed an insult when you're rattling off soundbites like "check yo' privilege" in debates. Saying things like that is a way of undermining the position of the males you're talking to. When people say "check yo' privilege" they generally don't do it with a soft, kind voice and a sympathetic tone. They use it as an insult.

EDIT: the post to which I replied is now gone. That'll teach me to take a dump mid-post XD

I'm sorry! I was editing the post and clicked the wrong button...

It still requires movement on the part of the society toward a change in attitudes. Because statistically, whatever I did experience isn't unique, it's extremely common and is a symptom of a much larger problem. Which means there needs to be a goal, a focus and a purposeful movement and shift in attitudes. I mean, hurray for humanism, but feminism isn't as vague and has a goal in mind: equality.
I tried to be kind in presenting privilege before (if I came off as abrasive, I apologize, I was honestly just trying be less formal), only to be referred to as extreme and radical and psuedo-feminist and revenge motivated (then referred to as over-emotional when I reacted). Privilege is a simple sociological term that few in the field argue about. Can we just be clear on that?

[Cuyir]

It does not require a movement, like Pah dee said though. I've already expressed this same sentiment so i'll just copy and paste it:

''To say that ''everyone needs to be a feminist for there to be equality'' or however it was said, is a pretty, how you say, dubiously founded train of thought. That's like saying that every needs to be part of a judeo-christian faith in order for the planet to have peace or everyone being atheists for knowledge to excel (Georges Lemaître, a catholic priest and an astronomer, developed the basis for what would become the Big Bang Theory) and etc. This sort of utopic view is harmful to the movement, to ANY movement, to any society and culture even. I only need to point to Judeo-Christian faiths that have been trying to force their views on people and doing the complete opposite of peace. What we need is equality, not a future where everyone thinks the same way. We need communication, not blanket statements and finger pointing.''

You can change habits, thoughts, ideals and all such things without saying ''WE ALL HAVE TO BE PART OF THIS SAME MOVEMENT'' or ''THIS MOVEMENT NEEDS TO EXIST OR ELSE NO CHANGE WILL HAPPEN''.

(Disclaimer: caps used for emphasis, not for mocking anyone's beliefs.)

Do movements/ideologies help? They can, but not when they're based around utopic views (ie ''everyone must be a feminist for equality to be possible'') or just harm what they're trying to do by doing the complete opposite.

[Paddy™]

I'm sorry! I was editing the post and clicked the wrong button...

Ahh if I had a penny for every time I've done that!

It still requires movement on the part of the society toward a change in attitudes. Because statistically, whatever I did experience isn't unique, it's extremely common and is a symptom of a much larger problem. Which means there needs to be a goal, a focus and a purposeful movement and shift in attitudes. I mean, hurray for humanism, but feminism isn't as vague and has a goal in mind: equality.

In all seriousness, what does feminism do that humanism doesn't towards the goal of equality? It sounds like a contradiction in terms to say that a feminist is more concerned with equality for all than a humanist. If it's the case that humanism is ineffectual when it comes to changing laws or pursuing social change, that's a problem with organisation rather than philosophy.

I don't even call myself a humanist, but I think it's a valid and easily-defended position to take. I mean, wanting to minimise harm and increase well-being for everyone is a good place to start for any philosophy. Historically, this hasn't been the case with feminism.

I tried to be kind in presenting privilege before (if I came off as abrasive, I apologize, I was honestly just trying be less formal), only to be referred to as extreme and radical and psuedo-feminist and revenge motivated (then referred to as over-emotional when I reacted).

I know I've certainly been guilty of having an "unhelpful" tone at times in this thread, so I don't fault anyone else for it, but I don't think you've said anything abrasive or argumentative. I wouldn't accuse you of being radical, either. Feminism itself, on the other hand...

Privilege is a simple sociological term that few in the field argue about. Can we just be clear on that?

Fair enough, I'm with ya.

[wubwub]

we must same how friends if make different??

[Kreekakon]

Bad wubwub, thread very old.

-Locked