Joined: Sep. 2009
|Quote (Louis @ Nov. 04 2011,09:42)|
|Answer me this, since the claim that men and women are possessed of equal traits (i.e. equality of type) is such an obviously untrue claim, men can't have babies for example, why even attribute it to feminism? |
And I suppose this is one of the questions that really interests me in any discussion about feminism: why these objections?
I don't mean to pick on you personally Robin, or anyone here for that matter, but I am genuinely interested in the objections to feminism that have arisen in just one page of this thread.
Why am I interested, well before Carlson has hysterics and accuses me of wanting to call everyone misogynists, I'll tell you: Because they were/are exactly the same objections I had. They were/are MY knee jerk objections. So I'm not being sanctimonious, I'm being selfish! Biiig difference! Hee hee.
Why do we...well okay to be strict I'm not sure anyone but me has/had them...why did/do I have these very simplistic, actually quite hostile objections to a straw feminism that is contradicted by a quick read of what is actually there?
If I'm coming across as mean, I apologise for that is not my intention. I'm genuinely curious as to why this subject causes suspiciously simplistic objections from intelligent people. Me included. I think it's possibly an important hurdle to discussion on the topic. Perhaps if we can understand this we'll understand other things. I guess I just don't know. Indulge me this navel gaze.
I'm not saying this is the case here for anyone, even me perhaps, but I'll make an analogy. Look at Forastero on the other thread. He chucks out technical sounding claims but it is abundantly clear his objections are not technical or intellectual, they are ideological or personal. The form those objections take is dressed in pseudo-intellectual garb to pass superficial scrutiny. Semantic or philosophical quibbles can be innocent and valuable, but they aren't always. Complaints about exclusion can be true, but they aren't always. Painting with a broad brush can represent reality, but it doesn't always. All together with a few other things....well that rings alarm bells. That's rarely an innocent combination. It instantly makes me think of my post signature. If and when I catch myself doing these things I try to think about how I am fooling myself. So given that the objections I've had are identical to the objections raised here by yourself and others, how, if this is the case, am I/have I been fooling myself and why?
Is it clear what I'm trying to do with this?
* Where's the foetus going to gestate? In a box?
First, a clarification - I didn't say anything about objecting to feminism. I said I dislike using the term equality in that context. It's a semantic thing with me, nothing more.
I fully agree that women and men should be treated as having the same type of brains and thought capability all other characteristics being neutral and/or unknown. That is to say that two qualified (on paper) candidates for a job, one a man and one a woman, should both be given the same exactly level of consideration based on the job qualifications and requirements and not initially evaluated as one having a penis and one having a vagina (unless the job calls for one or the other of course).
When I noted the assumption of attributes for one category over the other, I was thinking about things like assuming that the category "women" includes the attribute of "emotional". I think that is a false assumption and that assuming such about "all women" as a category falls under the category of sexism and I disagree in principle with that thinking. This isn't to say I'm not guilty of sexism in other ways; I'm sure I'm ignorant and assume things about people based on their sex that just are not true. But in principle I try not to evaluate people based on sex.
So in answer to your question, I wasn't trying to attribute equality of traits to feminism specifically - it's just that based on some things I've read the concept of what constitutes "equality" isn't equal.
* It's symbolic of his struggle against reality.
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. Bilbo
The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis