Philosophy Now Forum

Thread removed because it didn't come up to Mickthinks' extremely high standard.

There are a number of problems with the construction you have put on that news cutting. Not least is the hidden assumption that anyone has made a claim that women have made progress equally everywhere including Japan.

But let's not bitch about sexists and sexism. Let's identify and discuss some gender philosophy issues. Are there any raised by this news story from Japan?

mickthinks wrote:There are a number of problems with the construction you have put on that news cutting. Not least is the hidden assumption that anyone has made a claim that women have made progress equally everywhere including Japan.

But let's not bitch about sexists and sexism. Let's identify and discuss some philosophical issues. Are there any raised by this news story from Japan?

Do you have an opinion or did you just come here to bitch?

lol Do you have any philosophical ideas or did you just come here to bitch?

mickthinks wrote:lol Do you have any philosophical ideas or did you just come here to bitch?

Do you even know what philosophy is? I had a look at your posts and you don't seem to have ever had a single intelligent or constructive thing to say about anything. All you do is go around criticising people who are interested in a broad range of topics and acting like a jumped-up, anally retentive little village constable who thinks it's his job to ensure others' behaviour comes up to his very high standard. If you aren't interested in the topic then feel free to leave and make a 'philosophical' thread of your own.

'The original feminists wanted equality for women; they did not want extra rights for women, nor to take rights away from men. In the eyes of a growing number of people, modern feminism has taken the banner of equality, and used it as a smokescreen for radical activities.

If feminism was about equality, then feminists would not want more rights than men, because equal rights implies that both men and women have equivalent rights. However feminism in practice is not always about equality because it often ignores the rights of men. For example, if women have the right not to suffer domestic violence, equality entails that men have the same right. However in practice feminism has not only ignored a man's right not to be beaten by their wife, but has actively eroded a man's right not to suffer domestic violence from a woman. An example of feminism in practice was captured on video at a public forum on male victims of domestic violence:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=qodygTkTUYM

Question: If men had disrupted a forum by battered women, what would you think was the men's attitude towards women's rights?

Question: Does the behaviour of the feminists disrupting the forum demonstrate that they wanted equality i.e. the same rights to non-violence for men and women? Or do you think that they wanted the right for women not to be beaten, but did not want men to even discuss the right not to be beaten?"

reasonvemotion wrote:'The original feminists wanted equality for women; they did not want extra rights for women, nor to take rights away from men. In the eyes of a growing number of people, modern feminism has taken the banner of equality, and used it as a smokescreen for radical activities.

If feminism was about equality, then feminists would not want more rights than men, because equal rights implies that both men and women have equivalent rights. However feminism in practice is not always about equality because it often ignores the rights of men. For example, if women have the right not to suffer domestic violence, equality entails that men have the same right. However in practice feminism has not only ignored a man's right not to be beaten by their wife, but has actively eroded a man's right not to suffer domestic violence from a woman. An example of feminism in practice was captured on video at a public forum on male victims of domestic violence:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=qodygTkTUYM

Question: If men had disrupted a forum by battered women, what would you think was the men's attitude towards women's rights?

Question: Does the behaviour of the feminists disrupting the forum demonstrate that they wanted equality i.e. the same rights to non-violence for men and women? Or do you think that they wanted the right for women not to be beaten, but did not want men to even discuss the right not to be beaten?"

There is no way of knowing what is actually going on in that video. There appears to be a man screaming at the speaker as well. From what I have observed of so-called 'men's rights' groups, they seem to consist of a bunch of disgruntled fathers who can't stand having to pay child support.
I don't think anyone has the right to assault anyone else and the law doesn't differentiate between sex either. The fact is that it's usually women who are the victims and they are generally a lot weaker than men, although there are always going to be exceptions. I hate unfairness in any situation. I also despise fanaticism and one-eyedness. There's a well-known Youtube radical 'feminist' who claimed to have been violated and terror-stricken because a man in a lift asked if she wanted a coffee at the hotel they were both staying in. When Richard Dawkins criticised her she went on a hate campaign against him. She's a fanatic and frankly a bitch, although I doubt if she actually hates men in the way that many men hate women.
'Feminism' is a very broad term and seems to mean something different to everyone. I always go for common sensism I do wonder though if those who claim to hate 'feminists' would prefer to live under sharia law, or to go back to the days when women and children were the property of the husband, or agree that rape victims should be treated as criminals. Women should be grateful to the original feminists who stuck their necks out and even risked their lives so that we would have the rights we take for granted today.
The thread I deleted was about a woman who was suing Prada because they had forced her to resign by telling her she was ugly and needed to lose weight. Apparently this is common practice there.

Veggie:

I do wonder though if those who claim to hate 'feminists' would prefer to live under sharia law, or to go back to the days when women and children were the property of the husband,

Most reasonable people support equality for women, but there is some ambiguity regarding feminism and equality in practice.
What is generally ignored is the obvious distinction in feminism. "The contrast between the egalitarian goals of the first wave feminism and the unequal demands of modern feminism."

Women's rights and interests are not necessarily going to coincide with men's rights and interests and fighting for the rights of one side does not necessarily entail fighting for things that bring equality to both sides.

What, if any of Greer's words below have any real application for women generally.

"God knows how many women already have no use for their men, who are all too often idle and incompetent both as wage-earners and around the house, uninterested in the children and hopeless in bed" Germaine Greer, Independent (London), Dec 8, 2001.

That is nonsense.

reasonvemotion wrote:Veggie:

I do wonder though if those who claim to hate 'feminists' would prefer to live under sharia law, or to go back to the days when women and children were the property of the husband,

Most reasonable people support equality for women, but there is some ambiguity regarding feminism and equality in practice.
What is generally ignored is the obvious distinction in feminism. "The contrast between the egalitarian goals of the first wave feminism and the unequal demands of modern feminism."

Women's rights and interests are not necessarily going to coincide with men's rights and interests and fighting for the rights of one side does not necessarily entail fighting for things that bring equality to both sides.

What, if any of Greer's words below have any real application for women generally.

"God knows how many women already have no use for their men, who are all too often idle and incompetent both as wage-earners and around the house, uninterested in the children and hopeless in bed" Germaine Greer, Independent (London), Dec 8, 2001.

That is nonsense.

Do you think what she said is nonsense? In what way?

How could her statement have credibility? For a start "hopeless in the bed" , unless, the number of men she has slept with, is numerous enough to make a casual remark a meaningful statistic. Even so, she would probably chose a similar type, leave out "the garbage collector", he may excel "in bed" where the college professor is a dud.

Convince me otherwise, tell me why you agree with her.

reasonvemotion wrote:So you agree with her?

I just wanted you to elaborate and say why you think it's nonsense.

I have read The Female Eunuch. I found it interesting but it certainly did not change my way of thinking. I either agree with what someone says or I don't. For the most part the only thing that can change my way of thinking is scientific discovery.
Many radical feminists have done complete about-turns anyway, which means they lack integrity and can't be taken very seriously.
I don't know what's to disagree with concerning her quote though. It's bound to be true for many. Women no longer have to stay with men who make them miserable.

For the most part the only thing that can change my way of thinking is scientific discovery.
Many radical feminists have done complete about-turns anyway, which means they lack integrity and can't be taken very seriously.

If you want to view this in a scientific manner then the answer is No. Scientific discovery never remains static. I would say these women have an "open mind".

Besides, it is woman's prerogative to change her mind. Don't you agree? which is just a nice way of saying that she doesn't have to keep her word. (that will create dissension on PN)

Your answers are circumspect, with very little to expose your personal persuasion on this question.

reasonvemotion wrote:

For the most part the only thing that can change my way of thinking is scientific discovery.
Many radical feminists have done complete about-turns anyway, which means they lack integrity and can't be taken very seriously.

If you want to view this in a scientific manner then the answer is No. Scientific discovery never remains static. I would say these women have an "open mind".

Besides, it is woman's prerogative to change her mind. Don't you agree? which is just a nice way of saying that she doesn't have to keep her word. (that will create dissension on PN)

Your answers are circumspect, with very little to expose your personal persuasion on this question.

It depends on why they have done the turn-around and whether it's a case of hypocrisy or not. When someone vehemently and aggressively argues for a particular point of view, convincing others to side with them, then a few years later turns around and says the exact opposite in an equally aggressive and vehement way, they are displaying a degree of shallowness and cynicism that I find reprehensible.

I don't know what's to disagree with concerning her quote though. It's bound to be true for many. Women no longer have to stay with men who make them miserable.

That is an interesting statement. Did feminism condone divorce? Divorce has become more commonplace since the 1970s but this is due to several factors which are not exclusive to feminism. It may have had some influence only in as much as a woman's perception of marriage altered, but women have become more financially independent and religious values have waned. I think the main reason women decide to leave their husbands is simply, the process of divorce is now easier. Not because Germain Greer wrote a book The Female Eunach.

reasonvemotion wrote:

I don't know what's to disagree with concerning her quote though. It's bound to be true for many. Women no longer have to stay with men who make them miserable.

That is an interesting statement. Did feminism condone divorce? Divorce has become more commonplace since the 1970s but this is due to several factors which are not exclusive to feminism. It may have had some influence only in as much as a woman's perception of marriage altered, but women have become more financially independent and religious values have waned. I think the main reason women decide to leave their husbands is simply, the process of divorce is now easier. Not because Germain Greer wrote a book The Female Eunach.

She was just saying that women no longer have to stay with men who make them miserable and have little to offer them. It's self explanatory. Women and children aren't owned by their husbands any more. Women are far more financially independent now. Of course the divorce rate is going to be higher. I bet divorce in muslim countries is really low too.