Korean Job Discussion Forums

[shifter2009]

[Unposter]

I have to agree witht shape shifter on this one. Some of you are just cherry picking something and then seem to be saying that feminism is wrong. If you are arguing that some aspects of feminism have gone too far, you may be making a valid point in the same way we could say some capitalists or some socialists have gone too far. Guess what? Name one idea on this planet that is perfect. Now, if you are using isolated ideas to smear the whole idea, then I think you got some serious problems. So, which is it?

Are you basically pro-feminist but you think it on occasion has gone too far -or- are you saying that feminism is in essence bad?

[Fox]

[mises]

[Fox]

[recessiontime]

I thought this feminism thing was a cult girls in colleges go to. Turns out it's real. Shocking.

[Unposter]

Since you adressed my question but didn't directly answer it, I will interpret your answer which is that you feel that feminism is now dangerous and you are against it. You do not seem to think that the equality women have gained is precarious and that the rights that women have fought for could ever be lost.

You also complain that women lobby only for women and are less concerned (or not concerned) about men.

Yet, you do not seem to worry about other organizations such as the AARP (American Association of Retired Persons), lets say, that lobby only for old, retired people rather than young people as well.

You seem to be only concerned about feminism. I think this is a significant weakness in your argument. You don't seem to see the big picture about the nature of lobbying or even the nature of "studies" - as in woman's studies should directly include the study of men in of themselves rather than just tangentally as a gender that women sometimes interact with. There is something extremely narrow about your argument in only addressing women - despite this being a thread about feminism. If you would include other groups as examples that you also oppose and see as dangerous than maybe you wouldn't sound so shrill about women.

Another weakness in your argument is that you seem to think that feminism is a singular ideology that all feminist adhere to and follow rather than an amalgaration of different women's voices about what it is to be a women. In fact, feminism is often divided into small "l" liberal feminist, large "L" liberal feminist and radical feminists. You seem to be especially concerned about radical feminism which tends to see conflicts between social classes including gender in a way that they see it impossible for men to ever give up "power" to women. While no doubt there are a number of successful radical feminist academics and writers that is not all that feminism is about. Your argument would be stronger if you would accept that some aspects of femism are important and valuable and at that same time we need to be concerned about the more radical voices within the movement.

Another crticism I have is that you seem to think that feminism is a phenomenon that destroys everything it touches. But, you don't seem to address the businesses, governments and quite often the men that have made decisions that you disagree with. You don't address why they made those decisions other than that feminism has somehow "brainwashed" various people, including men, to do its bidding. This does not seem reasonable.

I still don't understand how feminism has become so powerful. One article seemed to argue that divorce lawyers were behind inequalities in divorce laws (whatever those inequalities are). But, it does not address all the legislative bodies (mostly men) that have passed laws and all the judges (mostly men) that have found merit in these laws. This is not to say that these laws are necessarily correct but obviously well-educated, powerful people have found merit in them and you don't address what merits they see in it (or how divorce lawyers have become so powerful). It may be because these laws are not as bad as you have described them. It may be that feminism is just as powerful as you have describe it. You have left too many loose threads in your criticism to sway a reasonable person.

I admire your sense of equality but I am not sure your solution would lead to the equality you seem to advocate.

[Fox]

[space]

[BaldTeacher]

I can't believe that this is even being debated.

Then again, reason doesn't go very far these days.

[Kepler]

More "cherry picking":

Feminists in NYC are proposing a smart phone app which would allow women to immediately report "unwelcome advances from strange men".
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/10/31/a-totalitarian-streak-a-mile-wide/

[shifter2009]

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/22/why-women-need-the-paycheck-fairness-act.html

Equal eh? Fox apparently lives in this equal world where woman have triumphed over sex discrimination and now are just looking to steal children from men. Only 3% of fortune 500 companies are run by women. 17% of the house of reps are women (same as the Senate). Feminism exist to further the cause of women for an equal standing in society which the clearly don't have at the moment. If you were truly so concerned about feminism running wild all over you, why not help the feminist pass the Equal Rights Amendment?

[Underwaterbob]

The pay discrepancy aside (I agree it is unjust), I believe the senate, house of reps and fortune 500 CEOs can be accounted for simply by looking at the numbers of women in politics and business versus the number of men in the same fields. If women truly want equal representation in those fields, then more of them will have to start getting into those fields. There are certainly no laws preventing them from doing so.

[Kuros]

[shifter2009]