|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Unposter
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2010 11:18 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Congratulations on trying to re-frame the discussion. I make a number of points you don't address and then you "challenge" pro-feminists to find 5 concrete ways that white males are granted privelege status even though I never specifically said that white males in totality are a priveleged group - just that there are priveleged groups in America. But, you further try to re-frame the question by saying I am not allowed to mention Fortune-level CEOs or national-level politicians. Thank you so much for offering so much freedom!
I will tell you what - if you are so interested - you address my points about double standards and my other points and I may deign to address your question if I feel like it.
Personally, I think a number of things that have been recently said by the anti-feminists that constitute questionable judgement at best. Something I don't think is uncommon on an anonymous chat board, often written without editing. I tried to offer a compromise earlier when I asked you if you thought in most ways feminism was good, except for a few extremist voices but you did not seem to agree that was true. In fact, the anti-feminists continued to find fault with all feminism and even all women as genetically incapable of becoming successful CEOs and national-leaders.
Living in a world where there are different sexes and genders, religions, political beliefs, ethicities, races (if there is such a thing), sexual orientations, veteran status and so much more is not easy. It takes effort. Making efforts are not always easy but running away from effort is not always the best choice. Lets all try to make an effort. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2010 11:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Unposter wrote: |
| Congratulations on trying to re-frame the discussion. |
I'm not trying to reframe the discussion, I'm trying to move it along. You all ready admitted to the previous point I was making:
| Unposter wrote: |
| If as a society we promote everyone may work for their own selfish interest than please do not complain when women and other groups do so. |
This plainly admits that feminism is not "for everyone," but rather women for women, just as I was arguing; a purely self-interested movement. Thus, instead of knit-picking I felt it was salient to move the conversation on to a relevant secondary point you made.
| Unposter wrote: |
| I make a number of points you don't address and then you "challenge" pro-feminists to find 5 concrete ways that white males are granted privelege status even though I never specifically said that white males in totality are a priveleged group - just that there are priveleged groups in America. |
Name one, such that feminism is required to counterbalance said group. If it's not white males, then who, and how does said group make feminism necessary?
| Unposter wrote: |
| But, you further try to re-frame the question by saying I am not allowed to mention Fortune-level CEOs or national-level politicians. Thank you so much for offering so much freedom! |
We live in a nation of over 300 million people. Fortune 500 CEOs and national level politicians are not statistically significant when talking about social trends. To make an argument about a group, one must talk about the realities that group faces, and said realities don't involve regularly -- or even occasionally -- becoming Fortune 500 CEOs or national level politicians.
| Unposter wrote: |
| I will tell you what - if you are so interested - you address my points about double standards and my other points and I may deign to address your question if I feel like it. |
I'll write more about it later tonight if that's what you really want. I have to go home from school shortly.
| Unposter wrote: |
| I tried to offer a compromise earlier when I asked you if you thought in most ways feminism was good, except for a few extremist voices but you did not seem to agree that was true. |
That's because I don't agree that it's true. I appreciate your willingness to engage in a sort of dialectic and work towards some sort of agreement, and I understand it, but this isn't an issue where I can engage in such a process. My beliefs are driven by the social destruction I've seen feminism wreak coupled with the total lack of current valid Western target problems for feminism to solve. I'm offering you a chance to expound upon your concept of privileged groups to give you an opportunity to persuade me that feminism still has some work to do in the West by combating these "privileged groups." Will you rise to that challenge or not?
| Unposter wrote: |
| In fact, the anti-feminists continued to find fault with all feminism and even all women as genetically incapable of becoming successful CEOs and national-leaders. |
I think plenty of women are capable of becoming successful CEOs and national leaders, as is evinced by the fact that some have become successful CEOs or national leaders. I think most women have no interest in doing so, though, and I do think part of their lack of inclination to make the kinds of sacrifices and take the kinds of risks required to live such a lifestyle is explained by genetic differences.
| Unposter wrote: |
| Living in a world where there are different sexes and genders, religions, political beliefs, ethicities, races (if there is such a thing), sexual orientations, veteran status and so much more is not easy. It takes effort. Making efforts are not always easy but running away from effort is not always the best choice. Lets all try to make an effort. |
I'm making that effort. Part of said effort is leaving myself open to persuasion by individuals such as yourself and even suggesting paths by which I might be persuaded. Another part of said effort lies in opposing a social movement that I feel has become destructive to society. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2010 4:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here you go.
| Unposter wrote: |
I mean imagine how you would feel if someone told you were genetically inferior and therefore incapable of doing certain professions as has been eluded to in this thread recently. If that were you, you would be screaming bloody murder.
|
No one (worth taking seriously) has said that. Genetics having an impact on both our capabilities and our life-path inclinations isn't the same as genetics making us incapable of doing certain things.
More importantly, though, political correctness has no bearing on truth. Whether or not genetics actually has an impact on our capabilities is something that can be examined. How people feel about it should be irrelevant. To that extent, I really don't care how someone would feel about it. I care whether it's true or false, and even then I only care insofar as I value knowledge for its own sake and how it can help me understand the world.
If women really are genetically less predisposed towards pursuing highly competitive, highly stressful business endeavors, then lower female representation in those fields would be natural, rather than symptomatic of "oppression." Further, if that's really the case, then trying to force more women into those fields to create artificial "equality" would actually be harmful and oppressive to the women in question.
| Unposter wrote: |
| For example, if we turn the tables around and say men are genetically inferior at being able to raise children (something patently false but widely believed) and therefore in all divorce cases, women should be awarded custody of the children, certain people on this thread would be up in arms and screaming about how biased "feminists" are. |
You're creating a false analogy here. Suggesting genetic predisposition does not force us to then create blanket rulings based on said genetic predisposition. The proper analogy to the anti-feminist position would be simply creating a court system which endeavored to place the child with the parent best suited to raise it, and then allowing for the possibility of statistical inequality if women were to prove on average the better parent to have custody. That's very different than what you suggest; allowing for inequality of results is different than mandating inequality of results. No one here (worth taking seriously) is suggesting banning women from politics, for instance.
| Unposter wrote: |
| But, if you were to say that the reason women are less represented at the head of companies is because of a 1 to 2 percent difference in genetic material that would be perfectly good science. |
Science only presents us with knowledge. How we act on that knowledge is up to us. Even if it were to be indisputably demonstrated tomorrow that women were on average better parents as individuals, I would still support a neutral method of determining which parent the child should go to in a divorce case, because statistical generalizations do not apply to every specific case. I would, however, be willing to accept the results when, as the scientific data predicted, women ended up getting the child more often than not.
| Unposter wrote: |
| But, to cite it as an example of why women are less capable than men is pure horse hockey. No direct correlation has been drawn. |
Agreed, nothing has been proven, either way. Thus, assuming equality of capability on average is just as invalid as assuming inequality of capability. In fact, it's even more invalid, because the way the real world has played out at least implies disparate capability. Nothing implies statistically identical capability. Nothing implies statistically identical tendency towards certain types of work. I'm willing to be agnostic about this and wait for more data. Feminists aren't, and that's where we've been running into problems.
| Unposter wrote: |
| Comparing outcomes (more male CEOs than female) is falty because you have not addressed reasons for these outcomes including lack of opportunity and prejudicial negative perceptions of women and other groups (thanks Fox for lumping Afro-Americans and Jews as groups that are dangerously imbalancing power in America). |
How has there been a lack of opportunity in recent times? Stop being so vague and get specific. What factors, specifically, prevent substantial numbers of deserving women from becoming CEOs? Cite examples, please. Anti-feminists have been giving many examples of behavior they object to in this thread. Feminists for the most part have kept to vague platitudes. Time to advance that case a step further.
| Unposter wrote: |
| But, then when women and other groups form their own organizations for their own benefit, I hope those people don't cry foul either. It is a double standard that many women and other groups suffer from. |
I'm going to be honest, this mildly annoys me. You have this exactly backwards. There is a double standard, but the double standard is that women are allowed to have female-specific organizations, benefits, etc while men are not. Other minority groups benefit from this double standard as well; it's white males that suffer the downside. Bringing up double standards is not something that's going to make your case stronger, Unposter. This is part of the reason I was willing to just let the bulk of this post slide instead of responding to it, because I really feel you're being not just unreasonable with regards to this point, but that you're actively and demonstrably incorrect.
| Unposter wrote: |
| On the one hand, they should not complain when they cannot "compete" with white males. On the other hand, if they create female specific opportunites this is patently unfair. Such groups, I will guess white males, want their cake and eat it too while women and other minorities suffer under a double standard. |
I imagine what most "white males" actually want is a level legal playing field, and then to allow people to compete against one another independent of their race or gender. There's nothing hypocritical or contradictory about this. Condemning female-specific opportunities is only hypocritical if one condones male-specific opportunities, and I don't see anyone here doing that. What male-specific opportunities are there anyway? Military combat positions? I fully support putting women on the front lines if that's what they want. Outside of that, there really isn't much. Men being more strongly represented in a certain field does not equate to a lack of opportunity for women.
| Unposter wrote: |
If as a society we promote everyone may work for their own selfish interest than please do not complain when women and other groups do so.
|
As I noted before I'm glad you can bring yourself to finally outright admit that feminism is nothing more than women selfishly working towards their own interests. This is the other major reason I simply left the bulk of this post unresponded to. It simply isn't a very strong argument, and actually overall reinforces my own arguments more strongly than those of the feminists.
| Unposter wrote: |
| If we are to promote a more inclusive society, then by all means lets do so. |
You know the best way to do that? By creating a level legal playing field that ensures opportunity regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation, and then allowing people to pursue or not pursue those opportunities as their competency and inclination dictates.
You know the worst way to do that? Through policy designed specifically and unjustly to goad females (or other minority groups) into positions they wouldn't normally have sought, at the expense of males who would have otherwise either performed more competently, or had a greater natural inclination to pursue such work in the first place. Again I take us back to my previously mentioned nursing example; any means of creating a nursing population that matches the nation's demographics is going to involve somehow coercing men into the position who both have less natural inclination to pursue such work, and who very likely will perform such work less attentively and enthusiastically due to said lack of inclination. The same applies to any other field.
Where there is demonstrable oppression, I agree it's best to eradicate it. Feminists have yet to show demonstrable oppression. I'm still waiting to learn who these privileged groups are, and how their privilege manifests in specific, discernible ways despite being wholly unmerited. I'm also still waiting to see what specific, discernible forces are keeping highly qualified, competent, and enthusiastic women from obtaining their rightful positions in the working world, such that they're being oppressed. No vagueness please. It's time for some specific cited examples, as anti-feminists have all ready generously provided to back their complaints in this thread. I'm not asking for much.
| Unposter wrote: |
| I guess I have to say I don't want to live in a world where it is every person for themselves. |
Neither do I, but the kind of adversarial thinking modern feminism predicates itself upon pushes us closer to such conditions rather than drawing us further away from them. I want women protected from gender-based discrimination and to have the opportunity to pursue whatever sort of work they both want and are competent to pursue. By contrast, feminists want women to be granted a number of advantages over men, a few of which have been covered in this thread all ready, and many more of which have not due to the limited nature of the medium.
If what you want is a world where we can genuinely cooperate with one another, it's time for you to start standing up to modern feminism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gypsymaria
Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Location: Anyang-si, Gyeonggi-do
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2010 6:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BaldTeacher wrote: |
I know you didn't draw it, but you thought that it was funny enough to post on here. It wasn't. It was horribly executed. It was very, very bad comedy. It made me angry, not because of the politics, but because it was just poorly made.
Now that you tell me that a 'man' drew it though, I am angry because of the content. What kind of man would talk about patriarchy and write like that? I'd love to give this mangina an atomic wedgie and hang him from a hook by it and put lipstick on him.
Nobody's invalidating your experience. You obviously love the experience of laughing at less than mediocre comedy.
Just like this German guy enjoys the experience of sitting on old mens shoulders and bouncing around:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iL7oV5pAm-s&feature=player_embedded |
"Funny" is a subjective thing. Just like how I think it's funny that you state your opinions as though they are ironclad truths. It must be an interesting experience, being you, full of so much anger and bitterness toward not only women, but other men as well. Is gender equality, harmony, and respect between the sexes such a terrifying and/or repellent concept that you feel the need to be so hateful? How do such things threaten your way of life?
Totally not trolling here. I'm honestly curious. I've never met someone who could carry so much bile in them without actually dying. How do you exist? What horrible, life-shattering experience could have possibly done this to you?
...
In regards to the rest of this thread:
It seems that most of the anti-feminist voices here are referring mainly to "extremist" views of feminism. The wacky stuff that makes the news, like outlawing urinals, etc etc. It's true, there is LESS of an equality gap than there was, say, a hundred years ago, when women were still considered their husbands' property, couldn't vote, and so on. The extremists out there are scraping the bottom of the barrel for ideas, ways to make a statement, and a lot of sane people just roll their eyes and shake their heads at the crazy-making.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the modern form of feminism is to strive for equal rights under law and respect between the genders. Yes, we've mostly got the legal rights covered by this point. But does our culture uphold them in spirit as well as the letter?
Equal rights and respect, to the point that rape is no longer considered implicitly acceptable (when perpetrated against either a woman OR a man).
Equal rights and respect, to the point that a woman in the same position with the same experience/qualifications/time with the company as a man can earn the same paycheck (and vice-versa).
Equal rights and respect, to the point that we no longer teach our girl children that it's admirable to try to be more like men, and we no longer teach our boy children that it is humiliating and wrong to show any "feminine" qualities whatsoever.
So, equality and respect. Is it possible? Is it "acceptable" for today's feminists to strive to make changes in the cultural perception of gender and gender roles to reach these goals?
Do the anti-feminists here want to give me a good reason why not, and why this concept threatens and/or angers them so much?
Or is your beef actually JUST with the extreme femnazi types, and you're actually all quite sane, reasonable people deep down inside that just needed to blow of some steam and bitch about the... well, bitches?
Just looking for a straight answer from the anti-feminists. I've seen the quibbles over details and not necessarily related tangents for the past 14 pages, so let's have a concise summary here.
Whatever the answer, I'll probably just nod and move on to other debates, but in the meantime I'm curious and bored.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BaldTeacher
Joined: 02 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2010 7:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| It must be an interesting experience, being you |
Probably more interesting than being you.
| Quote: |
Do the anti-feminists here want to give me a good reason why not, and why this concept threatens and/or angers them so much?
|
Because nobody owns my balls but me.
"I've never met someone who could carry so much bile in them without actually dying. How do you exist?"
Where did you grow up, Pee-wee's playhouse?
"What horrible, life-shattering experience could have possibly done this to you?"
Actually, nothing really bad happened to me directly because of feminism. I've witnessed it happen to others though.
"So, equality and respect. Is it possible? Is it "acceptable" for today's feminists to strive to make changes in the cultural perception of gender and gender roles to reach these goals?"
No, it's not. We don't need more pseudo-intellectuals making forced social changes that aren't needed. Gender is gender. A woman is a woman and a man is a man. End of story. You can pretend that a poodle is a rottweiler, it still won't help you if your house gets robbed.
Last edited by BaldTeacher on Thu Nov 04, 2010 7:22 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2010 8:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I think the problem with feminism is that there are no true vocations for women beyond the traditional ones of wife, mother, lover. Everything else is just an imitation of (usually misguided) men. Suffragettes took a false premise invented by men (individualism) and applied it to themselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2010 9:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
| I think the problem with feminism is that there are no true vocations for women beyond the traditional ones of wife, mother, lover. |
Oh, c'mon, Koveras! Nurse, teacher, not even secretary? You'd make the guys in Mad Men look progressive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2010 10:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| I think the problem with feminism is that there are no true vocations for women beyond the traditional ones of wife, mother, lover. |
Oh, c'mon, Koveras! Nurse, teacher, not even secretary? You'd make the guys in Mad Men look progressive. |
Probably. If it's any consolation, in my ideal world men wouldn't be allowed to be advertisers either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2010 10:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Oh, c'mon, Koveras! Nurse, teacher, not even secretary? |
By and large, I loathed women teachers when I was a student. I found them moody, to lack self-control, petty, overly controlling and not particularly bright. I also much prefer working in an all-male environment here in the land of Wahabi Islam. But then again, I'm quite openly a sexist pig.  Women are like drugs and junk food - fine occasionally and in small doses, but essentially bad for you. I feel quite certain that if men invented computer technology that was so advanced that it could make women appear & disappear as they see fit - that is, when we get horny - this would have many benefits. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unposter
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2010 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fox,
I just wanted to let you know that I do want to respond to your rather thoughtful post but I am just too busy at work. I will do my best to get back to this thread this weekend. Sorry about that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tundra_Creature
Joined: 11 Jun 2009
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Unposter wrote: |
| I mean imagine how you would feel if someone told you were genetically inferior and therefore incapable of doing certain professions as has been eluded to in this thread recently. If that were you, you would be screaming bloody murder. |
Actually, being a female, this is me. I just don't scream bloody murder, because I've heard this time and time again, I'm not really threatened by them as much. I'm doing what I'm doing and it's not like they can do anything about it. They pretty much sound like the male version of extreme feminists anyway.
Complete and total feminism in the way that crazy people is good for the same reason that complete and total masculism is good. I can name multiple shitty situations for either case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Soft War against Women
I think this may be what Fox et al are talking about. What is a soft war, anyway? Is it a conflict fought using Charmin toilet paper?
| Quote: |
But the mass media these days are totally uninterested in women's problems. Men are the big story -- and how women are harming them is nearly always the subtext. In fact, argues Andrew Hacker (in his book "Mismatch: The Growing Gulf Between Women and Men"), women�s achievements may diminish men's self-confidence and even their masculinity. "We will soon see ... how far self assurance associated with manliness can survive when each year sees more appointments and promotions going to the other sex."
Society is falling apart, the message goes, and you women, because of your unique caring natures, have to put it together again. Smart young women should desert high-paying jobs, and choose, instead, to concentrate on being the perfect mother, a hard job that will occupy all your time. If you do work, take a job that requires caring and helping, because that�s what you are good at. You are not made for risk or high-level leadership. You are naturally uncomfortable with power. (As Fortune asked rhetorically on its cover: "Power: Do Women really Want it?" The answer, according to many, is no. Women are happier in more traditional roles.
Even if you do achieve a high-level job, you should always put the needs of others -- your fetus, your child, your husband, your parents, your co-workers -- ahead of yourself, because you are programmed for relationships.
If you get pregnant, you should carry the baby to term, no matter the circumstances. No less a sage than Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy suggests that abortion could cause you lifelong stress and pain. |
Anyway, we can all agree this article is of similar quality to what you'd clean up with toilet paper, right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trogdor
Joined: 05 Nov 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There's a problem with feminism?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BaldTeacher
Joined: 02 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Too many to count.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trogdor
Joined: 05 Nov 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 10:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There are far more problems with the old boy's club. It's only fair for there to be some radicals out there that you dislike. There are some misogynistic jerks also. A lot of strong men are feminists. They are not "manginas" because they want their women to have equal rights.
I don't want to get into a men v women argument. Both sexes have their flaws and merits. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
