Yared
That Guy
One of the things I love to see is a man pushing around a pram. Which, here in Sweden, I see very often 
Do you think Feminism is a step to far ( feminist criticism )
- Thread starter Ahovking
- Start date
deanej
Deity
Yeah I may have misjudged what you were getting at in your posts, if so my apologies.
OK. What's your point?
My point is that it's still entirely arbitrary.
Yared
That Guy
I don't think it's entirely different.
If I've understood it correctly, the reason why you are considered an adult by 18 is that the average teen is mature enough to be considered an adult at 18. Some might be mature enough at 17, some maybe 19.
The reason why I said 10 is that there's a clear cut difference between 18+ year olds and 10 year olds.
If I've understood it correctly, the reason why you are considered an adult by 18 is that the average teen is mature enough to be considered an adult at 18. Some might be mature enough at 17, some maybe 19.
The reason why I said 10 is that there's a clear cut difference between 18+ year olds and 10 year olds.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
A poor example; the Victorian-era British academic establishment was far from meritocratic- "Oh, I knew your father" is practically Oxbridge's motto- which is why so many scientists in the more gentrified sciences such as naturalism and physics where "gentlemen scholars" who supported their work with independent wealth. Those great scientists of humble backgrounds were typically found in fields relevant to industry and commerce, rather than contemporary academia, such as chemistry and engineering, where the demand for effective practical results necessitated at least some meritocratic tendencies.
deanej
Deity
The thing is, you only get such a clear-cut difference when you look at large age differences. It's not as if when you turn 18 some switch goes off in your head that goes "I'm mature now".
Yared
That Guy
I didn't say that. I just said that by the age of 18, the average teen is mature enough to be considered an adult. You "collect" maturity all through your life, in a culmination around 18 or the months leading up to it - on average.
Yeah, a clear-cut difference when you look at large age differences. Is there a clear-cut difference of inferiority, as there is between 10 year olds and 18 year olds, between Women and Men?
So you would agree arbitrary distinctions can be dehumanizing.
Yes, it could be semantics, but the original comment was that there's a long history of literature saying that women are people. In that context someone who starts spouting political and legal facts about how women were not equal rather missed the point. The original comment was that women were respected (and even worshipped) by various groups through history. Legal status does not always reflect personal status.
Again, rather missing the point of the original two comments. There is a lot of literature out there in which an astute historian can see the influences of powerful women, or which directly demonstrate the status achieved by some women. I know because I proof-read a thesis on this subject.
Many women were oppressed, but there's plenty of evidence that a good number overcame their bad legal status. After all, Jews were heavily oppressed throughout the mediaeval era, but are famous for being rich and successful.
So as long as the exceptional are alright we shouldn't worry about discrimination? If that's the case, why are we worrying about these marginal candidates who are slightly worse?
I know that Oxford certainly takes into account these things for marginal cases, and if a person from a poor background is likely to be better at the end I think he should get the place. But if the best judgement suggests that he'll still be worse, why should he get a place over a slightly better, but still marginal, candidate? If a marginal candidate suffering is not a problem, why are you getting so upset over it?
This is the most hateful comment in the thread so far. Trying to bully people away from thinking about a subject by branding them with hateful labels like 'crypto-misogynist' without addressing their concerns is overt 'miso-alethe' or truth-hating. If the feminist/affirmative action project is so good, then it will stand up to robust questioning. If not, then it's not misogyny to question it.
Most people here are not on top. They're university students, thousands of pounds (or dollars, or rupees etc.) in debt, and unable to see the glittering future you think they have. The people on top might be white males, but they're not on this forum. They're enjoying their fortunes elsewhere.
I still don't see how your point in any way refutes mine, your vast experience "proof-reading a thesis" notwithstanding. I think you're arguing a silly point here because you don't get what my definition meant. I would proof read some more thesis papers, maybe.
So a few women managed to overcome the vast mechanisms of oppression designed to keep them in their place as determined by men. Great. Again--are you saying we didn't need 1st wave feminism then?
Personhood means a lot of different things. My little definition attempts to simplify things but capture the essence of what this is all about. If you went back to 1890 and told women who were trying to be able to vote "but look at the history that shows how much men have respected you as people" they'd hopefully tell you to stuff it where the sun don't shine.
The marginal applicant rom the exceptional background has already demonstrated he will only be marginal when surrounded by exception. Why not give a chance to the marginal student who has yet been able to prove how he would fair when surounded by exception?
Double post
ColdClimate
Prince
It's a relative term. If they are a student in university, especially if that debt is in dollars or pounds (or euros), they are a far way from the bottom....
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
You seem to assume that my comment had a far broader aim than I intended it to. I did mean to imply that any analysis of gender relations was "misogynistic" unless it actually sided with the Straw Feminist, as you seem to assume, but that certain posters have exhibited a certain thinly-veiled hostility towards women, or, perhaps more fairly, to the overturning of patriarchal society. Granted, my comment was vague, but that was intended to avoid the implications that you infer; if I had intended to target anyone in particular, I would've done. I simply didn't wish to embroil myself in the sort of endless quagmire that always seems to result from informing the bigoted that they are bigoted.
And I'm honestly not sure what that bit at the end about affirmative action is about, given that I never once referenced the thing. I thin you confuse me with someone else, someone a good deal more straw-filled than myself.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Legally, yes, morally, no. The woman's primary responsibility is in the home, if they are married and have children.
Well, the thing behind the original founding fathers' way of thinking was, when a woman gets married, she and her husband talk over how to vote, what to do with their property, exc, the husband made the final decisions, but was selfless and listened and considered the woman's opinions. If this was how it happened, it would be an excellent system, and that is what the Bible is talking about when it says "Wives submit to your husbands.."
In theory, married people shouldn't own property, nothing should be the husband's, nothing should be the wives, they should share all in common. However, when you enforce this by giving it all to the man, it doesn't work any better than giving it all to the woman. In theory it doesn't matter, so for married women, the need for property rights is a necessary evil (Though it is the same for men.)
What was the thing behind the founding mothers' way of thinking? Can you tell me that?
Yared
That Guy
Why is it immoral?
GhostWriter16
Deity
Because that was the job woman was created to do.
If
A: The woman is unmarried
B: The woman has no children
C: The children are in school, and this is the time being used.
D: The children are old enough to be home alone (Still not to the point of neglect though)
I have no problem with women working.
The woman's role is to raise children though. I don't support "Mr. Mom's" and at best they are a necessary evil. Of course, it is also sometimes by necessity, like if the woman is required to work to ensure the children are fed, exc, but in general, the man's job is to work, and the woman's job to take care of the house and the children, both are necessary, and that's the way God created it.
aneeshm
Deity
It appears you lack, from your butchering of what I have written, the ability to distinguish the finer shades of meaning. I find it difficult to believe that you have not understood what I wrote. If your last sentence is what you understood of it, I am afraid I cannot do anything more here; no indictment of modern education could be more complete than this little demonstration of incomprehension (if indeed that is what it is).
We are not talking about reduced fees. We are talking about the precipitate and catastrophic reduction of standards which the process of "using" education always brings about. And they aren't "few".
That these people, with clearly inferior ability, find it difficult if not impossible to go through the rigours of a traditional curriculum is one reason why standards are reduced across the board to accommodate them. They also have two other effects:
a) They degrade the culture of the institution which they has been forced to take them, as you can take the boy out of the village, but you cannot take the village out of the boy. This is most obvious when these people form groups, and destroy the scholarly atmosphere of contemplative peace which is the ideal of the university.
b) They decrease the value of the degree everyone else receives.
Yes. Organic things and spontaneous traditions are like that.
I just told you what effects the admission of incompetents has.
Education is not a zero-sum game. But it is not something which is a means, either. (That's job training.) Education is an end in itself.
Would those reasons include arrogant, closed-minded bigotry? This type of behaviour disgusts me. (I linked to a book by an author, Albert Jay Nock, who was long ago a very prominent social commentator, who was known for his liberalism and his extremely lucid writing style, and the work I linked to has nothing at all to do with the economic thought of the Austrian school, but has simply been made available by the Institute.)
It's quote odd that you would ignore the work of one of the few genuinely independent intellectual traditions of the modern world. Not to mention one of the few who still speak with conviction. Their work, at least, is not tinged with the desire for power which animates all those who attempt to couch their ideas in words soothing to the populace; they say what they think. Which is more than can be said of the various "policy initiatives", "think tanks", and other such bodies clustering like leeches around the capitals of their respective nations.
Now, go and read the book. It's short, around 160 pages. And come back to me when you've understood. Without that background, it's pointless talking to you.
Which, of course, makes it invalid. What logic! What rhetoric! I am impressed. I didn't know observations and criticisms came with an expiry date.
(And by the way, the link can't be 25 years old. The WWW isn't 25 years old.)
Which word doesn't say anything at all, except that you disagree with him and want to cast that disagreement in such a manner as to reflect badly on him. Every action is a reaction to something. Reaction, when against that which is sick and degrading, is good.
You're calling this guy is a hack? May I have a list of your published works so that I can compare you against him, and see who the "hack" is?
I am not qualified to judge the work of a historian who writes in this amount of detail, nor have I examined the controversy in question.
Neither, I suspect, have you.
So please refrain. You do not help your case (of your "critique" of a 25 year old article, if critique it can be called) by pointing out that the editor who took over the magazine in 2007 is embroiled in controversy. That is a stretch which sane minds will not allow for.
And out comes the Australian nationalism!
I thought you "enlightened" people were above that stuff. Seems I was wrong.
No. The article doesn't claim any such thing. It's a "Farewell to Arts". Which means that the Arts department is already gone, finished, destroyed. He's just recognising that.
Now do you understand why I do not like this game of taking each others' quotations and raping them? If you want to play it, however, be advised that I'm capable of doing it in far more excruciating detail than even the little demonstration above. I prefer tackling the point being raised, not the minutiae. (Quibbling over little things is for pedants and little minds.)
Note that in none of this have you actually addressed the referenced work(s). In fact, you've been making, as can be evidenced from the above, desperate efforts to find an excuse - any excuse - to not read it. I don't know why you seem so afraid to read it, but trust me, it doesn't hurt. The second one might, if you're ideologically invested in the ideologies described. The work of Nock won't. He's writing from a time so far removed from us that you won't feel threatened.
So the Palins are immoral?
Yared
That Guy
How have you come to this conclusion?
What divine passages have you read to come to this understanding?Similar threads
- Locked
