Do you think Feminism is a step to far ( “feminist criticism” )

[Hygro]

Yeah, which is why I find this discussion kind of frustrating...

I had a feeling you had, with your first post in this thread.

For real. I tend to shy away from any discussion of feminism anywhere but in explicitly feminist environments because they tend to be strawman hacking fests. You can't talk about the game with people who don't even know the rules.

Yeah...

I've read juuuust enough Judith Butler to know that I am completely unqualified to talk about the social consequences of the depth of the philosophy of feminism--which is what this thread is about. And yet the basic concepts that pop into my head, like how our entire discourse is (oh lord I said discourse, please kill me if I write discursive) gender biased, which affects peoples decisions and welfare. And then of course gender is a far more arbitrary than we like to think, so we divide it from sex. And then sex itself is actually a lot more arbitrary than we like to think... and it all boils down to language. We cannot escape language, only hope to stretch its contours and then proceed to weight our discourse to that of our language that is.... "better" for mankind. Mankind, that word in of itself...

 

[Arwon]

Discrimintion in education places? Nah. That would imply some sort of "right" to attend one's choice of institution.

Universities have are entitled to set selection policies and an autistic focus on a single number is a bit lame anyway. That's not discrimination, it's just beneficiaries of the previous selection policies no longer being beneficiaries of the new one.

 

[Earthling]

Have any of you ever read any gender theory authors or anything on feminism?

Jolly Roger, Cutlass, Arwon, and a couple others possibly yes, though I couldn't say for sure of course. I have not read sufficient amounts I know, it's just a field I do not have much time invested in. Maybe others I would imagine not even close.

 

[Brighteye]

So everything was all good and we didn't need 1st wave feminism then?

Yeah, which is why I find this discussion kind of frustrating...

That's not at all what I said.

For real. I tend to shy away from any discussion of feminism anywhere but in explicitly feminist environments because they tend to be strawman hacking fests. You can't talk about the game with people who don't even know the rules.

I thought that one of the main goals of something like feminism would be to persuade people of its viewpoint and gain their passive or active support for its goals. If you can't be bothered to educate people about feminism, but just post sad little statements about how ignorant everyone here is then you're implicitly supporting the patriarchy.

How are you being discriminated against? You have opportunities for a free education, but you are willingly choosing to attend a place where you have to pay. Your evidence of discrimination is that you know 2 foreign women that have the same major as you.

He can have a worse, free education, or pay for a better one. Women of the same standard can, he says, get either education free. Is it really so complex?

You have chosen one of the cards dealt to you - to pay to attend a program with two foreign females (who may or may not be suprerior in merit to you and who may or may not be paying as much as you), rather than get a free ride at another program.

And he didn't have a choice that a woman in his situation would have had: to get his current course for free. If a woman who is identical in every other respect has different opportunities that is discrimination: it's the definition!

Discrimintion in education places? Nah. That would imply some sort of "right" to attend one's choice of institution.

Universities have are entitled to set selection policies and an autistic focus on a single number is a bit lame anyway. That's not discrimination, it's just beneficiaries of the previous selection policies no longer being beneficiaries of the new one.

So you think that there is no such thing as a system which is not discriminatory? That we can only choose who benefits? If that's the case we still need justification for the benefits going to the women.
The most obvious one is that the money isn't taken and so the university doesn't have to pay any scholarship.

 

[Arwon]

Define for me a completely fair, non-discriminatory selection policy. I mean jesus, at the very very least they all favour people from urban areas with relatively well-off parents.

The real questions with AA policies in higher education, be they financial or entrance criteria-based, are "are the social goals of the policy valid and worth-while?" and "does it work?" I'm not sure engineering or science is directly valuable enough to anyone to warrant the AA treatment (that depends on how much the male-dominated culture is discouraging women who would otherwise be studying them) simply because there's not a huge social problem that results from under representation in those areas... but making sure there's enough non-white non-males in law and medicine are extremely worthwhile social goals.

All I'm really saying is that objective meritocracy is both a myth and far from the only worthwhile consideration, and that there's no "rights" being violated here because nobody has an inherent right to attend a particular institution unless that university's selection policy says they do.

 

[Brighteye]

Define for me a completely fair, non-discriminatory selection policy. I mean jesus, at the very very least they all favour people from urban areas with relatively well-off parents.

The real questions with AA policies in higher education, be they financial or entrance criteria-based, are "are the social goals of the policy valid and worth-while?" and "does it work?" I'm not sure engineering or science is directly valuable enough to anyone to warrant the AA treatment (that depends on how much the male-dominated culture is discouraging women who would otherwise be studying them) simply because there's not a huge social problem that results from under representation in those areas... but making sure there's enough non-white non-males in law and medicine are extremely worthwhile social goals.

All I'm really saying is that objective meritocracy is both a myth and far from the only worthwhile consideration, and that there's no "rights" being violated here because nobody has an inherent right to attend a particular institution unless that university's selection policy says they do.

Well, a completely fair selection system would simply take the best-performing candidates, or perhaps those judged to be most likely to perform best apon completion of the course in another assessment. Such judgements would be based on academic assessment. Both exam. and interview work quite nicely for Oxford.
This does lead to some people not getting in who might be good candidates, but the effect of social background or sex on previous educational achievement is a governmental problem, not one with an objective selection system, which if it works perfectly will precisely reflect inequalities in the feeding system.

Hence, for example, there's an inequality between the number of private school children getting into Oxford (roughly 50% of all places) and the proportion of children at private schools (roughly 7%). However, of the children who get top grades at A-level, the previous exam., roughly 50% go to private schools.

So Oxford's system is not discriminatory. The problem lies with schooling, not admissions.

 

[Arwon]

Hence, for example, there's an inequality between the number of private school children getting into Oxford (roughly 50% of all places) and the proportion of children at private schools (roughly 7%). However, of the children who get top grades at A-level, the previous exam., roughly 50% go to private schools.

So Oxford's system is not discriminatory. The problem lies with schooling, not admissions.

Natch. And it's entirely appropriate to use admissions to redress some of that, should a university decide to do so.

I would, however, argue strongly that those end of high school exams are not objective. The school you go to matters a LOT. Being exactly the same person, I would have done substantially better at a Sydney private school with specialist coaching and demanding parents and teachers whose classes are full of motivated kids than I did at my various rural and suburban public high schools during my disruptive military brat upbringing. I would have done worse at a smaller school in a more isolated or socio-economically depressed area. Etc etc.

Exams just measure performance on exams, which are strongly correlated with these variables. The pure exam-based admissions system basically reflective of the liberal individualist biases of the upper-income-quartile in our society, masquerading as objectivity. That's fine, it's a decent system, but the limitations must be recognised and it's not discriminatory to try to correct for them. It's just a bit too convenient for the most powerful people in society to say that the system which so strongly favours them is objective.

This isn't really a "problem with schooling", just a product of the inherent inequalities of power and status in society. No primary or secondary school system can entirely correct for that. Some people have more stable or demanding parents, some schools exist to channel their kids into good exam results in a hot-house environment because there's a demand for that. No exam can avoid that bias. These are just the sort of inherent inequalities that need to be corrected for wherever possible and convenient, I'd argue admissions and university are a great leveller in that regard.

 

[Cutlass]

Jolly Roger, Cutlass, Arwon, and a couple others possibly yes, though I couldn't say for sure of course. I have not read sufficient amounts I know, it's just a field I do not have much time invested in. Maybe others I would imagine not even close.

I think women should have equal rights. And I think they should stand up and say so. But I've never studied the subject in any particular depth.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I think women should have equal rights. And I think they should stand up and say so. But I've never studied the subject in any particular depth.

The question is what defines "Equal."

If you mean the right to vote, hold office, own property, exc, yes (Well, married people are supposed to share everything in common, but its not just what's hers is his what's his is hers too.)

If you mean equal pay, while its a good idea in theory, its the decision of the free market, the free market does what it does.

I wasn't around in '64, so I don't know if Civil Rights Laws were needed to the extent that they were, something was certainly needed, and Lyndon Johnson can be credited for at least trying, however, in 2010, most people aren't prejudiced. If someone wants to make a restaurant for "White males only," that's their business, but its likely they will go out of business because most people (And I am definitely included in this) would refuse to eat there.

In short, it depends on what you mean. Traditional roles exist, though they can't really be enforced by law, a woman should not neglect her children just to work. However, that doesn't mean women are "Less," or "Not equal," just that, if there are children, the mother's primary duty is to raise them.

As for feminists going too far, I don't know about other countries, but in the US I believe feminism was a necessary thing that helped get us where we are today but in 2010 in the US it doesn't really have any more use, women already have equal rights.

Just to note my opinion, I find it ridiculous that abortion is placed with "Women's rights." You do realize everyone that the person who fought for RoevsWade is now a Christian and trying to undo the evil she caused. That is taking the rights of someone else, and is not related in women's rights, abortion is murder, but since it is often considered a woman's right I point out it is not. Even the person who got it passed now hates the evil of it.

 

[Arwon]

Oh for christs sake.

 

[Hygro]

however, in 2010, most people aren't prejudiced.

*Checks youtube comments of white, heterosexual artists, notes conversation revolves around quality of music or criticisms of scene*

*Checks youtube comments of black and gay artists, sees copious hate speech, or at least contextualizing the music in terms of race or sexuality*


Wrong, sadly, but let's check back in 10 years.

 

[Communisto]

however, in 2010, most people aren't prejudiced.

are they talking about you here?

Just to note my opinion, I find it ridiculous that abortion is placed with "Women's rights." You do realize everyone that the person who fought for RoevsWade is now a Christian and trying to undo the evil she caused. That is taking the rights of someone else, and is not related in women's rights, abortion is murder, but since it is often considered a woman's right I point out it is not. Even the person who got it passed now hates the evil of it.

It is absolutely a woman's right. You are taking away a woman's right to dominion over her own body. In order to take the rights of "someone else" you need to have a "someone else", not a collection of cells in a womb.

lol @ your concept of evil.

 

[Brighteye]

Natch. And it's entirely appropriate to use admissions to redress some of that, should a university decide to do so.

Exams just measure performance on exams, which are strongly correlated with these variables. The pure exam-based admissions system basically reflective of the liberal individualist biases of the upper-income-quartile in our society, masquerading as objectivity. That's fine, it's a decent system, but the limitations must be recognised and it's not discriminatory to try to correct for them. It's just a bit too convenient for the most powerful people in society to say that the system which so strongly favours them is objective.

This isn't really a "problem with schooling", just a product of the inherent inequalities of power and status in society. No primary or secondary school system can entirely correct for that. Some people have more stable or demanding parents, some schools exist to channel their kids into good exam results in a hot-house environment because there's a demand for that. No exam can avoid that bias. These are just the sort of inherent inequalities that need to be corrected for wherever possible and convenient, I'd argue admissions and university are a great leveller in that regard.

To a limited extent I'd agree with you, and I can define by how much. I agree that a switch to an assessment of how good the student will be at the end of the course is acceptable, and that tutors are quite justified in accounting for limitations on performance like the ones you've listed.
I don't agree that university places (in this country they're government-controlled) should be used to try to achieve overall equality of educational outcome by taking students who need remedial work or extra attention, even if they have that need through no fault of their own.
At that point, although it's not the student's fault, it is not the university's, and transferring the injustice from the student to the university (and hence the excluded student who might have got that place) does not correct it.
I don't want to talk about exams specifically, because not every university uses them as the sole selection criterion, so they're not really related to the subject. I think that private schools can probably achieve far more with interview training and social education, which homogenises the range of applicants and, in people who are still maturing, doesn't really add any permanent value.
Exams are one reasonable way to test ability, although far from perfect.

*Checks youtube comments of white, heterosexual artists, notes conversation revolves around quality of music or criticisms of scene*

*Checks youtube comments of black and gay artists, sees copious hate speech, or at least contextualizing the music in terms of race or sexuality*

Wrong, sadly, but let's check back in 10 years.

See, the problem as I see it is that feminists see things like this and rather than doing what happened for black people, which was to make it bad to contextualise what people did solely as 'black', and for black reasons, they decide that everything should be contextualised.
We therefore get people who, rather than seeing things through the 'music scene' context (in this example), would instead see a person's music as indicative of his maleness.
Instead of wanting to raise discourse about female musicians, authors, politicians and everyone else to the level that is accepted for men, some people seem to like to try to bring the level of discourse for everyone down to the level that some women or homosexuals suffer, and thereby prevent that suffering from being discriminatory.

Having lots of discrimination on the basis of irrelevant characteristics, and trying to make it all balance out to something that is decreed to be fair is not a fair society. We should aim to eliminate this discrimination and oppose it, not encourage rival forms.

 

[illram]

That's not at all what I said.

So what was the point in pointing out that some ancient tribe somewhere let women own property at some undetermined point in time, in response to my comment that women have not exactly had equal standing for most of western history?

 

[lovett]

Natch. And it's entirely appropriate to use admissions to redress some of that, should a university decide to do so.

I would, however, argue strongly that those end of high school exams are not objective. The school you go to matters a LOT. Being exactly the same person, I would have done substantially better at a Sydney private school with specialist coaching and demanding parents and teachers whose classes are full of motivated kids than I did at my various rural and suburban public high schools during my disruptive military brat upbringing. I would have done worse at a smaller school in a more isolated or socio-economically depressed area. Etc etc.

This is the crux, you wouldn't have been exactly the same person. If you had demanding parents, specialist coaching and a thoroughly different upbringing you would not be the same person. You would behave in a different way, including as regards your intellectual and social ability.

If you were born with a twin brother, it could be said that you merit exactly the same treatment at birth because you are equal in all respects. But once this twin of yours is educated and brought up radically differently you are no longer equal in all respects and thus there is no case to be made that you warrant completely equal treatment. Like it or not, being born into a family with engaged parents and the resources to finance a brilliant education means that you probably will, at the age of university admission, be brighter than someone born in an environment antithetical to learning. This isn't an illusory or trivial superiority either, your upbringing affects how genuinely intelligent you are and how well you are able to use that intellect. This isn't some sort of veil which will be stripped away after a few years on a degree course, it's a core part of ones character. All I'm really saying is that nurture has a significant affect in creating individuals.

Consequently, at the point of university admission, it does not matter that one could have potentially achieved more than one has, were ones circumstances radically different. Unless said university reasonably expects to unveil that potential it is irrelevant, and in most cases they don't because said potential is gone. That potential existed at birth; it doesn't now. Basing admission standards on that means basing them on fantasy and wishful thinking, rather than reality. And it means your discriminating against people who actually are exceptional against those that could have been, were their circumstances different.

 

[Brighteye]

Actually, you're quite wrong on that. The fact that a woman is a person isn't new. It's never been new. The entire literature of the world contradicts this view.

Women not being able to vote or own property until the 20th century in most of the civilized world says you're wrong.

Because of the point that you were trying to refute. Having never had legal equality is not the same as never having been regarded as a person.

 

[ColdClimate]

Because of the point that you were trying to refute. Having never had legal equality is not the same as never having been regarded as a person.

Well, I suppose it is in a way semantics, but in amny western nations, being a person in the legal sense means that you are extended all the rights and priviledges bestowed apon an individual in that nation.

And even if it's not called being a 'person' per se, there has been a long fight in the vast majority of the world for women to gain the same rights as men, however you want to define the legal term.

 

[warpus]

In short, it depends on what you mean. Traditional roles exist, though they can't really be enforced by law, a woman should not neglect her children just to work.

And neither should the father

However, that doesn't mean women are "Less," or "Not equal," just that, if there are children, the mother's primary duty is to raise them.

It is BOTH the parents' duty to raise their children. However they decide to divide up their duties is up to them.

 

[illram]

Because of the point that you were trying to refute. Having never had legal equality is not the same as never having been regarded as a person.

You try being told you can't vote or hold property because of your sex, and then get back to me on how much of a person you feel like.

 

[JollyRoger]

And it means your discriminating against people who actually are exceptional against those that could have been, were their circumstances different.

Affirmative action does not generally affect the exceptional. Some applicants that are on the margins of admission get displaced by others that also on the margins of admission. If you are only marginal after an exceptional upbringing, it is no sad thing that you have to attend a university marginally inferior to the one that you were on the fringes of to begin with. It's not like remaining in an exceptional environment is going to make you exceptional. You have already proven otherwise. Give someone else a chance to see how they perfrom when surrounded by exceptional people.