Feminism

[Traitorfish]

I don't think so. That would imply that, for example, slavery is acceptable to the extent that it is possible, because slaves only deserve to be free if they are able to free themselves. Which seems abhorrent, on the face of it.

 

[Rashiminos]

Nevermind.

 

[Yeekim]

I don't think so. That would imply that, for example, slavery is acceptable to the extent that it is possible, because slaves only deserve to be free if they are able to free themselves. Which seems abhorrent, on the face of it.

Maybe I should have made it clearer, but I didn't consider extending basic human rights to a person "empowerment".
EDIT: So "Taking basic human rights for granted, isn't that exactly the extent everyone is entitled to"?

Also, you said that capital has no particular pro-women bias. Well, it also doesn't have a particular pro-men bias. Is anything else needed?

 

[ParkCungHee]

Also, you said that capital has no particular pro-women bias. Well, it also doesn't have a particular pro-men bias. Is anything else needed?

Actual empowerment and rights. A hurricane doesn't have a particularly pro-men bias, I wouldn't call getting hit by one a good thing for women.

 

[Traitorfish]

Maybe I should have made it clearer, but I didn't consider extending basic human rights to a person "empowerment".

Not all, but certainly some. Freedom from slavery can only really be seen in those terms, because what is the practical difference between freedom and slavery if both represent states of equal powerlessness?

So "Taking basic human rights for granted, isn't that exactly the extent everyone is entitled to"?

Well, what are "basic human rights"? Why is freedom from slavery a basic human right? Why isn't absolute personal autonomy a basic human right? Neither are self-evident.

Also, you said that capital has no particular pro-women bias. Well, it also doesn't have a particular pro-men bias. Is anything else needed?

Capital does not have any inherent pro-male biases, that's true. But neutrality in the reproduction of inequality is to all practical purposes a pro-male bias. A gun isn't inherently anti-Semitic, but if it's wielded by a member of the Waffen SS, it's hard to see it is as practically neutral.

 

[Crezth]

there are not enough dudes in this thread i'm worried there might be a bias at play here

 

[Tahuti]

But neutrality in the reproduction of inequality is to all practical purposes a pro-male bias.

That implies that women - because they are able to give birth - are disabled.

 

[Traitorfish]

That implies that women - because they are able to give birth - are disabled.

"Reproduction" in the sense of the reproduction of social relations, rather than biological reproduction. Point being, capitalism has no inherent gender-biases as to how it reproduces social relations, but if social relations are structured in a gender-unequal way, capitalism reproduces them as such, at least in the human term.

(There might be an argument that over the longue dureé, capitalism tends to gender egalitarianism, because it ultimate tends towards reducing all human beings to economic calculations- but the inhumanity of the logic by which it does so is probably a more damning critique of capitalism than anything feminists might raise, and certainly no sort of defence.)

 

[caketastydelish]

I'll go as far to say that women should be be allowed to be paid while pregnant/taking care of the baby at home. But what more should we do than that, Traitorfish?

 

[Traitorfish]

Abolish the wage system. Or, failing that, we should read the above comment, in which I point out that I use "reproduction" in reference to social relations rather than biology.

 

[classical_hero]

Is feminism something that can be empowered independently of actual women? Which, historically, capitalism has no particularly great record at empowering.

Considering that it was men who had to change their attitudes towards women, by voting to allow women the vote and passing laws designed to protect women, I think you are not giving enough credit to males for realising that past actions weren't fair and that changed was needed to treat women as equals. Men could have continued to keep the power, even hough they had no such right, but they did change t make sure the included women in the process. The whole movement is just as much about men recognising their wrongs as much as women gaining their rights.

 

[Perfection]

Everyone had to change their view of women, that's including women.

 

[Ironsided]

Sub-discussion: Did capitalism empower feminism?

You don’t think that’s a weak and forced hypothesis?

If you are looking for something that broke down pre-industrial social structures and empowered equality for women and men alike – try the labour movements and the unions.

 

[caketastydelish]

Abolish the wage system. Or, failing that, we should read the above comment, in which I point out that I use "reproduction" in reference to social relations rather than biology.

Supposing abolishing the wage system isn't possible, what do you mean by what you're saying? Other than paying women while pregnant/taking care of a baby just as if they're working, what other actual laws could enforce equality? Honest question.

 

[Tahuti]

You don’t think that’s a weak and forced hypothesis?

If you are looking for something that broke down pre-industrial social structures and empowered equality for women and men alike – try the labour movements and the unions.

It's mostly a thought experiment. It couldn't be anything else really, since I'm not particularly favourable to either capitalism or feminism, especially not in its later wave manifestations.

It seems to me that labour unions have as much reason to promote gender equality as to oppose it: On one hand, labour unions may have a political reason to align with equality movements such women right's movements. On the other hand, when unions are dominated in membership by men, they may also have a reason to promote women's role as homemakers, as an exodus of women from the workforce will increase the wages of the (mostly male) unionised workforce. This is especially the case non-Anglosphere and non-Scandinavian countries were several unions operate under a Confessionalist ideology instead of a left-wing outlook.

 

[Zack]

Considering that it was men who had to change their attitudes towards women, by voting to allow women the vote and passing laws designed to protect women, I think you are not giving enough credit to males for realising that past actions weren't fair and that changed was needed to treat women as equals. Men could have continued to keep the power, even hough they had no such right, but they did change t make sure the included women in the process. The whole movement is just as much about men recognising their wrongs as much as women gaining their rights.

So what you're saying is, women are at the mercy of men?

 

[Traitorfish]

Supposing abolishing the wage system isn't possible, what do you mean by what you're saying? Other than paying women while pregnant/taking care of a baby just as if they're working, what other actual laws could enforce equality? Honest question.

I don't have any particular expectation that public policy is or can be an effective vehicle for egalitarianism. This stuff has to be worked at a level much closer to the ground; as PupzHaze says, unions are a good place to start.

 

[luiz]

Luiz - kindly note the part where I pointed out the part that the majority of western armies are volunteer-based by now, and the part where I noted that western countries are fighting less and less wars, and less and less deadly ones. So sorry, the fact that 150 or so Canadian men and women who volunteered to fight for their country (a worthy choice!) died in military action in the past decade doesn't excuse any injustices toward women.

First, kindly note that nobody said anything about "excusing", merely that life and history are more complicated than this ******** cartoonish notion that men = oppressor, women = oppressed.

Second, kindly note that Canada is not the whole world, nor the whole West. In your neighbor to the South thousands of people are still being killed in wars abroad in recent years, and the overwhelming majority were males.

Third, kindly note that while today few people die in wars in Western countries, it also true that today women don't face virtually any institutional discrimination in those countries. By law, they have essentially the same rights as men. In the age where they didn't, than men were indeed dying by hundreds of thousands, millions in some cases, while being used as cannon fodder.

Fourth, note that this is not the only instance where men historically got the worst end of the deal. It was already mentioned repeatedly, but you never addressed it, that it was a rule (and it still is, to a lesser degree) that in case of dramatic accidents women and children should be saved first. In other words, women's lives were considered more valuable than men's. This alone disproves the ridiculous comparisons with slavery, or the simplistic "oppressor x oppressed" dichotomy, as it s obvious that the lives of the masters and oppressors were always considered more valuable.

All of this is not to say that women were not denied a lot of rights. They were, and the world is better for the great degree of equality we achieved. But the cartoon version of history propagated by ********s ought to be thrown to the garbage can of history.

 

[luiz]

If the boy get the girl's consent via fundamental lies (for example: "No, I don't want to get pregnant" "I've had a vasectomy, you can't get pregnant", "Oh, okay then", where the vasectomy bit is a lie), what do you view that as?

Keep in mind that in any contract a lie of that kind would be enough to void the contract on the basis that it wasn't actually consented to.

So if a girls says she's on the pill when she isn't, does that make her a rapist as well?

I do believe people should be held accountable for serious lies like those, if there are consequences. But to call it rape is BS.

 

[Farm Boy]

In other words, women's lives were considered more valuable than men's.

The lives of women and children are generally worth more than the lives of men. If you have to make a sweeping generalization or policy instead of a careful case by case review, which during a crisis I seems like it might be hard to do. Or to do at all in any situation.