Feminism

[Perfection]

So why do we need it?
The equality of sexes is a value held across the Western world. It is enshrined in law. Women now have the choice to do whatever they wish. What else can we possibly do?

To address the OP, I still think feminism has a major role to play in Western Society. While the legal freedoms have been granted, there's a huge cultural shift that has occurred and we are still dealing with the effects. I think there's still a two-world mentality of the "modern woman" versus the subservient, domestic woman and being a mother. Women are outpacing men in educational success and yet are getting off on Fifty Shades of Grey. Something is going on here.

I think overall women are crafting new identities in the wake of the recognition that women have far more choices then previously thought. With the new choices comes new struggles, new expectations, and new opportunities plenty of concerns for feminism. This change is exciting and challenging, and us men should do what we can to be a friend not an obstacle.

Of course, I should still say that there are plenty of more basic concerns like lack of female leaders, violence against women, appalling treatment in minority communities, etc.

 

[luiz]

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.

Based on what metric? Are the lives of rich people worth more than those of poor people, because they pay more taxes?

And if we accept that, and in a moment of crisis there is a need to make a sweeping generalization instead of a careful case by case review, would you say we should save white people first as in average they're richer and pay more taxes?

I guess my point is that those generalizations always suck and are so subjective that random assignments would be at least as good...

That said, I totally see the point in saving kids first.

 

[Zack]

that in case of dramatic accidents women and children should be saved first.

Two counter-points:

1. benevolent sexism is a thing

Benevolent sexism represents evaluations of gender that may appear subjectively positive, but are actually damaging to people and gender equity more broadly (e.g. the ideas that women need to be protected by men or that men aren't fit to take care of children).

You could argue that this mindset you reference implies that women are weak like children and need to be protected by men in order to survive.

2. In terms of survival of the species, women and children are objectively more important than men. 20 women and 5 men can repopulate much more rapidly than 20 men and 5 women.

 

[luiz]

Two counter-points:

1. benevolent sexism is a thing



You could argue that this mindset you reference implies that women are weak like children and need to be protected by men in order to survive.

2. In terms of survival of the species, women and children are objectively more important than men. 20 women and 5 men can repopulate much more rapidly than 20 men and 5 women.

Easily answerable:

1 - The men who drowned and the women who were saved couldn't care less about "benevolent sexism" or other such nonsense. Fact is anyone would rather be a victim of this terrible "benevolent sexism" than to drown in a ship wreck.

2-That is one metric. Rich people pay more taxes, taxes which are used to help multiple poor people, build roads, fund schools, etc. So it could also be argued that "objectively speaking" rich people are more important than poor people. And considering the human species is hardly in need of repopulation, this metric actually makes far more sense than yours (I still reject it, though).

 

[Perfection]

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.

I don't really think saving women and children first is a "women are more valuable" thing, but that "women are fragile and men need to protect them" thing.

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.

Who the hell are these ********s you speak of? Throwing around Nazi loosely is a pretty douche thing to do imo.

 

[Yeekim]

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?


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.


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.

1) Not really following. How could freedom and slavery represent "states of equal powerlessness "?

2) Let's just go with the popular consensus for the moment? What would "absolute personal autonomy" even mean in practical terms, anyway?

3)First, the fact that much of the world's wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few rich men means very little from the POV of gender relations between average people. Second, biological reproduction still plays a crucial role here: these men will eventually die, upon which their estates will presumably be inherited by both sons and daughters...

Sent from my G740-L00 using Tapatalk

 

[Quackers]

Yup, I would love to be a victim of benevolent sexism.
60 more years of my life, or dead? Easy choice.

 

[luiz]

I don't really think saving women and children first is a "women are more valuable" thing, but that "women are fragile and men need to protect them" thing.

In some cases you're actually choosing who gets to live and who dies. So it's not just about being fragile and needing protection, it's actually about preserving the lives deemed more important. If a slave ship was to suffer a wreck, it's pretty obvious the slaves would be the last rescued, if at all. So any analogy between women and slaves, or stating that women were "non-persons" and etc is nonsense.

Who the hell are these ********s you speak of?

As if you don't know...

 

[caketastydelish]

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.

My understand is that unions are designed to benefit everyone involved, not just one gender or the other. How could unions help women specifically, and what are they going to do if it isn't involved in the law/capitalist politics?

 

[Traitorfish]

pictured: me, reading this thread.

1) Not really following. How could freedom and slavery represent "states of equal powerlessness "?

I don't know, it's your argument. I said to begin with that freedom necessarily means empowerment.

2) Let's just go with the popular consensus for the moment? What would "absolute personal autonomy" even mean in practical terms, anyway?

What is the popular consensus, and why should I regard it as credible?

3)First, the fact that much of the world's wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few rich men means very little from the POV of gender relations between average people. Second, biological reproduction still plays a crucial role here: these men will eventually die, upon which their estates will presumably be inherited by both sons and daughters...

The gender-composition of the wealthiest 0.001% really isn't what I'm getting at. I'm talking about society in general, capitalism as a form of social organisation rather than as a fancy synonym for "inequality".

 

[Yeekim]

Yup, I would love to be a victim of benevolent sexism.
60 more years of my life, or dead? Easy choice.

Given choice, would you rather be a man or a woman in 18th century Europe? Honest answer, please.

Sent from my G740-L00 using Tapatalk

 

[Farm Boy]

Based on what metric? ... That said, I totally see the point in saving kids first.

Based on the same metric that makes saving kids first have a point. When the chips are down and mass death is a few feet away you pitch those with the most likely life left out of the way first. You save the kids. Then you throw in with the kids the people who are most likely to be able to calm children in a crisis and those who are possibly carrying a two-fer-one save. It's the same exact logic, really.

 

[Quackers]

Given choice, would you rather be a man or a woman in 18th century Europe? Honest answer, please.

Sent from my G740-L00 using Tapatalk

An average person from that era? A man obviously.
A rich person from that era, the difference isn't that great but still a man. In fact, I would probably prefer to be a woman if I was an arisocrat than a poor man.

I'm not denying historical discrimination against woman. It was a thing, yet, as luiz has pointed out, women were not universally disadvantaged. In some respects they had it better then men. They were not expected to die on battlefields and they were prioritised in times of crisis.

 

[Perfection]

In some cases you're actually choosing who gets to live and who dies. So it's not just about being fragile and needing protection, it's actually about preserving the lives deemed more important. If a slave ship was to suffer a wreck, it's pretty obvious the slaves would be the last rescued, if at all. So any analogy between women and slaves, or stating that women were "non-persons" and etc is nonsense.

just because slaves may be saved later because they're deemed lesser doesn't mean that men being saved later is because they're deemed lesser. Those are two different situations. I think it largely has to do with men having the duty to stay on the ship and ensure the safety of the "helpless women" who have trusted them with their lives. Your argument is unconvincing.

As if you don't know...

I don't! Who are these ********s? Who is this Girl Hitler you fear?

 

[Zack]

Easily answerable:

1 - The men who drowned and the women who were saved couldn't care less about "benevolent sexism" or other such nonsense. Fact is anyone would rather be a victim of this terrible "benevolent sexism" than to drown in a ship wreck.

Don't be obtuse. I was explaining WHY the "women and children" first mentality exists; I never said I or anyone else would rather drown in such a situation. Don't put words in my mouth.

2-That is one metric. Rich people pay more taxes, taxes which are used to help multiple poor people, build roads, fund schools, etc. So it could also be argued that "objectively speaking" rich people are more important than poor people. And considering the human species is hardly in need of repopulation, this metric actually makes far more sense than yours (I still reject it, though).

Again, I never said I was justifying it, I was offering explanations. That aside, in such as situation you want as many people to live as possible, present and future. Women are more important than men in that regard.

I'm not denying historical discrimination against woman. It was a thing, yet, as luiz has pointed out, women were not universally disadvantaged. In some respects they had it better then men. They were not expected to die on battlefields and they were prioritised in times of crisis.

cue ben franklin quote about safety and freedom

They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

 

[useless]

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

Well in the bible...

 

[luiz]

Based on the same metric that makes saving kids first have a point. When the chips are down and mass death is a few feet away you pitch those with the most likely life left out of the way first. You save the kids. Then you throw in with the kids the people who are most likely to be able to calm children in a crisis and those who are possibly carrying a two-fer-one save. It's the same exact logic, really.

The first part is fairly objective, that is, kids have more time to live. The second part is subjective and based on gender roles feminists would disapprove (except for the pregnant part, which is also objective).

But as I said, saving rich people first would also be objective. Just being objective doesn't mean it's right.

just because slaves may be saved later because they're deemed lesser doesn't mean that men being saved later is because they're deemed lesser. Those are two different situations. I think it largely has to do with men having the duty to stay on the ship and ensure the safety of the "helpless women" who have trusted them with their lives. Your argument is unconvincing.

I don't think the male passengers of a sinking cruise ship were left behind because they were expected to ensure the safety of "helpless women". No, that is entirely unconvincing in most contexts, specially when being left behind means certain death. They were left behind because they were deemed less valuable lives.

I don't! Who are these ********s? Who is this Girl Hitler you fear?

Fear? I don't fear actual nazis, they're a fairly small and fringe group. I certainly don't fear the ********s either, who are also quite harmless and are a dying breed anyway.

That said, both groups do exist. Check this group out:

Redstockings holds the view that all men oppress all women as a class and that it is the responsibility of individual men to give up male supremacy, rather than the responsibility of women to change themselves.
...
Redstockings were also opposed to male homosexuality, which they saw as a deeply misogynist rejection of women.

Or how about separatist feminists?

Note that ********s is just a term for feminists who hate men. Doesn't mean they're plotting a new Holocaust or something.

Don't be obtuse. I was explaining WHY the "women and children" first mentality exists; I never said I or anyone else would rather drown in such a situation. Don't put words in my mouth.

Your explanation does not convince me, though. It doesn't make sense.

Again, I never said I was justifying it, I was offering explanations. That aside, in such as situation you want as many people to live as possible, present and future. Women are more important than men in that regard.

And as I said value is subjective, there are many ways to "determine" who is "more valuable" or more worthy of saving.

Even if we accept that women were saved because they could generate more future life, that still means women (and their unique biological qualities) were considered more valuable and worth saving than men. It doesn't change anything.

 

[Farm Boy]

The first part is fairly objective, that is, kids have more time to live. The second part is subjective and based on gender roles feminists would disapprove (except for the pregnant part, which is also objective).

When you have to cobble together how to act in a situation that is already calamity then your options don't necessarily include a choice that isn't suck. We're discussing such a situation I think. All the options are going to be suck.

You agree with me, I take it, that saving those with the most likely life left is desirable. That's why you save kids. You don't want anyone to die, but if somebody is going to, better the retiree than the toddler. The retiree already got his or her toddlerhood, and adolescence, and and and. Pregnant women too, you buy. They're a two for one. Then you get into the mushier territory. Which is why you wind up with stupidly oversimplistic rules like "save the women and children first." Because actually looking at two people and choosing one is too much a monstrosity for most people to bear. A child is better to save than an adult. A woman might be pregnant. A woman might have a small child that needs nursing. These factors raise their default level, when people are unwilling to choose directly between specific persons, above those of males. Sorry. In calamity it is appropriate to consider men in general less valuable than women and kids. We are less valuable.

 

[luiz]

When you have to cobble together how to act in a situation that is already calamity then your options don't necessarily include a choice that isn't suck. We're discussing such a situation I think. All the options are going to be suck.

You agree with me, I take it, that saving those with the most likely life left is desirable. That's why you save kids. You don't want anyone to die, but if somebody is going to, better the retiree than the toddler. The retiree already got his or her toddlerhood, and adolescence, and and and. Pregnant women too, you buy. They're a two for one. Then you get into the mushier territory. Which is why you wind up with stupidly oversimplistic rules like "save the women and children first." Because actually looking at two people and choosing one is too much a monstrosity for most people to bear. A child is better to save than an adult. A woman might be pregnant. A woman might have a small child that needs nursing. These factors raise their default level, when people are unwilling to choose directly between specific persons, above those of males. Sorry. In calamity it is appropriate to consider men in general less valuable than women and kids. We are less valuable.

Exactly, you are using some subjective criteria (based on flawed extrapolations of semi-objectives ones) to determine women are more valuable. Note that any pretense at objectivity falls to the ground when you save an elderly post-menopausal woman ahead of a 20-something or 30-something man.

Which was my point all along. Women's lives were (and still are) considered more valuable than men's. That you think this is based on good and objective criteria doesn't change this. This fact alone is a strong counterpoint to the notion that women were "non-persons" or an "oppressed class" analogous to slaves.

 

[Farm Boy]

Note that any pretense at objectivity falls to the ground when you save an elderly post-menopausal woman ahead of a 20-something or 30-something man.

Agreed, things start to swing back hard, even in this situation, once a woman starts to be perceived(since the reality matters less than the perception here) as post menopausal. Which ties back onto my earlier comment of which demographics are generally seen as the most worthless or possibly even actively harmful members of society: old women and young adult males, respectively.

That's as far as I'm willing to state though. When generalizing, regardless of social equality, if you have to reduce life to "which one is more valuable" you get stuck with "more life > less life" Which leaves women worth more than men. Anything else is monstrous and leads to your logic on rich vs poor life.