Is feminism still needed in the U.S.

[ignition]

I find that some who affiliate themselves with feminism get angry and see it offensive to state basic facts like "men are faster than women, stronger than women". What is the point in getting so worked up about that? You don't see men getting angry that they don't have large breasts that pump out milk (well actually some do I suppose).

 

[crossfire]

I find that some who affiliate themselves with feminism get angry and see it offensive to state basic facts like "men are faster than women, stronger than women". What is the point in getting so worked up about that? You don't see men getting angry that they don't have large breasts that pump out milk (well actually some do I suppose).

I'd like to see some quotes?

I would say that such statements are diverting away from feminist issues such as human trafficking. Is human trafficking ok because men are faster and stronger than women and children? Of course not. It's an attempt to divert away from the issues and dismiss them outright. It's not kosher, and it's not gonna work. :no:

 

[oldbadger]

The United States of America.

Hi.... This your answer to:-
Could you name a country that has approached 'goodness' through belief in God?

One other question. Did you have an era in mind? You mention that the USA has 'declined' so you probably do have a date in mind for when the USA approached closely to goodness 'through belief in God'.... yes?

 

[oldbadger]

And the wage gap is throughout the u.s. Despite both state and federal employment laws.

So, in your opinion, is your legislation, both Federal and State, inadequate with regard to Equal Rights, Equal Pay, (anti)Sexual Discrimination, etc?

 

[oldbadger]

Of course, your brand of feminism is broader than just benefiting females, & rises to the level of "peoplism". OK, "humanism" is a better term.

No....I like peoplism better, because humanism reaches towards 'humanist'. I've called myself Egalitarianist since researching the views of feminists in Kent England earlier this year, but that has 'political additives' as well.

But peoplism doesn't sound quite right either, does it?
Why don't we start a thread about a decent word for peoplists which might connect with the world's folks........Something which just 'clicks'.

In connection with the thread 'Is feminism still needed in the U.S.'??, the answer seems to be 'Yes', because many States seem to contend against greater Federal Legislation, and USA law seems to be a mishmash of Federal and State bits-n-pieces that just don't fit together into a strong Equality Law for all. I've read too many critical reports on RF and so believe that a vigorous feminist movement is still needed.

EDIT: I hope you don't think that 'vigorous feminist movement' is euphemistic!!!!

 

[MoonWater]

Hi.......again!

1. I highlighted your dictionary definition. Are you happy with this? You don't want to add anything else?
2. In your 2nd para you write that the primary focus is women's rights and (precis) 'equality' to men. Would you like to mention any secondary focus list for us?.

I'm not sure what you mean. Did you have anything specific in mind that you feel is missing?

 

[Pagan_Patriot]

As long as there is human trafficking, there's a need for feminism. :yes:

How is feminism going to stop human trafficking? We have laws against that, and it still happens, so what do you say we should do about it?

 

[crossfire]

How is feminism going to stop human trafficking? We have laws against that, and it still happens, so what do you say we should do about it?

Investigate the factors that lead to it--such as poverty and the marginalization of the people who wind up being trafficked, for one. If you look closely, the factors involved in human trafficking closely resemble feminist causes.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

A country that thinks itself free, should not be arguing about the freedom or equality of women.
It should have been a done deal long ago.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

But isn't confirmation bias possible when defining feminism by the literature of luminaries,
rather than by what the common adherent believes & says?
I see the literature as merely one window into feminist thought (one I plan not to pursue).

Look at it this way. There are people - like a friend of mine who is a feminist writer and holds a doctorate in feminist literature - who spend a lot of time studying history, economics, language, and culture that very well qualify as having more of an expertise than the common adherent. If they offer themselves to symposiums and peer review boards in their respective fields, I find them to be much less likely to have work that is simple confirmation bias than you and I.

It would be as if somebody who never read the Bible, never read any commentary on the Bible, and never really listened to Biblical scholars, decided they know everything about Christianity they need to know by listening to people who say they're Christians, at best. But there is a willful ignorance by stating unequivocally that there is no need to study the actual works by those who have done many years of legwork.

I find that to be lazy scholarship.

I don't really have any intentions towards feminism.....it's like weather....something I observe
& comment on. Some of it I like, & some I don't. As for women, my intentions are pretty benign,
even boring.

I don't doubt that.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I find that some who affiliate themselves with feminism get angry and see it offensive to state basic facts like "men are faster than women, stronger than women". What is the point in getting so worked up about that? You don't see men getting angry that they don't have large breasts that pump out milk (well actually some do I suppose).

Average height and muscle mass tend to give men a physical edge in brute strength, vertical jump height, and quick time springing action. But women have been shown to excel in endurance and mental toughness according to some studies.

What some women get annoyed with is the generalization on height, weight, and muscular differences as saying that men are "better athletes." That's just silly.

 

[Revoltingest]

Look at it this way. There are people - like a friend of mine who is a feminist writer and holds a doctorate in feminist literature - who spend a lot of time studying history, economics, language, and culture that very well qualify as having more of an expertise than the common adherent. If they offer themselves to symposiums and peer review boards in their respective fields, I find them to be much less likely to have work that is simple confirmation bias than you and I.

I disagree....scholarly types are fallible too, & they have far more ammunition with which to entrench their positions. I won't claim to be without bias, but I neither like nor dislike feminism in general, which is far more diverse than is typically recognized.

It would be as if somebody who never read the Bible, never read any commentary on the Bible, and never really listened to Biblical scholars, decided they know everything about Christianity they need to know by listening to people who say they're Christians, at best. But there is a willful ignorance by stating unequivocally that there is no need to study the actual works by those who have done many years of legwork.

This is a good analogy. I claim to know little about Xianity, but I do know many Xians, both trained preachers & layity. I prefer to view the religion by what I see in its adherents' beliefs & actions, since it's more relevant to me than scripture. I view feminism similarly. So yes, I am willfully ignorant of the more arcane aspects of religion & feminism, preferring instead to study what I find more interesting or significant. It works for me.

I find that to be lazy scholarship.

I am lazy, but I don't lay any claim to scholarship.

 

[Me Myself]

Look at it this way. There are people - like a friend of mine who is a feminist writer and holds a doctorate in feminist literature - who spend a lot of time studying history, economics, language, and culture that very well qualify as having more of an expertise than the common adherent. If they offer themselves to symposiums and peer review boards in their respective fields, I find them to be much less likely to have work that is simple confirmation bias than you and I.

It would be as if somebody who never read the Bible, never read any commentary on the Bible, and never really listened to Biblical scholars, decided they know everything about Christianity they need to know by listening to people who say they're Christians, at best. But there is a willful ignorance by stating unequivocally that there is no need to study the actual works by those who have done many years of legwork.

I find that to be lazy scholarship.



I don't doubt that.

To be fair most people that call themselves christians here have read precious little of the bible or havent had much thought about the actual doctrine.

People who say are part of X ideology ARE speaking for it. Sure, non of em is the whole ideology, but ll of them are indeed part, because it is through people that ideologies exist. Not through the learned people necessarily, but through the most vocal/active/opinionated of them.

Mstly through the most vocal because those who speak through actions will be remembered mostly for their actions, while most than spend that same time speaking instead of doing will be using all that time for propaganda of the ideology itself.

(By the way, notice that as an advertiser, I dont have any negative association towards the word propaganda. Propaganda can be extremely good and is certainly necessary and sometimes vital)

I just find "ism" to be the wrong way to go with this, unless we are calling it "humanism"

The brand of feminism you like doesnt put women above men but people in equal standing. In what it focuses is on the women, sure, but that is not a phylosophy, that is a way of working, of acting, of focusing.

They are humanists that focus on getting rid on e injustices towards women.

"Feminism" and "masculinism" are unnecessarily polarising.

 

[Pagan_Patriot]

Investigate the factors that lead to it--such as poverty and the marginalization of the people who wind up being trafficked, for one. If you look closely, the factors involved in human trafficking closely resemble feminist causes.

There's thousands of kids snached from school every year and trafficked. And these are middle class kids. There are already investigations going on to find them. So how exactly will feminism stop this?

And about are you going to solve poverty? Some people just don't want to work. You're not going to be able to force them. You'd have to take their kids away. There's lots of people in the ghetto and in the projects, and unfortunately, they have kids, so of course they'll be at risk. If you want to say feminism will solve trafficking, then you'd have to make sure the poor don't have kids, but then you'd still have to worry about the people who actually grab them off the street.

 

[Titanic]

This has come up in a few threads I've been spying on so I thought I'd give it its own thread. So basically do you feel that feminism as a movement is still needed in the united states? Why or why not?

Women should already have the same right's. Gay's too. I would love to say feminism is not needed anymore in this world but from what I see it still is to a point. I guess you will never change everyone's mind's though.

 

[Titanic]

Then again people on here will see my avatar pic and say I am sexist toward's women...

 

[Me Myself]

Then again people on here will see my avatar pic and say I am sexist toward's women...

Everyone who desires sexy women who s/he doesnt know is sexist towards women, and is actually a hateful biggott with issues.

Didnt you know?

 

[Curious George]

So, despite posts that bring up real issues today with which feminism deals, I hear people saying that they don't think feminism is relevant because of the name. I'm tempted to argue that this is because of a social bias towards females, after all so many regularly accept terms like mankind instead of insisting on personkind or something to that effect. To embrace a term like feminism to deal with issues that effect all of mankind seems wrong? Or is it the stereotypes of the man hating, bra burning, Butch woman that people dislike. Despite that feminism today studies and tried to deal with gender stereotypes.

But like I said, I am only tempted to make such an argument, instead if it will help anyone support feminism they can call it what they will. Does anyone not think feminism, based on what feminists do not their name,is not needed or valued in the USA.

 

[Titanic]

Everyone who desires sexy women who s/he doesnt know is sexist towards women, and is actually a hateful biggott with issues.

Didnt you know?

It would seem so friend. I have hypersexuality so...

 

[crossfire]

There's thousands of kids snached from school every year and trafficked. And these are middle class kids. There are already investigations going on to find them. So how exactly will feminism stop this?

And about are you going to solve poverty? Some people just don't want to work. You're not going to be able to force them. You'd have to take their kids away. There's lots of people in the ghetto and in the projects, and unfortunately, they have kids, so of course they'll be at risk. If you want to say feminism will solve trafficking, then you'd have to make sure the poor don't have kids, but then you'd still have to worry about the people who actually grab them off the street.

Do you have any research sources for your proclaimed causes of human trafficking and poverty?

I noticed you didn't mention anything about the marginalization of the people most targeted for human trafficking. Perhaps you were referring those you referenced as "some people just don't want to work?" I also find it interesting that you begin your argument with abducted middle class children and end your argument with making sure the poor don't have kids. [snark] Yeah, it's all those marginalized people's fault for being born! [/snark] Have you considered a different approach to the human trafficking problem than the course you have laid out?