|
Feminism (pg. 16)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by NoError
Ah, of course. Will have a look when I'm next wasting government scholarship time. |
That’s the spirit! Sorry, don’t have an electronic copy as its on an old HD.
| quote: | Originally posted by FuzzQi
Is it available electronically? I know there is a database of theses somewhere but not all of them are on it. |
Not that I am aware of, I didn’t submit an electronic copy and I doubt they’d take the time to scan it. plus, its not that good and I don’t want you guys thinking im that rabid Marxist anymore :p |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
I don’t want you guys thinking im that rabid Marxist anymore :p |
You? A Marxist? I don't believe it! |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
You? A Marxist? I don't believe it! |
Well, not in the whole “I think marxism is a valid & realistic alternative to modern capitalism” but a marxist all the same ;) |
|
|
| Theresa |
| quote: | Originally posted by butterfly
i definitely agree with this, since this is the path i will probably follow, but i am troubled that i am defying the entire point of human existence, which is procreation and survival of the species. if all women decided they didn't need to be mommy's our society would be in trouble. |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Yeah, but since humans are social animals anyway, the idea that every last one of us "needs" to be reproducing is very simple minded and likely wrong, speaking biologically. Not every animal in a pack ends up having offspring, either. There are tons of things you can do to contribute to the survival of the species (and of your genes, via caring for relatives) without making half-copies of yourself. |
Exactly. More often than not, the strongest of the groups will end up procreating and the others either defend the groups or die off. With that being said, it isn't necessarily natural for every female capable of having offspring to actually do so.
| quote: | Originally posted by butterfly
right but what if only stupid people procreate? sometimes it seems like higher levels of education leads people to have fewer children, or none. |
The problem really lies in the fact that stupid people have a tendency to follow the path that has been laid out for them. There really isn't anything we can do about that. Besides:
| quote: | Originally posted by FuzzQi
Stupidity is not completely genetic you realise. IQ is very much dependent on one's environment - meaning it often looks as though it is inherited. |
Despite how stupid one's parents might be, an individual has the capacity to be intelligent if given the right circumstances. Therefore, we aren't doomed to have a stupid generation take over. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
The problem really lies in the fact that stupid people have a tendency to follow the path that has been laid out for them. |
hence man's 40,000 years of unchallenged dominance. |
|
|
| FuzzQi |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
Despite how stupid one's parents might be, an individual has the capacity to be intelligent if given the right circumstances. Therefore, we aren't doomed to have a stupid generation take over. |
...that's what I was getting at. But also recognising they would have the odds stacked against them. |
|
|
| Theresa |
| quote: | Originally posted by FuzzQi
...that's what I was getting at. But also recognising they would have the odds stacked against them. |
I was agreeing with you.
Don't necessarily think odds are stacked against them though. Intelligence can develop with stupid parents so long as they have good education, and a stable environment. Admittedly, a lot of stupid people wont be able to provide a stable environment, but kids also have a lot of perseverance. |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I think this is a failure of feminism as a whole. Most feminist theory is so insistent that gender and oppression are social constructs that they try and negate the role of biological difference to a damaging extent. |
how is social behavior not biological? and by that token, could millions of years of social behavior + natural selection lead to physical biological differences? |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
how is social behavior not biological? |
It is, but in this context people usually mean "biological" in the sense of "genetic rather than environmental." Of course even that is sort of a false dichotomy since we have started learning about how environment influences gene expression (epigenetics).
:p |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
how is social behavior not biological? and by that token, could millions of years of social behavior + natural selection lead to physical biological differences? |
I don't know, because I've always argued against the point. It's the Nature vs Nurture debate with sexual politics thrown in for good measure.
I don't want to restate it too much because I'm sure you've read feminist theory yourself, but feminism tends to stress the difference between biological "sex" and culturally constructed "gender". The latter is to be destroyed, so men and women are treated equally in society. But it can only be destroyed if it is arbitrary, artificial and thus subject to cultural forces, namely feminism. So the link must be downplayed: biology has no effect of behaviour.
The problem is how you explain the existence of patriarchy in the first place. How did patriarchal society arise from a species where everyone thought and acted essentially the same, regardless of sex? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| How is social behaviour NOT social? :conf: |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sand Leaper
Well, seeing as how men still believe that "femininity" and a woman's "identity" is inextricably linked to squeezing out kids and cooking, I'd say feminists still have plenty of work to do. |
How could a woman's identity not be linked to squeezing out kids? Or where you just referring to a woman's other qualities not being considered?
| quote: | Originally posted by Fledz
Feminists by and large and detrimental to the general female population. "They are whiny bitches" may be crude, but it's pretty spot on.
Some women in large corporations also have this stupid idea in their heads that they need to prove themselves, when often they don't as they are in their position and being pushed forward because their potential has been realised. |
My sister is one of these. Every time we chat, I wince when she recounts stories of asserting her dominance. I don't think she even realises what she's like, either.
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Your lack of experience in the real world is definately the source of your ignorance. The glass ceilings still exist... not as a hard fast rule but more of an unrecognized bias. Salaries for women doing the same work remain lower (a female colleague of mine presently earns significantly less then I do... of course that could because I'm a better negotiatior). There are opportunities that are not openly available, that are only available to those with the proper connections, more often then not those connections are male-male. The sexism is no longer systematic, but it still exists. |
As far as I know, women do, on average earn less than men. While I won't deny that in many cases this is probably due to bias, there are also other factors at play.
For example, men are generally more aggressive, meaning they'd be bold enough to ask for a pay rise.
Or, in your case, a recurring theme I've seen with my limited experience in business. Women often aren't open to voluntary socialising with clients outside of work. Men, however, will play golf or go to the pub. A lot of business deals are made in these situations, or simple "connections" as you called it. This allows men to be more effective at certain types of jobs - not because of their abilities, but because of their inclinations.
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
I hope you were all paying close attention, because the demon just used a most classic bait and switch technique; She set up a demagogic duplicate of herself - a straw-woman of moral ambivalence and faltering verisimilitude while she donned another of her masks and slipped quietly into the bushes to witness her hapless prey fall for the guilt-inducing simulacrum. "Cold-hearted" barely begins to describe the scant few litres of icy vitality stiffly coursing beneath her scaled plating, pressed seamlessly against the wet grass of duplicitous expedience that secures her every, slithery escape. She is a creature of endless lies, the very embodiment of sin and the reptilian essence that consumes even the most potent of Men in only their weakest hours. She is a veritable Delilah; a perfect Eve; she is Judith beheading Holofernes, and the corrupt bride to Adam, a predecessor prefect who identifies with the childkiller moniker of the original sin's executor. She is Salome and we are John the Baptist's rotting head upon a platter- her rituals and pagan gyrations luring the infirm to her insatiable embrace.
She's a gnarly little sheila, that one! |
A round of mental applause for you. That's the best passage I've read since finishing Patrick Suskind's incredibly vivid and descriptive The Pigeon. I wish I could write like that. |
|
|
|
|
