BleepingComputer.com: Feminism ...

[quote name='ryan_w_quick' post='835215' date='May 26 2008, 12:31 PM'][quote name='rsd79' post='834771' date='May 26 2008, 05:03 AM'][quote name='ryan_w_quick' post='812290' date='Apr 30 2008, 11:48 AM']so i declare feminism a hendrance to freedom, happiness, and equality

and if you disagree, then you're a racist or a sexist, because i just gave you my reasons, and i stand by them, because i use my logic, which many are lacking in, and came to a valid conclusion[/quote]

Nice employment of an inductive fallacy, Mr. quick.
[/quote]


lol, what is that??!!
[/quote]

Google is your friend, buddy. Basically, you are using ad-hominem attacks, when challenging peoples character just because they disagree with you.

[quote name='rsd79' post='835739' date='May 27 2008, 03:28 AM'][quote name='ryan_w_quick' post='835215' date='May 26 2008, 12:31 PM'][quote name='rsd79' post='834771' date='May 26 2008, 05:03 AM'][quote name='ryan_w_quick' post='812290' date='Apr 30 2008, 11:48 AM']so i declare feminism a hendrance to freedom, happiness, and equality

and if you disagree, then you're a racist or a sexist, because i just gave you my reasons, and i stand by them, because i use my logic, which many are lacking in, and came to a valid conclusion[/quote]

Nice employment of an inductive fallacy, Mr. quick.
[/quote]


lol, what is that??!!
[/quote]

Google is your friend, buddy. Basically, you are using ad-hominem attacks, when challenging peoples character just because they disagree with you.
[/quote]

so are you saying that martin luther king was using ad-hominem attacks when he challanged the civil right laws, just because he disagreed with them??? are you a racist?

look, i'm not attacking feminists just because they are feminists, thats ad-hominem, right? I'm attacking them because here is what they are basically saying, "We want special treatment for women in the workplace, in order to insure equality of the sexes." Now if I'm not wrong, the first and second part of that statement just don't work toghether.

"Feminism" is SO MUCH a moving target, if it be target you're looking for.

Personally, I'm really fond of the kind of feminism that said "at this time and place, these values are mostly associated with men. These other values are mostly associated with women. The values associated with women are undervalued and underappreciated in our society, and we should change this."

Or, in non-gender-based terms, I think our culture needs a hell of a lot more nurturing, and more homemaking, and more care and attention paid to children and child-raising, and long, slow, home-cooked meals - and I don't care which gender delivers, as long as SOMEONE does. And I think we need a lot less aggression, and competitiveness, and hostility, and angst, and violence, and spectacular displays of waste and destruction, and war...

But I just can't wrap my head around a female kickboxer, for example, being "feminist". I just don't see the point of kickboxing in the first place, I think we artificially cultivate way too much violence for the number of people on the planet, and I don't see any advantage to women, men, or others being any more aggressive than we already are. My sop to "equal rights" is that I don't really see the point of males kickboxing either. I'd say the same thing about a female BMX rider, except substitute "pointless stupid environmental destruction" for "violence".

It's also important to separate feminism as a philosophy, or a collection of incompatible philosophies, from the phenomenon that simply consists of someone saying "I want something. This existing tool can be bent to my purpose, whether it was intended that way or not", and picking up feminism as the tool.

[quote]It's also important to separate feminism as a philosophy, or a collection of incompatible philosophies, from the phenomenon that simply consists of someone saying "I want something. This existing tool can be bent to my purpose, whether it was intended that way or not", and picking up feminism as the tool.[/quote]

Well put.

[quote name='blueandgold04' post='561640' date='Jul 5 2007, 03:50 PM']...I do think that feminism has been detrimental to the classic 'family unit'...[/quote]

Quite true. One of the effects is the fallacy that a woman can raise a family by herself, without the influence/help/support of a husband. Children need a father as well as a mother if they are going to be well-rounded individuals. And a woman by herself is going to have two full-time jobs*. One to make the money to support the family and then the raising of the family. One require her attention for at least eight hours each day, the other requires her attention 24 hours/day, seven days/week.

There is no shame in being a wife and mother. Indeed, it is one of the most admirable pursuits that a woman can choose. She has to handle the finances and logistics of the household; she has to be nurse and paramedic; she has to be able to remain cool during a crisis, whether it is a six-year-old's broken arm or a teen girls' first broken heart.

There is no paycheck and very few rewards - any thanks are rare indeed, although every mother will be told by her children at some point, "I hate you!". There are no sick days, vacations, or "personal" days. Even on Mother's Day she can not completely abdicate the responsibilities of being a mother.

So why would a woman choose such a path for herself? Perhaps the hardships pale in comparison to the rewards.


* Welfare cases not included.

This post has been edited by MattV: 07 August 2008 - 04:05 PM