Feminism - going too far?

Remove all ads!

Chev - No, I have not, unfortunately. That's not the fault of Christianity, but the way it has been used by those wielding power. Religion has been an obvious and very well applied tool for oppression. One of the worst examples is how the slave states claimed the Bible gave them right to own slaves. Slavery was preached from the pulpit throughout churches in the South during the period around the Civil War. On the flip side, the Abolitionist movement had its roots in Christianity and some chruches in the Northern states. IMO, the resutls have been mixed. Nevertheless, Chrisianity, in its most pristine state, is what you claim it is until it gets "reinterpreted" by the powers that would be. But I think this is Beren's point as well.

 

Meaning that the main purpose of women as breeders of the next generation of the species? Isn't that just institutionalized biology?

But does feminism not commit the same thing ultimately? While traditional (what I believe you mean by Religion) philosophies villify a woman who casts off the "shackles" of the hearth and home to follow her dreams, Feminism looks down on the woman who chooses a more traditional role of wife and mother, claiming that she is underachieving.

I see women with their children, and it's amazing what they can do and how they seem to know what the child wants and needs. Balancing those demands with that of a job has to be an unfathomable challenge for a single guy like me to understand. Maybe some day I will have a wife that can explain it to me...

 

Ah come on NOG, Poli Sci is social science of how people get their way amongst competing positions in society. Politics is how society primarily deals with what sociologists deem "Social Problems" and the entire legal system is theoretically based on the application of politics in the legislative sector of the government (and to a lesser extent the various other branches of a country's government). If fringe feminists are relying on culture for change they can get around the legal/political system and society for that matter, but culture changes very slowly (look how long it's taking racism to disappear even though society racial barriers no longer exist in most western democracies). Fringe groups need very special situations to do much more then have a very limited influence within society. The majority culture's values have to change, typically, for any substantive change to happen (such as the French Revolution or the Communist Revolution). In both of these examples the values of the revolution replaced some, but couldn't replace all, of the majority cultural values simply because they appealed to the largest underlying issue in the particular society in which the majority culture operated.

So long has there exists a roughly 50-50 split between men and women and there exist women who either operate under the sway of men or value men as something more then something subservient, the values of the majority culture is reinforced. Besides biology is on the side keeping men as not an inferior sex. Every psychological study I've seen on female sexual preference involves access to resources as a very important factor (possibly the most important) for what makes a male a desirable mate. It's not likely that most women are going to promote men to operate in a way that is found to be unattractive anymore then most men would encourage women to disfigure their bodies. Not to mention psychological studies on the conclusion of the majority female personality type. It isn't predisposed to exclusion.

 

*Cough* *cough* That's not what they teach in some other departments of the uni, you know.

And the revolutions collapsed, quickly having some of the elements of the ancient regime restored. It didn't take long until pre-revolutionary law returned in France (Code Napoleon was drafted by practitioners from monarchical times, it wasn't begotten in MPs' minds) - in the USSR it took much longer to return to capitalism, although it quickly became apparent that the values preached were different from the true motivations of the leaders and what was in the constitution was only on paper. Similar things could be said about the French revolution, which for example, is credited among legal scholars with introducing presumption of innocence, while there are preserved written orders to exterminate suspects along with their families. To build up on what you said, not only can't revolutions change everything, but also some changes they make are subsequently reversed.

Yup, and that's not only a minimal threshold of access to resources. Minimal thresholds is how males operate; females strive for the best. This is probably motivated by the fact that males spread the genes around (this is a simplification, as there are benefits for males in long-term relationships - they live longer, sleep better etc), while females invest in a future for their children and themselves.

 

Shhhhh. Who cares about philosophy and rights based ethics. Yes, I'm now pretending that philosophy isn't one of my majors. I'm just so use to my Poli Sci profs hammering home the idea that the entire legal system in the U.S. runs through the three branches of the Government, most notably the legislative branch.

 

Umm, actually, doesn't a large part of the American legal system run through 12 people randomly pulled from the less achieving end of society? Them and the solitary judge. Plus, the social impact of, say, a rape allegation against a college professor is only partially dependant on the outcome of the case. The legal system and governmental politics do not equal society.

 

Nawww. Your legal system predates your statehood.

 

But that particular system of trial by peers was put into effect by the political system. In theory with enough public support that could change. Bad outcomes in court also have a way of influencing the political arena (Illinois put the death penalty on hold after a series of innocents where placed on death row and subsequently executed).

Also the rape allegation is a cultural impact not a social impact (go semantics). This however has less to do with feminism, then the long standing legal assumption of guilty until proven innocent that has long predated our modern methods. The same goes for accusation of a variety of crimes. This might say more about how we operate culturally then any particular fringe culture.

Chev: Very true, good old English Common law.

 

To be fair, none of those inmates had yet been executed, but where there's smoke, there's fire. The government, after all, wasn't about to waste valuable resources which could be used to re-visit the genetic evidence of cases involving living convicts on those who'd already been executed. It's not like the state would be able to un-kill them after proving their innocence.

 

CNN link

Thanks for catching my error