Feminism and How I don't Care

[United Dependencies]

I am not necessarily a fan of Judith Butler--I think her writing style is obnoxious and her ideas, when well-founded, are not anywhere near as new or as radical as she seems to think...

Quite (.pdf).

I do adore what I've read of Nussbaum. Her essay on Objectivism was the highlight of my Philosophy of Sex class.

How does that differ from regular philosophy? If you don't mind my asking.

[Ryadn]

Why would it be a bad thing for civil rights to be voted upon by the people it would affect?

Becasue then the US congress could vote to take away the rights of Muslims in the wake of a terrorist attack by Saudi terrorists, for example.

WTF would Congress have to do with the PEOPLE voting?

That could easily be fucked around with by those with an interest in doing so; Look how many people still believe that Obama is a socialist, for example. Also look at Proposition 8. Civil rights should not be voted on by the populace-they're far too fickle.

Look, if the ruling class wants other people to have rights, we'll give them to them---when we're good and ready. Now get your socialist feminazi ideas out of here, and don't touch my guns and medicare!

[Ryadn]

I am not necessarily a fan of Judith Butler--I think her writing style is obnoxious and her ideas, when well-founded, are not anywhere near as new or as radical as she seems to think...

Quite (.pdf).

I do adore what I've read of Nussbaum. Her essay on Objectivism was the highlight of my Philosophy of Sex class.

How does that differ from regular philosophy? If you don't mind my asking.

Well, it was concerned primarily with sex.

...seriously, it's one of two philosophy classes I ever took, I don't know what you're asking.

[The Congregationists]

To clarify, I don't think it is fair for men or women who are either considered pigs or sluts for their many sexual partners. I think it's unjust if a guy who has sex a lot is considered a stud, however when women do so they are whores. It isn't right, and I don't advocate for it. Sex is sex, enjoy it. And there is nothing wrong if you do, regardless of what gender you be. But I get annoyed though when I'm arguing in class with another girl about sexism, and than she calls me a "chauvinist pig" because I have a reputation for having sex frequently. And therefore unable to understand why feminism is right. It's not true.

Call her out on it. Say something to this effect: "It's people like you who give feminism the reputation of being the Christian right of the left. On what grounds does my having sex frequently and with multiple partners make me a chauvenist pig? Let's suppose I were to call you a "slut" or a "whore" because you had sex frequently or with multiple partners. You'd be the first to take offense, and rightly so. So what gives you the right to do the same to me? I thought the whole idea here was to oppose double standards and oppose judgement on what consenting adults - and let's be clear that's exactly what everybody involved here is: a consenting adult - do in private? If you think I'm "using" women, I respectfully disagree. I'm honest and upfront about my intentions going in - I'm after a one night stand, not a long term commitment (I do hope you're honest in that regard - if you really are promising commitment to get a one night stand, than your detractors have a legitimate grievance). If I have sex with a woman, I don't owe her "commitment" any more than she owes me sex if I buy her dinner and drinks. So I'll tell you what: you stay out of my private life and I'll stay out of yours. If you don't like what I'm doing, don't do it and keep your sanctimoniousness to yourself. Otherwise, go to hell."

Or something like that.

[United Dependencies]

I am not necessarily a fan of Judith Butler--I think her writing style is obnoxious and her ideas, when well-founded, are not anywhere near as new or as radical as she seems to think...

Quite (.pdf).

I do adore what I've read of Nussbaum. Her essay on Objectivism was the highlight of my Philosophy of Sex class.

How does that differ from regular philosophy? If you don't mind my asking.

Well, it was concerned primarily with sex.

...seriously, it's one of two philosophy classes I ever took, I don't know what you're asking.

Gender?

[Ryadn]

I am not necessarily a fan of Judith Butler--I think her writing style is obnoxious and her ideas, when well-founded, are not anywhere near as new or as radical as she seems to think...

Quite (.pdf).

I do adore what I've read of Nussbaum. Her essay on Objectivism was the highlight of my Philosophy of Sex class.

How does that differ from regular philosophy? If you don't mind my asking.

Well, it was concerned primarily with sex.

...seriously, it's one of two philosophy classes I ever took, I don't know what you're asking.

Gender?

Oh! No. Fucking.

[Chumblywumbly]

I do adore what I've read of Nussbaum.

Yup.

Her recent book, Frontiers of Justice is sitting on my shelf, waiting to be read. Must get round to it this summer.

Gotta love those Aristotelians.

---

How does [philosophy of sex] differ from regular philosophy?

It's a subset of philosophy, just like the philosophy of maths or the philosophy of science.

Most philosophy of sex courses touch on topics such as the ethical and political ramifications of sex, consent, aspects of feminist and/or queer theory, etc.

[United Dependencies]

I am not necessarily a fan of Judith Butler--I think her writing style is obnoxious and her ideas, when well-founded, are not anywhere near as new or as radical as she seems to think...

Quite (.pdf).

I do adore what I've read of Nussbaum. Her essay on Objectivism was the highlight of my Philosophy of Sex class.

How does that differ from regular philosophy? If you don't mind my asking.

Well, it was concerned primarily with sex.

...seriously, it's one of two philosophy classes I ever took, I don't know what you're asking.

Gender?

Oh! No. Fucking.

Yea that leads back to the question I almost asked but didn't because I told myself to get my mind out of the gutter.

What kind of philosophy can you teach about sexual intercourse?

edit:nevermind it's already been answered.

[Alannika]

I see it nearly as an attack on society

That's because in a general sense, feminism is an attack on current society. Society as it is currently structured is still largely sexist, so yes feminism would be out to do away with that. There are certainly differences within feminism, but as I see it, that's a pretty general part of it. One I wholly support.

[Ryadn]

Yea that leads back to the question I almost asked but didn't because I told myself to get my mind out of the gutter.

What kind of philosophy can you teach about sexual intercourse?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_sex

One of the course books was the fourth edition of Philosophy of Sex, edited by Alan Soble.

[Ryadn]

The Nussbaum article I mentioned can be read here: http://www.mit.edu/~shaslang/mprg/nussbaumO.pdf

[Chumblywumbly]

One of the course books was the fourth edition of Philosophy of Sex, edited by Alan Soble.

He certainly looks like an expert on the philosophy of sex...

The Nussbaum article I mentioned can be read here: http://www.mit.edu/~shaslang/mprg/nussbaumO.pdf

Ta!

[Alannika]

and men have to live in a world where if you happen to have a lot of sexual partners, your considered a sexist and somehow a "chauvinist pig."

Oh boohoo. Women have to deal with being declared a prude and undesirable if they won't put out and if they do, they're sluts. It is far worse for women than for men. I don't think its fair for men to be labeled as such for having a lot of sex, but far more often than not men are praised for it by society and women are shunned.

[Mirkana]

I consider myself a feminist. I think women should have equal rights to men in our society. For more details, see this post, which I wrote.

[Free-Beings]

oh and what the OP really means by "Feminism and How I don't Care" is - "i only care about me, me, me. - please post some masculist/antifeminist bullshit ITT".

Its in human nature not to give a damn about others. Im quite sure deep down, you could care less if every poster in nationstates dropped dead.

i would find it sad if anyone died, unless they were bad people e.g. misogynists.

Misogyny=bad, misandry=ok?

[Drackmaria]

Ok here goes at first for me, a moderate post.
I think that this issue is simple to that of native rights. Yes we have screwed over women (and natives) in past.
Actually in the middle ages women had alot more rights than are popularly portrayed.
Anyway we messed up as a society in oppressing women. Ok we accept that, we apologize for that and move on.
But sadly it will never work this way. Even if tomorrow women were granted complete equailty that won't be enough
Then women will start claiming compensation for past wrongs. Whislt in its self not a bad thing, its a very slippery slope to get on.
I think the biggest thing that pisses me off and alot of women i know is the hypocracy of feminism.
They want to be treated as equals, fine done. But hang on they want special consideration because they are women such as maternity leave.
Look at the simplest form a young girl hits a boy in the playground, whilst this is unacceptable it is down right unthinkable for the boy to hit back.
One thing feminists refuse to admit is we are biologically different as a gender. Women do have a usually smaller stature and muscle tone.
Women have to spend lengthy periods nursing children. These are not bad things they are simple biological fact.
This however shouldn't be grounds for exemption from jobs, if a women can prove she is up to the role let her do it.
But i will not stand by as a man and be blamed for everything from global warming to the nazi party.
Its like saying you are from Germany so you are responsible for the nazis.
We just need to accept our genders for what they are.

[Jordaxia]

I think one of the most hilarious arguments that (usually men) give against female equality is the one where they point out a token concession of something that women get that men don't (sexist tropes that are on the way out like the man paying for food as an example) and use it like it mitigates absolutely everything the woman experiences. I mean, it's equivalent of giving women a badge that says 'you rock!' on it, and then when the woman complains that she isn't paid equally, or is objectified by society, then man can point to the badge and go "But look at the badge! I don't get a badge!"

[Drakonaj]

Being an Libertarian demands equality all across the board, demands I see people by their traits, actions and worth rather than their gender. Shit like double standards, special rights and the idea humans are radically different solely based on gender serves only to undermine society and ultimately disunify us. Mainly as there are people in power who would rather see us divide ourselves than unite to fight back and I feel racism, sexism, classism and other sorts of discrimination serve only to empower those who seek to gain. So yes I could care less about the idea of feminism instead lets go egalitarianism eh?
"A house divided upon itself- and upon that foundation do our enemies build their hopes of subduing us."-Lincoln

[Callisdrun]

I get tired of hearing about the oppressed minority.

What, just because somebody is the Majority they must be evil? That's **cking bul***it.

I believe in equal rights, but it gets real ***king old.

Women are actually the oppressed majority, IIRC.

And you'll stop hearing about them being oppressed when they are no longer oppressed. Pretty simple really. If you want to stop hearing about it, work towards legal and societal equality.

Why, when complaing about it is so much fun

Are you making the idiotic suggestion that women complain about oppression because they enjoy complaining rather than that they dislike being oppressed?

[Offenheim]

Being an Libertarian demands equality all across the board, demands I see people by their traits, actions and worth rather than their gender. Shit like double standards, special rights and the idea humans are radically different solely based on gender serves only to undermine society and ultimately disunify us. Mainly as there are people in power who would rather see us divide ourselves than unite to fight back and I feel racism, sexism, classism and other sorts of discrimination serve only to empower those who seek to gain. So yes I could care less about the idea of feminism instead lets go egalitarianism eh?
"A house divided upon itself- and upon that foundation do our enemies build their hopes of subduing us."-Lincoln

The Libertarian party would've opposed Lincoln if they'd been contemporaries. That man used massive government influence to free people (and build the economy). I'm sure the Libertarians would've said to let the free market sort it out.

Racism, sexism, classism?, only empower those who seek to gain? Certainly they've never empowered those who are already in power?

Also, it's not special rights, it's laws saying that you have to treat other people exactly like you'd treat people like you; and then be held accountable to do it. Otherwise, people will just say, "I'm treating everybody the same." But still hire only the white guys. And it happens now.

Also, the idea is not that humans are radically different based solely on their gender, the problem is that people are treated radically different solely based on their gender, and feminism attempts to get everyone to treat one another the same.

[Callisdrun]

Ok here goes at first for me, a moderate post.
I think that this issue is simple to that of native rights. Yes we have screwed over women (and natives) in past.
Actually in the middle ages women had alot more rights than are popularly portrayed.
Anyway we messed up as a society in oppressing women. Ok we accept that, we apologize for that and move on.
But sadly it will never work this way. Even if tomorrow women were granted complete equailty that won't be enough
Then women will start claiming compensation for past wrongs. Whislt in its self not a bad thing, its a very slippery slope to get on.
I think the biggest thing that pisses me off and alot of women i know is the hypocracy of feminism.

I don't agree with all feminist thinkers (they don't all agree with each other!), but hypocrisy, you say? Let's see what you mean.

They want to be treated as equals, fine done. But hang on they want special consideration because they are women such as maternity leave.

Do men get pregnant? No? Didn't think so. However, a lot of us would also be in favor of paternity leave. Dads are parents, too, you know.

Look at the simplest form a young girl hits a boy in the playground, whilst this is unacceptable it is down right unthinkable for the boy to hit back.

No, it really isn't. Maybe some places, but not everywhere.

One thing feminists refuse to admit is we are biologically different as a gender. Women do have a usually smaller stature and muscle tone.

So they are on average smaller. So what? So are various ethnicities. How is someone's size relevant to their legal rights?

Women have to spend lengthy periods nursing children. These are not bad things they are simple biological fact.

Have to? I wasn't aware that having children was mandatory. They make things for pumping out and storing milk, now, so you know. Try to keep up.

This however shouldn't be grounds for exemption from jobs, if a women can prove she is up to the role let her do it.

Indeed, it shouldn't. She should get paid equally for that work, too.

But i will not stand by as a man and be blamed for everything from global warming to the nazi party.
Its like saying you are from Germany so you are responsible for the nazis.
We just need to accept our genders for what they are.

Wha...? Since when does feminism mean "men are responsible for global warming and the nazi party"?

[Cameroi]

i care about the elimination of prejudices of ALL kinds, because they seriously f*** up the kind of world we all have to live in. which also goes for the dominance of aggressiveness under any ideology, form of government, economic theory, or system of belief. (and regardless of gender as well)

[Greater Phenia]

Well, you're just wrong. Feminism doesn't promote the superiority of one gender over another.

Correct. Rather, it promotes the near-meaningless ideal of "equality" on an ideological rather than factual basis, where none naturally exists.

Spare me. I've heard the standard anti-feminist line before. You want to argue now that women are not "factually" or "naturally" equal, I know.

[Wikkiwallana]

Well, you're just wrong. Feminism doesn't promote the superiority of one gender over another.

Correct. Rather, it promotes the near-meaningless ideal of "equality" on an ideological rather than factual basis, where none naturally exists.

Spare me. I've heard the standard anti-feminist line before. You want to argue now that women are not "factually" or "naturally" equal, I know.

It's true! Their average body mass is less than the male average! That justifies everything! Oh, wait...

[Greater Phenia]

Well, you're just wrong. Feminism doesn't promote the superiority of one gender over another.

Correct. Rather, it promotes the near-meaningless ideal of "equality" on an ideological rather than factual basis, where none naturally exists.

Spare me. I've heard the standard anti-feminist line before. You want to argue now that women are not "factually" or "naturally" equal, I know.

It's true! Their average body mass is less than the male average! That justifies everything! Oh, wait...

Also men have MORE facial hair. Women have LESS. See, not equal, so feminism is evil!

That seriously seems to be an argument anti-feminists make sometimes. They equivocate numerical equality with the concept of equal rights and treatment and point to a literal numerical inequality as evidence against the tenets of feminism. I don't know if Tokos was going to make that but I rather suspect he might...