I see. So you’re opposed to literalism when it comes to dictionary definitions of “feminism”, but you demand strict interpretations of “jew”.
Interesting.
Oh MMMiller, stop picking away at irrelevant splinters. Answer one of the repeated questions. Can you move us on from ‘Equality will be achieved when all is equal’ [bravo, iiandyiiii]? How will equality be forced on a world that appears not to want it (to the alleged detriment of all, though you’d suppose there were also concomitant benefits). If parliaments are not to be stuffed with ‘old white men’ (an objection born of ageism, racism and sexism), how much control of democracy do you need?
Alas, you clearly do not see. I’m not opposed to literalism at all. I am opposed to the reductionism of ‘feminism is this dictionary definition’ (which tells us nothing of value or interest, and fails to show us feminism - it’s just a brief label, to reference a movement founded in misandry and obsessed with control).
The ‘strict’ interpretation I expect, from decent people, is only to strictly adhere to the one initially raised, rather than slithering off to a homonym as a cheap diversion with an edge of ad hominem.
Tell me more about your feminism. What does it practically want, how would that practically be achieved, and how do you measure ‘equality’ without taking into account the power of women?
Okay, I’ll try to answer your question, Jack, (even though it seems like a baited hook). However, in return, you must suspend your conviction that misandrism is the root of feminism and it’s primary driver. Will you agree to that?
You’re going to have to make up your mind, Jack. Do you want me to stop picking at irrelevant splinters, or do you want me to answer your questions?
Both, you cheeky scamp 
The thread isn’t about judaism, it’s about feminism. When ‘the second wave’ seized on the genuine history and situation of the oppression of african-americans, they wove a story entangling the two. I’m wondering now if all this ‘Would you talk to a Jew this way?’ is a deliberate positioning, rather than the random analogy it started as. At any rate, if you want a meaty discussion of the notion of ‘ethnically jewish’, you should know full well this is the wrong thread.
You could pitch in on the notion of ‘ethnically feminist’, if you like? But it’s a splinter. The question of how feminism measures the equality it advocates, that’s not irrelevant. How it achieves a goal like ‘representative’ governments without corrupting democracy, there’s meat there. What value, in the equation of equality, is accorded to the power that women have always held - the power of parenting, of storytelling, of community. Odds are your mother taught you not to touch your own faeces, and other laws get laid down just as deep. To say that women have ‘no power’ is the biggest lie of feminism. It depends on you valuing male power (quite rightly, for a man), valuing women (or why would you care about equality?), but supposing their power is of no value (if you’re even dimly aware of it). Of course, as a citizen or subject, nobody should be denied a vote. But when they use it to elect old white men, it’s bad manners to tell them they’re wrong…regardless of gender.
I’ve forgotten which question, but any of the salient points would do. ‘Suspend’ you say? How will your answer differ, in either case? (I get the implication that there would be no answer in one, but humour me - how do the future plans of feminism, for example, depend upon my ‘convictions’ [sic], held or suspended?)
But for the sake of the exercise, I am suspending my disbelief. Bring up your curtain! Will there be ice-cream at the interval?
So, the question of Jewish identity is a “meaty” one, is it? That’s interesting, because a few posts ago, you were acting like the idea was inherently absurd. And a few posts after that, you were making the truly novel claim that “Jew” is a homonym for “Jew.” Now it’s a “meaty discussion.” What will your position be by this evening, I wonder?
Considering that’s a notion you invented because you don’t really understand how analogies work, I’m not sure there’s much point to that.
“Women have no power,” is not a claim feminism has ever made - not even the hardline extremists you and Linus are so enamored of. What feminism does is reject the inherently sexist idea that power is rightly divided between male and female spheres, with women having the “power” to keep up a home and raise the kids, while men have the power to own property, vote, live independently, and follow whatever profession is best suited to their talents and temperament, among other issues. Those are, by and large, battles that feminism has already won, at least in the western world, but the fact that you brought them up here demonstrates two things: first, the need of feminism as a movement to prevent a regressive backslide into the sort of philosophy that you just injected into this thread, and second, the lack of foundation for your own claims of egalitarianism.
Well, if you think there should be no default, your position is not the same as NOW’s. NOW supports the law as it is: the one that results in mothers getting custody 85% of the time.
“No presumption” and “every situation should be judged on its merits” are two different things. I with you on “no presumption” - at least it’s better than what we have now.
“Every situation should be judged on its merits” is problematic. Less than 5% of custody cases are litigated. If you wanted to change that to 100%, you’d need about 20 times more judges and courtrooms and staff. Plus all those new litigants would probably need lawyers - lawyers most of them can’t afford. In other words: it’s not going to happen.
We’ll have to agree to disagree.
If you think that masculinity means “violence and rage” you’ve got a misshapen idea of what it means to be masculine. That may be what feminists say. But they’re wrong.
If women are not inherently better parents than men, why do women get custody of children 85% of the time?
I merely stated that women are attracted to masculine men. Again, if you think otherwise, you’re free to disagree.
I’ll just remind you that the reason that only 5% of cases are litigated is that ALL OF THE OTHER CASES REACH A SETTLEMENT WITHOUT NEEDING THE COURT. The parents reach an accord about custody on their own. They decide, by themselves, what is in the best interests of their children, without involving the courts. This sounds, logically, like the best course of action, does it not? If the mothers are then “getting custody” in the majority of cases (and again, the parents have reached an agreement amongst themselves), this is an arrangement the fathers are willingly consenting to.
Are you arguing that the parents should not reach agreements on their own? I have to admit I do not understand what you are asking for.
And that’s exactly feminism’s point: that society misshapes the idea of what it means to be masculine, skewing it towards aggression, anger, insecurity, etc.
Genuine masculinity definitely doesn’t have to mean violence and rage, but “toxic masculinity”—i.e., the set of rigid socially imposed gender conventions that enforce certain fixed patterns of “masculine” behavior—promote violence and rage by encouraging men to feel as though their masculinity is constantly under threat.
[QUOTE=LinusK]
If women are not inherently better parents than men, why do women get custody of children 85% of the time?
[/quote]
That’s like somebody back in the 1950’s asking “If blacks are not inherently better at cleaning than whites, why are most housekeepers and cleaning staff black?”
Traditional social/legal structures and rigid gender roles have produced family patterns in which, on average, mothers rather than fathers are the parents who do the majority of the actual childcare. Consequently, many more mothers than fathers end up in the role of “primary parent” in the case of custody disputes. Nothing to do with any “inherent” parental-fitness differential.
Yes, at least modulo every heterosexual woman’s personal interpretation of “masculine”. But that doesn’t mean that women are attracted to socially traditional rigid interpretations of masculinity, which generally involve too much aggression, anger and insecurity to be attractive.
For instance, a guy’s being embarrassed to hold a woman’s purse for her, or being afraid to let his little daughter playfully put makeup on him because other men might tease him about looking “feminine”, or beating up a gay acquaintance for asking him on a date because he’s insulted that anybody might think he could possibly be gay, or refusing to take orders from a woman in a position of authority because it’s “unmanly” to let a woman tell you what to do, or sneering at another man for going to nursing school because nursing is “girly”, is absolutely NOT attractive.
If you’re constantly policing masculinity in this sort of way and responding with fear or anger to the perception that you might not be perceived as conventionally “masculine” enough, women in general are not going to be attracted to that.
This thread, for example… well, Great Debates is supposed to be about serious reasoned discussion rather than about coming across as sexy, so never mind.
That depends on what you consider equality.
Does equality include equal custody of children after divorce?
Does it include recognizing that women are as likely to resort to violence in intimate relationships as men? (But less likely to be arrested, charged, or convicted?)
Does it include according men due process and the presumption of innocence when they’re accused of rape?
[ul]Not according to feminist legal theorist Catharine McKinnon, who wrote that “feminism is built on believing women’s accounts of sexual use and abuse by men," or Jessica Valenti, who urges us to “believe victims en masse,” because only then will we recognize the true prevalence of sexual assault.[/ul]
Does it include recognizing the contributions of the - mostly men - who build the office towers, the warehouses, the factories, and the homes we live in; pick up the trash; maintain the sewers; work on factory trawlers and crab boats; and have an occupational death rate that’s about 10 times the rate of women?
[ul]
[li]Not according to feminists who believe men are “obsolete”.[/li][/ul]
Does it include recognizing that the criminal justice system is heavily biased in favor of women?
[ul]
[li]Not according to feminists who believe “We should stop putting women in jail. For anything.”[/li][/ul]
Does it include recognizing the college “rape crisis” is a hoax?
[ul]
[li]Consider Emma Sulkowicz, who received the National Organization for Women’s Susan B. Anthony Award and the Feminist Majority Foundation’s Ms. Wonder Award after falsely accusing another student of rape.[/li][/ul]
You are a one-trick pony.
You distort the positions of feminist groups and leave out key details.
You cite the most extreme, radical feminists as if they represent the mainstream.
And you ignore repeated corrections when people call you on these errors.
You should run for the GOP nomination for president. You’d be a slam-dunk.
I tend to find that women are much more insecure than men, I guess that means toxic femininity is rampant. The problem with “toxic masculinity” in this context is that it has been made a stock phrase, and that the obverse “toxic feminism” is almost a joke, but men are no worse or better than women, so why has one phrase become commonplace and the other not? Also muh generalization. Lets see how “Toxic Judaism” or “Toxic Black Culture” or whatever flies as stock phrases.
In any case, insecurity is part of the human condition, and being physical, strong, aggressive, abrasive, etc. are certainly part of what some men define as masculinity. I don’t much care for feminists, or for anybody, who wants to throw around words like “toxic masculinity” to describe such perfectly reasonable and acceptable definition of their own masculinity. Or restrict such men in their inclinations. Fuck that. I reserve the right to define my masculinity however the fuck I want, and feminists can go fuck themselves if they don’t like it. Don’t need them to femsplain to me how I ought to be a man.
[my bolding]
Why, whatever strawman you choose, clearly. Who’s your audience here? Are you hoping they won’t look into the context (not meaty here, meaty elsewhere, which is not me changing, is it?) and just run with your faintly distasteful attempt to insert Jews into this discussion in the hope you can deliver a fatal ad hominem? With luck, they’ll maybe also learn that sexism is like a holocaust…
All notions are invented, MMMiller, do keep up. If ‘ethnically jewish’ (having been raised in a jewish tradition but not jewish by religion) is a thing, I am an ethnic feminist - who better placed than I to ‘invent’ the notion? I ‘self-identify’ - or is that option only open to your team? Would you report yourself, while we’re here, for the personal insult - save me the effort, there’s a good mod.
I believe the acceptable response to this is ‘Rubbish. Rubbish. Utter rubbish’. There we are, that’s that refuted.
But wait, let’s also note that you’re wrong, in one of two ways I can’t mention. We were talking of the mathematics of ‘equality’ - how does one value each element, in order to reach ‘equality’? It is you, with feminism, who undervalues women (as well infantalising them). The ‘battles’ (such language…) that ‘feminism’ has won (a bold claim for social, political, economic and technological advancement) have brought equality…for women. The inequality of men’s treatment before the law vastly outweighs the trivial bigotry of fevered outrage directed at ‘manspreading’.
On the claim that ‘feminism’ has won battles, I’m reminded of a local election a few years ago. I live conveniently close to the historic and infamous Greenham Common, once home to very many women who were at once vehemently opposed to men yet simultaneously supported by them in their campaign against nuclear weapons. Then the world changed around them (not as a result of menstrual protests and chanting). But one of the sisters stood for election, and made the claim that she had ‘overseen’ the removal of cruise missiles. As in, she was over there and she seen 'em…
You know that egalitarians also work towards ‘equality’ (though we may not agree on its form, it seems)? Why no credit for us? Oh yes, we’ve established feminism is not just a religion, it’s the one true religion.
Having tried to encapsulate the idea of when feminism will have accomplished its goals of affording woment the same rights as men, I came to the conclusion that it would put me in the position of speaking on behalf of all feminists. Some of whom I agree with and others with whom I’ll probably never find agreement. I’m in no position of telling an entire group of people when they’ve reached the finish line (unless I’m a referee in a marathon).
For me personally, equality will be reached when religious (and other conservative) organizations can no longer tell women what they can or cannot do with their bodies and when discrimination based on gender alone is no longer tolerated in society (all societies, actually), with the following caveats:
a) we need not abolish separate public bathroom facilities
b) it’s okay that men’s and women’s teams in sports remain separate events/categories/leagues
C) some others as well – It’s not my aim to come up with a comprehensive outline of public policy on gender equality here
But at the end of the day, I believe the feminist movement will have reached it’s goals when we are left only to address disparity issues on a case by case basis, dealing with exceptions that test the rules. Egalitarians of all stripes should be glad about society having reached this point. It will offer them the opportunity to nitpick the details without having to defend their benevolent social egalitarianism to a bunch of radical misandrists and misogynists, who every so often have an actual point and not just an axe to grind.
I thought it was well known that “ethnically Jewish” was a real thing. My mother’s DNA is 100% Jewish, therefore I am ethnically Jewish, by the Jewish tradition that anyone whose mother is Jewish is a Jew. It doesn’t matter that I’m an atheist, I am also ethnically Jewish.
Religion may follow maternal tradition, but ethnicity is your DNA, so your father could be 100% Jewish and your mother not Jewish and you’d still be ethnically Jewish.
Well, that’s the interesting stuff. How do you defend these?
Not with any particular strength of conviction that they must always remain separate.
It’s more a question of accomodating those who might object to unisex bathroom stalls for reasons of modesty or safety. If the majority of society generally demands that it’s an antiquated practice, I’m happy to let it fade away as well.
Might be less practical to make that argument for co-ed full contact sporting events where most men clearly have a physical advantage over most women. But here again, case by case exceptions might be accomodated.
Added: In all fairness, does main stream feminism make these demands? Not to my knowledge so probably not an issue we need to worry about in any practical terms.