|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The trouble with girls
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Alternately if you wish to give an example
of feminism's lack of dominance perhaps you could give an example of a piece of legislation that was supported by Feminists and opposed by their opponents that was successfully repealed by opponents of feminism.
Requirement of Obamacare that insurance plans pay for contraception. Although this was repealed not by opponents of feminism in the legislature but by opponents of feminism in our horrifically corrupt Supreme Court.
What happened there was that the Supreme Court didn't repeal the requirement, it simply allowed business owners the right to conscientiously object to being obliged to do something that they had never been obliged to do before. If that's the best example then that really makes my point.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Your entire argument rests on false premises, as noted and not refuted above, so I feel no need to continue in this vein.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
What happened there was that the Supreme Court didn't repeal the requirement, it simply allowed business owners the right to conscientiously object to being obliged to do something that they had never been obliged to do before. If that's the best example then that really makes my point.
What point? Government enacts legislation to ensure women have access to complete health care, and then businesses are allowed to opt out. In other words, they are allowed to continue to discriminate against women. Explain to me how that demonstrates the "dominance" of feminism. Explain to me why businesses are allowed to opt out of this law in particular, when they can't opt out of e.g. desegregation or minimum wages or safety regulations or land zoning or taxation or licensing or city bylaws or all the other legislation that tells people how they should run their business.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Your entire argument rests on false premises, as noted and not refuted above, so I feel no need to continue in this vein.
It does not rest on false premises. What was said above, by mr cheesy, was
quote:
If you live in a system which is historically and intrinsically organised in a particular way, you don't actively have to be speaking out "against" the campaigns by feminists to be opposed to them. You just have to want to continue with the status quo. Obviously.
Now this obviously isn't an answer because the status quo includes elements of feminism e.g. Equality Legislation and 'equalities policies'. These things are feminist and are part of the status quo so anyone who wants to simply preserve the status quo is in favour of preserving feminism.
If feminism truly were a dissident point of view and not dominant then how could these feminist elements of the status quo be preserved? If opponents of feminism truly were culturally dominance then why would they not use their dominance to abolish these things?
[ 20. June 2015, 16:25: Message edited by: Bibliophile ]
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
What happened there was that the Supreme Court didn't repeal the requirement, it simply allowed business owners the right to conscientiously object to being obliged to do something that they had never been obliged to do before. If that's the best example then that really makes my point.
What point? Government enacts legislation to ensure women have access to complete health care, and then businesses are allowed to opt out. In other words, they are allowed to continue to discriminate against women. Explain to me how that demonstrates the "dominance" of feminism. Explain to me why businesses are allowed to opt out of this law in particular, when they can't opt out of e.g. desegregation or minimum wages or safety regulations or land zoning or taxation or licensing or city bylaws or all the other legislation that tells people how they should run their business.
Indeed. The key word here is 'continue'. In other words they were fighting to hold onto something they had already had, they were fighting not to lose ground.
If opponents of feminism truly were dominant why would you not see them struggling to gain ground from feminists rather than struggling not to lose it?
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
In cultural struggles you will often see one side tend to gain ground. That side will thn not have to worry too much about keping the ground gained but will then sek to gain more ground. The other side you will see losing ground, give up hope of regaining that ground and then concentrate on try not too lose further ground.
The way to determine which of these sides is culturally dominant is simply to see which side is the one gaining ground. Th side gaining ground will always be the culturally dominant one. If one side is consistently losing ground then that is a sign that it is no longer dominant.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
In cultural struggles you will often see one side tend to gain ground. That side will thn not have to worry too much about keping the ground gained but will then sek to gain more ground. The other side you will see losing ground, give up hope of regaining that ground and then concentrate on try not too lose further ground.
The way to determine which of these sides is culturally dominant is simply to see which side is the one gaining ground. Th side gaining ground will always be the culturally dominant one. If one side is consistently losing ground then that is a sign that it is no longer dominant.
If that were true, then all social progress would happen instantaneously. The moment we pass the emancipation proclamation, then African-Americans would be "dominant" because they are "gaining ground", so there would be no Jim Crow, no KKK, no segregation.
That is observably false. Social change happens slowly, over time, but, as MLK observed "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." There may be a "tipping point" when the momentum shifts to the other side, but it would come at least midway through the process, not at the singular point when the oppressed begin to "gain ground".
The question here is not whether or not women have "gained ground" since the 19th amendment-- clearly we have. It is whether the momentum has shifted so far that we can say that feminism is "dominant". I think the evidence for that is far more mixed, as we have seen on this thread.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Very good post, cliffdweller. Equating gaining ground with dominance is obvious tosh.
I'm thinking again about the 19th century, and the way in which women began to gain some ground, for example in England, they could own property after the 1882 Act.
Does this mean that women were now dominant? What an absurd statement.
In fact, you can draw an analogy with athletics - I am behind in a race, but begin to catch up. Am I now dominant or in the lead? How absurd.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
In cultural struggles you will often see one side tend to gain ground. That side will thn not have to worry too much about keping the ground gained but will then sek to gain more ground. The other side you will see losing ground, give up hope of regaining that ground and then concentrate on try not too lose further ground.
The way to determine which of these sides is culturally dominant is simply to see which side is the one gaining ground. Th side gaining ground will always be the culturally dominant one. If one side is consistently losing ground then that is a sign that it is no longer dominant.
If that were true, then all social progress would happen instantaneously. The moment we pass the emancipation proclamation, then African-Americans would be "dominant" because they are "gaining ground", so there would be no Jim Crow, no KKK, no segregation.
The reason why Jim Crow etc happened is that the anti-segregationists were not culturally dominant throughout that period. Abolitionists/anti-segregationists (what would later be called anti-racists) were dominant during reconstruction. As reconstruction came to an end segregationists regained dominance and started making advances. They continued making advances all the way from the 1870s to the First World War. After that segregationist momentum started to stall. After the second world war anti-racists became culturally dominant and the result was the desegregation that happened in the South over the subsequent decades. Now of course there are degrees of dominance, anti-racism is more culturally dominant now than it was in the 1950s.
Also please note that I am not equating anti-racism with African Americans. African Americans have, as we all know, never been culturally dominant at any point during this time.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The question here is not whether or not women have "gained ground" since the 19th amendment-- clearly we have. It is whether the momentum has shifted so far that we can say that feminism is "dominant". I think the evidence for that is far more mixed, as we have seen on this thread.
Again same point. It would be wrong to equate the dominance of feminism with the dominance of women. Women have never been culturally dominant.
[ 20. June 2015, 18:43: Message edited by: Bibliophile ]
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Very good post, cliffdweller. Equating gaining ground with dominance is obvious tosh.
I'm thinking again about the 19th century, and the way in which women began to gain some ground, for example in England, they could own property after the 1882 Act.
Does this mean that women were now dominant? What an absurd statement.
In fact, you can draw an analogy with athletics - I am behind in a race, but begin to catch up. Am I now dominant or in the lead? How absurd.
Once again the dominance of feminism is not the same thing as the dominance of women. Women 'gaining ground' was the result of feminism gaining cultural dominance, not the cause.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
dominance
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
These are the definitions I'm using. Do you not agree with them?
Do you?
percentage of women in government (i.e. ruling or governing)
Once again the dominance of feminism is not the same thing as the dominance of women. In order for feminism to be culturally dominant feminists must be culturally dominant. This is true whether the feminists in question are all men or all women or a mixture.
For example in 2012 the Church of England House of Bishops voted, by an overwhelming margin, in favour of women Bishops. this was due to the fact that the overwhelming majority of them were feminists. They were at the time, of course, all men.
[ 20. June 2015, 19:35: Message edited by: Bibliophile ]
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
... Women 'gaining ground' was the result of feminism gaining cultural dominance, not the cause.
Actually, there have been women whose lives went beyond a limited gender role throughout history. (Eleanor of Aquitaine, Proverbs 31 ... ) Talented or fortunate or privileged women managed to "gain ground" for themselves and other women long before the concept of feminism was invented. All this stuff about dominance and gaining or losing ground is meaningless because we are not talking about a single continuous battle line that runs through all of society. We're talking about the daily lives and interactions of billions of men and women in every aspect of life.
Bibliophile's "explanations" are more like Newspeak, or the joke about the Titanic: "This ship can't be sinking, the stern just went straight up in the air!".
quote:
In other words they were fighting to hold onto something they had already had, they were fighting not to lose ground.
If opponents of feminism truly were dominant why would you not see them struggling to gain ground from feminists rather than struggling not to lose it?
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Perhaps feminism made it possible to pass the law, but if compliance is optional, it's a meaningless law and an empty "victory". I don't consider that a win for anybody except those who are free to ignore the law if they wish and carry on as they did before.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
These are the definitions I'm using. Do you not agree with them?
Do you?
percentage of women in government (i.e. ruling or governing)
Once again the dominance of feminism is not the same thing as the dominance of women. In order for feminism to be culturally dominant feminists must be culturally dominant. This is true whether the feminists in question are all men or all women or a mixture.
For example in 2012 the Church of England House of Bishops voted, by an overwhelming margin, in favour of women Bishops. this was due to the fact that the overwhelming majority of them were feminists. They were at the time, of course, all men.
You persist in using the term 'feminist' as a pejorative. It isn't.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Bibliophile--
Why is feminism an issue for you, please?
Thanks.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Very good post, cliffdweller. Equating gaining ground with dominance is obvious tosh.
I'm thinking again about the 19th century, and the way in which women began to gain some ground, for example in England, they could own property after the 1882 Act.
Does this mean that women were now dominant? What an absurd statement.
In fact, you can draw an analogy with athletics - I am behind in a race, but begin to catch up. Am I now dominant or in the lead? How absurd.
Once again the dominance of feminism is not the same thing as the dominance of women. Women 'gaining ground' was the result of feminism gaining cultural dominance, not the cause.
So you're saying that the 1882 Act (which among other things, gave women the right to own property in England), showed the dominance of feminism?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
If this is feminist dominance, then perhaps we need more of it.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I keep channeling the words 'weaselly argument' about the ways in which 'feminism' and 'dominance' are being used in this thread.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
the dominance of feminism
Would you prefer the dominance of men subjugating women?
Like the 'good' old days?
If you think we're not in the 'old days' anymore then doesn't that demonstrate that feminism is indeed now dominant?
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
Bibliophile, what relationship (if any) exists for you between "dominance" and "equality?"
If feminism is now dominant, does that mean that patriarchy (for lack of a more objective or less loaded term) is now dead?
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Bibliophile, what relationship (if any) exists for you between "dominance" and "equality?"
If feminism is now dominant, does that mean that patriarchy (for lack of a more objective or less loaded term) is now dead?
Well clearly the ideas of feminism are not considered equal to the ideas of patriarchy in our culture. The ideas of feminism are considered superior. Patriarchy is if not quite dead then certainly a rather marginal opinion (which is not the same thing as saying sexism is dead or marginal).
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Bibliophile, what relationship (if any) exists for you between "dominance" and "equality?"
If feminism is now dominant, does that mean that patriarchy (for lack of a more objective or less loaded term) is now dead?
I think this shows the crudeness and binary quality of Bibliophile's approach. Feminism is dominant, that's it.
This seems to close down any closer textual examination of a particular cultural area, which might show contradictory images. In fact, 'contradiction', 'unconscious', and 'paradox' seem to be absent altogether as ideas.
For example, one of the contributions of psychoanalysis to the analysis of cinema was to show how the surface of film might be contradicted or subverted at another level. For example, I was in a group which analyzed westerns, and showed both the dominance of the male, and the subversion of his role. Jings, dominance schmominance.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
If you think we're not in the 'old days' anymore then doesn't that demonstrate that feminism is indeed now dominant?
I've been struggling to understand what the 'feminism is now dominant' actually means. Few can deny there has been a significant power shift between the sexes over the last 50 years or more. That shift mainly being down to less financial dependency on the male.
Having said that many family models from before that time were highly matriarchal, the mother figure often ruled the roost while the male remained shadowy by comparison.
Much of what we see now, with the improved status of the Western female, isn't dominance but independence. Centuries of male superiority still seems to be baulking at this newly emerging state of affairs.
I'd better add that the fear of female equality is misplaced because going back to the good ol' days you'll find plenty of unhappy males making a hash of their artificial dominance.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Bibliophile, what relationship (if any) exists for you between "dominance" and "equality?"
If feminism is now dominant, does that mean that patriarchy (for lack of a more objective or less loaded term) is now dead?
I think this shows the crudeness and binary quality of Bibliophile's approach. Feminism is dominant, that's it.
This seems to close down any closer textual examination of a particular cultural area, which might show contradictory images. In fact, 'contradiction', 'unconscious', and 'paradox' seem to be absent altogether as ideas.
For example, one of the contributions of psychoanalysis to the analysis of cinema was to show how the surface of film might be contradicted or subverted at another level. For example, I was in a group which analyzed westerns, and showed both the dominance of the male, and the subversion of his role. Jings, dominance schmominance.
Well lets give that a go. Have a listen to this podcast of a discussion between Brendan O'Neill and undergraduate Harriet Brown talking about the shutting down of an abortion debate at Christ Church College Oxford.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/11/podcast-the-stepford-students-scotlands-new-first-minister-and-what-the-amer ican-right-can-learn-from-britain/
Brown puts forward the view that abortion should not even be seen as an issue up for debate. One reason she gives is that the 'ability to control their reproduction' is crucial to their ability to be at university because there is 'no support' for students who have children.
Now clearly she is right that there is little support for students who give birth whilst they are undergraduates. I haven't seen the statistics (I'd be interested to see them if anyone knows where to find them) but my general observation is that it is extremely rare for undergraduates to have children. I cannot believe that this would be the case for young women around the most fertile time of their lives if there were not huge economic and social pressure for undergraduates not to have children.
Now surely 'ability to control reproduction' would include not only the ability to have an abortion but also the ability to not have an abortion. So why don't you see those students who demonstrate so vociferously against abortion even being discussed demonstrate more about the lack of opportunity for undergraduates to have children. Don't they think that these huge pressures not to have children constitute a 'violation of women's bodily autonomy'. After all we see campaigns and legislation aimed at addressing pressure on women at workplace to not have children.
My own view of this is that the reason is that it doesn't serve to economic interests of either university bosses or graduate employers for women to have children while they are still undergraduates. So the issue doesn't get much raised. And of course those bosses are mostly men. I think that often if some aspects of feminism are more promoted by society than others it can be because they are in some way serving the interests of people (mostly men) in positions of power.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
If you think we're not in the 'old days' anymore then doesn't that demonstrate that feminism is indeed now dominant?
I've been struggling to understand what the 'feminism is now dominant' actually means. Few can deny there has been a significant power shift between the sexes over the last 50 years or more. That shift mainly being down to less financial dependency on the male.
Having said that many family models from before that time were highly matriarchal, the mother figure often ruled the roost while the male remained shadowy by comparison.
Much of what we see now, with the improved status of the Western female, isn't dominance but independence. Centuries of male superiority still seems to be baulking at this newly emerging state of affairs.
I'd better add that the fear of female equality is misplaced because going back to the good ol' days you'll find plenty of unhappy males making a hash of their artificial dominance.
Please don't equate feminist dominance with female dominance, see my post above.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
You might consider helping us out by explaining the difference.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
You might consider helping us out by explaining the difference.
One is dominance by a group of people as defined by their sex the other is domination by a group of people as defined by their ideology. The Soviet Union was dominated by the ideology of marxist-leninist socialism but most of the people in positions of power there were not actual workers.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Bibliophile--
If I may ask, have you been hurt by feminism?
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
If feminists were really dominating society, wouldn't they have made sure that women have equal rights by now?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
The Soviet Union was dominated by the ideology of marxist-leninist socialism
Not after Lenin declared perpetual terror it wasn't.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
the dominance of feminism
Would you prefer the dominance of men subjugating women?
Like the 'good' old days?
If you think we're not in the 'old days' anymore then doesn't that demonstrate that feminism is indeed now dominant?
So are women subjugating men now?
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Bibliophile--
If I may ask, have you been hurt by feminism?
If women are no longer deferring to men then yes, he is being hurt.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I was reading an interview with the actress, Daryl Hannah, (Guardian), and she was asked about being used in films as a kind of male fantasy figure. Part of her reply is: 'every 20 year old is installed in that way. It's a male dominated industry. It's just a bunch of guys saying "let's make the girl younger and sexy and hot." So, yeah, of course, it's exploitative.'
If Bibliophile is right, and if we live in a feminist-dominated world, then I suppose you could argue that these male film producers cited by Ms Hannah are actually feminists, who want to highlight women as excellent role models.
Or possibly there is another explanation.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
[qb]If you think we're not in the 'old days' anymore then doesn't that demonstrate that feminism is indeed now dominant?
No. This is black-or-white thinking: either sexism is dominant or feminism is dominant. What if NOTHING is dominant? There is nothing that says any one viewpoint has to be dominant. It's not like some law of nature.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
[qb]If you think we're not in the 'old days' anymore then doesn't that demonstrate that feminism is indeed now dominant?
No. This is black-or-white thinking: either sexism is dominant or feminism is dominant. What if NOTHING is dominant? There is nothing that says any one viewpoint has to be dominant. It's not like some law of nature.
Exactly. For a while, the term 'contestation' was used in gender studies, the idea that there is conflict, or combat, between various forces or factions, and there is no outright 'winner'. Bibliophile's binary outlook is like something from the 19th century, or in fact, a western film with goodies and baddies.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
If feminists were really dominating society, wouldn't they have made sure that women have equal rights by now?
Please name a legal right held by men in a western country that is not also held by women in that country.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Bibliophile: Please name a legal right held by men in a western country that is not also held by women in that country.
No, I'm not going to name anything. Your tendency not to answer our questions but to demand that we give evidence instead is highly irritating and not the basis for a good discussion. You're not required to answer my question of course, but if you don't I can't guarantee that I'll be interested in what you have to say.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
If feminists were really dominating society, wouldn't they have made sure that women have equal rights by now?
Please name a legal right held by men in a western country that is not also held by women in that country.
As noted above, in the US, the right to equal coverage of medical expenses.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
[qb]If you think we're not in the 'old days' anymore then doesn't that demonstrate that feminism is indeed now dominant?
No. This is black-or-white thinking: either sexism is dominant or feminism is dominant. What if NOTHING is dominant? There is nothing that says any one viewpoint has to be dominant. It's not like some law of nature.
Exactly. For a while, the term 'contestation' was used in gender studies, the idea that there is conflict, or combat, between various forces or factions, and there is no outright 'winner'. Bibliophile's binary outlook is like something from the 19th century, or in fact, a western film with goodies and baddies.
Whilst that can be true in some circumstances that there can be cultural conflicts where neither side comes to predominate its clearly not always the case. Often in case of cultural conflict one side will come to predominate and become a mainstream consensus view whilst its opposition becomes a minority dissident point of view.
For example in 2012 the Church of England failed to vote for allowing women to be Bishops. Rowan Williams famously made the following comment
quote:
We have, to put it very bluntly, a lot of explaining to do. Whatever the motivations for voting yesterday, whatever the theological principle on which people acted, spoke; the fact remains that a great deal of this discussion is not intelligible to our wider society. Worse than that, it seems as if we are wilfully blind to some of the trends and priorities of that wider society. We have some explaining to do. We have, as the result of yesterday, undoubtedly lost a measure of credibility in our society
http://rowanwilliams.archbishopofcanterbury.org/articles.php/2716/archbishop-tells-synod-we-must-care-for-those-feeling-unwan ted-and-unsure-after-women-bishops-vote-
Now what did he mean by 'some of the trends and priorities if that wider society'? What he meant was that the dominant view in the wider culture (or if you don't like the term 'dominant' the established cultural consensus) was that for the church or any other institution to practice that sort of direct sex discrimination as a matter of policy was morally wrong. That is a feminist view and it is the dominant mainstream view in western culture. Feminism can in no way be described as 'dissident'.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Bibliophile: Please name a legal right held by men in a western country that is not also held by women in that country.
No, I'm not going to name anything. Your tendency not to answer our questions but to demand that we give evidence instead is highly irritating and not the basis for a good discussion. You're not required to answer my question of course, but if you don't I can't guarantee that I'll be interested in what you have to say.
OK I've answered a question with a question and I can see how that could be seen as a bit rude. So I'll answer your question directly
quote:
If feminists were really dominating society, wouldn't they have made sure that women have equal rights by now?
Women do have equal rights.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
If feminists were really dominating society, wouldn't they have made sure that women have equal rights by now?
Please name a legal right held by men in a western country that is not also held by women in that country.
As noted above, in the US, the right to equal coverage of medical expenses.
What's been noted above is that in the US women don't have the right to have contraception covered by their employers medical insurance. Are you saying that men do have the right to have contraception covered by their employers medical insurance?
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Bibliophile:
Women do have equal rights.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
I see no basis for a discussion here. Please carry on.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Are you saying that men do have the right to have contraception covered by their employers medical insurance?
Are you saying that lack of contraception coverage has equal consequences for men and women? Because . . . (in the US) . . .
1. Abortion, while not a contraceptive measure, IS a right under Roe v. Wade;
2. Women earn, on average, roughly 3/4 of what men earn for similar work;
3. Women pay more on average for similar services (haircuts, dry-cleaning, alterations, etc.);
4. Effective contraception for women typically involves medical visits (IUDs, diaphragms, birth control pills) and/or prescriptions which cost substantially more than contraception for men (a packet of condoms);
5. Contraceptive failure for women always leads to pregnancy with consequences ranging from expensive, inconvenient, and potentially traumatic to permanently life-altering, whereas contraceptive failure for men all too often leads to a shrug and walking away.
Of course, in our feminism-dominated society, this is a complete 6-of-1, half-dozen-of-the-other wash. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
Another example for those that don't think feminist ideas are predominant. David Cameron's comment on that same Church of England vote
quote:
The Church has its own processes and elections. They might be hard for some of us to understand, but we must respect individual institutions and the decisions they make. That does not mean we should hold back in saying what we think. I am very clear that the time is right for women bishops—it was right many years ago. The Church needs to get on with it, as it were, and get with the programme, but we must respect individual institutions and how they work, while giving them a sharp prod.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm121121/debtext/121121-0001.htm
If even the leader of the Conservative Party is talking about giving a Church 'a sharp prod' to get with the feminist programme then we are not talking about feminism being a minority dissident point of view.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Are you saying that men do have the right to have contraception covered by their employers medical insurance?
Are you saying that lack of contraception coverage has equal consequences for men and women?
No. Equal legal rights don't necessarily mean those rights have the same consequences for everyone.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
If feminists were really dominating society, wouldn't they have made sure that women have equal rights by now?
Please name a legal right held by men in a western country that is not also held by women in that country.
As noted above, in the US, the right to equal coverage of medical expenses.
What's been noted above is that in the US women don't have the right to have contraception covered by their employers medical insurance. Are you saying that men do have the right to have contraception covered by their employers medical insurance?
I'm not aware of any similarly gender-related medical procedures/ meds that are up to the employer to decide whether or not to cover, leaving the employee's personal life and future very much dependent upon the whims/ personal beliefs of their employer.
fwiw, unlike contraception, viagra is covered, not up to the employer to decide.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
